The science officer at the National Hurricane Center says that an apparent 50% increase in hurricane activity is caused by better satellite detection, and has described similar studies to this as "sloppy science."

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf
http://wcbstv.com/national/NHC.hurricanes.atlantic.2.287170.html

The Journal Nature was already wrong about hurricanes. From a couple of years ago;

...the paper in the Journal Nature, suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes...

Using history as our guide, we know that the Journal Nature was wrong then, and is wrong now. All of the above that Brett posted is speculation and unfounded. I may release a study saying that global warming is a good thing. Prove me wrong.

For GSN:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949628.html

I really have to ask the question, are some of the things that we are noticing just a statistical oddity or coincidence?

Are we over-evaluating everything to look for some sort of smoking gun?

Climate studies are now reminding me of the medical studies of the 70's through the 90's, it seemed that every day we had some new study telling us to do something to reduce medical issues, then 2 weeks later, it was something else that contradicted the earlier statement.

Ok, so which is it..more or less???

It just keeps getting better! Why worry about hurricanes when all you have to do is control them!

"China has gone so far as to set up a weather modification office that is in charge of such an endeavor"

Thank god climate is not weather otherwise we would think we could control that too! LOL

The arrogance of some will probably end up making everything worse! Does anyone know what the continuing effects of these chemicals would be over time?

Good thing China is so in step with the IPCC to keep things under control .... oooops ....wrong again ........yet another example of "just throwing it on the wall to see if it sticks" pompus individuals who suffer from illusions of grandeur!

From the linked article: "The results... indicate that local sea surface warming was responsible for 40 percent of the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950-2000 average between 1996 and 2005," the researchers' report said.

What was "the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950-2000 average between 1996 and 2005?" It doesn't seem to say. Include '06 and '07 and is there still an increase at all? What's 40% of that?

I think it's a misinterpretation of the article to report that it suggests that "a 0.5 degree celsius (0.9 F) rise in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature can fuel a 40% increase in Atlantic basin hurricane activity compared to the 50-year average (1950-2000)..."

Hi Guys,

Hurricanes again. HHmmm

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Hi Guys,

Sorry Brett a little off topic but kinda funny.

Snow in Hawaii
http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/30/news/story01.html
Snow in Saudi Arabia
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/508585-king-sends-aid-to-snow-hit-saudi-arabians?ln=en
Snow in Israel
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_snowstorm

Computer model - more hurricanes
Actual observations - fewer hurricanes

Computer model - increased temperature
Actual observations - 10 years flat

maybe the models are missing some important factors?

"one pill makes you larger
and one pill makes you small"

None of these guys really have a clue, do they?

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080122_warmeroceans.html

Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls
January 22, 2008

A warming global ocean � influencing the winds that shear off the tops of developing storms � could mean fewer Atlantic hurricanes striking the United States according to new findings by NOAA climate scientists.

Reply: I blogged about that just recently

I much prefer the study conducted by Wang and Lee and published in Geophysical Research Letters which does not use models. World Climate Report has all the details here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/28/warming-reduces-landfalling-hurricanes-again/

The Lea and Sanders study reports, "just a 0.5 degree celsius (0.9 F) rise in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature can fuel a 40% increase in Atlantic basin hurricane activity compared to the 50-year average (1950-2000)." Well, I guess I would ask, "then why hasn't it?" According to actual data, landfalling hurricanes are declining not increasing.

I guess it wouldn't be sensational enough or scary enough for the AGW hustlers to report actual trends in landfalling hurricanes during this period of "unprecented global warming." What nonsense!

Well duh.

It does not surprise me that more heat = more water vapor = more hurricanes.

Isn't this self serving science at it's best?

What happens when the wind is re-introduced into the model? Isn't that the model we should be looking at????

If global warming means less meridional difference in temperature, there will be more and stronger hurricanes because tropical wind shear will be less, conversely, extratropical cyclones will be weaker.

This can not be refuted.

what surprises me is that Nature is compromising its reputation by taking this one sided view (see its climate blog) = 100% AGW I suspect ALL its reviewers are AGW and therefore its standards/quality is = 0

"You say it's fewer, and I say it's greater.

You say tomahto and I say tomater.

Fewer, greater, tomahto, tomater, let's call the whole thing off!"

The 2006 "area averaged SSTs during ASO were 0.68C above average" leading to a massive increase in atlantic hurricane activity of negative 18% as compared to the 1950-2000 mean.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/hurrsummary_2006.pdf

Perhaps its not quite so simple as stripping out wind from the model.

BTW - Odd that the much vaunted peer review process at Nature didn't see this apparent and outright observed contradiction as an issue.

As of August 9, 2007, "temperatures in the western tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea remain well above average (0.56C)" leading to yet another massive increase in Atlantic hurricane activity of negative 27% relative to the 1950-2000 mean.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

0 for 2 prior to the date of publication - fantastic!!

I'm with Mark J. I think Dr Grey highlighted the role of a warm AMO with Atlantic TS outbreaks. This Nature article doesn't appear to shed any new light, and when one considers the the below average number of Atlantic TC counts these 2 past seasons, it is apparent there is much more to TCs than warm SSTs.

I rarely post to this site because it has become not much more than a dumping ground for climate change deniers, who are every bit as mal informed and dangerous as holocaust deniers. However, for the few who may have an open mind, let me point out that there is nothing sinister, unethical, immoral, or simply wrong with scientific modeling in general and modeling the climate in particular. Models are the method by which scientists seek to control the immense variability that confronts one when studying the natural world. It is neither good nor evil, it just is and should be evaluated based on its structure, the factors or variables taken into account, the soundness of the methodology, as well as the source and completeness off the data relied upon. Simple as that. Sadly, I see many in this forum eager to diss or dismiss the efforts of climatologists, earth scientists, and statisticians, among other scientists, without sufficient education or understanding to truly evaluate whether the model and data employed are acceptable for the questions being asked. Having the blog manager expose his own bias against modeling is still further evidence that this blog is not so much trying to be a clearing house of solid information on climatology and climate change, but rather a clubhouse for climate change nay sayers. Reply: I am not against modeling, not at all. I depend on it every day, some of it is good and some of it can be bad, the trick is trying to find out which model is performing well and which one is not. Brett

If you are truly interested in understanding the effects that man is having on the earth, get yourself educated and decide for yourself. Try not to let your initial political bias, or that of the taking heads around you, blind you to the facts of change.

total hurricanes for 2007 = 43

average hurricanes per season = 49

record hurricane season = 57

2007 was 6 below average, 14 below the record

and that's including them naming every two clouds that bumped into each other in 2007 in order to invent even more "named hurricanes"

Reply: the study did not include 2007.

Mr Henry: (cont from yesterday) I am sure you will do all you can to speed the human extinction. But in the meantime you still might find Timothy Egans book interesting. Most of it takes place in an area not far removed from where I believe you live.

What's all the hubbub about?

What happens to all these predictions if SSTs are going down? Northern Hemisphere SSTs have been on the decline since September 2003. The AMO turned around since its peak in 2005, and it's slowly going down, too. We'll see if that trend continues.

The next couple of years will be very interesting if global SSTs and southern hemisphere land surface temps continue to drop. The northern hemisphere land temps are still deciding, but they'll probably turn around, too.

Snow in Hawaii
http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/30/news/story01.html
Snow in Saudi Arabia
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/508585-king-sends-aid-to-snow-hit-saudi-arabians?ln=en
Snow in Israel
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_snowstorm

But yet Bill Clinton says we have to slow down our economy (in the middle of a recession) by reducing carbon emissions to combat a non-existent boogie man! I can't emphasize this enough. These people running for President are dangerous! Think before you pull that lever!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Sorry for the weather posting but these are both from today. The people out west should prepare for something. Unfortunately, nobody's sure what!

Global Warming Responsible For Western Droughts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013101868.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Climate change studies urge California, West to prepare for floods

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/31/MNC9UOA3M.DTL&tsp=1

Hi Brett,

I'm curious who financed the 1300 teach-ins? That must of cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Reply: I doubt it cost too much. It seems to me that the professors and speakers volunteered their time at PSU. No food or refreshments were served either.

If Exxon sponsored a single "teach-in" at a university, we would never hear the end of it. Yet massive sums being spent by alarmists goes without discussion or question.

Someone obviously has a lot of money to make from global warming hysteria. Could it be Soros? He made his billions by speculating on and collapsing currencies.

What is a teach in anyway? I mean it sounds like an odd 70's TV show. Reply: Basically the professors talked about their research dealing with climate change using slide presentations. Each professor talked for about 15-20 minutes.

Thor:

I think that it can be shown that the number of hurricanes is more dependant upon the temp variations than wind shear. Not as big a temp change, weaker hurricanes, if they even form. We've seen it time and again, wind shear does not necessarily alter a hurricane, but temp changes flat out kill it. Same thing happens with front based storms. That's why I like late summer, temps are hot everywhere, air is stable no storms that move. When the air cools storms form and move.

This has appeared on icecap
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
It seems to be confirming (using Mona Lao last 27 years C02 data), that C02 lags rises in temps by about 9 months. Roy Spencer was suggesting recently that for 45yrs data re ocean temps versus C02
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
I'd bet that the Mona Loa (excuse spelling) data is a very small window of possibly 100 yrs or more trend. If correct with cooling temps it should start to decline. We shall see...

Hi Bob,

I love these articles being published daily about poor western snowpack and lousy skiing. The press eats it up without even bothering to spend 30 seconds checking the facts.

Excellent snow pack in the west
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html

Spectacular snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2008&ui_day=31&ui_set=0

Fantastic ski conditions worldwide, particularly in the US west. People dying in avalanches nearly every day - from too much snow.
http://www.onthesnow.com/

And it is cold out west. The snow is not melting.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/YearTDeptUS.png

But yet Bill Clinton says we have to slow down our economy (in the middle of a recession) by reducing carbon emissions to combat a non-existent boogie man!

Here's the link to prove it (sorry forgot to post it before):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html