Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Br Cornelius

North Atlantic tropical storms increase

46 posts in this topic

http://web.archive.org/web/20100814083531im_/http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/NATL-TS-Frequency_1930-2007.gif

This figure shows the number of named tropical storms in the North Atlantic, per year, smoothed out over a 10-year running average to minimize the noise in year-to-year variation. Since 1996, tropical storm frequency has exceeded by 40% the old historic maximum of the mid-1950s, previously considered extreme. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest a link between higher sea surface temperature and storm frequency. Extreme weather events are a projected impact of global climate change.

http://web.archive.o...acts/storms.cfm

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this may be the new normal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this may be the new normal.

http://web.archive.o...y_1930-2007.gif

the graph above cherry picks the end point and crops the bottom of the graph, it makes it look more scary, not to mention they were not actively and accurately counting and looking for storms way back then as they are now, that's why the graph says "named" storms, and not to mention it is not a global measurement, just the atlantic, so again cherry picking if the intent was to imply storm frequency as increasing due to co2.

here is real data, up to date and honest.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/

north_atlantic_hurricane.png

here is the situation globally, as you can see there is nothing to write home about, they show a small decline in number and intensity, so your fears are not founded in the data.

frequency_12months.png

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You often hear alarmists stating that insurance figures prove that cyclone/hurricane intensity is up.

The fact is that in the list of the top 10 most costly hurricanes in the USA (adjusted to 2005 USD) only one has been in the period of "anthropogenic global warming" which was Hurricane Katrina (at no.2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've crossed the Atlantic maybe up to 30 times in 1962/3 and I can remember only twice when we had good weather both ways,but maybe your statistics dont go back that far.The weather can brew up in a matter of a few hours whether you take the North about route,in the summer, or the South route, in the Winter,and a 40000 ton ship can be chucked about like a cork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sailed into Philadelphia too didn't you Spud? Just wondering if you went up the Delaware Bay. It was bad there. I know it has a long history of shipwrecks going to the late 1600s but when I took the ferry from Cape May, NJ to Lewes, DE you could see a line of tankers and ocean type vessels I assumed were heading to Wilmington and Philly. Don't think anything like that happened now but I'm sure it was rough sailing for them with the surges going up the bay.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global storm tracking is not what this thread is pointing out and is not relevant. However on a Global scale extreme weather events (storms/floods/droughts) have been on a steady rise over the last century. Insurance data is the best data we have on tracking this trend - and it shows a clear upward trend in recorded extreme weather events.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sailed into Philadelphia too didn't you Spud? Just wondering if you went up the Delaware Bay. It was bad there. I know it has a long history of shipwrecks going to the late 1600s but when I took the ferry from Cape May, NJ to Lewes, DE you could see a line of tankers and ocean type vessels I assumed were heading to Wilmington and Philly. Don't think anything like that happened now but I'm sure it was rough sailing for them with the surges going up the bay.

Hiya, Susie, yep Hampton Roads for orders then either to Philly or Baltimore to load up Iron Ore or Coal,then back to Rotterdam, it got really monotonous after 6 months,especially in Winter,They made a film called The Perfect Storm,which actually happened on our 3rd trip over, (I have a copy of the original weather chart.)it took 17 days from Rotterdam to your East coast, when it normally took 7.Everyone was going to give up the Sea,ha ha,but most of us signed on again. I hope Sandy didnt cause a lot of damage in your area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global storm tracking is not what this thread is pointing out and is not relevant. However on a Global scale extreme weather events (storms/floods/droughts) have been on a steady rise over the last century. Insurance data is the best data we have on tracking this trend - and it shows a clear upward trend in recorded extreme weather events.

Br Cornelius

If insurance data is the best you can come up with, I dont rate it.. How about Meteorological reports where weather maps/charts give a day to day picture on world weather patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya, Susie, yep Hampton Roads for orders then either to Philly or Baltimore to load up Iron Ore or Coal,then back to Rotterdam, it got really monotonous after 6 months,especially in Winter,They made a film called The Perfect Storm,which actually happened on our 3rd trip over, (I have a copy of the original weather chart.)it took 17 days from Rotterdam to your East coast, when it normally took 7.Everyone was going to give up the Sea,ha ha,but most of us signed on again. I hope Sandy didnt cause a lot of damage in your area.

A lot of people without power still. Trees down everywhere and roofs blown off here in town. They said any danger of the rivers flooding is over. We here will be alright in a week or so after all the power is restored. There is only one ship I heard was in trouble and that was on the Atlantic. They were trying to go around the storm and didn't make it. It had 18 crewmen. 2 were missing and 1 died after rescue. That's the last I heard. It was called the Bountiful or something like that. It's amazing you were in that storm. I saw that movie and it didn't look good. Was it really like that?

Edited by susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If insurance data is the best you can come up with, I dont rate it.. How about Meteorological reports where weather maps/charts give a day to day picture on world weather patterns.

Why do you dismiss data from an industry who's very existance requires they have up to the minute accurate data on risk - otherwise they go out of business.

Science has the unfortunate restraint that it takes about 5yrs for a piece of research to be published from onset to public. It also generally requires a new theory to be proposed in order for that data to ever get out there. Then there is the fact that scientists are extremely reluctant to make statements which could be considered declarative.

I put my faith in where ever the actual data is strongest. However there are scientific studies showing extreme weather increases, and one of the main areas of climate research at the moment is statistical modelling of extreme weather event attribution.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

FYI: I just ran the calculations for winter storms in western Arkansas. They are fewer in number since about 1980. Up to that point, they pretty much tracked global mean temps, but in 1980 they started decreasing in number. No explanation. Go figure.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people without power still. Trees down everywhere and roofs blown off here in town. They said any danger of the rivers flooding is over. We here will be alright in a week or so after all the power is restored. There is only one ship I heard was in trouble and that was on the Atlantic. They were trying to go around the storm and didn't make it. It had 18 crewmen. 2 were missing and 1 died after rescue. That's the last I heard. It was called the Bountiful or something like that. It's amazing you were in that storm. I saw that movie and it didn't look good. Was it really like that?

Hi Susie, The ship lost was a sailing ship, a replica of H.M.S.Bounty, and yes I was in that Hurricane,the centre was about a 100 miles away,quite a few vessels were lost,mostly fishing boats,the waves were measured by our Chief Officer, 3 waves to a mile between 60 to 80 feet high,one of them ripped our lifeboats off on the left side of the ship, we lived on corned beef sandwiches for 3 days as you couldnt cook,because the pans wouldnt stay on the stove, and everything got soaking wet, you couldnt lie on your bunk (bed) as you would be thrown off,so very little sleep,I guess we were lucky.It was great when we got to America, everyone was so helpfull,
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you dismiss data from an industry who's very existance requires they have up to the minute accurate data on risk - otherwise they go out of business.

Science has the unfortunate restraint that it takes about 5yrs for a piece of research to be published from onset to public. It also generally requires a new theory to be proposed in order for that data to ever get out there. Then there is the fact that scientists are extremely reluctant to make statements which could be considered declarative.

I put my faith in where ever the actual data is strongest. However there are scientific studies showing extreme weather increases, and one of the main areas of climate research at the moment is statistical modelling of extreme weather event attribution.

Br Cornelius

Ok but perhaps you are commenting on risks on land when I was commenting on risks at sea,the North Atlantic in winter is a dangerous place to be in,which is what this thread is about (I think ?). Lloyds of London are the main Insurance people specialising in ships, but there are dozens of land based insurance companies for all purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

FYI: I just ran the calculations for winter storms in western Arkansas. They are fewer in number since about 1980. Up to that point, they pretty much tracked global mean temps, but in 1980 they started decreasing in number. No explanation. Go figure.

Doug

Surely its because of global warming? i thought everything you looked into was global warming's fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely its because of global warming? i thought everything you looked into was global warming's fault?

Hi, the storms in the North Atlantic had the same intensity 50 yrs ago as they have now,but they weren't broadcast as they are now as we didn't have the communication then or computers,and no weather satellites, have you read or seen true accounts of Captain Eriksson on a ship called "The Flying Enterprise",that guy was one brave hombre,he wouldnt leave his sinking ship which had no hope of surviving as due to a cargo shift it was almost on its side.they eventually got him off as the ship sank beneath him.The only way they could get weather reports was by ships calling in reports from which ever position they were in at the time.Many good ships and crews were lost because they didnt know what was ahead of them,and therefore sailed straight into hurricanes not knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climatologist says Sandy not caused by global warming:

Alabama's top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy said claims that the size of Hurricane Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not backed by the facts. ... He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms. Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climatologist says Sandy not caused by global warming:

Alabama's top climatologist and UA-Huntsville professor, Dr. John Christy said claims that the size of Hurricane Sandy may have been affected by global warming are not backed by the facts. ... He said there is no evidence that global warming is causing more major storms. Source

John Christy :w00t::tu:

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?

By Joe Romm on May 22, 2008 at 11:52 am

I don’t. But should you?

You can’t read everything or listen to everybody. Life is just too short. I debated Christy years ago so I know he tries to peddle unscientific nonsense when he thinks he can get away with it.

But some of the more than 360 (!) comments in my recent post “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP” can’t seem to get enough of the analyses by these two scientists University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) who famously screwed up thesatellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

In the interest of saving you some time, which is a major goal of this blog, let’s see why these are two people you can program your mental DVR to fast forward through. First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate wrote yesterday:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set
, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and
to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist‘s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“).

In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis.

RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr. [Insert your editorial comment here, or here.]

As for Christy, what can you say about somebody who contributed the chapter “The Global Warming Fiasco” to a 2002 book calledGlobal Warming and Other Eco-Myths, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading provider of disinformation on global warming that is/was funded by ExxonMobil?

In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:

There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert,
Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations
. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007).
Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels
, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.

Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes
. Id. at 175:2-174:11. He further agreed with Hansen that the regulation’s effect on radiative forcing will be proportional to the amount of emissions reductions, and that any level of emissions reductions will have at least some effect on the radiative forcing of the climate.

Christy is (mostly) a delayer these days, now that his denier disanalysis has been dissed and the real science is well verified by real observation.

Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3.
In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists
; his view is that models are, in general, “scientifically crude at best,” although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.

You go, judge!

In December 2003, Christy said in a debate:

Restained glee. Yes, that’s going to be the reaction to widespread desertification, loss of the inland glaciers, sea level rise for century after century, mass extinction….

So, if you have time to burn, and a planet to burn, these are the guys to listen to. Otherwise I’d look elsewhere.

http://thinkprogress...-say/?mobile=nc

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Br C -- you are using Joe Romm as an authority about John Cristy. That's basically an ad hominem argument.

In like manner I could well quote Roger Pielke, Jr. where he writes Joe Romm is a Liar.

Pots calling pots black is not convincing proof. :tu:

Karlis

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you only have to look at Ryan Maue's data which i posted in post#3 to see there is no link between warming and storms, or you can email him and he'll tell you the same thing.

storms are caused by temperature differentials not absolute temperatures (where cold meets hot), in which case the global warming hypothesis should be predicting fewer and less intense storms, and again if it is warming globally it says nothing about its cause.

the atlantic is warming due to the AMO which is a ~70 year cycle. we only have 6 years! of reliable data with the argo system. and the atmospheric satellite record is only 30 years old.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Br C -- you are using Joe Romm as an authority about John Cristy. That's basically an ad hominem argument.

In like manner I could well quote Roger Pielke, Jr. where he writes Joe Romm is a Liar.

Pots calling pots black is not convincing proof. :tu:

Karlis

Karlis - the facts pointed out in that article are entirely true. Christy is either very incompetent or he is dishonest. He certainly doesn't have a track record which would encourage anyone to accept his word as Gospel. He has attached himself to highly politicized campaigns which deny climate change.

I treat his opinion in the same way as I treat any politized hacks.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you only have to look at Ryan Maurs data which i posted in post#3 to see there is no link between warming and storms, or you can email him and he'll tell you the same thing.

storms are caused by temperature differentials not absolute temperatures (where cold meets hot), in which case the global warming hypothesis should be predicting fewer and less intense storms, and again if it is warming globally it says nothing about its cause.

the atlantic is warming due to the AMO which is a ~70 year cycle. we only have 6 years! of reliable data with the argo system.

Which entirely ignores the fact that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The energy is accumulating and it is recorded to be accumulating in the deep oceans.

Also temperature is highly differentiated across the global - and this is even more apparent as the system seeks to regain an equilibrium state.

AMO is a response to the energy imbalance - not a cause and is a very dubious index to try to explain the trends of the Global warming trend since it is both polluted by AGW and is a statistical artifact of other trends.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which entirely ignores the fact that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. The energy is accumulating and it is recorded to be accumulating in the deep oceans.
based on 6 years of data. am I allowed to LOL?
Also temperature is highly differentiated across the global - and this is even more apparent as the system seeks to regain an equilibrium state.
of course it is. there is a temperature differential of 120 Celcius between the antarctic and the deserts. but you were claiming recently the arctic has recently risen in temperature compared to other regions which is a decrease in differential meaning there is likely to be less storms.
AMO is a response to the energy imbalance - not a cause.
I'd like to see you prove that. you might win one of Mann's Nobel prizes.

surely it is better to look at the data than construct a logical rhetoric.

the data does not support an increase in storms or their intensity = Christy is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's consider:

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas consisting of about 0.039% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of that 0.039%, Mankind emits about 3.4% of that Carbon Dioxide. I don't know much about maths, but that sounds as if man's input of CO2 could be compared to something like a drop of water into a bucket-full of water

What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

[Edited to add this paragraph:] Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

Details here

Thursday, August 30, 2012

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2"

Source

Edited by Karlis
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on 6 years of data. am I allowed to LOL?

of course it is. there is a temperature differential of 120 Celcius between the antarctic and the deserts. but you were claiming recently the arctic has recently risen in temperature compared to other regions which is a decrease in differential meaning there is likely to be less storms.

I'd like to see you prove that. you might win one of Mann's Nobel prizes.

surely it is better to look at the data than construct a logical rhetoric.

the data does not support an increase in storms or their intensity = Christy is correct.

Latitude variation in temperature is not the most significant factor in generating temperature differentials across the globe. Warming and cooling is highly localised to geographic regions.

Christy is only correct in saying that an attribution of Sandy is not possible. Trends are climate, storms are weather.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.