Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
per NOAA: averages & strength classifications based on 30-year data (1981-2010)
- average # of Atlantic named storms (1981-2010) => 12.1
- # Atlantic named storms 2013: 14
- # Atlantic named storms 2014: 8 ... with 11 days remaining in the 2014 season
- # Atlantic named storms 2014: 8 ... with 11 days remaining in the 2014 season
Last edited:
Warmer water = more hurricanes.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/student...rticles/Hurricanes_climate_SciAm_July2007.pdf
your first post focused on number; i.e., the frequency of storms. Your article focused on the 2 most recent years, 2013 & 2014. That's exactly why I replied to you with the same emphasis on number... frequency. And it's exactly why I challenged you in your statement "the oceans must be cooling".
you now come back with another statement, "Warmer water = more hurricanes", and provide a linked article that emphasizes strength... intensity. Frequency ≠ intensity!
the whole warming attachment to 'extreme weather' as may affect tropical storms, specific to impacts on frequency and/or intensity, is one under ongoing scientific investigation and focused scrutiny. The long standing "prevailing" science has been one that takes a position on a greater expectation of more intensified tropical storms, but not necessarily an increase in the number of tropical storms. Some ongoing debate centers on the likelihood being greater in certain basins over others.
Jeff Masters - Weather Underground:
This week's intense cold blast is being triggered by an unusually extreme jet stream pattern, featuring a sharp ridge of high pressure along the U.S. West Coast and a deep trough of low pressure diving to the south over the Central United States. This configuration allows cold air to spill out of the Arctic behind the trough into the Central U.S., and be replaced by anomalously warm air flowing northwards along the West Coast of the U.S. deep into the Arctic.
This extreme jet stream pattern is due, in part, to the influence of Super Typhoon Nuri, which caused a ripple effect on the jet stream after the typhoon became one of the most powerful extratropical storms ever recorded in the waters to the west of Alaska eleven days ago.
However, we've seen an unusual number of extreme jet stream patterns like this in the past fifteen years, which happens to coincide with the period of time we've been observing record loss of summertime Arctic sea ice and record retreat of springtime snow cover in the Arctic. Could it be that these changes in the Arctic are causing the wacky jet stream behavior of recent years? That's the theory being advanced by a number of prominent climate scientists.
If Arctic changes are truly to blame for wacky jet stream behavior, losing the remaining 50 percent of the Arctic sea-ice coverage between now and 2030 will bring even greater antics. If the Arctic is not involved, that is worrisome as well—because that means jet stream changes are due to an unknown mechanism, leaving us with no idea how the jet stream will respond as climate change progresses. Thus, my forecast for the next 15 years: expect the unprecedented.
This extreme jet stream pattern is due, in part, to the influence of Super Typhoon Nuri, which caused a ripple effect on the jet stream after the typhoon became one of the most powerful extratropical storms ever recorded in the waters to the west of Alaska eleven days ago.
However, we've seen an unusual number of extreme jet stream patterns like this in the past fifteen years, which happens to coincide with the period of time we've been observing record loss of summertime Arctic sea ice and record retreat of springtime snow cover in the Arctic. Could it be that these changes in the Arctic are causing the wacky jet stream behavior of recent years? That's the theory being advanced by a number of prominent climate scientists.
If Arctic changes are truly to blame for wacky jet stream behavior, losing the remaining 50 percent of the Arctic sea-ice coverage between now and 2030 will bring even greater antics. If the Arctic is not involved, that is worrisome as well—because that means jet stream changes are due to an unknown mechanism, leaving us with no idea how the jet stream will respond as climate change progresses. Thus, my forecast for the next 15 years: expect the unprecedented.
NOAA has released its global analysis for October.
Global Analysis - October 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Global Highlights
That's the NOAA report.. NASA released their report last week indicating that October, globally, was the warmest on record, tying with 2005. The UHA satellite record reported the warmest October on record, tied with 2012. No word on the HADCRUT record yet. I wonder if they've stopped doing the monthly round-up.
Global Analysis - October 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Global Highlights
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for October, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).
- The global land surface temperature was 1.05°C (1.89°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the fifth highest for October on record.
- For the ocean, the October global sea surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and the highest for October on record.
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–October period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.4°F). The first ten months of 2014 were the warmest such period on record.
That's the NOAA report.. NASA released their report last week indicating that October, globally, was the warmest on record, tying with 2005. The UHA satellite record reported the warmest October on record, tied with 2012. No word on the HADCRUT record yet. I wonder if they've stopped doing the monthly round-up.
Sea ice? What sea ice. The last of that disappeared in 2013 remember. Or maybe it was 2008. The dates keep changing every time they are proved wrong.
why do you fixate on predictions made by a few scientists?... something that only got any real notice because of media coverage. You'll chirp about those few predictions but you'll completely ignore (and refuse to accept) the Arctic sea-ice extent/volume long-term melting trend images presented here.
I wonder what the solar radiation input for that time frame was, and what was the deviation if any.
Why do you fixate on proven lies? You are just a one trick pony with an old trick
Well one scientist, alone, Tesla, was so far ahead of the combined total of scientists on earth in his day that he radically changed the course of history all by hiself.
you keep screeching about "proven lies", "lyin", "cheatin", "lyin & cheatin", "caught lyin & cheatin", blah, blah, blah!!! I keep challenging you to step up and give me some examples of your screech. For some strange reason you refuse... but, you continue to screech! Of course you do!
All in previous posts. You just ignore everything that does not fit your fixation.
Well one scientist, alone, Tesla, was so far ahead of the combined total of scientists on earth in his day that he radically changed the course of history all by hiself.
And died penniless for his contributions while the global warming believers gorge themselves at the public trough.
ah yes... your safety blanket that allows you to talk shyte and claim, "I don't have to support my shyte... cause... it's covered in some past CC posts in some past CC threads!" :lol:
Yes that's true he also ripped up a contract witch would have cost Westinghouse billions, just to help him out. There's a fundemental difference in the calibre of todays scientist , maybe.
what "public trough" are you talking about? Do you have any metrics that speak to your claimed "gorging"? Who is doing all the gorging you claim is going on?
