ForecastTheFacts.Org

[ben4vols]

Yes it should, as a consequence higher available convective energy derived from increased atmospheric water vapor. Also the area exceeding threshold temperature (80F) SST should be expanded and increased allowing storms greater opportunity for development and intensification.

It hasn't happened in the last 50 years with US land falling hurricanes. Over the last 17 years the Atlantic has heated more than any other ocean and yet there is no increase in land falling intensity.

[WeatherRusty]

It hasn't happened in the last 50 years with US land falling hurricanes. Over the last 17 years the Atlantic has heated more than any other ocean and yet there is no increase in land falling intensity.

I don't know about that, but isn't land falling or not just a matter of luck?

That hurricanes should strengthen when the conditions for their formation and intensification are further optimized seems to be an expectation of pretty standard meteorology to me.

In the Atlantic it could be that increasing wind shear will reduce the number of opportunities for development, while warmer, more moist conditions will allow for greater intensification when conditions otherwise permit.

[SVT450R]

That's right, maybe fewer Atlantic storms overall due to increased upper air shear. However, when conditions are otherwise conducive, the warmer SSTs will promote greater intensification.

Agreed

[ben4vols]

I don't know about that, but isn't land falling or not just a matter of luck?

That hurricanes should strengthen when the conditions for their formation and intensification are further optimized seems to be an expectation of pretty standard meteorology to me.

In the Atlantic it could be that increasing wind shear will reduce the number of opportunities for development, while warmer, more most conditions will allow for greater intensification when conditions otherwise permit.

There is a luck component to it (as well as unlucky) but over the last 30 years those should get lost in the noise.

The Table below is from NOAA

[The_Global_Warmer]

We can't say for sure that some were not missed you could just imagine the smaller tropical cyclones and cat 1-2 hurricanes that were passed under the radar so to say.

Those would definitely be harder to track. and quite easy to miss multiple cyclones per year

[OSUmetstud]

Doesn't Landsea believe we missed about 1-2 storms per year back before the satellite era? These would be more likely storms of the weaker and smaller variety.

[CoastalWx]

Anybody who knows anything about meteorology would find it rather comical if we can even think we come close to the actual numbers all the way back to 1000 yrs.

[CoastalWx]

errrrr...if you don't follow climate science, why are you posting in this forum?

Because once in a while, you need to knock some sense into things. Think about that statement. How can we accurately account for all tropical cyclones in the last 1000yrs? Sure we can account for some....and we might even be able to tell busy years from quiet years...but I would find that hard to believe. I mean you see how we have these brief spin ups in remote places like the BOC and that's just one of many examples.

[CoastalWx]

Doesn't Landsea believe we missed about 1-2 storms per year back before the satellite era? These would be more likely storms of the weaker and smaller variety.

At least 1-2 and possibly several.

[ben4vols]

Once again if you peek behind the green curtain what do you find....

LINK TO ARTICLE

Yet again, the World Bank has at heart the interests of the small group of countries responsible for climate change, and not those of the world's poor. It has repeatedly failed to consult the people whose lives will be directly affected by its projects, leading to loss of land and livelihoods for millions. The new climate loans programme perpetuates these problems, as Climate Loan Sharks, the report by our allies at the Word Development Movement, makes clear. What's more, the World Bank has a long history of funding fossil fuel projects, having increased its funding 40-fold in the last five years.

The World Bank and its financial allies are already pushing Bangladesh to privatise and commercialise power, water and education, which will leave the poorest people unable to access essential services. If it retains control of climate finance, it will have even more power over our government.

[CoastalWx]

I said the Atlantic, first.

and second, are you seriously unaware of the peer-reviewed literature on this? how can you be making statements on the subject if you have zero knowledge?

Because as a meteorologist I have an understanding of the intricacies of tropical development and the lack of detection and peer reviewed documents from Landsea among others, about how many storms we might have missed before satellites...even after 1900. I'm sure knowledgeable tropical mets like am19psu would agree.

My contention is that, if they claim they can recreate the history of the tropical Atlantic hurricane season in the last 1000 years....how can this be of any worth with such a margin of error? You realize missing several storms is a big deal right?

[CoastalWx]

think about how one might discover evidence of hurricanes.

Sure you can tell if there has been a major hurricane to hit an area, but how can one recreate the last 1000 years? Like I said, you can perhaps come up with a rough estimation, but I have doubts on how accurate this is, that's all. And what about the storms that develop and fizzle without hitting land?

[CoastalWx]

first, I never said there was a definitive number. I really don't like people twisting my words

here's one paper to help you start educating yourself as to how climate records can be reconstructed: http://www.nature.co...ature08219.html

I don't need an article to tell me how it's reconstructed. You can take your personal and defensive tactics away from the forum, thank you very much. Perhaps that's one of many reasons why mets don't post here often.

Again, if you claim you can reconstruct the past 1000 yrs of tropical activity with a fair amount of accuracy, good luck.

[CoastalWx]

It's the same guys over and over again with this. I see Mann and already begin to question it.

[CoastalWx]

So it claims to have a peak during the medieval times and a lull after. I don't know...considering how we have missed storms in the era of satellites..not sure how examining sediment deposits in Dominica and a statistical model will give us that accurate of a depiction.

[dabize]

It's the same guys over and over again with this. I see Mann and already begin to question it.

This is informative only about you, not about the subject under discussion.

[CoastalWx]

96% of the red taggers who post here are deniers. if having people here who insist on sticking to science keeps more red tag deniers out of here, that's only a good thing.

you're welcome to produce research.

Well this says a lot about your character and beliefs, doesn't it?

I think many red taggers have argued that the Earth has warmed...there is no doubt. All we want to know, is how and why. I'm not sure why you guys must only think it's AGW. Open up your eyes and use science....you know...what you preach so hard.

[ben4vols]

can we stick to posting science in this forum? thanks.

Don't you want to know what your 'science' is being used for? The average Bangladesh citizen will receive almost zero benefit from going 'green' yet the banks who make the loans and the companies who supply the product will receive most of the benefit. The science of global warming may (with a heavy emphasis on may) not be a fraud but it is being used to perpetrate a fraud on a lot of smaller countries.

[SVT450R]

And people wonder why less then 1% of the forum post here.

[WeatherRusty]

Well this says a lot about your character and beliefs, doesn't it?

I think many red taggers have argued that the Earth has warmed...there is no doubt. All we want to know, is how and why. I'm not sure why you guys must only think it's AGW. Open up your eyes and use science....you know...what you preach so hard.

Scientific theory based on physics, empirical evidence based on observation, and historical reconstructions of past climates rule out the usual suspects of climate change as the primary source of the ongoing global warming. Without the contribution of accumulating atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, most of the warming which has occurred over the past 150 years fails to be accounted for.

if the physics were not so rock solid I would have my doubts also and there would currently exist no reason to assume continued warming is in our future.

If reconstructions of past climates and the prerequisite radiative forcing caused by Milankovitch cycles were not so well understood, I would hold less faith in the determination of climate sensitivity residing somewhere between 2C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2.

If the Sun were shown to be more variable, PDO to somehow be able to add heat to the system or that global cloud amount were known to vary to a significant degree, then I would not be forced to conclude that, in keeping with a theory which posits greenhouse warming as a given to rising CO2 levels, the likely cause of the past several decades worth of warming are due to man induced climate change.

Where do you get the idea that AGW is not scientific?

[WeatherRusty]

And people wonder why less then 1% of the forum post here.

I don't wonder why at all. Most people understand very little of actual climate science. Those people are smart not to get involved in discussions they are not prepared to contribute to in a meaningful way. Most that do come in here do so with a rather obvious political or ideological viewpoint which shapes their opinion.

[CoastalWx]

the science points to a human cause. this isn't really up for debate unless you are a denier.

Scientific theory based on physics, empirical evidence based on observation, and historical reconstructions of past climates rule out the usual suspects of climate change as the primary source of the ongoing global warming. Without the contribution of accumulating atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, most of the warming which has occurred over the past 150 years fails to be accounted for.

if the physics were not so rock solid I would have my doubts also and there would currently exist no reason to assume continued warming is in our future.

If reconstructions of past climates and the prerequisite radiative forcing caused by Milankovitch cycles were not so well understood, I would hold less faith in the determination of climate sensitivity residing somewhere between 2C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2.

If the Sun were shown to be more variable, PDO to somehow be able to add heat to the system or that global cloud amount were known to vary to a significant degree, then I would not be forced to conclude that, in keeping with a theory which posits greenhouse warming as a given to rising CO2 levels, the likely cause of the past several decades worth of warming are due to man induced climate change.

Where do you get the idea that AGW is not scientific?

So case closed. All of the warming in the last 100-150 yrs is AGW. You're right. Only science says AGW...nothing about natural variability. Good think Earth behaves exactly like a lab experiment.

[CoastalWx]

again, you can feel free to post science to support your points.

and I'm not sure why this graph has to be posted weekly here:

And I won't deny we have had an impact. The physics argues for that, but again...it goes back to how much of an impact? We simply do not and cannot know at this time...not which such a small sample size of good data. We are finally realizing things like oceanic decadal cycles and solar output are likely having more of an impact than we imagined maybe 30 years ago. Why does everything have to be AGW? This is by far and away something as concrete as saying 90% of warming has been caused by AGW. We simply do not know and as long as moneyand agendas get in the way on both sides...we'll never know.

[Jonger]

scientists have recreated the hurricane history of the Atlantic going back about 1000 years. not sure why this is being put up as impossible to know.

Reconstructed data is worthless wishcasting.

If its not observed, its worthless and relegated to the trashcan.

[ben4vols]

we do know what the science says.

Now if you could just get the science to provide verifiable results. All that radiative forcing and the temps for the past decade have just kind of rolled over and played dead. Ahhh but the missing heat is in the ocean I tell ya. This is better than murder mystery dinner theater. Kind of like Bush looking for the WMD when Colbert did the White House Press Dinner. It's going to be a fun decade watching the alarmists twist, contort and squirm.

[WeatherRusty]

And I won't deny we have had an impact. The physics argues for that, but again...it goes back to how much of an impact? We simply do not and cannot know at this time...not which such a small sample size of good data. We are finally realizing things like oceanic decadal cycles and solar output are likely having more of an impact than we imagined maybe 30 years ago. Why does everything have to be AGW? This is by far and away something as concrete as saying 90% of warming has been caused by AGW. We simply do not know and as long as moneyand agendas get in the way on both sides...we'll never know.

Ocean cycles do not and can not add to the energy acquired by the Earth. Only the Sun can do that.

Ocean cycles are an example of internal climate variation. They oscillate about a mean value, a mean value which is increasing due to something else.

Solar variation is shown to vary by about 1.3W/m^2 over the course of a solar cycle and estimates of historical solar variability are nearly the same. This produces no more than 0.24Wm^2 in radiative forcing and most likely only half of that. In terms of temperature, the Planck response to 0.24W/m^2 is about 0.08C. So about 0.1C of the 0.8C warming during the 20th century can be shown to be attributable to a warmer Sun.

CO2 on the other hand, when doubled produces a radiative forcing equal to 3.7W/m^2, and a Planck response at 1.2C.

Notice the difference in forcing potential?

[WeatherRusty]

Now if you could just get the science to provide verifiable results. All that radiative forcing and the temps for the past decade have just kind of rolled over and played dead. Ahhh but the missing heat is in the ocean I tell ya. This is better than murder mystery dinner theater. Kind of like Bush looking for the WMD when Colbert did the White House Press Dinner. It's going to be a fun decade watching the alarmists twist, contort and squirm.

I thought you accepted the fact of natural variability. Radiative forcing is not a constant, only the long term forcing is rising, while solar variability can move temp 0.1C and ENSO by several tenths. What happens when all forcing agents phase together on the high end and the baseline has risen?

The last decade was the warmest in the instrument record. The gains have been added to the minimums and less so to the maximums. Nights have warmed more than days. Winters more than summers. Low records are being broken at twice the rate of high records. The is just the type of behavior to be expected from greenhouse warming.

[SVT450R]

I don't wonder why at all. Most people understand very little of actual climate science. Those people are smart not to get involved in discussions they are not prepared to contribute to in a meaningful way. Most that do come in here do so with a rather obvious political or ideological viewpoint which shapes their opinion.

That isn't the way i have seen it from reading what others have said around the forum. The problem is that it's basically all one sided here it's AGW or the highway if you are not 100% on the side your considered a denier/troll etc and shouldn't be here to participate in discussion. Most also agree with AGW theory but don't believe that it's the main driver like others here so we shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussion because of this. Do you really believe that we have all the bases covered so to say on climate and understand completely all natural variability. As i stated before in my opinion the next 10-20 years will be the true test with -PDO soon to be -AMO regime and past low solar cycle. If warming continues at the same rate then i will gladly join the band wagon that it's the dominant player. In no means am i singling you out you are actually one of the better posters around here and are open to discussion.

[SVT450R]

it's not my fault you don't have the science to back up your assertions.

if you want less criticism, stop repeating debunked denier nonsense.

Yes i forgot everything is 100% fact my apologies.

[CT Rain]

Interesting discussion. Let me tell you a story, as a TV met. And it scared the hell out of me.

I went to an AMS Broadcast Conference years ago, after a period of extremely warm weather. They have various vendors there, and one of them was from a company called ICECAP. The man at the booth was Joe D'Aleo, who I knew from my days at The Weather Channel (he is one of the creators of ICECAP). I was curious to see what they were handing out to the TV mets.

Immediately after saying hello, he said (approximately) "I see you were correlating the extreme warmth with global warming on your station." He does not live in my TV market. How did he know what I said on a single broadcast? I had shown a global temperature anomaly map for the previous month, and about 80% of the world had positive anomalies, with virtually NO negative anomalies. I remember commenting that the warmth wasn't just local-it was worldwide. There was no "alarmist" comment that went along with that FACT.

Some of these people are watching us. They are trying to squash any attempt at explaining the science on-air or on blogs. It's about time some organization called attention to some of the OPINION-related "skeptics" on local TV and even on networks (have you ever heard some of the CNN mets?)

Glenn

Just saw this thread (and post) and I think we've all experienced things like this on-air to varying degrees.

I do think what Forecastthefacts is doing makes sense. Meteorologists (or even non-mets who are on air) have said some pretty remarkably inaccurate things about climate change on both sides of the spectrum. I have noticed, however, that there is a large number of on-air weather people that spout a ton of anti-AGW BS ripped straight from skeptic websites with virtually no support from any peer reviewed literature.

We should be held responsible for what we say - particularly when for most people the 6pm weather report is the only time they make an effort hear from a "scientist".