Now Brett just STOP IT already!! This is Climate science we're talking about here. We don't use observation in our studies, only models. Shame on you! And besides EVERYBODY KNOWS that GORE-BULL warming is cause of INCREASES in huricanes, Earthquakes, Polar bear extictions,errant Lemming migrations, teenage acne, tooth decay,farfalonus,blah, blah, blah. God help us !!!!!

It is studies like this as to why I think the effects of global warming are greatly embellished. I'm quite certain the argument before this study was that warmer temperatures and water would lead to an increase in the number and strength of hurricanes. In fact, I believe this was the argument for the year we had 27 and so many of them were strong just a couple of years ago. Global Warming advocates continue to try to make the data fit their agenda. I think this study makes it clearer that there can be no real decisions about effects that global warming might have on the planet.

Very interesting Brett. Just goes to show, that the science of GW is not settled. Before we commit billions of dollars in an attempt to control the climate, more study is needed.

You mean actual observations are more accurate that what a computer model predicts? Who ever would've thought of that?

As a software engineer, I know firsthand that a computer model is going to do exactly what the programmer tells it to do. "Artificial intelligence" is really just doing a task much faster than we can do it but the intelligence is still doing what we programmed it to do.

Program an assumption into a computer program and it won't know to do anything but use it. Since correlation does not automatically determine causation, computer models can be very faulty when they make that assumption.

Let's see. In 2005 everyone linked AGW with increased Hurricanes and TS. Now, AGW does the opposite. Yet, last year was a perfect scenario for an above average Atlantic Storm year. In the Pacific it was either El Nino Neutral to La Nina, while the Atlantic was in the middle of a strong positive AMO cycle. According to Hansen, 2007 was the 2nd hottest year globally since the 1850s. Yet, Atlantic TS outbreaks were weak and short-lived. According to Wang, globally SSTs have been on the rise since the 1850s (speculative at best. Much of the SH has cooled SST wise, and the North Pacific right behind); yet, we could be seeing the strongest La Nina in a century. La Nina, unlike El Nino doesn't generate high level wind shear that can inhibit Atlantic TS activity.

Since AGW proponents are in the business of following seasonal changes in weather patterns, and high lighting any patterns that fit thier narrative, they are stuck changing thier narrative to fit the wild oscillations of monthly, daily, and seasonal weather. That is they are chasing noise.

BTW, globally our oceans have cooled about 0.15 deg C since 2003.

And as the oceans warm up, according to a major MIT study released just weeks before Katrina hit, hurricanes will become more frequent and powerful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501336.html

...the paper in the journal (Nature), which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes.

http://blog.acton.org/plugin/tag/Al+Gore

Gore points out the number of hurricanes has doubled in the last 30 years...

Gore said he advocates listening to the world scientific community and holding POLITICAL leaders accountable.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=2110628&page=1

It goes on and on. Hi...damage control? We drastically need your help!! Apparently our anxiety may cause more economic damage than warming itself. Send re-enforcements!!!

Global warming causes everything, just a few years ago the media was in hype mode over allegations that Global Warming was causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Now its the opposite. Global Warming is responsible for everything under the sun apparently, but now we need an explanation as to why Mars has been warming.

How can this be? I thought that AGW was supposed to INCREASE hurricane activity, now it's supposed to decrease it? I love how no matter what happens it's supposedly AGW to blame for it. Not a bad gig if you have a theory that can't be disproved. Follow the money; big government/big grant money trumps "big oil" any day.

But Al Gore said that monster hurricanes were going roam the planet destroying western civilization unless we donated our salaries to his ponzi carbon trading scheme. How can this be?

Oh, and perhaps the IPCC should have listened to their leading hurricane expert?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

And perhaps NOAA should quit padding the tropical storm data in order to prove global warming?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

Thank you for differentiating between actual observations and computer projections. I am thoroughly disgusted with panic related to computer projections when no actual physical observations are available. C.

Just this last Sunday night, CBS had a documentary on Global Warming with none other than Mr James Hansen. I was waiting for President Bush to jump onto the set and start to strangle him, you know because he is silenced so much by Bush's adiministration(what a freakin joke Hansen). Anyway, part of his hour special was about how increased warming of the oceans would increase hurricane numbers and intensities. Now we have this report that conflicts Hansen's belief and understanding of hurricane formations. This is not from the skeptic's camp, but an AGW proponent. Im sorry, but I think this would be an elementary concept to understand compared to the whole AGW picture and their understanding of the whole climate system. This is why I am a skeptic, and unfortunately probably always will be.

Most of the gigantic estimates of global warming cost circulating through the borg consciousness are based on two things-

1. Monster hurricanes
2. Massive sea level rise

#2 has already been discredited by the IPCC, as they forecast essentially no change in the rate of sea level rise.

#1 was already discredited by Chris Landsea, though the IPCC chose to ignore him. This study is probably the nail in the coffin.

So what exactly is the cost of more CO2? Cheap energy? Improved agricultural efficiency? Better skiing due to more snowfall?

The deniers seem to take this paper as some sort of confirmation that they were right all along. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's what the IPCC report has to say about cyclones:

Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)
Results from embedded high-resolution models and
global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km,
project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably,
where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future
tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies
investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in
the overall number of storms, though there is less confidence
in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively
weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of
the most intense tropical cyclones.

Thus, those climate models that you guys dismiss as BS actually predicted this phenomenon. This paper serves to confirm the predictive power of the climate models. You deniers should stop celebrating -- this paper is one more nail in the coffin of denialism.

Bah ha ha ha ha..... Ha! This story is rich! I remember an explaination at the end of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season that it was the El Nino that caused increased wind shear...I think I caught that report on the Weather Channel...THEN last November I read another report that is was La Nina that caused the extra wind shear suppressing the 2007 Hurricane Season...And I noted several meteorolgists complaining that the Hurricane Center was naming practically anything that moved in the atlantic to help boost the number of named tropical storms so the prognostications would seem less wrong.
There is a nasa report from 2006, it states that there are new particals arround clouds that were just discovered, they did not know whether these partical fields were building up or decaying, whether these "twilight zone" partical fields arround all clouds globally were impacting their Global Warming calculations, due to unknown characteristics of reflective albido and heat trapping (or not)qualities. The artical was titled "twilight zone of particals arround clouds" or something like that. I pulled it from yahoo news I think. I say there is a new atmospheric quantum energy causing a new layer of monoatomic oxygen and monoatomic hydrogen that is countering artificial cloud forcing programs.Top Russian scientist Dr. A. Dimitriov (forgive spelling)reports a new layer of mono atomic oxygen just appearing over the last five or so years in the stratusphere. Weather and Climate is definately impacted by technologies we mere plebians know scant about!

The recent cold discharges into the lower 48 really seems to have drained the cold pool over norther Canada. I hope it come back soon.

Except for Eureka, of course. That place has been holding up like a champ this month.

here is the artical on newly discovered particals

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/twilightzone_particles.html

Here we go again......

Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

Its Deja Vu all over again.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=13834&t=Scientist+says+Earth+could+soon+face+new+Ice+Age

I thought this might be interesting, as it fits some other stuff I've observed and been thinking about.

Brett, I wondered if you could answer or find any information on another weather-related question I have. When is cold weather from the arctic actually a part of arctic warming, and how? I may not be phrasing this quite clearly, so will try another way of saying it to make sure I ask this clearly enough that you know what I'm talking about. I've heard that sometimes when the arctic is warming, it sends cold weather southwards. I know this would not be always (if ever) true, and don't know enough to know when or whether this happens; is it sometimes cold which is actually moving off the arctic to arrive here? And if so, when? Is there a way we can tell when? Something to do with moisture?

I got interested in this because of all the people who immediately react to a cold snap in their backyard to say that disproves the overall trend in climate (note for the ignorant: daily weather does not equal climate).

The bias in the responses above is, as usual, stunning. Science is not something you can vote about, it's based on continuous building on observation and theorizing, checking, redesign, etc. etc. So the idea that somehow the ebb and flow of hurricanes proves or disproves what a large majority of the world's scientists have agreed is an alarming trend is nice for you all as you pat each other on the back. Ignoring the ongoing world increase in wilder weather (which has been predicted since at least the 1950s), and the millions who are being displaced by the daily events representing an overall increase in extreme floods, fire, drought, heat, cold etc., and the violence due to scarce resources (e.g., Africa)is to me shocking.

To my fellow responders: to those who are going to jump on this comment, the only way I can stand to join this blog is to drop in when I have time so I will be unlikely to respond to the multiple disses you send my way.

STEVE BLOOM posted in a past blog...

In sharp contrast, the last interglacial (about 130,000 years ago) had a substantial high-latitude warming (mainly due to the planet having more axial tilt) and raised Greenland temps to something like 1C more than present. That resulted in some serious ice sheet melt...

I ask... on December 21, 2012 the earth will complete its 26,000 year long wobble. Is it not possible that the earth approaching the end of this wobble is having an effect on the climate? Anyone?

Brett, any chance you can repost that piece you had a while back regarding the poles on Mars? Reply: I'll look back at the archives.

Precession of the earths rotating axis...

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/precession.html

Precession of the equinox...

http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/lessons/indiv/beth/beth_precess.html

Change in earths inclination...

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env221.htm

Brett, any chance you can put something together in regards to this? Reply: Rich, I will certainly take a look at it.

Come on, you guys. Do you have anything but cheapshots and bumper-stickers?

Do you care about the science at all?

I see this as yet more evidence that NASA is doing its job and yet more evidence that the field is complex and that unfolding of the settled science is astonishingly complex.

Get it? This doesn't challenge the settled science of climatology. It spotlights the implications of that science, and how devilishly (and interestingly) counter-intuitive its unfolding is.

Let me offer a cute little exercise, available to anyone with a calculator. Start with a number a little larger than 1, pick any one you like -- say "1.12345". Start creating a sequence, looking at only the second decimal place. For each step in the sequence, square the result of the preceding and look at the second decimal place.

Here's what I get on my (old) calculator after a few iterations:
2, 6, 9, 3, 3, 6, 4

Question 1: What's the result of step N?
Question 2: Suppose I concatenate these digits into an N-digit decimal number -- in this example, 2,693,364 -- what is the relationship between the number I start with and the result?
Question 3: Given a starting number x and an iteration count N, what is the likelihood that the result of Question 2 will equal some other number y?

The arithmetic operations that comprise this little experiment are "settled". The rules are strictly deterministic.

How, other than brute-force calculation, shall we answer the three questions?

In the case of AGW, the "settled science" -- the steps in the calculation -- include (in spite of the attempted obfuscation of some participants here):

- The basic thermodynamics
- The role of atmospheric CO2
- Much of the basic physics

The interesting questions of climatology are, in my view, more like the three questions I posed in my little example.

We don't have the luxury of waiting while the world itself calculates the answer -- hence, the brute force approach will not give us good answers.

What we do, instead, is the dreaded modeling. We construct a model, run it (along with many others), and compare their results with what we see.

I love seeing research results like this thread-starter. I wish this community would spend more time exploring what results like this report mean and less time taking the same tired cheapshots at the same old subjects, over and over again.

Brett,
What I make of this study is that while it uses actual observations which are preferrable to computer models it is inconclusive. I believe that it shows how little is really known about the conditions which create hurricanes. We have been hearing about how warmer waters spawn these storms only to learn that warmer waters may produce wind shear which counteracts them. The "scientists" cannot have it both ways so the real answer is - NO ONE KNOWS.

It also exposes the AGW hustlers who siezed upon the active 2005 hurricane season as evidence of impending global warming doom for the planet when they really didn't have a clue.

Hi Chris Crawford,

The decade with the most major hurricanes was 1941-1950, and it has been declining since.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Thanks for helping prove the models wrong, again.

Reply: To be clear, the mean number of Atlantic Basin major hurricanes started a noticeable decline later in the 60s and the numbers remained low through the early 1990s then there was a noticeable increase from the mid 1990's to 2005. Patrick's phrase "and it has been declining since" is misleading.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/hurricanes/fig1-atlantic-all-and-major.gif

Weatherwatcher, how dare you use intelligence and common sense in this blog! No one here cares about what is really happening to innocent people everyday because of long term changes to the planet. I also see an article today about abnormal warmth in Canada, I am going to read that after this. This week I am servicing a client in CT that was struck by lightning recently and caused lots of damage to the electronic systems (expensive) here. If this is related to the increased severity of storms that I have been seeing in Maine and new england I'm sure I will continue to be busy. Looking to be a nice couple weeks coming up for us in Maine with tempertures once again being very reasonable for the coldest part of the winter. Keep it up, someone (or something) cares that not all of us are brainwashed slaves. www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Silly. I find it extremely funny that accuweather even has a guy specifically assigned to "global warming" -(Reply: This is just a portion of my overall daily job here at Accuweather.) It's a crock! The world is going through a natural cycle which has been happening for centuries. We are only now paying close attention to it. People like Al Gore are cashing in on this "global scare" with crap like Carbon Credits and other political schemes to make one thing...NO Not a better world for you and I...but to make MONEY for THEMSELVES.

Simple...To sit here and worry about it is silly. Now...should we try our best to not pollute the planet...OF COURSE! It's been that way for as long as I can remember!

To see a place like accuweather even talking about it as if we had real evidence of this makes me want to find another weather plugin for firefox.

Read up on this and you'll find out that many of the supposed "scientists" that support this theory aren't even SCIENTISTS! Some weren't even fully aware that they were endorsing this THEORY.

Anyways - Enjoy reveling in this crock of lies. But hey...if they paid me g