|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 8, 2010 16:54:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 9, 2010 0:23:20 GMT
Jim you could try www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml I have a feeling that they share data with NCDC as they are the same organization. But the NHC history area has the storms from 2010
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2010 10:20:06 GMT
"Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) AND Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years. The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific."www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/It does seem that NOAA and the UK Met Office got it wrong - again -needless to say they were forecasting high It looks like there is insufficient heat in the top layers of the ocean to actually drive a hurricane for any time, The trail left by Igor is still visible in the Atlantic and may even be growing.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 8, 2010 14:27:04 GMT
more on disruption " Dr. Ryan N. Maue's 2010 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update Update: Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) AND Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years. The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific. Also see additional blog posting with recognition given to Rush Limbaugh's tropical cyclone knowledge... " www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/nh_ace_yearly.png
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Oct 8, 2010 15:37:30 GMT
Nautonnier, please, just curious about your approach: Why ´NOAA and the UK Met Office got it wrong´, I mean, what do you think they´ve missed forehand the time they´d made their predictions? thanks! Carlos Madrud
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2010 16:22:04 GMT
Nautonnier, please, just curious about your approach: Why ´NOAA and the UK Met Office got it wrong´, I mean, what do you think they´ve missed forehand the time they´d made their predictions? thanks! Carlos Madrud There appears to be an eagerness in all weather forecasters for storms to become more dangerous. To the extent that some of these forecasts appear to be 'talked up' even the semantics used in them implies a level of Schadenfreude. You get this at all levels even individual forecasters get more and more excited about a storm as it builds. Living under threat from these hurricanes and paying the associated insurance one takes more than just an academic interest. Previous years' forecasts have been repeatedly reduced; the initial high number is released with great fanfare - the reductions are not so widely published. You get the feeling, aided I am sure by the media, that the forecasters really want a large number of destructive storms and are disappointed when their forecasts are not borne out.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Oct 8, 2010 18:14:00 GMT
Nautonnier, please, just curious about your approach: Why ´NOAA and the UK Met Office got it wrong´, I mean, what do you think they´ve missed forehand the time they´d made their predictions? thanks! Carlos Madrud There appears to be an eagerness in all weather forecasters for storms to become more dangerous. To the extent that some of these forecasts appear to be 'talked up' even the semantics used in them implies a level of Schadenfreude. You get this at all levels even individual forecasters get more and more excited about a storm as it builds. Living under threat from these hurricanes and paying the associated insurance one takes more than just an academic interest. Previous years' forecasts have been repeatedly reduced; the initial high number is released with great fanfare - the reductions are not so widely published. You get the feeling, aided I am sure by the media, that the forecasters really want a large number of destructive storms and are disappointed when their forecasts are not borne out. Hard to regard ´weathers forecaster´s´ as being such ´interested...or mind directed people...for what?´ (letting aside some prime-time TV weather reporters...) I just wonder which model(s) have failed and which might be some possible reasons or differences that have not been taken into account before such a poor forecast was made... Some clues? thanks
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 8, 2010 20:01:27 GMT
There appears to be an eagerness in all weather forecasters for storms to become more dangerous. To the extent that some of these forecasts appear to be 'talked up' even the semantics used in them implies a level of Schadenfreude. You get this at all levels even individual forecasters get more and more excited about a storm as it builds. Living under threat from these hurricanes and paying the associated insurance one takes more than just an academic interest. Previous years' forecasts have been repeatedly reduced; the initial high number is released with great fanfare - the reductions are not so widely published. You get the feeling, aided I am sure by the media, that the forecasters really want a large number of destructive storms and are disappointed when their forecasts are not borne out. Hard to regard ´weathers forecaster´s´ as being such ´interested...or mind directed people...for what?´ (letting aside some prime-time TV weather reporters...) I just wonder which model(s) have failed and which might be some possible reasons or differences that have not been taken into account before such a poor forecast was made... Some clues? thanks It would appear they are all failures. Trillions of bytes, millions of trees, huge amounts of bandwidth, all to try and scare people over this year's hurricane season. How many depressions were promoted to storm status that in less hysterical times would not have been considered tropical storms?
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Oct 8, 2010 20:41:55 GMT
One problem recently created, is that NOAA is now the parent organization for NHC. NOAA predicts, NHC is the organization that names the storms and forecasts their tracks. Some might recognize this as a conflict of interests.
2010 has certainly been the year of the wimpy storms. There were of course three large storms and three medium storms to date. But the defining characteristic is the repitition of weak storms In descending order these were with their associated Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rankings the weakest of the bunch:
Nicole .1225 Gaston .3675 Bonnie .49 Mathew 1.3 Hermine 1.3725 Colin 2.6375 Fiona 3.2475 Lisa 4.2 Otto still moving no finalized ACE yet.
In sum their combined ACE is about the same as Julia (the weakest of the Majors). Julia was the storm that trailed Igor and shrank in size to miniscule after titilatting the warmistas of the world with a duet of Majors for a short time. Julia ACE was 14.47
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 9, 2010 2:19:51 GMT
There appears to be an eagerness in all weather forecasters for storms to become more dangerous. To the extent that some of these forecasts appear to be 'talked up' even the semantics used in them implies a level of Schadenfreude. You get this at all levels even individual forecasters get more and more excited about a storm as it builds. Living under threat from these hurricanes and paying the associated insurance one takes more than just an academic interest. Previous years' forecasts have been repeatedly reduced; the initial high number is released with great fanfare - the reductions are not so widely published. You get the feeling, aided I am sure by the media, that the forecasters really want a large number of destructive storms and are disappointed when their forecasts are not borne out. Hard to regard ´weathers forecaster´s´ as being such ´interested...or mind directed people...for what?´ (letting aside some prime-time TV weather reporters...) I just wonder which model(s) have failed and which might be some possible reasons or differences that have not been taken into account before such a poor forecast was made... Some clues? thanks At a high abstract level a model is based on the modelers' view of the way the world works. Much of this is pattern matching by looking at the past and making assumptions on the influences that caused reactions then using those assumptions in the model as parameters, tailoring or basic software code. The models will all have varying level of physical behavior embedded in them but even these are based on observation of cause and effect in simple systems. The problem is that the Earth and its climate are not simple systems they are hugely complex interracting chaotic systems made up of chaotic systems. Many of the interrelationships and effects are unknowns some of the causes and effects are separated by extended periods other causes have almost instant effect. The models are therefore very much the projection of the modelers' ideas usually tested by hindcasting over a very short period in climatological terms. If there are errors then the model is given new parameters and assumptions on some effects are altered (e.g. aerosol effects) to make the model more accurate in its hindcasting. But a chaotic system may have NO easily apparent relationship between cause and effect. A cause may happen many times but only have a measurable effect if it occurs at _just_ the right time. This is almost impossible to replicate in a deterministic model where many relationships are unknown. Another problem is the approach taken which is often - we KNOW that X causes Y therefore the model must show that.... It may be possible in the future with the help of La Place's daemon to model the movement of every element of the climate. But I cannot see it being possible for a LONG time. The climate is not a set of Markov processes so a small error in a model propagates rapidly. The models thus usually become an amplifier for the modelers' assumptions rather than models of reality.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2010 14:52:26 GMT
Another shoe drops, well not exactly a shoe but..... "2010 Typhoon Tally May Be Lowest On Record" No link found yet for AGW and CO2 but quite possibly a new grant for a model to show such will be made. "From The Japan Times: The number of typhoons this year could turn out to be the lowest on record, which experts theorize could be a result of the El Nino phenomenon lasting until this spring and the summer’s powerful high-pressure system in the Pacific. As of Saturday, 14 typhoons — tropical cyclones generated in the Northwest Pacific or the South China Sea north of the equator with a minimum wind velocity of 61.9 kph — have been spawned this year. The Meteorological Agency, which has been keeping statistics on typhoons since 1951, said the lowest number — 16 — was in 1998. The average per year between 1971 and 2000 was 26.7, while the most on record is 39 in 1967." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/21/2010-typhoon-tally-may-be-lowest-on-record/#more-28104
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 12, 2014 22:25:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 12, 2014 22:45:18 GMT
... and, speaking of Weather Underground, I notice that they are calling tropical storm Bakung a cyclone although I cannot see that it has been at Category One and is not forecast to go to that level in the next days: Tropical "Cyclone" Bakung
|
|