backtop

Blog: Science 2007 Hurricane Season: Where's the Beef, Part II
Michael Asher (Blog) - October 29, 2007 3:55 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Nov 16 at 3:31 PM
Doom-and-gloomers are silent as another historically low year comes to a close

Back in July, I predicted 2007 would be a very mild hurricane season. Many called the claim premature, and even irresponsible, despite the fact that other media sources had months earlier predicted far more dire events.

Its now three months later and, with the season in the final month, my crystal ball seems vindicated. COAPS, the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, has just released data showing 2007 activity to be nearly 50% below average. In their own words, unless we experience a dramatic flurry in activity, 2007 will rank as historically inactive. Just as the year before was.

That's right -- two years in a row of historically low hurricane activity. Yet one of the primary fright-factor tenets of global warming is that it will increase hurricane activity. The real world contradicts the fright-factor predictions of computer models. Once again.

Is two years a trend? Not much ... but data shows landfalling hurricanes (the only kind accurately measured before satellite data) have trended downward the last half of the century. This is in line with the research mentioned in Part I of this blog, which predicts warming will lead to a more mild climate with fewer storms, not more.

There are, of course, computer models that claim the opposite. But like many other doom and gloom predictions, these aren't being born out by real-world data. And so it goes.

In 2005, a single hurricane season was used to justify all sorts of media scare stories about the effects of global warming. Now, with two very low years behind us -- and a century of gradual declines -- the media is suspiciously silent. Obviously bad news sells better than good ... but doesn't the public deserve some truth?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 1:28:32 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, enough. I realize that, yes, some people do make their living making exaggerated claims of environmental doom and gloom; yes, some news agencies are less than ethical and honest, and attribute every environmental disaster to global warming in order to up their numbers; and yes, global warming has not yet been proven to be disastrous, nor is its existence entirely the doing of human efforts.

But we're discussing something that could have a significant effect in the agricultural, industrial, economic, environmental and social arenas of the earth, and we would be remiss in entirely ignoring the possibility that we are influencing environmental changes that could be majorly detrimental to human existence on this planet. This is not purely a political issue, nor is it purely a black-and-white one, and those of you dismissing it as one are missing the point entirely.

To put it in economic terms, if our industrial production is causing a certain percentage of environmental change that is both negative and preventable, to take preventative measures now has a lower opportunity cost than to have to take drastic action in the future to fix potential catastophes. We buy insurance in case of house fires, theft, and untimely death, but we don't do so because they're all imminent and guaranteed - we do so in case the worst happens. Why, then, is it not economically and socially viable to take similar preventative measures in other arenas? "Hope for the best, plan for the worst" should be a motto that applies to all kinds of planning, but some people seem to conveniently gloss over that philosophy when it comes to something that clashes with either their political or personal ideals.

Do we know with 100% certainty that global warming is going to kill us all and that mankind is solely responsible for it? Of course not, and that perception is missing the point as well. Do we know that global warming might have significantly detrimental effects, and that human action might have an effect on it? Yes, and we would be irresponsible to say that "might" is not good enough to investigate or take into account.

And for all you people shouting "LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS LOL," you're merely reducing the discourse here to childish quarreling, and it's entirely unnecessary and detrimental to any kind of actual discussion.




By mdogs444 on 10/30/2007 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do we know that global warming might have significantly detrimental effects, and that human action might have an effect on it? Yes, and we would be irresponsible to say that "might" is not good enough to investigate or take into account.


Might is not a good enough reason to place increased environmental sanctions on companies in an effort to become more "green" for reasons that we cannot prove - all it will do is increase their operating expenses and lose US jobs. Too many people are environtmentally gung-ho and do not take into concern that the US is the most powerful country in the world for two reasons: Military & Economy. Neither is worth sacrificing for a global warming "might" that has no solid scientific proof that we caused it, or that we can stop it.


By geddarkstorm on 10/30/2007 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
None the less, it is important we concentrate our technological development towards more advanced and environmentally conscious ends. It isn't wise to attack what is now, as you say, but we definitely need to focus on a new technological base (less based on coal power and gasoline for instance; and lower energy consuming electronics). This also potentially has the serendipitous effect of creating new market nitches and driving the economy and employment rates to greater heights. In the end, it is still absolutely foolhearty to wreck one's own habitat, and we should do what we can to reasonably minimize such wrecking ('reasonably' is what most extremists miss of course) without wrecking our economy in the process.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 4
I think what's often forgotten is that economies thrive on efficiency, and, ultimately, efficiency and environmentally conscious go hand-in-hand.


By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up a very valid point that the flat-earther's...er climate deniers love to ignore. Even if you're in complete denial about AGW, it's pretty obvious at this point that we would benefit from diversifying our energy system in the US away from fossil fuels. But, to many on this blog, Al Gore is trying to eat your children, so we have to destroy every satanic message he puts out and understand that every scientist has been bought by big solar.


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 4:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pretty obvious at this point that we would benefit from diversifying our energy system in the US away from fossil fuels
In theory, yes. In practice, wasting billions on pie in the sky energy production schemes doesn't benefit us at all. It hurts.

quote:
Al Gore is trying to eat your children
No, I think he's just exploiting a political hot button for fame and power, even though he doesn't personally believe in it himself. But then again, most politicians do that.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 6:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I was actually driving at the other side of the coin. A free-market will naturally seeks more efficient means of production. And thus, in many instances, leaving things alone will let the economy work out the problems we're seeing with the environment.

As the great James Carville says - well, you know it already.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 4:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is part of what I was trying to convey: Certain actions that may not have immediate short-term profitability or widespread success may end up being enormously vital and successful investments for the future. Some of the actions being taken now are indeed too drastic and rash (for instance, the sudden leap to biofuel), but doing nothing at all is a bad long-term investment as well. Taking rational, reasonable steps towards sustainability and ecological balance is the best way to approach the future, rather than irrational all-or-nothing approaches that are economically and logistically unfeasible. As geddarkstorm said, these kinds of changes will actually boost the economy and social well-being when properly carried out, and in fact many people who are written off as "radical greenies" are mutually concerned about the long-term economic viability of our current energy model.

Besides, isn't investing in our long-term survival and sustainability the most critical investment we can make? A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things, and neither side seems willing to budge from their far-divided stances.


By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Good points.

quote:
A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things, and neither side seems willing to budge from their far-divided stances.


There really is no far-divided stance in the scientific community regarding AGW; this blog is fueled by ignoring/dismissing the majority of the published work of climate science professionals out there. Masher's assertive stance is never followed up by the peer-reviewed publications that counter his point. I guess that's the job of the real scientists out there. It's a one-way argument left up to the readers to answer. When that answer is provided, it's promptly ignored and it's back to the rosy candyland predictions and foil hattery we read here frequently.

If you're looking for a real scientific discussion by experts in the field, go to realclimate.org. Most of Masher's BS is soundly crushed by people who know the subject better than anyone here, myself included.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 5:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so much talking about the "it's there or it's not" stances - I'm addressing the extreme ends of addressing the issue as a whole, whether it's wholesale tinfoil fingers-in-ears ignorance or militant advocacy of basically destroying industry. The problem is that, in the United States, this issue has become so politicized that many people dive wholesale into the party line, without doing the barest modicum of research for themselves.

In my opinion, the best way to address the objective concern of our impact on the environment and the sustainability of our current energy model would be to say, "We have [X], [Y] and [Z] data, which indicates that we could run into [N] problems in the future. What is the best way to prevent [N] from occurring with the least detrimental impact to the economic and social systems in place right now?" No wild, unfounded speculation, no fearmongering, no hype, no politicization and, most of all, an objective eye towards the issue at hand. Unfortunately, we as a nation have linked politics so inextricably with our other viewpoints that it's a nasty web to untangle.


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 4:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A balanced and rational approach is the best possible way to do things
Lol, there is nothing "balanced and rational" in the current media/political hysteria over global warming. And all the money we're pouring down the tubes in government subsidies for windfarms and biofuels isn't helping us one bit. Its hurting us.


By Symmetriad on 10/30/2007 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lol, there is nothing "balanced and rational" in the current media/political hysteria over global warming.


Did I say there was? There are legitimate concerns over it, but there are certainly plenty of parties who are taking it to an illogical extent.

And is there anything "balanced and rational" in the anti-environmentalist hysteria opposing the very concept of global warming?


By grenableu on 10/30/2007 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is there anything "balanced and rational" in the anti-environmentalist hysteria opposing the very concept of global warming?
I don't hear anyone opposing the CONCEPT. I hear people saying that even if the earth is warming a bit, that most is probably due to natural cycles, and that all evidence points to it being somewhere between a good thing to a mild problem. Not a catastrophe. That we should move slowly and cautiously, and not make a kneejerk reactions that may make things worse.

That sounds pretty rational and balanced. Certainly a lot more than those who pushed biofuels as a "solution", only to find out they produce more greenhouse gases than gasoline. Smooth move there, guys.

I also hear people saying that basing trillion-dollar policy decisions on computer models that have never once made a single accurate prediction is pretty silly. That sounds pretty balanced and rational also.


By ziggo on 10/30/2007 5:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

I have no "anti-globalwarming" sentinment. I am just pro reason and rational thought. Anti-Fear mongering.

Is the earth warming a bit? I personally think the possible errors in the data are greater than the indicated trends. Junk in... Junk out...

Is Global warming a bad thing? Nobody has been able to prove it one way or the other, and you better be able to prove something before I give you my money.

I know the risks exist for getting in a car accident or becoming sick. Thus I purchase insurance for these things. I am not going to pay for insurance against a hostile alien landing simply because "scientists agree" it is likly that there is life out there, and have created models that predict the liklyhood that they are hostile.

Limiting CO2 production directly limits energy usage. The use of energy is the only reason 90% of the population isn't still out in the fields farming. And CO2 is a really crappy greenhouse gas.


By onelittleindian on 10/30/2007 1:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and we would be remiss in entirely ignoring the possibility
We're not asking anyone to "ignore the possibility". We're just asking them to not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that probably doesn't exist.

So the earth is warming a little. Every time its done that in the past, its been good for humans and life in general. Its the COLD that causes problems. Like someone said above, when Greenland warmed up, people moved in. When it got cooled off, they couldn't survive there any more.

As several scientists have pointed out, actions like Kyoto are "an insurance policy" that costs far more than any possible payout. Right now, more research is good, but crippling our economy with silly measures like cap-and-trade carbon programs and massive subsidies for impractical energy schemes is just plain silly.


By clovell on 10/30/2007 2:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We buy insurance in case of house fires, theft, and untimely death, but we don't do so because they're all imminent and guaranteed - we do so in case the worst happens. Why, then, is it not economically and socially viable to take similar preventative measures in other arenas?

Because you're dealing with public policy and taxes - two things that are compulsory. Buying such insurance is optional, while abiding by laws and public policy is not. It's not that people don't want others telling them what to do - as long as there is a compelling reason with as much evidence to support it.

AGW does not meet those criteria - and I'm not talking about a 100% burden of proof - I'm talking about the same 95% that juries, doctors, and scientists in almost every other field use everyday to determine significance.

'Might' is good enough to investigate and be aware. 'Might' isn't good enough to raise my taxes, rattle economies, make doomsday predictions, or indoctrinate my children.

Aside from that, I see your point =D


By SoCalBoomer on 10/30/2007 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your point is relevant IFF the Nobel Peace Prize Winner didn't forward the specific point of the article as proof of Global Warming (r) (which should be called Global Climate Change) - when advocates of GW cite Katrina as definitive proof of GW, it makes mockery of that entire branch of the argument (not the whole argument, but hurts that one branch.)

We discuss a LOT of things that COULD have a significant effect in the agricultural, economic, environmental, and social arenas of the earth.

Not long ago, issues with bee colony collapse were being discussed as being attributable to GW - turns out it WAS indeed a virus (and since virii don't care about GW, it's pretty much dismissable.) Definitely applicable to life on earth - but while it COULD have a significant effect, to exaggerate it as climate scareologists did is FUD.

Right now, the wildfires in Southern Cali are being attributed to GW, utterly discounting the fact that one of them was lit by a hiker/hunter who was lost and lit a signal fire, others by arson, one possibly by downed power lines - none of those influence by GW. Wait, you say, the tinder was dry because of drought brought on by GW. . . Well, sorry, once the fires get going, they just keep on going - as witnessed by several years ago when we had nasty wildfires right after a hard El Nino event where Southern Cali was DRENCHED in rain (over 200% of our normal) - when desert winds funnel from the High Desert and Palm Springs, etc. like they do every single year in the same or similar frequency, it's not GW. It's not GW when they dry out our chaparral. And it's not GW when idiots light fires which get whipped up by those selfsame Santa Ana winds.

My point is specifically that while, yes, our climate is changing and yes, we are contributing to it to some degree and in some fashion, when the GW apologists try to use incidents of disaster as proof, they're often WRONG and they need to ADMIT it.

More hurricanes cannot be used as an argument FOR GW since the number is NOT increasing.

Santa Ana wildfires cannot be used as an argument FOR GW since they are not GW induced - and the increase in damage is NOT due to their severity, it's due to OUR stupidity in building right in their paths!!! (ever heard of Turtle Mountain and Frank Slide?)

Al Gore and his ilk need to drop the FUD and resort to facts and reality - doing so will raise their credibility and convert many who doubt, and rightly so with the dubious "facts" that are being used.


RE: Hurricanes
By gradoman on 10/29/2007 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 5
As a person from the Caribbean, I'm always looking at the weather maps, the predictions and posts like these. I must agree with you that the media does harp on all the bad; nary the good.

Moving to NY and living with a fear monger for an in-law, I always have to argue that down where I used to live, St Thomas, we haven't had a major hurricane since '95 with Marilyn and that while there is a major hit every few years -- Marilyn, Hugo, Andrew, Katrina, Rita are a few I recall -- you can't say the world is f*cking ending cause of 1 or 2 serious strikes every 5-10 years and a little bit of unexpected warm weather.

Makes me sick to no end to hear those idiots at CNN and NOAA harp on and on about how bad the next season will be.

Thank you for a reality check.




RE: Hurricanes
By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 8:47:55 PM , Rating: 4
If you think CNN is bad now...wait till they release the new movie "Planet In Peril" that claims the fires WERE contributed by global warming!

haha.. CNN = Corrupt New Network


RE: Hurricanes
By gradoman on 10/29/2007 9:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen CNN in some time now, but I want to see this nonsense.

/really tired of one-sided news.


RE: Hurricanes
By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 9:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
Here ya go! enjoy the liberal propaganda!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet.in.peril/


RE: Hurricanes
By masher2 (blog) on 10/29/2007 9:11:24 PM , Rating: 3
> "If you think CNN is bad now...wait till they release the new movie "Planet In Peril" that claims the fires WERE contributed by global warming!"

CNN already did try to link the fires to global warming. See this link:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/2007...


You don't know what you're talking about
By DOSGuy on 10/31/2007 1:34:22 AM , Rating: 3
I really don't know what you're talking about. Between 1950 and 2000, the average hurricane season had 9.6 named storms, of which 5.9 were hurricanes and 2.3 were major hurricanes. 2005 was, by far, the most active season ever, so the last few years have really changed the average. Between 1950 and 2005, the average hurricane season had 11.0 named storms, of which 6.2 were hurricanes and 2.7 were major hurricanes.

The 2007 hurricane season ends November 30. So far there have been 14 named storms, of which 4 were hurricanes and 2 were major hurricanes. More named storms than usual, slightly less hurricanes, and an average number of major hurricanes (since it's impossible to have 0.3 or 0.7 major hurricanes in one year).

Actually, 2007 is one of only four years to ever have two Category 5 hurricanes, the others being 1960, 1961, and 2005. It is also the first year in which two storms have made landfall as Category 5 storms.

CSU still expects more storms before the end of the season. By the time it ends, there will have been more named storms than usual, and probably an average number of hurricanes and major hurricanes. Officially, this season has been more active than usual.

I like how eager people are to jump to conclusions based on a single report. Maybe do some research before you start to proclaim that you're smarter than the experts.




RE: You don't know what you're talking about
By porkpie on 10/31/2007 10:11:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I really don't know what you're talking about
Probably because you didn't read the report. Based on ACE (which measures the total destructive power of a hurricane season), 2007 is way below average.

quote:
2005 was, by far, the most active season ever
Bzzzt!. No, it was just the most active season since we began putting up weather satellites. Before that, we missed many of the storms that never struck land. So we just don't know how it compared to earlier years.

Now click on the link in the article above. It shows that land-striking hurricanes have decreased quite a bit. Now what does that tell you?

quote:
I like how eager people are to jump to conclusions based on a single report
It's not a single report. It's this report, plus all the other reports downgrading 2007, plus all the failed predictions for 2006 (much quieter than 2007, even).


RE: You don't know what you're talking about
By DOSGuy on 10/31/2007 3:20:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Probably because you didn't read the report. Based on ACE (which measures the total destructive power of a hurricane season), 2007 is way below average.


Of course I read the report! ACE is about overall strength. It's true that this year's named storms have tended to not become hurricanes, but two of them were among the most powerful hurricanes ever recorded in the Atlantic. Are you really basing your argument on ACE? What I said is that this has been more active than usual. Strength and activity are different things.

quote:
quote:
2005 was, by far, the most active season ever

Bzzzt!. No, it was just the most active season since we began putting up weather satellites. Before that, we missed many of the storms that never struck land. So we just don't know how it compared to earlier years.


Oh, goodness me! I totally forgot that we didn't used to have satellites! Not.

Of course I know that we are much better able to record storms now. So much so that, during the post-season analysis, we sometimes find storms that went unnamed during the season. For example, 2005 had 28 tropical storms, but only 27 got names. Everyone knows that satellites have improved our ability to report storms. Don't pretend that I don't know that! The fact remains that I'm talking about averages since 1950, during most of which time the Earth had geosynchronous satellites of varying degrees of sophistication. We've been pretty good at tracking hurricanes for more than a generation.

quote:
It's this report, plus all the other reports downgrading 2007, plus all the failed predictions for 2006 (much quieter than 2007, even).


Are you still calling the experts idiots? You'd better provide some evidence that the experts have been wrong about 2007. Oh wait, I've brought some!

The two organizations that create predictions for hurricane activity are the NOAA and CSU. UKMO threw in a prediction on June 19 that turned out to be on the low side. These are all of the predictions between December 8, 2006 to October 2, 2007. They're consistent, and they've been right on the money.

Named storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes
CSU | December 8, 2006 | 14 | 7 | 3
CSU | April 3, 2007 | 17 | 9 | 5
NOAA | May 22, 2007 | 13–17 | 7–10 | 3–5
CSU | May 31, 2007 | 17 | 9 | 5
UKMO | June 19, 2007 | 9–15 | N/A | N/A
CSU | August 3, 2007 | 15 | 8 | 4
NOAA | August 9, 2007 | 13–16 | 7–9 | 3–5
CSU | September 4, 2007 | 15 | 7 | 4
CSU | October 2, 2007 | 17 | 7 | 3

Actual activity 14 | 4 | 2

I wish I could predict sports scores with that kind of accuracy!


RE: You don't know what you're talking about
By porkpie on 10/31/2007 3:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "The two organizations that create predictions for hurricane activity are the NOAA and CSU"

Lol, both those agencies have lowered their figures multiple times this year. The figures you're quoting are their REVISED ones, made mid-way through the season.

Here's a few links for you:

CSU revises 2007 downward once more:

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7156856

NOAA revises 2007 downward:

http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news/barbados/article_...

2007 Forecast lowered:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/hurricane_g...


By DOSGuy on 11/1/2007 8:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO! You cited two articles where the NOAA and CSU lowered the predictions by just one named storm as evidence that "both those agencies have lowered their figures multiple times this year." Couldn't find any evidence to prove your claim? Read the predictions I posted. They are consistent. Incidentally, Noel is now a hurricane, so the predictions are even closer, and the season isn't over yet.

I didn't post in order to start an argument. The internet is full of arrogant people blowing their own horn about how they're smarter than the experts, but I just expected a little better on AnandTech.


RE: You don't know what you're talking about
By porkpie on 10/31/2007 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Strength and activity are different things."
Wrong. The NOAA measures activity by ACE + total storms. Here's a link to explain it:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/backgrou...

quote:
"The fact remains that I'm talking about averages since 1950"
That conveniently ignores the fact that the 1940s and the late 1800s were much more active than today. But even if you only look back to 1950, 2005 didn't break all records. 1950 had more major storms than 2005 (8 vs. 7) and very likely had a much greater ACE (though without satellites, we couldn't measure it).

And of course 2006 and 2007 have been well below average. So much for your "trend" of worsening hurricanes from global warming.


By DOSGuy on 11/1/2007 8:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
I never said there was a trend of worsening hurricanes! Read my posts. The only thing I had a problem with was someone selectively citing a single article to claim that 2007 has been less active than usual, which isn't true, in order to prove his point.


Hm.
By clovell on 10/29/2007 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I'd see some mention of El Nino or La Nina in the article.




RE: Hm.
By masher2 (blog) on 10/29/2007 5:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't fit a comprehensive description of the ENSO-hurricane interaction within my word limit. Certainly all credible hurricanologists agree that the variability on the number and intensity of tropical cyclones is influenced primarily by ENSO, not climate change.

We're expected to see another la Nina event soon, which means 2008 may well be a strong hurricane season. If that occurs, expect the usual suspects to blame it all on global warming again.


RE: Hm.
By Ringold on 10/29/2007 7:13:51 PM , Rating: 1
Fear not. With no hurricane ammunition this year, blaming the wild fires on global warming is all the rage.

I'm betting it was an act of terror, though wouldn't bet on if it was one done by a random lone idiot or carried out by the order of a wider international group.


RE: Hm.
By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 8:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
So what are you saying Ringold & Master - that everything Dingy Reid & Barbara Boxer claim is false?!?! What do you mean that 1 degree increase isn't to blame? Run for the hills everyone, global warming is coming.....women and children first!

Ok really, Im joking. Those two are idiots. I think I have a headache now, must be getting a fever......damn you global warming, your heating up my body temperature!


RE: Hm.
By clovell on 10/30/2007 11:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thankfully I wo't have to worry about the 08 season for myself as I moved from the Gulf Coast this summer, but I've still got plenty of friends and relatives down there.

I just find that most people who attribute increased hurricane activity to GW give a blank stare when El Nino is mentioned. As if any mention of the primary predictor of tropical activity is heresy.


Severity
By smitty3268 on 10/29/2007 7:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
What about the severity rather than just the # of hurricanes? Weren't there an unusually high number of very strong ones this year? (I could be wrong...)

I agree with your larger point, though.




RE: Severity
By masher2 (blog) on 10/29/2007 7:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
There were 2 major (Category 3+) hurricanes this season.

For comparison, 1950 saw 8 major hurricanes, including one (Hurricane Dog) which may have been the strongest Atlantic storm on record.


RE: Severity
By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 9:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Shhh....dont give the full details. It just might argue against global warming!


NOAA climate prediction and season definition
By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 5:31:01 PM , Rating: 3
Here's how the NOAA defines the activity of a hurricane season:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/backgrou...

The season stretches from June 1st to Nov 30. The hurricane season thus far has been a bit odd in that we had two cat 5 major hurricanes, but fewer named hurricanes than normal. ACE index is right around the average so far.




By masher2 (blog) on 10/30/2007 8:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "ACE index is right around the average so far. "

No. From the link in the article above:
quote:
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less [ACE] activity to date Jan 1-Oct 30.
That's not "right about average". It's historically low.


What about Asia?
By 16nm on 10/31/2007 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
It is funny that you post this now, because just yesterday I was laughing with some friends about the named storms predictions for North America and how few we actually had. I joke that when they predict many, we see few, and when it's predicted to be a quiet season then all hell breaks loose.

But have you considered Asia/China? I was under the impression that they had a pretty active season.

At any rate, Global Warming will not matter much in the future if the cost of oil keeps climbing the way it is.




RE: What about Asia?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/31/2007 10:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "But have you considered Asia/China? I was under the impression that they had a pretty active season."

The 2007 Pacific hurricane season is low as well. So far, 4 hurricanes, 1 major hurricane, and the third lowest total ACE since record-keeping began in 1971.


2006 was not an unusually quiet year
By Andy35W on 11/13/2007 1:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
2006 had nine named storms, five hurricanes, two intense hurricanes, 50 days with a named storm, and 20 days with a hurricane and so was just below the average for an Atlantic hurricane season.The Pacific had slightly greater activity than the average.The wording in the original blog entry is therefore not in alignment with the facts, it was not an unusually quiet year. 2007 is not finished yet either but that can not be classed as unusually quiet either.

The original blog is correct in saying that you cannot pin hurricane activity from one year to the next on global warming, trends are a lot longer than this short tiemscale and measurements have improved over the years so clouding the long term trend in this respect.




By masher2 (blog) on 11/16/2007 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
The 2006 Season was the quietest in a decade, and ended without one single hurricane striking the US. The ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) index for the three years before 2006 averaged over 200. 2006 itself scored below a 50, well below the median value for the entire century, and a tiny fraction of the median for the decade preceeding.

Here's a chart from the NCDC which makes it all very clear:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006...


re
By BAFrayd on 10/29/2007 8:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where are all the Gore Kool-aid drinkers?




RE: re
By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 8:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
They are too busy trying to save the 4 drowning polar bears....


Heat
By ricleo2 on 10/30/2007 7:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hurricanes are nature’s way of giving off heat. Rising heat from the oceans create a hurricane. Extrapolate that to the myth of global warming.




By mdogs444 on 10/29/2007 10:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
The looney's just get crazier and crazier by the day.

You mean, there have been changes to our landscape since over 500 yrs ago? Holy cow! Whats next, a man on the moon?


By masher2 (blog) on 10/29/2007 11:20:38 PM , Rating: 4
> "just look at the infamous northwest passage that never existed in Columbus's time"

Where do people get this stuff? The Northwest Passage has been open many times in history. It was navigated in 1905 by by Roald Amundsen, and in 1850, Robert McClure saw it was open (though he was unable to fully complete the passage)

> "You should also look at Greenland, where they have been able to grow new vegetables and fruits that they never grew before "

Where do you think the name 'Greenland' came from? When first discovered, it was much warmer than it is today, and supported a wide variety of agriculture. In fact, as the ice sheet retreats in Greenland today, we're finding the remains of 1000-year old villages and mines underneath.


By howtochooseausername on 10/30/2007 11:18:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where do people get this stuff? The Northwest Passage has been open many times in history.


True. But I think the poster meant that the northwest passage is now opening up year-round. Previously it would open up maybe once a year, and some years not at all. I believe that the prevalent scientific theory is that the sustained opening of the Northwest passage is due to Global Warming.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/...

quote:
Where do you think the name 'Greenland' came from? When first discovered, it was much warmer than it is today


I don't think that's right. I think it was named 'Greenland' to encourage people to try and settle there. It would help if you had something to back up that claim.


By masher2 (blog) on 10/30/2007 12:18:11 PM , Rating: 3
> "But I think the poster meant that the northwest passage is now opening up year-round."

It's not open-year round. It's expected to do so within a few decades, and it probably will. But given that the polar icecaps have been steadily melting for the past 7,000 years, this demonstrates nothing about the theory of global warming. The Earth has had permanent ice caps for only around 5% of the planet's history. Geologically speaking, icecaps are an unusual event.

In any event, a permanent opening of the Northwest Passage is a very good thing for humanity. It shortens key shipping routes by several thousand miles, saving enormous amounts of cost, time, and fuel.

> "I don't think that's right. I think it was named 'Greenland' to encourage people to try and settle there"

When the Vikings first settled Greenland during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period), it was substantially warmer than today.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282...

It cooled enough during the Little Ice Age to force the Norse to abandon it.

If you go back even further, drilling under the kilometers of ice still in Greenland, you find the remains of vast pine forests, showing Greenland was far warmer still several hundred thousand years ago:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/news07...


By Keeir on 10/30/2007 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think that's right. I think it was named 'Greenland' to encourage people to try and settle there. It would help if you had something to back up that claim.


Hmmm... just check out the History of Greenland Wiki entry(and do the checking of the links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

There is a nice graph of temperature versus year on the page based on Ice Core samples and other inductive evidence...

I wouldn't say Greenland was "Warmer" but I would say at least as warm as today such that for centuries European argiculture was possible! Even the use of pigs and cows (and thus the feed stock required to feed them)


By SoCalBoomer on 10/30/2007 5:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Greenland has a burial ground situated in what is now permafrost. There is archaeological evidence of people living even farther north - on permanently frozen Ellismore and New Siberian islands.

Here's the deal - when the Norse settled what is now Greenland, they did not have the ability to dig graves in permafrost, shoot, WE have issues with it. Archaeologists figure that the temperatures at this time (1100 to 1300) were 4 degrees warmer than now.

Another little tidbit, just FYI - you did know that England and Newfoundland used to grow grapes for wine back in the middle ages, right? The fact that wine grapes just don't grow well in England and NF anymore was used in the 1970s and 80s as an argument for Global Cooling. It was warmer and drier in the 1100-1300 period than it is now.

If you really want to look at this type of evidence critically, it's out there. Look specifically for vegetation ranges of limited climate plants like wine grapes, even specific types of nettles - it's very indicative of climate conditions.


By Schrag4 on 10/31/2007 2:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
"True. But I think the poster meant that the northwest passage is now opening up year-round. Previously it would open up maybe once a year, and some years not at all."

<sarcasm>
OMGZ!!!! Everyone knows that as soon as it's open year round, we're all going to die!!!!
</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, are you proposing that we somehow try to control the climate so that it never changes, ever? Good luck with that.

Oh, and if we somehow ever figured out how to change the climate ourselves effectively, I bet we kill off the planet much faster than if we continued doing what we're doing today. We simply don't understand it enough to be able to say what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', what 'should' be and what 'should not' be (in regard to the earth's climate). Those who pretend to know are either arrogant or deceptive.


Dear Masher;
By Tim Thorpe on 10/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Dear Masher;
By svenkesd on 10/30/2007 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
if it takes a global warming theory to light a fire under peoples respective asses and start practicing good environmentalism it can't be a bad thing.


If people or organizations make a profit from false/exaggerated information related to global warming (Al Gore), then it can be a bad thing.


RE: Dear Masher;
By mdogs444 on 10/30/2007 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know about you but I've tasted gasoline and I certainly wouldn't want to drink it.


I think the Global Warming nuts have also tasted gasoline....except they haven't stopped drinking it yet. Perhaps tastes too much like Kool-Aid?


RE: Dear Masher;
By clovell on 10/30/2007 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that's why we use models - if we knew all the variables, we'd use equations. And where there are models, there are statistics, which are often misinterpreted by researchers and laypeople alike. However, a discriminating and quantitative mind can certainly make educated decisions regarding the underlying truth of many phenomenon when rigor is applied.

No, we may not understand all the forces in effect, but we can determine with reasonable certainty what the effect is. Let's not cloud the issue.

And yes, popular 'good environmentalism' can be a 'bad' thing - e.g. CFLs, Hybrid vehicles' actual carbon footprint, nonproliferation of nuclear energy, etc.

If the truth won't change people's minds, I say let em burn. It's about time we stopped thinking we know so much better than everyone else that we can lie / misrepresent science just to get a result we 'think' is good.


RE: Dear Masher;
By onelittleindian on 10/30/2007 1:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know about you but I've tasted gasoline and I certainly wouldn't want to drink it.
I wouldn't want to drink bleach, paint, liquid soap, or urine either. Do you suggest we stop making them as well? Good luck then...especially with the last one.

quote:
if it takes a global warming theory to light a fire under peoples respective asses and start practicing good environmentalism it can't be a bad thing.
In other words, you don't care if its true or not, as long as it scares people into taking action?


RE: Dear Masher;
By mdogs444 on 10/30/2007 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, you don't care if its true or not, as long as it scares people into taking action?


Exactly. Its a fear-monger tactic to counter the republican party.


RE: Dear Masher;
By Rovemelt on 10/30/2007 2:47:57 PM , Rating: 1
DailyTech has become the comic relief blog of climate science. Bloggers here are so entrenched in their denial that no useful discourse can happen. You'll just get down-rated if you say something those in denial don't want to hear, as you've just discovered.

For a scientifically relevant discussion on climate science from climate scientists, go to www.realclimate.org.


RE: Dear Masher;
By mdogs444 on 10/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dear Masher;
By clovell on 10/30/2007 6:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
A knee-jerk for a knee-jerk makes everybody a jerk.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation













botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki