|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 24, 2010 7:15:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 24, 2010 8:35:06 GMT
They should tell the guys in the University of Florida to throw all their research in the trash then. Seems like the latitude the jet stream decides to blow at is a better match for storm energy. I'm sure the GCM's can be adjusted so that this is consistent with AGW.  www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 24, 2010 12:26:14 GMT
Hairball, you should know by now that theory and modeling trump observational science. I am sure that the UF researchers will be 'allowed to adjust' their observations in line with the new orthodoxy.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 25, 2010 1:26:59 GMT
From AGW it is likely that the ocean heat content will increase, so some more energy might be available for hurricanes, if they form in an area favorable for growth.
There the scientific certainty ends. The rest is all alarmistic bullshit in my humble opinion.
**edit** actually, the statements are individually correct or there is some evidence/indication for them, but they are put in such a way which enhances the alarmistic tone. I think that when you read the studies themselves, they sound MUCH less alarmistic than they might seem considering the LARGE uncertainties in the projections.
BTW, less hurricanes might be because the models show on average increased upper level winds, which can disrupt hurricane formation. I think we may assume that this is rather uncertain too.
These hypotheses can not be verified however, because interannual variability is way too large to discern any trend (yet).
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 25, 2010 1:48:06 GMT
From AGW it is likely that the ocean heat content will increase, so some more energy might be available for hurricanes, if they form in an area favorable for growth. There the scientific certainty ends. The rest is all alarmistic bullshit in my humble opinion. **edit** actually, the statements are individually correct or there is some evidence/indication for them, but they are put in such a way which enhances the alarmistic tone. I think that when you read the studies themselves, they sound MUCH less alarmistic than they might seem considering the LARGE uncertainties in the projections. BTW, less hurricanes might be because the models show on average increased upper level winds, which can disrupt hurricane formation. I think we may assume that this is rather uncertain too. These hypotheses can not be verified however, because interannual variability is way too large to discern any trend (yet). The big problem for these forecasts of more violent storms is the much forecast tropospheric hot-spot. If that hot-spot is there as predicted by AGW and 'water vapor feedback' - then the lapse-rate cannot support strong convection needed for strong cyclones. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 25, 2010 5:37:46 GMT
I remember seeing a study that showed a strong connection with the amount of dust coming off the African continent and hurricane strength.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 25, 2010 9:02:38 GMT
From AGW it is likely that the ocean heat content will increase, so some more energy might be available for hurricanes, if they form in an area favorable for growth. There the scientific certainty ends. The rest is all alarmistic bullshit in my humble opinion. **edit** actually, the statements are individually correct or there is some evidence/indication for them, but they are put in such a way which enhances the alarmistic tone. I think that when you read the studies themselves, they sound MUCH less alarmistic than they might seem considering the LARGE uncertainties in the projections. BTW, less hurricanes might be because the models show on average increased upper level winds, which can disrupt hurricane formation. I think we may assume that this is rather uncertain too. These hypotheses can not be verified however, because interannual variability is way too large to discern any trend (yet). I liked the "alarmist bullshit" reference, AJ but I question your "(yet)" qualifier. If thirty years is enough the predict temperature Armageddon and we have thirty years of figures for accumulated cyclonic energy, why the "(yet)"? |
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 25, 2010 12:55:03 GMT
Ratty: Any trend (if there is) will become visible if you measure long enough compared to the internal variability. I'm not presuming that there has to be a trend as "forecasted" by climate models. Actually, I don't even know if they forecast this, because if the number decreases more dramatically relative to the individual strenght the total hurricane energy might decrease. I'm wondering where and how that energy will be released then by the way. Tropospheric hot spot? Can anybody send me a link to a study explaining that?
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 25, 2010 13:28:48 GMT
aj, Spencer speaks a little about the hotspot here: www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/I *think* the hurricane uptick that started in the 80's was mostly caused by a strongly positive Arctic oscillation creating an unusually big temperature differential between the poles and equator. But I have a tendency of just imagining things. |
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 25, 2010 13:42:53 GMT
That would only work if the arctic oscillation moves the jet stream north. (I think it does, so it MIGHT well play an important role too.) Hurricanes tend to dislike jet streams  . Btw, thanks, I remember those figures. |
|
|
|
Post by bender on Feb 25, 2010 16:14:30 GMT
Yeah, forecasts of hurricane activity are great, especially the ones from Colorado State University. I believe them all - not!
'Well Above-Average' Hurricane Season Forecast For 2008
ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2008) — The Colorado State University forecast team upgraded its early season forecast today from the Bahamas Weather Conference, saying the U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a well above-average hurricane season.
Forecast Calls For Above-Average 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season ...Dec 19, 2008 ... The team's first extended-range forecast for the 2009 hurricane season anticipates 14 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between ...
Hurricane season 2009 forecastHurricane Forecast Team at Colorado State University Calls for Above-Average 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season. December/10/2009
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 25, 2010 17:26:08 GMT
As Joe Bastardi has correctly pointed out, 2010 is likely to be an ugly year for hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. That will in no way confirm AGW but instead the effect of post-Nino low pressure in the Atlantic coupled with warm SSTs. But that won't stop fear-mongers from using each storm to "prove" the relentless acceleration of AGW and its associated risks.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 25, 2010 22:47:50 GMT
As Joe Bastardi has correctly pointed out, 2010 is likely to be an ugly year for hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. That will in no way confirm AGW but instead the effect of post-Nino low pressure in the Atlantic coupled with warm SSTs. But that won't stop fear-mongers from using each storm to "prove" the relentless acceleration of AGW and its associated risks. But _anything_ happening ' proves' "anthropogenic climate change" - hot, cold, wet, dry, more ice, less ice .... indeed even earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Science is dead |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 26, 2010 2:30:57 GMT
As Joe Bastardi has correctly pointed out, 2010 is likely to be an ugly year for hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. That will in no way confirm AGW but instead the effect of post-Nino low pressure in the Atlantic coupled with warm SSTs. But that won't stop fear-mongers from using each storm to "prove" the relentless acceleration of AGW and its associated risks. But _anything_ happening ' proves' "anthropogenic climate change" - hot, cold, wet, dry, more ice, less ice .... indeed even earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Science is dead I don't think science is dead. I do think that reputable scientists are finally able to have a little bit of the mouthpiece. AGW has made so many preposterous predictions that have not stood the test of verification that it is shown to be a chaotic science, just like the atmosphere and clmate. It is kinda like having President Obama in office. There were people who had high hopes and believed his campaign promises. Oh oh....something got in the oil and we have a problem. Yes, people are waking up......  Same with science. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 27, 2010 1:42:10 GMT
scpg02,
I had a web site up on my other computer sewiss or seawiss which showed dust and smoke. The year after Algoreithm standing in front of hurricane katrinia, the experts were predicting stonger more frequent hurricanes. I saw the dust blowing off Africa into the Atlantic and said no. The hurricanes would form further out in the Atlantic and be weaker. Those big storms appear every so often. No one remembers the September storm of 1939. It was the day Hitler invaded Poland. Hurricane Camile was a monster storm as well.
So where are the bigger storms? (it's a rhetorical question) I'd say that by 2030, we'll see another monstor storm. Not that we won't see other storms that will be powerful. It is similar to the snowstorms we are getting here. We get snow most winters. Just not 40 inches at one time or 3 -4 big storms that dump 20 inches of snow or more. This year we've had both amount and frequency.
I give up on some things because my head hurts from banging it against the wall. I haven't looked a sewiss in awhile, don't know if it is still there. The wall in this case is AGW. I've only recently started to become more active for 2 reasons. 1. the sun went quite. 2. Cap and trade is based on faulty science, and is designed to cripple the US. Most of the world is simply going to ignore cap and trade. We don't have the same laws governing labor in India or China, as an example. And yet, somehow imports are treated as equal except cheaper. Think a treaty on AGW will have any impact on these countries? Think the UN is stopping the spread of nuclear weapons? What makes anyone think that the IPCC has any agenda other than to cripple the West?
|
|
.
Same with science.