Lengthening Hurricane Season

[cyclonebuster]

Not necessarily you still need to have favorable conditions in place to get development.

That's the reason why I used the word potential.....

[Snow_Miser]

The forecast for the 2012 Atlantic hurricane seasonis for 10 - 13 named storms.- well, we've already had 4 and it's still June, four weeks into the hurricane season. Do you feel that we'll only have 9 more named storms in the remaining 22 weeks of the 2012 hurricane season?

I see you have totally ignored Sickman's post addressed to you. I think it's apparent that you are not willing to accept that and will continue promoting your unsupported beliefs.

[PhillipS]

I see you have totally ignored Sickman's post addressed to you. I think it's apparent that you are not willing to accept that and continue promoting your unsupported beliefs.

I haven't ignored anything - Sickman reminded us of the 1997 hurricane season - okay, I'm reminded. But conditions today are not identical to 1997. Higher OHC for one thing.

My opinion is that we will see more than 9 named storms in addition to the four already named.

Are you confident enough in your position to go on record and tell us how many named storms you predict for the remainder of 2012?

[Snow_Miser]

My opinion is that we will see more than 9 named storms in addition to the four already named.

Are you confident enough in your position to go on record and tell us how many named storms you predict for the remainder of 2012?

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Heat Content in the Atlantic has decreased since 2002-2003.

I would go with an around average hurricane season in the Atlantic. We will see how my predictions go.

[PhillipS]

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Heat Content in the Atlantic has decreased since 2002-2003.

I would go with an around average hurricane season in the Atlantic. We will see how my predictions go.

Atlantic OHC is still higher today than 1997.

And don't weasel word your prediction - "average" can be interpreted to mean anything. Give us your prediction for the actual number of named storms for the balance of 2012. The official prediction is that we'll see 9 or fewer named storms in addition to the 4 already on record. My prediction is that we'll more than 9.

[Snow_Miser]

Atlantic OHC is still higher today than 1997.

And don't weasel word your prediction - "average" can be interpreted to mean anything. Give us your prediction for the actual number of named storms for the balance of 2012. The official prediction is that we'll see 9 or fewer named storms in addition to the 4 already on record. My prediction is that we'll more than 9.

Not by much.

Average is 10 storms. I'll go with 12 storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. Right around average. Let's see you put out your predictions now.

[PhillipS]

Not by much.

Average is 10 storms. I'll go with 12 storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. Right around average. Let's see you put out your predictions now.

Thank you - that is the sort of prediction I was asking for. And I have to confess, that's a pretty bold prediction - since we've already seen 4 storms, one or which (Chris) was a hurricane, you are predicting 8 more storms, 6 of which will be hurricanes and 3 of those major hurricanes. Correct?

My prediction for 2012 is 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, but only 2 major hurricanes. I think wind shear will prevent most from growing to major status.

[cyclonebuster]

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Heat Content in the Atlantic has decreased since 2002-2003.

I would go with an around average hurricane season in the Atlantic. We will see how my predictions go.

How does the NOAA graph look compared to this one?

[PhillipS]

Today is the last day of the 2012 Atlantic Hurricane season so I thought it might be a good time for a recap. Snowlover and I made predictions on the season so lets compare those predictions against the actual season totals.

Snowlover (6/28): "I'll go with 12 storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. Right around average."

Me (6/28): "My prediction for 2012 is 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, but only 2 major hurricanes."

The actual record through November: 19 named storms, 10 hurricanes, and 1 major hurriicane.

So my prediction was somewhat closer to actual events, but neither of us nailed it. Maybe next year.

The season was anomalous in having four early named storms, and also for having no named storms during the month of July.

The provisional 2012 value for ACE is 123, which puts 2012 in 20th place just behind 2011. Remember that ACE figures are re-evaluated post season and this figure may be revised.

For number of named storms, with 19 named storms 2012 is in a four way tie for second place behind 2005. Interestingly, 10 of the 12 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since 2000. Only 2002 and 2006 were near normal or below. [source]

For number of hurricanes, the total of 10 hurricanes puts 2012 in a tie with 1998 for 6th place.

And for number of major hurricanes, 2012's record of 1 puts it well down the rankings. The next most recent year with just 1 major hurricane was 1997.

And, finally, the 2012 hurricane season will almost certainly be classified as 'Above Normal' - and possibly classified as 'Above Normal (Hyperactive)'.

[skierinvermont]

Just noticed this thread. Wow SVT, Jonger and Snowlover were completely obnoxious the first page deliberately ignoring the point by the OP.

How does the fact that early storms have occurred in the past prove or disprove the possibility they are becoming more common? It makes sense that early season storm frequency will increase with AGW, unless there is a pretty big increase in wind shear. Has anybody posted some real facts relevant to this except for the recent record?

EDIT just checked out the Kossin study from the OP.. it appears the trend towards earlier and later storms is pretty big and probably not due better detection alone.

[TerryM]

Read the 1st page & have to say I didn't find STV's comments to be out of line. - can't say the same for the others you mentioned.

He & I don't agree on much, but he usually makes OT comments, doesn't engage in name calling, admits errors & kept his ice extent chart going long after it was supporting his earlier argument.

I'm not at all sure that he should be lumped in with the others.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Read the 1st page & have to say I didn't find STV's comments to be out of line. - can't say the same for the others you mentioned.

He & I don't agree on much, but he usually makes OT comments, doesn't engage in name calling, admits errors & kept his ice extent chart going long after it was supporting his earlier argument.

I'm not at all sure that he should be lumped in with the others.

Terry

Posting a list of May storms and then concluding that because early storms have happened in the past "there is nothing unprecedented going on" does not address the question of whether there has been an increase or decrease in early storm frequency. It doesn't address the question of frequency.

[forkyfork]

Perhaps you need to be reminded that Heat Content in the Atlantic has decreased since 2002-2003.

I would go with an around average hurricane season in the Atlantic. We will see how my predictions go.

i can't find this image anywhere except WUWT and bob tisdale's site... hmm

[TerryM]

Posting a list of May storms and then concluding that because early storms have happened in the past "there is nothing unprecedented going on" does not address the question of whether there has been an increase or decrease in early storm frequency. It doesn't address the question of frequency.

Didn't say I agreed with his arguments, just that he usually presets them in a reasonable way.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Didn't say I agreed with his arguments, just that he usually presets them in a reasonable way.

Terry

That was my point - all three of them made bad and irrelevant arguments that didn't even respond to Phillip's post. I agree his posts are usually better and more factual.

[tacoman25]

Today is the last day of the 2012 Atlantic Hurricane season so I thought it might be a good time for a recap. Snowlover and I made predictions on the season so lets compare those predictions against the actual season totals.

Snowlover (6/28): "I'll go with 12 storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. Right around average."

Me (6/28): "My prediction for 2012 is 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, but only 2 major hurricanes."

The actual record through November: 19 named storms, 10 hurricanes, and 1 major hurriicane.

So my prediction was somewhat closer to actual events, but neither of us nailed it. Maybe next year.

The season was anomalous in having four early named storms, and also for having no named storms during the month of July.

The provisional 2012 value for ACE is 123, which puts 2012 in 20th place just behind 2011. Remember that ACE figures are re-evaluated post season and this figure may be revised.

For number of named storms, with 19 named storms 2012 is in a four way tie for second place behind 2005. Interestingly, 10 of the 12 most active hurricane seasons have occurred since 2000. Only 2002 and 2006 were near normal or below. [source]

For number of hurricanes, the total of 10 hurricanes puts 2012 in a tie with 1998 for 6th place.

And for number of major hurricanes, 2012's record of 1 puts it well down the rankings. The next most recent year with just 1 major hurricane was 1997.

And, finally, the 2012 hurricane season will almost certainly be classified as 'Above Normal' - and possibly classified as 'Above Normal (Hyperactive)'.

Only one year obviously, but certainly doesn't fit the idea of fewer, but stronger hurricanes with AGW. And in fact the trend in recent years has been more storms, fewer strong ones.

[ORH_wxman]

Only one year obviously, but certainly doesn't fit the idea of fewer, but stronger hurricanes with AGW. And in fact the trend in recent years has been more storms, fewer strong ones.

There's been an unusually high number of short lived TCs in recent years...or as Chris Landsea in his paper termed "shorties". This is due to better satellite data than in the past.

In his 2010 paper, when he removed the "shorties", that eliminated almost all of the upward trend in named storms for the Atlantic back to 1878...suggesting that "shorties" have likely always been there, but we were just unable to observe them or classify them as named storms with no/inferior satellite data.

[Vergent]

There's been an unusually high number of short lived TCs in recent years...or as Chris Landsea in his paper termed "shorties". This is due to better satellite data than in the past.

In his 2010 paper, when he removed the "shorties", that eliminated almost all of the upward trend in named storms for the Atlantic back to 1878...suggesting that "shorties" have likely always been there, but we were just unable to observe them or classify them as named storms with no/inferior satellite data.

The paper did not say that, it said that the the number of shorties had recently increased. By eliminating shorties, and assuming that the rate of TC was the same where there was no ship track, and limiting themselves to observations in the tropics(where there was little ship traffic) on storms that did not make landfall. they found that there was not an increase in long lived CTs.

There are a number of problems with this. Before the 1940s no effort was made to track storms with aircraft. So a shorties may have been patched together to make a long lived CT. This would add storms to the early record relative to the recent past. They mentioned this problem, but had no answer for it.

Before the forties ships were not equipped with anemometers, wind speeds were estimated by Beaufort scale "state of the sea" observations. In the early aircraft tracking they used such observations as well(before LORAN C, aircraft could not measure ground speed). The accuracy of such observations was tested in 1963, and was found to highly inaccurate and biased. But these tests were done with sailors who had a history of using both. It is doubtful if sailors who had no history of comparing Beaufort scale observations with anemometers would be as accurate or have similar biases as those who did. The original database cautioned against relying on the wind speed data. I do not see how such subjective observations can be revived with reanalysis.

At best this study shows that there is insufficient evidence to prove an increase in long lived CTs that do not make landfall in the tropics, based on observations in the tropics.

The most accurate data we have regarding storms pre 1900, is tide gauges. These show that storm surges have increased in both frequency and strength. To ignore accurate reliable scientific data, and rely instead on sailors storm stories is not very scientific.

[ORH_wxman]

The paper did not say that, it said that the the number of shorties had recently increased. By eliminating shorties, and assuming that the rate of TC was the same where there was no ship track, and limiting themselves to observations in the tropics(where there was little ship traffic) on storms that did not make landfall. they found that there was not an increase in long lived CTs.

There are a number of problems with this. Before the 1940s no effort was made to track storms with aircraft. So a shorties may have been patched together to make a long lived CT. This would add storms to the early record relative to the recent past. They mentioned this problem, but had no answer for it.

Before the forties ships were not equipped with anemometers, wind speeds were estimated by Beaufort scale "state of the sea" observations. In the early aircraft tracking they used such observations as well(before LORAN C, aircraft could not measure ground speed). The accuracy of such observations was tested in 1963, and was found to highly inaccurate and biased. But these tests were done with sailors who had a history of using both. It is doubtful if sailors who had no history of comparing Beaufort scale observations with anemometers would be as accurate or have similar biases as those who did. The original database cautioned against relying on the wind speed data. I do not see how such subjective observations can be revived with reanalysis.

At best this study shows that there is insufficient evidence to prove an increase in long lived CTs that do not make landfall in the tropics, based on observations in the tropics.

The most accurate data we have regarding storms pre 1900, is tide gauges. These show that storm surges have increased in both frequency and strength. To ignore accurate reliable scientific data, and rely instead on sailors storm stories is not very scientific.

Quite speculative at best. The recent study on storm surge increasing was started in the 1920s...unless you are referring to some other piece of literature that used surge to prove past hurricane activity.

If overall TC activity was increasing, this should be showing up in the landfall data. It doesn't. Unless someone can prove that "shorties" or other storms that fail to make landfall will increase but landfalling storms will NOT increase due to AGW, then trying to claim an increase in overall Atlantic TC activity because of "named storms" is dubious when there are perfectly logical explanations as to why we record more named storms now versus earlier in the 20th century. .

[skierinvermont]

The paper did not say that, it said that the the number of shorties had recently increased. By eliminating shorties, and assuming that the rate of TC was the same where there was no ship track, and limiting themselves to observations in the tropics(where there was little ship traffic) on storms that did not make landfall. they found that there was not an increase in long lived CTs.

There are a number of problems with this. Before the 1940s no effort was made to track storms with aircraft. So a shorties may have been patched together to make a long lived CT. This would add storms to the early record relative to the recent past. They mentioned this problem, but had no answer for it.

Before the forties ships were not equipped with anemometers, wind speeds were estimated by Beaufort scale "state of the sea" observations. In the early aircraft tracking they used such observations as well(before LORAN C, aircraft could not measure ground speed). The accuracy of such observations was tested in 1963, and was found to highly inaccurate and biased. But these tests were done with sailors who had a history of using both. It is doubtful if sailors who had no history of comparing Beaufort scale observations with anemometers would be as accurate or have similar biases as those who did. The original database cautioned against relying on the wind speed data. I do not see how such subjective observations can be revived with reanalysis.

At best this study shows that there is insufficient evidence to prove an increase in long lived CTs that do not make landfall in the tropics, based on observations in the tropics.

The most accurate data we have regarding storms pre 1900, is tide gauges. These show that storm surges have increased in both frequency and strength. To ignore accurate reliable scientific data, and rely instead on sailors storm stories is not very scientific.

Patching shorties together to make longies would not bias # of longies high very much at all. It is pretty rare for storms to dissipate and then regenerate. Even rarer for neither of the two periods where it is a TC to last 3 days. And even rarer where the dissipation and regeneration would not be noticed even by shipping traffic.

The only situation where the Landsea record would be biased is if 1-3 are all true:

1) The storm dissipated and regenerated (rare).

2) Neither of the storm's 2 lifecycles lasted 3 days (even rarer)

3) Shipping traffic failed to notice the fact that the storm had dissipated temporarily.

Combining 1+2+3 and you have an extremely rare occurence. Perhaps an upwards bias in pre 1940 "longies" by about .1 storms/year.

It is also extremely silly to rely so heavily on tide gauge data as your sole source of evidence for TC increase. That is a single study, and it was widely criticized by other experts in the field. You are essentially cherry-picking one single study, that was widely criticized, when there are literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers, reviews, and assessment reports that ALL conclude there is no statistically significant increase in TCs.