The bizarrely active hurricane season of 2012 draws to a close

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:50 PM GMT on November 30, 2012

Share this Blog
45
+

The long and highly destructive hurricane season of 2012 has finally drawn to a close. The hurricane season of 2012 will long be remembered for spawning Hurricane Sandy--a freakish storm that was the largest, most powerful, and second most destructive Atlantic hurricane on record. But this year's hurricane season had a number of unique attributes, making it one of the most bizarre seasons I've witnessed. Despite featuring a remarkable nineteen named storms--tied for the third highest total since record keeping began in 1851--this year's hurricane season had just one major hurricane. That storm was Hurricane Michael, which stayed at Category 3 strength for a scant six hours. This is the least number of major hurricanes in a season since the El Niño year of 1997, which had only Category 3 Hurricane Erika. There were no Category 4 or 5 hurricanes in 2012, for just the 3rd time since the active hurricane period we are in began in 1995. The only two other years since 1995 without a Category 4 or stronger hurricane were the El Niño years of 2006 and 1997. Both of those seasons had around half the number of named storms of 2012--nine in 2006, and eight in 1997. The relative lack of strong storms in 2012 helped keep the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) down to 128, about 30% above average.


Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy at 10:10 am EDT October 28, 2012. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

A near-average year for number of tropical cyclones hitting the U.S.
Since the active hurricane period we've been in began in 1995, the U.S. has averaged getting hit by 4 named storms per year, with an average of 1.7 of these being hurricanes, and 0.6 being major Category 3 and stronger hurricanes. This year, we were hit by 3 named storms (Beryl, Debby, and Isaac). One of these was a hurricane (Isaac). Sandy didn't count as a hurricane strike on the U.S., since it transitioned to an extratropical cyclone a few hours before landfall. No major hurricanes hit the U.S., making 2012 the 7th consecutive year without a major hurricane strike. The only other time we've had a streak that long occurred between 1861 - 1868, during the decade of the Civil War.


Figure 2. Vertical instability over the tropical Atlantic in 2004 - 2012 (blue line) compared to average (black line.) The instability is plotted in °C, as a difference in temperature from near the surface to the upper atmosphere (note that the same scale is not used in all the plots, making the black climatological line appear different, when it is really the same for each plot.) Thunderstorms grow much more readily when vertical instability is high. Instability was near average during the August - October peak of hurricane season in 2004 - 2009, but was much lower than average during the hurricane seasons of 2010 - 2012. There was an unusual amount of dry, sinking air in the tropical Atlantic during 2010 - 2012, and the resulting low atmospheric instability reduced the proportion of tropical storms that have intensified into hurricanes. Vertical instability from 2004 - 2011 is taken from NOAA/RAMMB and for 2012 from NOAA/SSD.

Unusually stable air over the Tropical Atlantic in 2012
For the third consecutive hurricane season, 2012 featured an unusual amount of dry, sinking air over the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Due to warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures and an active African Monsoon that generated plenty of African waves, a remarkably high number of tropical storms managed to form, but the unusually stable air in the hurricane genesis regions made it difficult for the storms to become strong. When we did see storms undergo significant intensification, it tended to occur outside of the tropics, north of 25°N, where there was not as much dry, sinking air (Sandy's intensification as it approached landfall in Cuba was an exception to this rule.) If we look at the last nine hurricane seasons (Figure 2), we can see that the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 all featured similar levels of highly stable air over the tropical Atlantic. This is in marked contrast to what occurred the previous six years. The past three seasons all featured a near-record number of named storms (nineteen each year), but an unusually low ratio of strong hurricanes. Steering patterns the past three years also acted to keep most of the storms out to sea. Is this strange pattern something we'll see more of, due to climate change? Or is it mostly due to natural cycles in hurricane activity? I don't have any answers at this point, but the past three hurricane seasons have definitely been highly unusual in a historical context. I expect the steering currents to shift and bring more landfalling hurricanes to the U.S. at some point this decade, though.


Figure 3. Sea water floods the Ground Zero construction site at the World Trade Center, Monday, Oct. 29, 2012, in New York City. Image credit: AP.

Most notable events of the Hurricane Season of 2012
Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy's area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles--nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth's total ocean area. Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy's tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy's huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Florida's Lake Okeechobee--an area home to 120 million people. Sandy's winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lake Shore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!


Figure 4. Hurricane Isaac lit up by moonlight as it spins towards the city of New Orleans, LA, on August 26, 2012. The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite captured these images with its Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The "day-night band" of VIIRS detects light in a range of wavelengths from green to near-infrared and uses light intensification to enable the detection of dim signals. Image Credit: NASA/NOAA, Earth Observatory.

Hurricane Isaac hit Louisiana as a Category 1 hurricane with 80 mph winds on August 28, but the storm's massive wind field brought a storm surge characteristic of a Category 2 hurricane to the coast. A storm surge of 11.1 feet was measured at Shell Beach, LA and higher surges were reported in portions of Louisiana. Fortunately, the new $14.5 billion upgrade to the New Orleans levee system kept the city dry. Isaac killed 9 people in the U.S., and 29 in the Caribbean.

Hurricane Ernesto hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula as a Category 1 hurricane with 85 mph winds on August 7. The storm killed 12 and did at least $250 million in damage.

Tropical Storm Debby formed on June 23, the earliest formation date on record for the season's 4th storm. The previous record was Dennis, on July 5, 2005. Debby killed seven and did over $300 million in damage, but helped relieve drought conditions over Northern Florida and Southern Georgia.

Tropical Storm Beryl, which made landfall on May 28 near Jacksonville Beach, FL with 70 mph winds, was the strongest tropical storm to make landfall in the U.S. prior to June 1. Beryl killed two but did minimal damage.

Nadine lasted for 21.75 days as a named storm, the 5th longest-lasting tropical storm in the Atlantic basin.

It was the 3rd year in a row with 19 named storms.

No named storms existed during the month of July and November, but we still managed big numbers.

Only 7 seasons have had more hurricanes than 2012.

The season had two named storm before the official June 1 start of hurricane season, only the 3rd time that has occurred.

Eight named storms formed in August, which tied 2004 for the most to form in that month.

Typhoon Bopha a threat to the Philippines
In the Western Pacific, where typhoon season commonly brings several storms in December, we have impressive Typhoon Bopha. Bopha is expected to head west-northwest and intensify over the weekend, potentially arriving in the Philippines on Tuesday as a powerful Category 3 typhoon. Bopha formed at an unusually low latitude for a tropical cyclone--near 4°N. Storms forming that close to the Equator don't get much help from the Earth's spin to get spinning, and it is rare to see a tropical cyclone forming southwards of 5°N.

The Colorado State University hurricane forecast team, led by Phil Klotzbach and Bill Gray, has a more in-depth summary of the 2012 hurricane season.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 720 - 670

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Quoting percylives:


Assie,

I just want to know what these scientists are telling or are going to tell their grandchildren. James Hansen wrote a book to outline his fears for the future that his descendents would have to live in. I can respect that and I try to follow his example. These guys keep repeating the same old lies that have been debunked over and over again.

The emotional result of the acceptance of your part in the destruction of the planet through the use of fossil fuels is life-changing. And that is just too tough on too many of the mediocre.

But it is no excuse for any.

Have you made changes in you life to retract the amount of CO2 you produce? Has everyone here that believes in AGW done anything to retract there CO2 output? I have, I now ride my bike or walk to work. I have LED lamps. Changed the thermostat on the fridge to an energy saving level from the coldest level.

I'm tired. Goodnight all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

But 125 Climate scientists and meteorologists???



Not all of them are climate scientists or meteorologists.

Things are slow at work this morning, so I checked a few of the names and found:

An astronaut who works as a consultant for offshore oil drilling

An "expert witness" specializing in air quality for an oil company mining tar sands in Alberta

A science adviser for a defunct coal association

And- several more who believe the earth is warming but more research is needed before we decide what the reason is for the warming. (meaning they do not deny warming)

There are several respected names on this list, of course. But with three (and that was on a five minute quick-and-dirty google search) heavily invested in fossil fuel industries, I remain unconvinced that everyone on this list is unbiased. I do realize I just slotted myself right into one of your labels, but so be it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
718. Skyepony (Mod)
Here is a weather station in Palau. Highest wind so far 58mph.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37822
Quoting nymore:
Wave energy animation


I'm not liking that turn at the end of that run. Could be another hit on the Philippines, Northern/Central Luzon area.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: ..............

Click here to read the letter and to see which scientists signed this letter.


Assie,

I just want to know what these scientists are telling or are going to tell their grandchildren. James Hansen wrote a book to outline his fears for the future that his descendents would have to live in. I can respect that and I try to follow his example. These guys keep repeating the same old lies that have been debunked over and over again.

The emotional result of the acceptance of your part in the destruction of the planet through the use of fossil fuels is life-changing. And that is just too tough on too many of the mediocre.

But it is no excuse for any.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wave energy animation

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Aussie you have mail

Thanks Mate!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Aussie you have mail
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

Maybe saying that Joe Bastardi signing it makes it worthless. It would only be worthless to those that don't agree with what JB says.




Could be. I wasn't gonna put any words in his mouth tho like what SL was doing to me when he said a couple times, that I was making "hiddin claims" by posting that co2/temp graph. I pointed out the graph speaks for itself. If one doesn't like what it has to say, oh well.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

Maybe saying that Joe Bastardi signing it makes it worthless. It would only be worthless to those that don't agree with what JB says.




BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.

Asked about Bastardi’s statements, Kerry Emanuel of MIT said: “Utter rubbish. Sorry to be so direct, but that is just the case.” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt added: “Bastardi is attempting to throw out 150 years of physics.” “He seems very confused,” said physicist Richard Muller.

Bastardi may be hoping that when delivered confidently, terms like “specific gravity” and “radiative processes” can convince Fox’s viewers that he knows what he’s talking about. But don’t be fooled; he is again garbling the very basics of climate science. Schmidt explained:

Bastardi doesn’t understand the first thing about the greenhouse effect – it has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘specific gravity’ of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas, it has to do with the fact that GHGs absorb and radiate infra-red heat and in doing so warm the surface of the Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
709. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
RSMC Reunion
Tropical Cyclone Outlook
16:30 PM RET December 2 2012
=================================

Within the northeastern part of the basin, a low is building with a clockwise circulation still poorly defined, located approximately near 9.0S 88.0E at 1000 AM UTC. This area undergoes a moderate to strong Easterly to northeasterly vertical wind shear.

Establishment of the monsoon flow east of 60.0E within the next 24 hours should improve the equatorward inflow of this low. The moderate to strong vertical wind shear should remain the limiting factor of the development until Tuesday.

There is no other suspect area over the basin.

For the next 48 hours, potential for the development of a tropical depression is poor. Beyond potential becomes fair.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bobbyweather:
Down to 40%..

Not surprising
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Down to 40%..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


And your point is?

Maybe saying that Joe Bastardi signing it makes it worthless. It would only be worthless to those that don't agree with what JB says.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:
I see Joe Bastardi signed it.


And your point is?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


So, why did you bother to quote such a long post? It's a waste of bandwith.

it's not as if there is much going on except a STY in the WPAC. Go easy mate! Have another cuppa coffee and relax, it's sunday, rest day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


So, why did you bother to quote such a long post? It's a waste of bandwith.



If Nea had posted it, you wouldn't have said a word.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
702. VR46L
Quoting yonzabam:


So, why did you bother to quote such a long post? It's a waste of bandwith.


Because I was thanking Aussie for posting it . I didn't know we were not allowed to quote people ....

anyways I have things to do today .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


Thanks Aussie for posting this . Very Interesting...

Anyway have a great sunday Folks ..Not getting into this today


So, why did you bother to quote such a long post? It's a waste of bandwith.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Before I go here is a wave height map for Palau




Nice graphics, where did you get that from. Here is a nice loop.



So close, So glad it wasn't a direct hit that it looked like yesterday,




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
699. VR46L
Quoting AussieStorm:
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.

Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused.

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal...Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to .... even larger climate shocks ... and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 ... This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.

On November 13 you said at Yale: The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.

The following day, in Al Gore's Dirty Weather Webcast, you spoke of more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods, concluding: Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The even larger climate shocks you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA State of the Climate in 2008 report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in Hurricane Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.


Click here to read the letter and to see which scientists signed this letter.


Thanks Aussie for posting this . Very Interesting...

Anyway have a great sunday Folks ..Not getting into this today
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Before I go here is a wave height map for Palau



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trunkmonkey:
Why don't all of you take the Climate comments to the Climate section?

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/climateblogs. cst



I wanna see weather blogs!

Not Climate!


It's fair game on this blog. You just gotta be careful if you're on the skeptic side of the fence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some of the studies from the Skeptical science page linked to be NEA are under assault by other climate scientists and some say nature was a major cause, some say AGWT may lead to more droughts and floods but there is less than compelling evidence for storms.

See this is why you should only read peer reviewed journals and not these sites.

Well off to check my fantasy football team have a good day all or nite Aussie
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why don't all of you take the Climate comments to the Climate section?

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/climateblogs. cst



I wanna see weather blogs!

Not Climate!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It looks like Palau will be spared for the most part.
Hurricane winds only extend out 25 to 30 NM.

Here is the loop of Bopha or Pablo whichever you prefer

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory as incontrovertable.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullstuff.

3. Give the sceptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the sceptics as conservitive,anti-science, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot, and say they're "shilling" for the fossil-fuel indutry.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).


Thanks for the list FV!

Nea by the numbers...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
couple showers yesterday e.cen fl.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The ATCF says 91L continues to get stronger, but no TD yet:

AL, 91, 2012120200, , BEST, 0, 280N, 425W, 35, 1008, LO, 34, NEQ, 210, 140, 0, 0, 1012, 150, 60, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, M,
AL, 91, 2012120206, , BEST, 0, 292N, 427W, 35, 1007, LO, 34, NEQ, 210, 140, 0, 0,
AL, 91, 2012120212, , BEST, 0, 304N, 431W, 35, 1006, LO, 34, NEQ, 210, 140, 0, 0, 1012, 200, 80, 0, 0, L, 0, , 0, 0, INVEST, M
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
Bopha's center is making its closest pass to Palau right now, its top winds are likely near 140kts but the island will not get anywhere near that high since the wind field is small:

Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 83 Comments: 7754
Quoting AussieStorm:

I'm wondering what Nea is going to say about it. Maybe he'll call them all idiots or say it's debunked scientific evidence. Or maybe he'll just insult me. 125+ scientists can't be wrong but knowing Nea as we do, he'll find a way to debunk this open letter.
I saw the letter. Couple of things:

1) You ever wonder why denialists occasionally run these "open letters" in (usually) financial publications like the Financial Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes? It's because their nonsense would never pass rigorous the peer-review process required by real science journals. That allows them to blather on about pretty much anything, knowing that they won't have to answer to anyone.

Strike one.

2) That "open letter" is written by the same group of tired, old, debunked, and discredited climate cranks to which we've grown accustomed. Watts? Bastardi? Monckton? Cohen? Ball? Corbyn? Gray? The Idsos? Again? Imagine my surprise! ;-) Care to take a guess how many peer-reviewed climate papers that entire group (not all of them scientists, by the way) has between them over, say, the last two decades?

Strike two.

3) The letter contains a Gish Gallop of debunked denialist talking points. There's been no warming for 16 years. Computer models exaggerate warming. Global cooling will start any day now. There is no correlation between warming and increased extreme weather. And so on. Of course, anyone with a modicum of knowledge already knows all this, but those people aren't the intended target audience, now are they?

Strike three.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This whole story is really quite predictable and boring by now. 1) A bunch of denialists who aren't able to scientifically substantiate their claims write "open letters" that appear in financial journals. 2) Gullible people desperate for anything that can help them delay reality latch on to these letters and run shouting through the streets shouting, "See?! See?! It's not happening!!!" 3) Science-minded individuals patiently take the time to point out the numerous flaws and lies presented in the letter. 4) The letter's authors and the desperate public respond with shouts that "scientists" are not being listened to. 5) Time passes, and the public slowly becomes aware they've been hoodwinked by the denialists again, and the letter fades from memory. 6) The denialists concoct yet another letter, and the cycle begins anew.

Ho-hum...

It's been said so many times before, but it still holds true: if you want wishful thinking and illogical nonsense, read an editorial letter appearing in a financial journal. But if you want actual, true, verifiable, empirical science, stick with science journals.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
Quoting AussieStorm:

But 125 Climate scientists??


But how many would sign their name to a letter supporting the theory that Earth is warming due to CO2 emissions? 12,500?

Closer inspection of the signatories to such letters often reveals that they have vested interests. It's not unusual for them to be paid lobbyists, funded by the oil industry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
As to not stir the "real deniers" (Nea and the plus monkies).

Yeah, as I said, they would of just insulted you and called the letter hogwash.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
Reply to Aussie - I posted that link on Friday in Dr Rood's blog; was mostly ignored by that faction.

Why didn't you post it here??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


I think he'll tell you that 125 scientists can be wrong, just like 125 conspiracy theorists who say the moon landings were faked can be wrong.

2010 was the warmest year on record and 2001-10 the warmest decade by quite some margin, yet they say that the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

For scientists, that is truly appalling, and makes you wonder if they are being paid to say it. 1998 was an anomalous year due to the record El Nino of that year. That's well known, yet they wilfully gnore it.

But 125 Climate scientists and meteorologists???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Reply to Aussie - I posted that link on Friday in Dr Rood's blog; was mostly ignored by that faction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

I'm wondering what Nea and the rest of his groupies are going to say about it. Maybe he'll call them (the signed scientists) all idiots or say it's debunked scientific evidence. Or maybe he'll just insult me. 125 scientists can't be wrong but knowing Nea and his groupies as we do, he'll find a way to debunk this open letter.


I think he'll tell you that 125 scientists can be wrong, just like 125 conspiracy theorists who say the moon landings were faked can be wrong.

2010 was the warmest year on record and 2001-10 the warmest decade by quite some margin, yet they say that the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

For scientists, that is truly appalling, and makes you wonder if they are being paid to say it. 1998 was an anomalous year due to the record El Nino of that year. That's well known, yet they wilfully gnore it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:
...

Did I say to much?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:
I see Joe Bastardi signed it.

I'm wondering what Nea and the rest of his groupies are going to say about it. Maybe he'll call them (the signed scientists) all idiots or say it's debunked scientific evidence. Or maybe he'll just insult me. 125 scientists can't be wrong but knowing Nea and his groupies as we do, he'll find a way to debunk this open letter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see Joe Bastardi signed it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.

Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused.

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal...Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to .... even larger climate shocks ... and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 ... This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.

On November 13 you said at Yale: The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.

The following day, in Al Gore's Dirty Weather Webcast, you spoke of more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods, concluding: Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The even larger climate shocks you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA State of the Climate in 2008 report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in Hurricane Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.


Click here to read the letter and to see which scientists signed this letter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like Bopha's undergoing an EWRC:





Luckily for Palau it's going a little further south than forecast, so they won't get the worst of this compact system... I'm more worried about the Philippines though.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 83 Comments: 7754
STY Bopha brushing the southern Islands of Palau.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
and Good Morning Texas!............
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 720 - 670

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
76 °F
Mostly Cloudy