Fewer storms, oceans COOLING....

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

Reason for the Season?: Cooler Sea Surface Temperatures

Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal (see graphic below, which shows SST departures from normal).



In contrast, at the same time last year SSTs in the same region were running well above normal.

The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years.

Global Warming?

The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans.

The Rest of the Hurricane Season

With only 3 named storms compared to 9 on this date last year, it is nearly impossible at this late date to have a season anywhere near as busy as last season, which totaled 27 by the end of the year. The most recent prediction from the National Weather Service (see first graphic, above) is for there to be 12 to 15 named storms by December -- only half of last year's total. It now looks like that prediction might be too generous.

While it is still possible for this hurricane season to end up above normal in activity and reach that forecast, each day that passes without so much as a tropical 'depression' makes that target less and less likely.

[rylan]

Just goes to show that after all these years and all the technology, people still don't know crap about climate prediction or global climate changes.

[Brian Ellis]

For Goodness' sake, don't you guys understand the difference between weather and climate? And how do you explain that there have been more Pacific storms than usual this year?

Get with it and TRY to understand what is happening.

[Dr Mordrid]

Ever think we do this just to see how high we can drive up your blood pressure?



Besides, the difference between climate and weather is a temporal one. Climate is how weather acts over time, so it's not some separate entity.

Problem with climatology these days is that they, like physicists, know about 10% of the mystery and try to make 'theories of everything' out of it. Well, guess what?

Black holes may well not be real, the big bang very well may not have happened, Newton & Einsteins gravity is in trouble, no matter how much money they throw at it dark matter has yet to appear anywhere near a lab and I'd laugh like hell if a few years from now reduced hurricane seasons made todays weather into your precious climate.

[Sasq]

settle down guys, this is one good year, after one bad year.
come back on this in 18 years time and let me know the average from 2 years ago up to 18 years from now.

[Dr Mordrid]

Lets not forget the ~200 year sunspot cycle in this;

1400-1520 cold (Sporer minimum)
1520-1640 warm
1640-1700 cold (Maunder minimum)
1700-1805 warm
1805-1925 cold (Dalton minimum)
1925-2010 warm
2010-2110 cold?

This cycle's been going on since 200 AD

[KvHagedorn]

In this debate, I'm with Brian. Unlike Brian, though, I know there's no way anything will ever be done about it. Why? Because every decision now is made by megacorps. And megacorps will never consider doing anything unless it impacts positively on next quarter's numbers. That's it. End of story. And if you think Americans are bad, just wait until the Chinese gear up their economy. Nothing more intractable and closed to suggestions than a Chinese corporate master. We are doomed, period.

Anyone see the special on global dimming? We are in deep, deep shit.

[TransformX]

Shit emits greenhouse gases.

[KvHagedorn]

Well, too much shit means too many people. Nature will correct this.

Hey, rest easy with the power structure.. your grandchildren (and everyone else's) can die so this guy



Can make $100,000,000.00 per year.. seems equitable, doesn't it?

[cjolley]

Thousands of Climatologists around the world, who spend their time studying climate, reading articles by other scientists, doing mathematical analysis, reading satellite data, weather balloons, etc, etc, are slapping their foreheads and thinking:

"WTF!? How did I miss that? That guy who posts on MURC and knows a lot about video editing, casually read a couple of articles in the popular press and shot my theory full of holes. I'm changing professions. "

Or, perhaps they are not...

[ZokesPro]

Wow, look at the double chin on that guy, it's HUGE!!

[TransformX]

That's where he hides his stash

[Dr Mordrid]

Thousands of Climatologists around the world, who spend their time studying climate, reading articles by other scientists, doing mathematical analysis, reading satellite data, weather balloons, etc, etc, are slapping their foreheads and thinking:

Or, perhaps they are not...

I'm just reporting. I certainly didn't create the data in those charts; they speak for themselves.

FYI a lot of climatologists are just as skeptical of the position taken by the rest, but they get little press or are in fear of losing their grants if they go public. None doubt there is warming, but there is plenty of doubt about mans participation vs. natural processes like long term solar changes etc.

My problem is with theoretical use of admittedly incomplete data to make 'predictions'. They plug their numbers into their 'Sim Climate' program and actually think it means something. IMO most of those results mean as much as the stellar evolution, earthquake and Keynsian economic models run over the years: NOTHING.

Once observation tech. catches up with the theory 99% of the time it's the theory that changes, but we're expected to make severe changes to the whole worlds economy etc. based on theory in spite of this.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm just reporting. I certainly didn't create the data in those charts; they speak for themselves.

FYI a lot of climatologists are just as skeptical of the position taken by the rest, but they get little press or are in fear of losing their grants if they go public. None doubt there is warming, but there is plenty of doubt about mans participation vs. natural processes like long term solar changes etc.

My problem is with theoretical use of the data. They plug their numbers into their 'Sim Earth' program and actually think it means something. IMO most of those results mean as much as the stellar evolution models run over the last 30 years: NOTHING. Once observation tech. catches up with the theory 99% of the time it's the theory that changes.

So you say. Unfortunately, what you forget is that climatology is only a minute part of the equation. Most of the atmospheric scientists working on the problem belong to other disciplines, such as astronomers, heliologists, atmospheric chemists, atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, geophysicists etc., etc., etc. These guys feed data to the maths wizards who crunch the numbers for the climatologists, who interpret them.

Did you accept the theory of ozone depletion by CFCs in 1974, when Molina and Sherwood published it?

[Dr Mordrid]

Basically, yes but because the chemistry was concrete and you could reproduce it in the lab.

You say they feed the data to "the math wizards" who "interpret them". Therein lies the rub. Presumably these are the same types of "math wizards" who screwed the pooch with so many other simulations; social, political and scientific, over the last 30+ years? If so then their interpretations leave much to be desired.

You have far more faith in their crunching, and their immunity to eco-politics, than I do.