Global Warming and the Mystery of the Missing Hurricanes
With Ernesto having now been downgraded to tropical storm status, we have reached the eve of the first anniversary of Katrina’s landfall with no hurricanes having hit the continental United States in 2006. This despite predictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from the leading hurricane researchers at Colorado State University that this season would be “very active”. For instance, in their December 6, 2005 prediction, the Colorado State University team wrote
We foresee another very active Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2006. However, we do not expect to see as many landfalling major hurricanes in the United States as we have experienced in 2004 and 2005.
On May 31, 2006, the day before the official June 1st commencement of the hurricane season, the CSU researchers reiterated their prediction:
We continue to foresee another very active Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2006. Landfall probabilities for the 2006 hurricane season are well above their long-period averages.
In NOAA’s May 22, 2006 press release, the agency forecast that
“For the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which four to six could become ‘major’ hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,” added retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
On average, the north Atlantic hurricane season produces 11 named storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes. In 2005, the Atlantic hurricane season contained a record 28 storms, including 15 hurricanes. Seven of these hurricanes were considered “major,” of which a record four hit the United States. “Although NOAA is not forecasting a repeat of last year’s season, the potential for hurricanes striking the U.S. is high,” added Lautenbacher.
As this entry at Wikipedia describes, both the CSU and the NOAA teams have lowered their preseason estimates. And I am aware that we are are relatively early in the hurricane season, and that this post could prove to be dramatically wrong. Blogger Brendan Loy, for example, points us to this August 16 post from hurricane expert Dr. Jeff Masters, who in turn writes
Peak hurricane season starts about August 18 and runs through October 18. The worst part of hurricane season is in front of us, and I do anticipate that conditions will get active. Witness 1998, when only one named storm occurred prior to August 19, and 10 named storms and 7 hurricanes formed by the end of September. A similar pattern of activity occurred in 2000, with only two named storm by this date, and a season total of 15 named storms. So, those of you who doubt NOAA and Dr. Gray’s predictions of 15 named storms this season need to put your skepticism on hold.
But I am willing to risk the embarrassment of premature evaluation to say the following:
If the relatively non-politicized corps of hurricane researchers couldn’t get the 2006 hurricane season right just days before it began, then why are we supposed to believe that the uber-politicized cadre of so-called climate experts are correct about the existence and/or impact of global warming years and decades from now?
[As a pre-emptive strike against those who might claim that I am conflating weather with climate, please examine the linked May 31 document from CSU, which states, "Our research team has shown that a sizable portion of the year-to-year variability of Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) activity can be hindcast with skill exceeding climatology." Also note that the NOAA press release expressly says that, "The north Atlantic hurricane seasonal outlook is a product of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center and Hurricane Research Division."]
August 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Fine if you think it is political - a lot of weather is statistical. Sometimes you beat the house. But in the long run you lose.
If you lived in the northern climates you wouldn’t doubt the impact of the last decade and it being hotter. I guess time will tell - in the meantime, by all means, keep driving your SUV and guzzling oil. Its not just great for the environment - it makes the Arab world happy and rich! Great point.
Honestly, to mean, global warming isn’t the best reason to alter our dependance - foreign policy is - and yes that is “political.”
August 28th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
I suspect in twenty five years, global warming will be confirmed as real–but fears of massive global flooding, supertyphoons, supercells will prove unfounded. I also predict that we will start harvesting and burning ocean methane before it is ever released in a global holocaust.
While carbon dioxide obviously plays a role, the primary factor in controlling the temperature on this planet is the sun, followed by the oceans. Venus is used as an example of out of control global warming–but it is a vapor steam kettle because it is closer to the sun and all liquids on its surface have been converted into gas. Not surprisingly, Mars, being farther away, is more akin to a very cold, very dry Antarctica.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Why would you think for a moment that NOAA’s Hurricane Prediction Center is “non-politicized”? These guys are under an enormous amount of pressure to “get it right.” Also there’s currently a lot of parrying between hurricane experts and climatologists regarding the effect of global warming on hurricane strength (I don’t think frequency is the issue). NOAA’s administrators, appointees and scientists have a dog in this fight just like everyone else. Perhaps this is reflected in the language of their reports. I’m not a climate expert so I couldn’t say, but it’s a possibility.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Besides, your bolded statement pretty much begs the question. If you believe that NOAA is utterly neutral, but other “so-called” climatologists are “uber-politicized,” there’s only one answer, isn’t there? They’re *all* wrong and we shouldn’t believe anyone. Does that make you feel better?
August 29th, 2006 at 12:07 am
The Colorado State team, led by Dr. William Gray, always releases three or four forecasts per year. One of them is bound to be in the ballpark, so they can then congratulate themselves on their accuracy. It’s a pretty good deal they have.
I will say that at least Dr. Gray and his team dispute that global warming is behind a couple of particularly active seasons.
My forecast for ‘07 is 12 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher). Mark it down.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:19 am
You’re right, JimBob, it was the CSU report that Benedict referred to–not necessarily a disinterested or neutral group.
I’m not arguing in favor of global warming, just saying, again, that it’s a mistake to assume that there are any “disinterested” parties here.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:51 am
That’s the whole point…everyone has an agenda, and when that happens, I go with my own common sense.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:23 am
What is your common sense?
It might make you happy but I imagine most peoples common sense has little to do with empirical reality and science and much to do with their own personal agendas when dealing with difficult topics they don’t know about.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:16 am
The planet has always been either cooling or warming. Hence, we’ve had ice ages, but we’re not in one right now. If there were no warming, the earth would still be in an ice age and we wouldn’t be here. The idea that scientists can “prove” so-called greenhouse gases cause global warming is a fantasy designed to allow the Greens and the government rather than all individuals and the market to dictate policy choices. If we can’t accurately predict next week’s weather, why would anyone believe we can accurately predict the next century’s weather - let alone what’s causing it?
August 29th, 2006 at 8:37 am
“Our research team has shown that a sizable portion of the year-to-year variability of Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) activity can be HINDCAST [my caps] with skill exceeding climatology.”
1. “Hindcast” isn’t in my dictionary.
2. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to be able to forecast the weather, rather than look back after the fact, in the style of armchair quarterbacks, and be able to assure us all that a particular hurricane activity was caused by excess greenhouse gasses, or depletion of the ozone, or bovine flatulence increasing methane in the atmosphere? We can’t get people to agree on the cause[s] of the fall of the Soviet Empire, and yet we’re all supposed to be enthused about the ability to “hindcast” hurricanes? Gimme a break, please.
August 29th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Wait a minute — oh, I get it now. Let me hindcast! I hindcast that Karl Rove will not be indicted by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald! And Texas will win the National Championship and defeat USC this past January!
August 29th, 2006 at 9:09 am
global warming isn’t the best reason to alter our dependance - foreign policy is - and yes that is “political.”
you know i have the answer to all of the worlds problems i do not know why we have not heard more on this idea. we should take over the world. i mean in the 19th century and even the first part of the 20th century if you needed something that another country had you just took it. even the good guys just took it. it would be doing the world good to become part of the u.s.a…….this sounds crazy right but i think the world has forgotten that super powers have not always listened to the little winged fellow on their shoulder…we do not need to take over the world but we should stop having such a national bleeding heart and become alittle more hard fisted….if global warming is such a big problem would all of the left support a war on china and india who are both starting to eat up more and more nonrenewable resources? what will the ozon look like when they are = to us? but i dont think the left would like to force other nations and people to be green. the just want to force us to be green
August 29th, 2006 at 9:15 am
but they aint got the sack to do anything but set around and wring their wrists and twiddle their thumbs. you want me to drive a green car? make one that has the power to pull a goose neck trailer 400 miles with a load of horses. it will also have to have fuel that is cheaper than gas…..they do not have anything like this yet so i am just going to keep spewing my waste into the air….why has some big shot in hollywood not taken a few mill. or bill. and dropped it on making some kind of wonder fuel that everything can run on? its because the government and oil comapanies will not let them? give me a break
August 29th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Fr. Stanley -
It’s curious to me that you are savvy enough to know how to leave a comment on a blog but don’t know how to use Google, or Ask, or whatever. Assuming you actually want enlightenment, here’s a definition for you:
“A hindcast is a way of testing a model. Realistic inputs for the past are fed into the model to see how well the output matches reality.
An example of the use of a hindcast would be giving a climate model forcings for a period such as 1920 to 2000 to see how well the model performed at predicting the climate for that period.”
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindcast
August 29th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Funboy,
This comment does a good job summarizing my view.
“If we can’t accurately predict next week’s weather, why would anyone believe we can accurately predict the next century’s weather - let alone what’s causing it?”
I would also add that I have a hard time buying the hypothesis that 200 years of human activity have had the effect on global climate change many claim.
Seriously, what is the sample size of reliable data we are dealing with here?
I’m not going to support measures that have tremendous costs on our economy based on a few computer models.
August 29th, 2006 at 11:42 am
“I’m not going to support measures that have tremendous costs on our economy based on a few computer models.”
This is where I start to get a little cross-eyed. What are these “tremendous costs” everyone talks about?
Just the other day we had a post here criticizing Al Gore for not buying Green energy. I looked it up and I’d be paying about $30 more a month for my electricity if I signed up for a Green energy program in my state. That’s not a “tremendous cost” in my book.
The new prestige car is the hybrid. There’s a waiting list for them. How much are we hurting when they can’t make enough to go around? Why is the only car company that makes a popular hybrid also the most profitable car company on the planet?
Why do so many “conservatives” bitch about government oppression of entrepreneurialism while simultaneously bitching about the “costs” of new energy technologies?
What is it, exactly, that we are sacrificing by encouraging fewer emissions and cleaner energy sources?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Grover, I have no problem with “encouraging” these things, however I do have a problem with those who feel we should have signed on to Kyoto. For an illustration of these costs check this out - http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
August 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Thank you, Benedict. Silly me, I just used my new Webster’s Dictionary, and it wasn’t there. Yes, I do want enlightenment. Have to admit though that I’m not a huge fan of Wikipedia. Hindcast seemed a neologism: my mistake.
Now, when will these meteorologist admit a mistake?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for the link. But who is this character, linking to his own books and editorials, not to mention private-sector think tanks raving about how many jobs will be lost? He doesn’t *really* explain his figures, except to say that they’re no more reliable than those of the global-warming proponents. Is it true, as Wikipedia says, that he is a paid consultant for Phillip Morris and Exxon, and that many of his past and present assertions are demonstrably false? Why on earth should I believe this man over Al Gore?
August 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“Now, when will these meteorologist admit a mistake?”
Well, we won’t know that until the season is over, will we? As even Benedict admits, we don’t know if they’re wrong or not at this point.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Grover,
Im not saying you should. I dont necessarily “believe” him either. Which goes to my first point about trusting my common sense and instincts about the way the world works.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Okay, Joe. But I’m still non the wiser about these “tremendous costs” I keep hearing about.
I, too, have some “common sense” observations about how the world works, among them that people, especially Americans, tend to not give damn about energy conservation unless somebody kicks their asses about it.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Grover, i could give you a ton of other references, you are a smart guy, run a google search and you’ll find plenty of figures. I also suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While I understand it is a work of fiction, it does reference several scholarly articles about the causes and severity of “global warming.” One of the main points of the book is that the cost v. benefit of any regulations should be taken into account. For instance, the restrictions on the use of the pesticide DDT in Africa has caused millions to die of malaria.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm
August 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
“Grover, i could give you a ton of other references, you are a smart guy, run a google search and you’ll find plenty of figures.”
I have, Joe, and much of what I find is just as selective, biased and politicized as anything the other side has to offer. I’m sure Crichton’s book plays convincingly to a certain POV, but so do the many the rebuttals his claims have engendered. The DDT issue, for example, is very complex and has many aspects to it, few of which can be boiled down to a brief article. Rachel Carson has been demonzied for saying things she never said. Here is a letter from a prominent parasitologist about the issue:
http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_kenethmiles_archive.html#107570569615970184
Who is correct? You claim common sense as a guide, which is admirable, but to my way of thinking, common sense would dictate against buying into the the arguments of the more high-profile, obviously self-interested and agenda-driven partisans like Michael Crichton, on the one hand, and Al Gore on the other.
Time and again, whenever I encounter such debates on the internet, I find that diligent searching often reveals another story altogether.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
…and while I take your point that regulation is often a misguided approach, it’s just as true that lack of regulation and oversight in matters involving public health and environmental welfare has often led to equally disastrous results.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Meanwhile…
Arnold ends up supporting Assembly Bill 32, moving CA toward fairly strict green gas emissions regulations.
>”I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science,” Schwarzenegger declared forcefully at a recent United Nations summit. “We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/GlobalWarming/story?id=2374968&page=1
And, the Tories continue their support for addressing–in a market driven fashion–climate change.
>Climate change - for so long an abstract concern for an academic few - is no longer so abstract. Even the Bush administration’s Climate Change Science Programme reports “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system”. The strength of that consensus is such that we are presented with a window of opportunity between the denial of yesterday and the despair of tomorrow. We are at a fork in the road - on one side is complacency and the pursuit of short-term economic growth, on the other the pursuit of innovation, the development of new technologies, and the realisation of our ability to reconcile economic growth with long-term sustainability.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,1861670,00.html
September 1st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
* Experts Lower Hurricane Forecast to 5
November 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
http://buyzerit43.blogspot.com buy zerit zerit cheap zerit buy cheap zerit buy zerit online cheap zerit online order zerit
November 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
http://buyzetia46.blogspot.com buy zetia zetia cheap zetia buy cheap zetia buy zetia online cheap zetia online order zetia
November 28th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
http://buyzostrix50.blogspot.com buy zostrix zostrix cheap zostrix buy cheap zostrix buy zostrix online cheap zostrix online order zostrix
December 11th, 2006 at 7:43 am
oxycontin oxycontin side effects buy oxycontin generic oxycontin oxycontin withdrawal buy oxycontin online oxycontin no prescription oxycontin online prescription oxycontin online oxycontin pill