There is plenty more, but the historical record speaks volumes.
Amen to that.
Politically Incorrect - 08:02pm on 02/27/2008
Carrick,
There was also a paper published about two years ago, I think by Chris Landsea, that reported Hurricane strength before 1950 was in error due to a different technique in measurement...do you remember that?
Also, I have a couple funny, as in strange, articles adout the El Nino effect on formation. I’ll see if I can find them.
laydownSally - 10:02pm on 02/27/2008
Sally, there is a now well accepted problem with the numbers of named storms before WWII. The reason was smaller storms simpler weren’t uniformly tracked.
The advantage of only looking at storms making landfall is you get 100% coverage since around 1900. The disadvantage is you don’t has as large a number of course, but the numbers seem sufficient to make the point…
Theoretically the main reason to expect a suppression of hurricane formation is that warmer climate seems to intensify the relative shear between the lower and upper troposphere in the subtropics, which is disruptive to storm formation.
Carrick - 11:02pm on 02/27/2008
This is a bit old, now, and it was dropped by the HCGW crowd because its overall findings did not support their scaremongering.
2Hotel9 - 06:02am on 02/28/2008
Carrick,
Took some work but I found them.
From LiveScience.com, 25 June 2007:
A similarly busy forecast was given for the 2006 season, but ultimately it flopped. El Nino conditions that fostered wind shear are thought to have stymied hurricane development.
then a moth later from Rueters, 27 July 2007
WSI’s Crawford added that wind conditions due to the lack of an El Nino event were less conducive to formation of tropical storms.
No wonder the public is confused on the issue.
laydownSally - 07:02pm on 02/28/2008
There has been confusion about El Nino and El Nina effects upon weather patterns north of the equator since the discussions of their existence began. Hell, I remember when some people were saying that El Nino was not a natural occurrence.
Oceanic currents, which move water in 3 dimensions and pull cold, de-oxygenated water from below and cycle warm, oxygenated water from the surface to lower levels. Plus moving in the horizontal brings warm, oxygenated water from the tropics to northern and southern latitudes. A rather complicated subject, to say the least. And nowhere near well enough understood.
2Hotel9 - 06:02am on 02/29/2008
2H9,
And nowhere near well enough understood.
Exactly. A good reason for politicians, reporters and hollywood to stay out of the AGW debate.
Those two articles I quoted from represent precisely what you have stated. I have seen similar misrepresentations of La Nina as well.
Carrick,
There was also a paper published about two years ago, I think by Chris Landsea, that reported Hurricane strength before 1950 was in error due to a different technique in measurement...do you remember that?
Also, I have a couple funny, as in strange, articles adout the El Nino effect on formation. I’ll see if I can find them.
Sally, there is a now well accepted problem with the numbers of named storms before WWII. The reason was smaller storms simpler weren’t uniformly tracked.
The advantage of only looking at storms making landfall is you get 100% coverage since around 1900. The disadvantage is you don’t has as large a number of course, but the numbers seem sufficient to make the point…
Theoretically the main reason to expect a suppression of hurricane formation is that warmer climate seems to intensify the relative shear between the lower and upper troposphere in the subtropics, which is disruptive to storm formation.
This is a bit old, now, and it was dropped by the HCGW crowd because its overall findings did not support their scaremongering.
Carrick,
Took some work but I found them.
From LiveScience.com, 25 June 2007:
then a moth later from Rueters, 27 July 2007
No wonder the public is confused on the issue.
There has been confusion about El Nino and El Nina effects upon weather patterns north of the equator since the discussions of their existence began. Hell, I remember when some people were saying that El Nino was not a natural occurrence.
Oceanic currents, which move water in 3 dimensions and pull cold, de-oxygenated water from below and cycle warm, oxygenated water from the surface to lower levels. Plus moving in the horizontal brings warm, oxygenated water from the tropics to northern and southern latitudes. A rather complicated subject, to say the least. And nowhere near well enough understood.
2H9,
Exactly. A good reason for politicians, reporters and hollywood to stay out of the AGW debate.
Those two articles I quoted from represent precisely what you have stated. I have seen similar misrepresentations of La Nina as well.