This explains why it has been 16 years since a category 5 hit the US.

I was in Houston when category 5 Gilbert (second strongest hurricane on record) narrowly missed in 1988. No doubt the category 2 that hit this summer was much stronger, because hurricane intensity is now measured by a new index (IHI) - the Internet Hysteria Index.

Mark, don't you know if the global ave temp of the earth is rising or not?

Haven't you been looking at graphs?

This sort of comment is so disappointing when it comes from professional weather persons.

Central England Temperature 1772-2008
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

Ok ...... then what happens when AGW increases wind shear that destroys/hampers the development of hurricanes?

Can't have it both ways!

This is where the responsibility and accountability of reporting/commenting/opinions fails the process!

Mark, address the known issues or why bother?

Well, it seems that this article misses the latest research papers. This new research shows that tropical cyclone intensity is NOT increasing with warming seas and the storm cycle does exhibit a natural periodicity. This new research seems to confirm what hurricane experts like William Gray and Chris Landsea have been saying all along. Any speculation to more strong storms is just that - speculation only.

Chylek, P., and G. Lesins (2008), Multi-decadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity: 1851-2007, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2008JD 010036

�An analysis of Atlantic hurricane data (HURDAT), using a hurricane activity index that integrates over hurricane numbers, durations and strengths during the years 1851-2007, suggests a quasi-periodic behavior with a period around 60 years superimposed upon a linearly increasing background. The linearly increasing background is significantly reduced or removed when various corrections were applied for hurricane under-counting in the early portion of the record. The periodic-like behavior is persistent in uncorrected HURDAT data as well as in data corrected for possible missing storms. The record contains two complete cycles: 1860-1920 and 1920-1980. The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were unusual in that two intense hurricane seasons occurred in consecutive years. The probability for this happening in any given year is estimated to be less then 1%. Comparing the last 28 years (1980-2007) with the preceding 28 years (1953-1980) we find a modest increase in the number of minor hurricanes (category 1 and 2), however, we find no increase in the number of major hurricanes (category 3-5). The hurricane activity index is found to be highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Mode (AMM).�

"If global warming is occurring (...)"

More denialist ignorance, eh, Mark?

If it gets colder does that mean more hurricanes, but less powerful ones? Is it getting warmer? Less active sun, does that = less ocean warming, what effect on the tides does this play{magnetic field wise?} The study being done is probably being done with the assumption that warming is happening and going to continue and will be reported as so. Everything is an "if' and is usually reported "as if it is fact". They should show all scenarios of what is and could be happening with warming and cooling and not narrow mind the whole thing as if they know for sure, because it is "if".

And this: "(...) most scientists agree that there will be LESS numerous hurricanes (...)"

Did you just made up that one out of whole cloth, Mark? It's not in the article you linked, and the NSF press release on which the article was based says something rather different:

"But many questions remain about future hurricane activity. For example, the CCSP report concluded that future changes in frequency were uncertain, and that rainfall and intensity were likely to increase, but with unknown consequences."

Also, you say that if the planet warms it's a matter of debate as to whether tropical waters will warm... do you come from a universe with different physical laws than this one?

Steve: I will try to get Mark to respond to these. Brett

Mark Paquette: I always thought that hurricanes came in cycles, caused in large part to the the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillations. Then I found this;
In an article in Nature, Kerry Emanuel stated that potential hurricane destructiveness, a measure combining hurricane strength, duration, and frequency, "is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multidecadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming".
If hurricanes come in cycles, then I would presume the pattern should stay the same and it's intensity speculative? KIPP

Steve Bloom,

One might expect that "global warming" would be accompanied by warming, rather than cooling?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend

Paulm.:

1. the IF is in correlation to the the storms.
2. and UK is NOT the globe.

PH:
Here is a list of Cat 5 Hurricanes in the Atlantic. Not all hit land where you live(d.)
1920's - 1
1930's - 3
1940's - 1
1950's - 4
1960's - 6
1970's - 3
1980's - 3
1990's - 2
2000's - 8 (so far!)

Remember that Dean and Felix both hit Central America in 2007 as Cat 5's with horrible results. Only year two Cat 5's have hit land.

Gettingwarm:

First off, your stats say nothing other than we as observers are better at it now, than say, in the 1930's. Secondly, explain the 60's then if you are trying to extrapolate that GW has created more CAT 5s.

I'm struck by how the author is criticized more so than the topic.

Contrary to the AGW mantra, warming will produce less storms, of less power simply because the potential energy is less since the mid-latitude heat content is closer to equatoreal (sp) heat contents. The reality though is that if the AGWers point out that less storms of lower strength is a result of GW, their "movement" would die since many would decide that is a good thing.

gettingwarm,

There have been a lot of cat 4 and cat 3's over the last century that have been very intense and have caused plenty of damage, some cat 5 hurricanes downgrade, as you mentioned, to cat 3 and cat 2, before reaching land, yet are still destructive. The following list are hurricanes that caused major destruction and deaths in the 19th century.

There have always been and there always will be destructive hurricanes whether cat 5, 4 or 3.

Here's an interesting history of destructive hurricanes:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml

Please note that the following list is not exhaustive and does not include every notable storm in history.

GALVESTON 1900
ATLANTIC-GULF 1919
MIAMI 1926
SAN FELIPE-OKEECHOBEE 1928
FLORIDA KEYS LABOR DAY 1935
NEW ENGLAND 1938
GREAT ATLANTIC 1944
CAROL AND EDNA 1954
HAZEL 1954
CONNIE AND DIANE 1955
AUDREY 1957
DONNA 1960
CAMILLE 1969
AGNES 1972
TROPICAL STORM CLAUDETTE 1979
ALICIA 1983
GILBERT 1988
HUGO 1989
ANDREW 1992
TROPICAL STORM ALBERTO 1994
OPAL 1995
MITCH 1998
FLOYD 1999
KEITH 2000
TROPICAL STORM ALLISON 2001
IRIS 2001
ISABEL 2003
CHARLEY 2004
FRANCES 2004
IVAN 2004
JEANNE 2004
DENNIS 2005
KATRINA 2005
RITA 2005
WILMA 2005

gettingwarm,
We only had good satellite coverage of hurricanes starting in the 70's. Our reckoning of hurricane strength prior to that is speculative at best.

The cat 5 hurricane list by decade is not meaningful and indicates exactly nothing.

Getting Warm,

I am not an AGW denialist, but I try to keep an open mind, and I would like to engage in a little discussion on that list of Category 5's by decade you posted.
Given the vast disparity in hurricane monitoring ability between the time before widespread coverage of weather satellites and today, isn't it really difficult to get meaning out of interdecade comparisons like this?

gettingsemiwarm:

Yeah, but, they didn't really start keeping records until around 1886 and the hurricanes in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's didn't even have names. Plus they probably didn't have as sophisticated planes and measuring devices back then. And I'm sure the satellites weren't as good either plus there could have been cat 5 hurricanes out at sea that they didn't even know about! And something tells me the media wasn't as sensitive about reporting on tv and the internet back then like they are now. Plus, how many cat 5 hurricanes were there before 1886 that we don't even know about. You aren't going to have the same number of cat 5 hurricanes every year or every decade or even every 100 years.

If you go through this data analysis you can not but conclude that temp and storms are closely linked....

...the association between the number of named storms in the Atlantic basin and Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature anomalies ...
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/

Quite conclusive! Why is there a debate?

PH: LOL.....that's the new 'Standard for Everything!'

Steve M. no its not.

And I just picked one eg., (which just also happens to mimic the global temp also if you compare).

So go visit this site and be happy.
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/

Direct Climate Action Now!

paulm: You linked to a graph of SST vs tropical storms. This discussion is not about the number of tropical storms. It's about the number of hurricanes and their intensity. Hurricanes are a specific grade of tropical storms. Tropical storms and hurricanes don't necessarily have the same curves, as you will note in the NOAA webpage linked the ResidualAnalysis spreadsheet.

Say Mary!, the satellites in the 30's and 40's were really inferior to what we have now. And the hurricane hunters were afraid to fly into storms much less a heavy wind. Better reevaluate your statements.

The stance taken by the IPCC scientists in their reports is that global warming would have an overall effect of lessening violent weather systems. You can find the reports on their website. At the largest scale- all weather is caused by the uneven heating of the earth and the resulting contrast of warmer and cooler air masses. The IPCC model of AGW is for the poles to warm more than the rest of the planet- thus creating a more even- more stable atmosphere.

it's the contrast, not the temp. itself that creates the energy.
Consider that the greatest storm in the solar system- Jupiter's Great Red Spot- has raged for >300 years with wind >400 mph in an atmosphere less than minus 100C

I think the misunderstanding maybe came from Al Gore's book/dvd covers showing a hurricane coming from a chimney or something

You see how vile the warmies get when you say global warming isn't happening?

It really shows how non-objective they have become. It's like a religion to some of them and they can not stop having the faith.

When this happens, you lack objectivity and lose all credibility.

Also, that Arctic Sea Ice is rebounding quite strongly right now. (reply: It normally does in October!) Maybe we should have a topic on that? That should ruffle the warmies feathers a bit.

Steve Lomas:

The misunderstanding (that really isn't) comes from the incessant blather of the AGWers stating that storms will be bigger and badder. And, contrary to your comment, and apparently some within the IPCC, I have read portions of the IPCC that implicitly state that storms may be more violent.

Frankly, I did not even know that Gore's book had a 'cane on it anywhere. Besides, who could possibly take that man seriously, he's a washed up politician.

You bring up a great point though about the Red Spot. As I recall, I had read a report that the storm seemed to be "abating" somewhat. Could it be that the CO2 induced warming of our planet has resulted in a more stable atmosphere there, reducing the overall energy potential of the Spot?

Or could it merely be that the good 'ole Sun has been warmer thereby imparting more heat to our solar system, thus reducing the energy potential of the Spot?