Global warming and hurricanes part 2: An increase in late-season activity?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 6:33 PM GMT on January 09, 2006

Share this Blog
0
+

Good Tuesday to everyone! This week we need to watch a large extratropical low-pressure system sliding down the coast of Africa towards the Cape Verde Islands. This low is similar to the storms that spawned Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta, and has the potential to slowly gain tropical characteristics and become Tropical Storm Alberto later this week. However, it appears that wind shear levels will probably be too high and the water too cool for a new tropical storm to form. The chances of a tropical storm forming this week are probably around 20%.

Has there been an increase in late-season tropical storm activity?
Hurricane experts agree that global warming has not led to an increase in the number of tropical cyclones occurring world-wide, and are currently debating whether or not global warming has affected tropical cyclone intensity (more on this later in January, I've been pulling together a lot of material). Is global warming possibly affecting the length of hurricane season, as well? It seems that an inordinate number of late-season and off-season tropical storms have been forming in the Atlantic the past few years. For example, two December storms formed in 2003, which also had the first-ever April storm, Tropical Storm Ana. Cuba's worst hurricane ever, Hurricane Michelle, hit in November 2001, and the Atlantic's second deadliest hurricane of all time, Hurricane Mitch, lasted into November 1998. Add to this 2005's Greek cousins, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta, which all occurred in November and December. To see if hurricane season is indeed lasting longer, I plotted up the number of days a named storm existed each year from November through April (Figure 1). The data cut-off is 1944--the beginning of reliable hurricane records in the Atlantic, thanks to regular long-range aircraft reconnaissance missions. According to Dr. Chris Landsea's paper, A Climatology of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes, only a very few short-lived tropical storms that formed far out over the open Atlantic were missed by these aircraft missions or ships plying the shipping lanes between Europe and North America. For example, all of 2005's Greek storms were long-lived enough and sufficiently intense that they would have been detected back in the 1944-1960 time frame. Beginning 1960, weather satellites gave us full coverage of all the ocean areas, and it is unlikely we missed any tropical storms after then. Thus, Figure 1 is likely to be an accurate measure of the late-season tropical storm activity for the Atlantic.


Figure 1.Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Atlantic for each year during November through April, 1944-2005. The 2.5 named tropical storm days from the March 2004 hurricane in the South Atlantic that hit Brazil--Hurricane Catarina--are not included.

Looking at Figure 1, we see a noticeable increase in the number of late-season named-storm days in the Atlantic in the past decade, roughly coinciding with the upswing in Atlantic intense hurricane activity that began in 1995. This increase in late-season tropical cyclone activity was not observed during the previous warm phase of theAtlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the natural cycle that greatly influences hurricane activity in the Atlantic. This previous warm phase of the AMO lasted from 1926-1969. Thus, it seems unlikely that the recent upswing in late-season Atlantic tropical storm activity is due to the AMO. Is global warming to blame, then? Global sea surface temperatures in the tropics have increased by .3 degrees C (.5 degrees F) the past century, so it is reasonable to ask if this increase has lengthened hurricane season.

To answer this question, we look at the November though April number of tropical storm days for the Northern Hemisphere's other ocean basins that have tropical cyclones--the Western Pacific (Figure 2) and the Eastern Pacific (Figure 3). Neither ocean basin shows any increase in the length of their hurricane seasons, so global warming has not caused a Northern Hemisphere-wide increase in the length of hurricane seasons. If global warming is to blame for the recent increase in Atlantic late season and off-season tropical storm activity, it is probably through some as yet not understood mechanism, and not directly due to increased the sea surface temperatures over the Atlantic.


Figure 2. Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Northern Hemisphere's Western Pacific Ocean for each year during November through April, 1945-2005.


Figure 3. Number of days a named tropical storm was present in the Northern Hemisphere's Eastern Pacific Ocean (off the coast of Mexico) for each year during November through April, 1949-2005

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: 157 - 107

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

157. hurricanechaser
12:19 AM GMT on January 11, 2006
Hey Everyone,

I can't stand talking with two faced and manipulative people who insist on belittling others and call them names. This is what I get while I'm trying to stop this back and forth jabbing which serves no real purpose.

*********** Original message follows: ***********
Sent by weatherguy03 at: 11:09 PM GMT on January 10, 2006


Play meterologist..Yeah right dude..I graduated from Rutgers, I dont know what you are talking about..I even went to school with someone on this blog...You are a joke!!!..Just watch what you are saying about me, ok. So is it Yes or No...Rebuild New Orleans...I know you dont want it rebuilt, because most Right Wing Facist Republicans like yourself would love to see it go away...But it isnt..Well for now Bush will ignore it, but it wont go away!!!...Have a nice day!!!


Hey Bob,

Well, I guess we can see why you are so upset...must be a major Liberal which is your right. You are absolutely wrong to stereotype my political views that are only Conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage for example.

I am a moderate on social security, welfare, taxes, etc. So I'm hardly a right wing Fascist, which you must be saying I'm racist which is WRONG! Why do you insist on being rude with this name calling?

I have answered your question three times already...can't you read for goodness sake?

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO ASSUME I WANT A CITY TO GO AWAY, UNLESS IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR SAFETY, it's called compassion, certainly understand why you don't get that!

Secondly, I HAVE APPLIED MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS TO INCLUDE MY OWN CITY...thank you.:)

You are the one who appears to be, "a joke" to quote your pleasantries.:)

And if you think I'm a joke...compete with me to see if your meteorological skills match mine.

Your arrogant, defensible, and rude attitude definitely seems to add an element of untrustworthiness, as to whether you did get a Masters in meteorology, for I have yet to see one intelligent post meteorologically speaking.

Anyone can have more than one screen name and manipulate the blogs, so your supposed friend on this blog couldn't prove much.

Thanks,
Tony


156. hurricanechaser
12:17 AM GMT on January 11, 2006
Hey Bob,

I answered your question three times...it just took you that long to get it.:)

Thanks,

Tony
155. KatrinaRitaWilmaZeta
4:13 PM PST on January 10, 2006
hey hurricanechaser and ever one it see like ever one if haveing fun

this to tell you all i will have my frist low snow with snow level get as low as 2,000ft to 3,000ft
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
154. weatherguy03
12:06 AM GMT on January 11, 2006
Thank you for finally answering my question, Tony. Here is some good work towards reducing Global Warming...Link

Have a good nite!!!
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
153. hurricanechaser
11:38 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey cyclonebuster,

Do you honestly think I am not aware of that. You are not reading my posts for what it says.

Here's my comment once again to your question about whether I believed that a category five would definitely weaken over 75 degree water temperatures even down to a category one...

"First of all, intense hurricanes weaken themselves through internal dynamics and its rare for them to maintain such intensity very long even over optimal conditions."

That was an important statement about such intense storms.:)

"Secondly, your suggestion is obviously correct in theory, but it is still conceivable for a category five in an intensification phase moving fairly quickly over this small area you note could still retain its category five intensity and most certainly would not drop to a category one if thats how I interpret your initial post with this question."

You followed with this statement, I must ask, where did I suggest otherwise?

"Tony,

Have you ever seen what happens to a strong hurricane if it stays in one place for a long time due to the upwelling? Also, if one follows the path of a previous storm the upwelling weakens the storm that follows. It is well documented."


Honestly, you won't find too many (NOT SAYING NO ONE OF COURSE)who know as much about hurricanes than myself. I have been studying these fascinating storms since 1984 and been a professional forecaster off and on for years. My wife even thinks I love hurricanes more than her.LOL...not true by the way.:)

So, of course, i know all that you noted but that had no relevance to my reply to your first question.:)

Thanks,
Tony


152. hurricanechaser
11:18 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

I would simply like to stop these back and forth personal jabs at one another. You appear to have sarcastically stated...

"Hey Tony!!..I am still awaiting your Yes or No answer on New Orleans..But hey you'll make a good meteorologist oneday, always hedging..LOL..They are teaching you well at that school of yours..LOL."

Who could objectively say you weren't implying you were a better meteorologist than me.

Secondly, I was WRONG to question your honesty about your schooling and I believe what you state about that, no proof needed.:)

I ask that you respectfully appreciate my education and experience as well.:)

Once again, I did answer your question..Don't rebuild any part of New Orleans that can be flooded assuredly, if another devastating storm strikes. If that means there's no where in the City that meets that criteria...then, yes...evacuate it all.

If there are areas considered safe as noted by DMS, then populate these areas ONLY. This is the third time I posted this same general comment.

And I hope you don't believe it was appropriate to suggest I didn't answer your question even if it didn't meet your level of clarity, saying, "come on, be a man" as you put it.

In my personal opinion, a REAL man takes responsibility for his actions and gets no pleasure out of belittling others.

For my part in this ridiculous exchange, I sincerely apologize. It's up to you to accept it which I hope you will.

Regardless, I hope you have a goodnight with all sincerity.:)

Thanks,
Tony


150. ForecasterColby
11:18 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Uh-oh...the big downward trend on SSTAs that we saw in December has reversed and slammed upward:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
149. hurricanechaser
11:17 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Ft.walton,

I apologize as well..I didn't see the next post.:)

Thanks again,
Tony
148. hurricanechaser
11:14 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Ft. Walton,

I know you meant well but this is why I am spending so much time correcting everyones statements.

"Actually, hurricanechaser, we have had one before the current active cycle that was that huge. I was living in Ft Walton Beach, Fl when Gilbert was hitting the Yucatan and we were getting tropical storm force winds from him. He was a monster of a storm. He completely covered the Gulf of Mexico at one point."

"Gilbert was HUGE in 1988, Hugo was HUGE in 1989 all before this new AMO cycle;e began in 1995."

From the post you referenced...please reread.:)

I realize you meant well however.:)

Thanks,
Tony

147. hurricanechaser
11:00 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey cyclonebuster,

You never asked this question in a way that made since.

"Will lowering SSTs TO 75 degrees weaken a CAT5 hurricane if it passes over that human induced cooler water that has been upwelled?"

First of all, intense hurricanes weaken themselves through internal dynamics and its rare for them to maintain such intensity very long even over optimal conditions.

Secondly, your suggestion is obviously correct in theory but it is still conceivable for a category five in an intensification phase moving fairly quickly over this small area you note could still retain its category five intensity and most certainly would not drop to a category one if thats how I interpret your initial post with this question.

Why couldn't you drop it...after I said...

Posted By: hurricanechaser at 10:24 PM GMT on January 10, 2006.

Cyclonebuster,

Please remember you asked for my opinion which doesn't mean it can't work. Therefore, I want to say that I hope that it does and naturally wish you luck.:)

Thanks,
Tony

I stated that the theory CAN BE WRONG for the tunnel idea because it is YET to be proven for hurricanes...That simple!

ok...I gotta go, too much ridiculous and irrelevant conversation for me. This is a huge waste of time. I for one don't consider myself any smarter or better at forecasting storms any better than anyone else regardless of my experience but I can't simply not comment when I know something to be undeniably true when there are obviously others who look at these blogs and form their opinions based on the statements presented.

I would strongly encourage EVERYONE to ALWAYS do your OWN research before simply accepting ANY of OUR comments as FACT.

Thanks,
Tony


146. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
11:08 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Apologies, hurricanechaser, I got distracted while reading your post and missed your mention of Gilbert.... I should be in bed right now and it's begining to show.....
Member Since: January 9, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
144. weatherguy03
11:01 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
You can't even get simple facts correct and I have serious doubts you have a meteorological degree. If so, I am glad I didn't go there.

First of all I never said i was a better meteorologist then you. Second of all you never answered my question..Just answer it!!!..Be a man!!!..Thirdly I graduated from Rutgers University in 1992, and even went to college with someone in the weatherunderground community, so if you need proof I will give you his e-mail..LOL..Yeah Rutgers is a terrible school..LOL..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
143. rwdobson
10:58 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
So, again, what you are saying is that you know the proper temperature (or temperature difference) that allows for sufficient rainfall, but eliminates tornados...how exactly did you calculate this?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
142. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
10:49 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Actually, hurricanechaser, we have had one before the current active cycle that was that huge. I was living in Ft Walton Beach, Fl when Gilbert was hitting the Yucatan and we were getting tropical storm force winds from him. He was a monster of a storm. He completely covered the Gulf of Mexico at one point.
Member Since: January 9, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
141. hurricanechaser
10:49 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

I answered your question, but I guess it's over your head obviously.

Secondly, I will be working on my Masters when I go back to school if I ever do, thank you.

And I don't need my Masters to be a better meteorologist than you....if you disagree, I will gladly compete with you on any meteorolgical principle you like. I don't have to say I'm better than you like you do, I will simply be glad to prove it.

Let me know when you are ready.

You can't even get simple facts correct and I have serious doubts you have a meteorological degree. If so, I am glad I didn't go there. And even if you know more than I do overall in meteorology, I am most thankful I don't say I am somehow right simply because I have a degree. That's a poor excuse to try and prove a point. The fact is you couldn't rebutt my correction of your so called factual opinion.

In the meantime, I have more important things to do than try and PLAY a meteorologist on the blogs like you do.:)

I hope everyone has a good night.:)

Thanks,
Tony


139. FtWaltonBch2Tucson
10:01 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Whoa, I go to "dinner" (I work nights) with my boyfriend and come back to an explosion.

Weatherboy, while I will grant that we do need to act on some of the "causes" of global warming for their own sake, I see no reason whatsoever to try to change the climate the world is trying to bring about on it's own. The world /will/ grow warmer. A lot warmer. History tells us it's been a lot warmer many, many times. What are we to do, try and stop the world from ever growing warmer again, just because we have chosen to live in marginal ecosystems that will not support the populations they currently have as the world moves back to the median temperature for the last 10,000 (which, I might add, is much cooler than the median temperature for the full length of time we can measure it)?

The nature of the world is to change. The last few thousand years have been remarkably stable temperature wise with swings of only a fee degrees +/-, which probably helped us to build the civilization we have. But we really shouldn't count on that to continue.

If man is an intelligent as we think we are, we need to learn how to adapt to what the world is becoming, not try to change what is probably in large part a natural cycle and possibly cause still more chaos. After all, just because this is the way the world "has always been" in your lifetime doesn't mean that is the way the world will remain.

In 1816 (at the tail end of the mini-ice age) it was so cold there was no summer. It snowed in June and July as far south as Virginia. Yet, a scant 50 years later we begin to see the weather patterns we are more accustomed to. What if they had been concerned with the Global Warming their factories and fireplaces was causing? What would the world look like today? Would it still be that cold, or would the world have warmed anyway? If man /had/ tried to stop the warming trend, what type of imbalance would we have created in the systems that fuel our weather? I don't think we understand what drives the weather well enough to try to change it just yet, or these late season hurricanes wouldn't be puzzling us by "breaking the rules" of when and where and under what conditions they formed.

You feel we should act now rather than wait and possibly allow the damage to be done. But what of the damage that could be caused by acting on incomplete data? What do we do if we try to stop what is a natural cycle and we break that cycle for a little while and push it too far the other way?

There were over 117 separate famines in France alone during the mini-ice age. Crops failed more than half the time. We are still /very/ dependent on cereals. They do extremely poorly under the conditions that prevailed during the mini-ice age. Our methods of raising livestock would not fair much better. Do we really want the certain knowledge that /we/ caused the current hardships (versus just the knowledge that we /might/ be making things a bit worse)?

I don't disagree with the goals of cleaner air and less fossil fuel dependence, but I do disagree that we need to stop the current warming trend.

Sam
Member Since: January 9, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 21
138. hurricanechaser
10:25 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Weatherdude and Skyepony,

I have quite a few rebuttals to those assumptions for which I simply don't have time to address right now.

Therefore, I will simply comment on just one.

One needs to research the historical record fully before stating that it appears we are getting larger hurricanes which simply isn't true.

The 1947 Florida hurricane if I remember correctly was HUGE! It had reported tropical storm force winds out to 400 miles from the center. We have never seen one like that in our lifetime. It was reported if I have the particular storm correct (I will have to go home and get you the exact storm and figures), that hurricane force winds alone extended up to 200 miles from the center and 100 mph winds like some 100 miles or so.

It is unfair to draw a comparison between two of the smallest intense storms like 1935 Labor Day storm and Camille with weaker large storms like Frances for example.

A more reasonable scenario would compare Andrew to Camille and Labor Day storm.

We have countless HUGE storms in the past such as the 1900 Galveston hurricane, 1926 Miami hurricane, 1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane, 1944 great Atlantic hurricane which was HUGE!, Hazel in 1954, Audrey in 1957, Helene in 1958, Donna was HUGE as well in 1960, Carla in 1961 was HUGE!, Betsy in 1965, Beulah in 1967, Agnes was large category one in 1972, Fredric in 1979, David was HUGE in 1079 as well, ALLEN gigantic in 1980, Gloria in 1985, Gilbert was HUGE in 1988, Hugo was HUGE in 1989 all before this new AMO cycle;e began in 1995.

These are just a list off the top of my head of hurricanes that were as large and many much larger than any we've sen during the past decade. Moreover, you Will notice that there is no correlation between AMO cycles and hurricane size as noted by the few listed above.

Is it possible for people to research the historical evidence before making such unfounded claims.

This is certainly one area I have devoted 21 years off my life to is studying hurricane history of individual storms.

The Great 1893 Sea Islands hurricane and the Great San Ciriaco hurricane of 1899 were also Huge as well and the list goes on and on,

In short, this theory has no factual basis and nothing unusual whatsoever.:)

Thanks,
Tony


136. rwdobson
10:38 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
By the way, many scientists dispute the notion that Bernoulli's principle is what causes lift for airplanes.

for example,
this nasa.gov site
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
135. rwdobson
10:35 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
"I still think we can do without the tornado's and still squeeze out the moisture we need in the midwest."

how exactly would you do that? do you have an equation that allows you to optimize the effect so that the gulf is exactly warm enough to provide moisture but not warm enough to support hurricanes and tornados?

you can't have one without the other. if you reduce tornados, you will reduce thunderstorms, which will reduce the total rainfall.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
134. weatherguy03
10:32 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Tony!!..I am still awaiting your Yes or No answer on New Orleans..But hey you'll make a good metorologist oneday, always hedging..LOL..They are teaching you well at that school of yours..LOL..

Thank you for the kind words Rays!!!..Your're the best!!!
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
132. hurricanechaser
10:23 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Cyclonebuster,

Please remember you asked for my opinion which doesn't mean it can't work. Therefore, I want to say that I hope that it does and naturally wish you luck.:)

Thanks,
Tony
131. hurricanechaser
10:16 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Cyclonebuster,

Where do you get such an absurd notion from my comments?

"So I guess you think airplanes don't fly because of Bernoulli's principle. Correct?"

Lets see, did I ever say airplanes don't fly? Don't think so.

Secondly, just because someones theory worked in accomplishing an astonishing feat certainly doesn't conclude that the same can or will be true with another.

Thanks,
Tony


129. hurricanechaser
9:58 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Snowboy,

I don't quite understand how you feel I didn't address your comments when you made this comment.

Posted By: snowboy at 9:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006.

"Chaser, whether or not coastal areas were once underwater at some point in earth's history does not address the points I made in my last post and the questions I posed. Please try to address them."


Posted By: hurricanechaser at 8:54 PM GMT on January 10, 2006.

Snowboy,

"If you have read my recent blogs, you will know I am suggesting that the overpopulation is creating these future disasters which are completely man made in areas that have been historically underwater."

"If I'm correct in my belief that we will continue to go through these natural climate changes, then why would it be surprising that many coastal areas would once again be underwater like it was thousands of years ago?"

"Why would anyone blame the release of greenhouse gases and ignore this obvious reality?":)

I will try to be clearer in this response. If there was any possible evidence that the SLIGHT increases in global temperatures could directly be influencing this warming phase, then naturally I would be concerned. However, I have spent countless hours over the past 10 years specifically researching this issue and have concluded at this point that we are in the proven cycles of climate variability and we ARE NOT having ANY effect on this NATURAL climate trend.

Therefore, I believe it is a REAL and proven concern that overpopulating our coastlines in the most vulnerable areas for storm surge is the biggest crisis we face relative to hurricane mitigation, not any perceived concept that man is having an affect on Global warming.

Moreover, history proves that large portions of our coastal areas were part of the ocean and it shouldn't be a surprise if that cycle repeats itself, and if so, we can't do anything except evacuate further inland when it actually becomes a reality in time, if it ever does occur again.

This shouldn't be blamed on human activities when there is absolutely NO evidence to substantiate a speculative claim.

But I have no doubts that if it does materialize, people will try blaming someone for it. It seems to be the American way now adays.

Thanks,
Tony


127. weatherdude65
5:06 PM EST on January 10, 2006
Good post skyepony......it does seem to me that as SST increase then the diameter of the storms each season has increased...and with the increase in the diameter we will see widespread damage each time one of these makes landfall.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
126. rwdobson
10:03 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
"tornado's may not even form in the mid west because of the cooler temperatures in the Gulf thus cooling the warm air migrating to the North out of the Gulf Of Mexico. Since the air is cooler not as much lift is created in the atmosphere for tornados to form. "

did it ever occur to you that the midwest NEEDS gulf moisture and thunderstorms? most of the rain that the midwest gets comes from these thunderstorms. tornadoes are a minor side effect compared to the benefit that the area gets from the rainfall. if you cut off the gulf, you would create a desert in the midwest.

fortunately, your scheme would never get built and would not work as intended if it were.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
125. Skyepony (Mod)
8:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Good afternoon all~ how far we've strayed from the subject.

Dr Masters~ way to stir up the class:)

Let's see~ I believe the question before us is ~ Is the recent warming of the tropics SST to blame for our late season storms? (not is global warming caused by humans) And though we don't have billions of years of data to look at there is the fact that during the previous warm phase of the AMO, we weren't having these late season storms. Perhaps a few were missed due to lack of radar, but not as many to equal the rise we are experiencing now. Wars were going on, trade & whatnot. As well as, plenty were documented in the west pacific during the same few years in question.

Not only is the late season storms out of place in our short stack of records. They have in ways defide the enviroment we thought reqired for a cane. Several other factors can be explored here. Since many have formed & intensifed over cooler SST & higher shear than required for cane formation, this becomes a subject to address. Many times these canes have thrived with high shear in the upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere shear was near or in an exceptable level. Perhaps there is something to our theory that the upperlevel shear somehow aids intensifcation when other factors are right. (like blowing across the top of a bottle or the laws behind Cyclonebuster's tunnels). Has there been changes in the shear patterns over our recorded time that coincide with these late season storms? or....

Then there's the need for earth to equal the energy forces. The ACE totals have been impressive lately, so perhaps that is a way to corrilate to the rising SST due to global warming. So much needs to be released a season & perhaps the years where enough wasn't released during season they occur in the off season. If you didn't notice~ this year during season we could go 3 weeks or more hampered by dust or shear. Conditions would rippen & it'd explode with multible storms or a storm of monstrous size. And our storms on average were shorter lived in days than last year or in the past. (Here's another place we should search for numbers & trends.) And did the storms on average dissapate sooner because they hit land as opposed to the years where they recurved & did loops out at sea for weeks on end?

I'd also like to pose the question ~Is SST causing a trend toward larger diameter storms? Is the average diameter of a hurricane larger than it was at the last warm part of AMO? Both Cameil & Labor day storms were small compared to the Fl (like comparing Floyd to the size of Florida)& larger size storms that have threatened. This leads to more damage~ like Frances (2) compared to Andrew (5)~ Frances was huge & moved as fast as a turtle, where Andrew was very small & quick, but still most intense. Could this be another possible result of nature releasing the extra ACE under constricting circumstances?

I leave more questions than answers. But I'm busy today, so i attempt to get ya'll back on track ~go searce the web, compare the info we have crunch, some number for the Master & attempt to find answers to the questions above, not bicker over if humans caused global warming.

Cyclonebuster~ With the govt currently attempting to pass laws to allow hurricane modification attempts, at a fleeting glance, your idea is more appeasing than chemicals, bombs & microwaves. Good luck~ i'd be interested in watching your progress, is your blog on this project of yours?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
123. hurricanechaser
9:55 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Raysfan,

I spoke specifically of the storm surge threat, which is the greatest cause of devastation to life and property...can someone please read my comments thoroughly, before making incorrect statements that are already answered in the post you are referring to in your rebuttals.

Thanks,
Tony


122. hurricanechaser
9:48 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Raysfan,

That is another example of distorting the obvious intent of my comments.

Lets try this again, I specifically talked about the definite danger of construction along our immediate coastlines which is the best way to mitigate loss of human life and property.

I still don't think it's appropriate to spend tax payers money to irresponsibly rebuild in areas that will have to continuously be rebuilt with each subsequent storm.

I am in favor of build at your own risk in such areas!

I don't accept everything anyone says because I like them personally nor because they might be right the majority of the time. We all are wrong more often than not in the scientific community and it's the height of arrogance to think otherwise which is just my personal opinion.

Thanks,
Tony


121. hurricanechaser
9:39 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Cyclonebuster,

You asked for my opinion and even said please just answer the question as to whether I thought it would work.

I also commended you for your idea.:)

However, I still don't believe it will work and if it was tried, I believe this will prove to be the case.

The key is that I personally don't believe it will work!

Ans NO your wrong because those two guys have a theory which is also unsubstantiated and has been attempted so it cannot YET if EVER be considered a fact.:)

It is amazing that so many people on these blogs can assert their personal opinions as being FACT. Anyone except Bob I suppose would tell you that working in the meteorological field is in the study of an inexact science where the more we learn, it seems the less we actually knew to begin with more or less of course.

You stated that it is a proven fact that hurricanes have to weaken in waters less than 80 degrees, I too thought the same until I saw Vince strengthen to hurricane status in 74 degree waters and do you recall Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta...all in waters below the 80 degree threshold?

Simply put, we all need to carefully choose our words before stating our opinions as FACT.

Thanks,
Tony


120. Raysfan70
9:38 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
I just have two comment to make here. About rebuilding in coastal area. Why not rebuild? Charley did his destruction all the way across the sate, not just on the coast. There were problems all the way to Tampa from Jeanne and Frances. So I guess that we should never rebuild from any storm.

Also-I trust anything that Weatherguy03 has to say if it had not been for him this past season I think that there would have been alot more worried people on this site. As I have learned so much from him that I never knew or understood. Wish that there were more people like him on this site.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
118. hurricanechaser
9:29 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Jeff,

Fair enough...I can assure you I have tried to avoid politicizing this issue..that is my biggest frustration as well!:)

Thanks,
Tony
117. hurricanechaser
9:26 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Snowboy,

I am in total agreement with the restoration of those natural buffers that you mentioned. The coastal build up in areas that shouldn't have been has caused catastrophic damage to our ecosystems and wetlands, etc. which appears to be a concern many have about global warming if I'm not mistaken?

Thanks,
Tony


116. jeffB
9:10 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey, Tony --

I'll try to respond to a couple of your points:

"My references to liberals was ONLY in direct response to those who politicized the issue for me by suggesting my FAITH led me to fall in line with the Conservatives view on this subject."

Fair enough, I don't see that accusation, perhaps it was in another thread.

"In regards to so called name calling, since when did the term, "Liberals" become a bad word."

It's only become a bad word in the mouths of those who use it as such. When it's used in combination with "radical", "activist", "agenda", "hijack", and such, the smell tends to rub off on it.

"I consider myself Conservative on Social issues and consider that a complimentary term just as Howard Dean who is head of the Democratic Party feels the same pride in being labeled a liberal."

I confess that I'm getting a little exasperated here. We are, or should be, talking about SCIENCE, not politics. I do recognize that I've become part of the problem. :-)

"In our political system, most are defined as either Liberal, Moderate, and conservative. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you correct yourself in making that incorrect judgment and assumption about me."

I'm trying to avoid making any judgements or assumptions about you at all. All I can see is the statements you make here, and it's those that I was discussing.

Thanks for responding reasonably to my post.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 42
115. hurricanechaser
9:25 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Bob,

It takes me awhile to type my response.:)
114. hurricanechaser
9:15 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Bob,

Theres no reading betwen the lines for those who can actualy read what's clearly written..

I mean what I said. You tell me if New Orleans is salvagable based upon my previous post on the issue.

"I said NO areas in New Orleans or anywhere else should be rebuilt at tax payes expense in all areas that are in definate harms way, and comes from my personal concern for the loss of human life!"

"I have also stated numerous times if you were to read my comments clearly, without presumptions and see that I believe ANY and ALL areas that are truly safe without the need for huge fortified walls SHOULD be rebuilt!"

I just noticied an incorrect choice of words. If a home was destroyed and doesn't meet the standard I proposed, then absolutely NOT!

Simply put, DMS816 says there are such safe areas that are in New Orleans.

However, I am a poroponent of build at your own risk if these areas are and will once again be in danger of future loss.

The ony way to determine this is by a set standard in relation to the storm surge probabilities of definate danger for ALL areas on the coastline.

Thanks,
Tony


113. weatherguy03
9:21 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Well I guess I am not going to get my answer. Have a nice day Tony!!!
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
112. snowboy
9:14 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
For the record I agree with you Chaser that we should not be building in coastal areas - regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring.

We should leave large natural buffers around our oceans, rivers, lakes, and wetlands so that when the inevitable floods do occur these natural systems can buffer their effects and so that preventable damage to human structures (which are currently built in such areas) does not occur.
Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547
111. hurricanechaser
9:10 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Bob,

That's the type of arrogance that breeds hostility to the meteorological field.

A belief is not a fact. A fact is based on indisputable evidence.

Human induced global warming cannot and will not ever be considered a fact for reasons I've consistently mentioned.

Thanks,
Tony


110. weatherguy03
9:12 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
So since we always have to read betwwen the lines with you...Are you saying..Now its a Yes or No question...Should New Orleans be rebuilt???..Yes or No Tony...Not some long winded around the question answer..Just Yes or No!!!..Man you would make a great politician..LOL..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
109. hurricanechaser
9:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Hey Bob,

Where did I say to get rid of New Orleans?

I said NO areas in New Orleans or anywhere else should be rebuilt at tax payes expense in all areas that are in definate harms way, and comes from my personal concern for the loss of human life!

I have also stated numerous times if you were to read my comments clearly, without presumptions and see that I believe ANY and ALL areas that are truly safe without the need for huge fortified walls SHOULD be rebuilt!

Once again...incorrect on your so called facts.:)

Thanks,
Tony


108. weatherguy03
9:05 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
No I believe it is fact and that is how I am going to state it, sorry you dont agree with that. I am not going to use "my best educated opinion", if you want to use that wording, go for it!!..
Member Since: July 5, 2005 Posts: 592 Comments: 29704
107. snowboy
8:58 PM GMT on January 10, 2006
Chaser, whether or not coastal areas were once underwater at some point in earth's history does not address the points I made in my last post and the questions I posed. Please try to address them.

And generally folks, we are united by our strong interest in the weather and weather-related phenomena. Let's have a good and vigorous discussion of this crucial issue please, but not get into personal attacks and tirades.


Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2547

Viewing: 157 - 107

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog 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

Partly Cloudy
70 °F
Partly Cloudy