From
:http://www.earthsky.org/features/Sci...nesWarming.php

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming
and hurricanes

(July 28, 2006) A research meteorologist at the National Hurricane
Center today challenged a proposed link between global warming and
hurricane intensity, which had been reported earlier by other hurricane
researchers.

Two other hurricane scientists - whose research indicates this link
does exist, and that global warming is already causing stronger
hurricanes - have now responded.


Chris Landsea
Research meteorologist Chris Landsea called the existing data on
hurricanes "insufficently reliable" to be able to detect a connection
between global warming and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in
recent years.
Landsea wrote in the July 28, 2006 edition of Science, in a section of
the journal called "Perspectives." In his remarks, Landsea questioned
the objectivity of what's called the Dvorak Technique, a method of
estimating tropical cyclone intensity using satellite imagery.

"It is common for different forecasters and agencies to estimate
significantly different intensities on the basis of identical
information," Landsea wrote.

He wrote that data solely relying on satellites showed "artificial
upward trends in intensity," and that data inconsistencies cast "severe
doubts on any such trend linkages to global warming."


Judith Curry
Meanwhile, Judith Curry - a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, who recently testified before a U.S. congressional
committee on the subject of hurricanes and global warming - told Earth
& Sky, "Landsea's 'article' is commentary, not a peer reviewed
article."
She said, "The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

"WIth regard to the global data since 1970 ... there have been
variations with time in how the data has been processed. There is
anecdotal evidence that some storms have been misclassified (some
classified to high and some too low).

"However, at this point, no one has done a rigorous error or
uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements
about the trends are not supported."


Kevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research - told Earth & Sky, "There are still
good reasons to believe that hurricanes have become more intense, and
that this trend will continue."
He said, "The data on sea surface temperatures, and on water vapor in
the atmosphere, are sound. Sea temperatures have risen. Water vapor has
increased about 4% since 1970 over the oceans.

"This is fuel for storms, including the extratropical storms that
caused floods in New England earlier this year and in Washington D.C.
this summer.

"There is no question about the changes of huge increases in intensity
and duration of storms, as found by Kerry Emanuel. For Landsea to
suggest otherwise has no credence.

"Moreover, as we have published, this is associated with increases in
sea surface temperatures and that is mostly caused by global warming,
not natural variability," he concluded.


Tom Knutson
Tom Knutson of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab also weighed in.
In an email to Earth & Sky, he said, " I would not claim to have the
expertise to decide who is closer to the truth in this particular
debate at this point."
He continued, "The issue of data homogeneity is a very legitimate and
important question to raise concerning the issue of possible long-term
trends in hurricane activity."

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
From
:http://www.earthsky.org/features/Sci...nesWarming.php

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming
and hurricanes

(July 28, 2006) A research meteorologist at the National Hurricane
Center today challenged a proposed link between global warming and
hurricane intensity, which had been reported earlier by other hurricane
researchers.

Two other hurricane scientists - whose research indicates this link
does exist, and that global warming is already causing stronger
hurricanes - have now responded.


Chris Landsea
Research meteorologist Chris Landsea called the existing data on
hurricanes "insufficently reliable" to be able to detect a connection
between global warming and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in
recent years.
Landsea wrote in the July 28, 2006 edition of Science, in a section of
the journal called "Perspectives." In his remarks, Landsea questioned
the objectivity of what's called the Dvorak Technique, a method of
estimating tropical cyclone intensity using satellite imagery.

"It is common for different forecasters and agencies to estimate
significantly different intensities on the basis of identical
information," Landsea wrote.

He wrote that data solely relying on satellites showed "artificial
upward trends in intensity," and that data inconsistencies cast "severe
doubts on any such trend linkages to global warming."


Judith Curry
Meanwhile, Judith Curry - a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, who recently testified before a U.S. congressional
committee on the subject of hurricanes and global warming - told Earth
& Sky, "Landsea's 'article' is commentary, not a peer reviewed
article."
She said, "The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

"WIth regard to the global data since 1970 ... there have been
variations with time in how the data has been processed. There is
anecdotal evidence that some storms have been misclassified (some
classified to high and some too low).

"However, at this point, no one has done a rigorous error or
uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements
about the trends are not supported."


Kevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research - told Earth & Sky, "There are still
good reasons to believe that hurricanes have become more intense, and
that this trend will continue."
He said, "The data on sea surface temperatures, and on water vapor in
the atmosphere, are sound. Sea temperatures have risen. Water vapor has
increased about 4% since 1970 over the oceans.

"This is fuel for storms, including the extratropical storms that
caused floods in New England earlier this year and in Washington D.C.
this summer.

"There is no question about the changes of huge increases in intensity
and duration of storms, as found by Kerry Emanuel. For Landsea to
suggest otherwise has no credence.

"Moreover, as we have published, this is associated with increases in
sea surface temperatures and that is mostly caused by global warming,
not natural variability," he concluded.


Tom Knutson
Tom Knutson of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab also weighed in.
In an email to Earth & Sky, he said, " I would not claim to have the
expertise to decide who is closer to the truth in this particular
debate at this point."
He continued, "The issue of data homogeneity is a very legitimate and
important question to raise concerning the issue of possible long-term
trends in hurricane activity."


Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the 70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the 70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much comparing
the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

James wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much comparing
the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

The cycle's thing is just fossil fool spin.
Seeing bumps on a graph is not detecting a cycle.
Much more information is needed. A mechanism
for starts.

"James" wrote in :


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
From
:http://www.earthsky.org/features/Sci...nesWarming.php

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming
and hurricanes

(July 28, 2006) A research meteorologist at the National Hurricane
Center today challenged a proposed link between global warming and
hurricane intensity, which had been reported earlier by other hurricane
researchers.

Two other hurricane scientists - whose research indicates this link
does exist, and that global warming is already causing stronger
hurricanes - have now responded.


Chris Landsea
Research meteorologist Chris Landsea called the existing data on
hurricanes "insufficently reliable" to be able to detect a connection
between global warming and the appearance of more intense hurricanes in
recent years.
Landsea wrote in the July 28, 2006 edition of Science, in a section of
the journal called "Perspectives." In his remarks, Landsea questioned
the objectivity of what's called the Dvorak Technique, a method of
estimating tropical cyclone intensity using satellite imagery.

"It is common for different forecasters and agencies to estimate
significantly different intensities on the basis of identical
information," Landsea wrote.

He wrote that data solely relying on satellites showed "artificial
upward trends in intensity," and that data inconsistencies cast "severe
doubts on any such trend linkages to global warming."


Judith Curry
Meanwhile, Judith Curry - a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, who recently testified before a U.S. congressional
committee on the subject of hurricanes and global warming - told Earth
& Sky, "Landsea's 'article' is commentary, not a peer reviewed
article."
She said, "The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

"WIth regard to the global data since 1970 ... there have been
variations with time in how the data has been processed. There is
anecdotal evidence that some storms have been misclassified (some
classified to high and some too low).

"However, at this point, no one has done a rigorous error or
uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements
about the trends are not supported."


Kevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research - told Earth & Sky, "There are still
good reasons to believe that hurricanes have become more intense, and
that this trend will continue."
He said, "The data on sea surface temperatures, and on water vapor in
the atmosphere, are sound. Sea temperatures have risen. Water vapor has
increased about 4% since 1970 over the oceans.

"This is fuel for storms, including the extratropical storms that
caused floods in New England earlier this year and in Washington D.C.
this summer.

"There is no question about the changes of huge increases in intensity
and duration of storms, as found by Kerry Emanuel. For Landsea to
suggest otherwise has no credence.

"Moreover, as we have published, this is associated with increases in
sea surface temperatures and that is mostly caused by global warming,
not natural variability," he concluded.


Tom Knutson
Tom Knutson of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab also weighed in.
In an email to Earth & Sky, he said, " I would not claim to have the
expertise to decide who is closer to the truth in this particular
debate at this point."
He continued, "The issue of data homogeneity is a very legitimate and
important question to raise concerning the issue of possible long-term
trends in hurricane activity."


Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the
70s, many storms went unnoticed.

As a guy who can empty a plastic jug of cheap gin before lunchtime,
James, I'm sure there is not a lot that you do notice. Knock off the
booze and maybe you might notice.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in
ups.com:

James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in the
70s, many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

You have previously demonstrated that you are historically illiterate. I've appended below the stock rebuttal
to Landsea. James is claiming before the 1970s, including 4 full decades of airmail and commercial
passenger flights between the islands and all points North, South, East, and West. There isn't a possibility of
missing a single tropical cyclone since shortly after Linbergh's flight to Paris.

There was no uptick, no increase in storm reports during the all-eyes-pealed Civil War, Spanish-American
War, WWI or the opening of the Panama Canal.

Yopur methodology is flawed and you were slovenly about your examination of the data. You came with a
fixed paradigm which was flawed then and is flawed still today in trying to shoehorn data into meeting you
preconceptions.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.

The models are built on the base of flawed paradigms. GIGO. They have never done energy flow accounting,
and as recently as a couple of months ago one famous modeller was in this forum asking about where to get
data on total energy throughput.


I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.

No. I think you will die and be gone before then. Don't use the remainder of your time spreading FUD.

There is nithing hard to measuring intensity. They use dropsondes to get barometric readings. These are the
official means to determine hurricane intesity. The basic barometer itself is a simple instrument invented
before hurricane records began. The official HURDAT record omits barometric data for most early storms, but
the raw data on the same website has it for many ancient storms.

Naturally nobody wants to be caught at sea by a hurricane, but before radio they were caught by surprise.
Many ships had barometers.

------------------------
http://www.hurricanehunters.com/history2.htm
A History of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron

Hurricane Hunting started on a dare in the middle of World War II, when Lt Col Joe Duckworth took an AT-6
Texan training aircraft into the eye of a hurricane. Our squadron traces its heritage back over 50 years, to
the 3rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, Air Route, Medium on August 7, 1944. From the very beginning,
the squadron began a globe-trotting tradition, with aircraft spread from Canada to Florida to the Azores.

B-17 FLYING FORTRESS

The Fortress was the most often requested aircraft for weather reconnaissance in WWII. In Sept. 1945, the
53rd was the first squadron to intentionally fly a B-17 into a hurricane. Hurricanes soon became their primary
mission, and henceforth the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron has been known as the Hurricane
Hunters.

The scattering of the squadron's planes around the globe was required by the very nature of the
responsibilities assigned to the organization. During this early period, the unit scouted the weather over large
geographical areas: remember, this was in the days before satellites! Day after day, squadron planes
collected data which were transmitted to weather stations for use in preparing forecasts required for the Air
Force and the U.S. Weather Bureau.
------------------------




Chris Landsea spent years of his life pouring over the HURDAT database and old records trying to locate
evidences of storms that were somehow skipped from being included in the official record. Thanks to him
and his team an average of one or two storms were added to the records from antique sources including
journals and diaries from scientists who kept good daily weather records, newspaper reports from captains
who encountered storms at sea, from army coastal forts who took twice daily weather readings, from ship
captain's logs preserved in local state historical societies and museums. He's not the only one who made the
effort to make sure nothing possibly was omitted.

The record we have is the OFFICIAL record. There is no better private records available for love or money.
There is no other source for the best data. Landsea himself made sure of that.

From the Gold Rush of 1849 the pathways of hurricanes were thick with sailing ships traversing the same
seas, using the same steering winds that hurricanes use. BY 1849 there were regularly scheduled weekly
sailings of steam paddlewheeler mail & supply ships from Boston, NYC & Washington DC to the gold fields of
California. The official records starts 2 years after the seas were crowded by both sailing and steam vessels.

One faster route to the Gold Fields was via Panama, where people debarked on the east, hiked 50 miles to
the west, and embarked if a ship passing had room. We have complete coverage of every possible point on
the seas where a hurricane could exist. Most hurricanes at sea were reported by six or more ships. The
sailors used actual "knots" as a measure of speed, not as a metaphor for a measure of speed. They were
lifelong trained in gauging wind speeds and ship motion, not like the loss-of-skills of today's seamen might
cause you to judge the elders.

Barometers are the most precise measurement of hurricane strength today, superior by far to satellite
estimations. Barometers were standard equipment early, well before the official records begin. Although the
"official" record at HURDAT does not put barometric readings in the database for early era storms, the raw
data at the same website includes barameter readings from many obvservers even very early in the record
period. You have to ask Landsea why the raw data barometer records are left out of the official record he
helped create.

Shortly after the record begins we have the Civil War, with coastal blockades of picket ship fleets and
smuggler blockade runners. Nobody can effectively argue that that the Atlantic and Gulf were not fully
monitored so that not one single storm could pass uncounted.

By 1909 the Panama Canal was opened with a non-stop stream of traffic through in both directions from all
points to all points. The Carribean was also heavily monitored during the year of the Spanish-American War
as well as the south Atlantic and Gulf.

The years of the Civil War, Spanish-American War, the opening of the Panama Canal, World War I, years
with all eyes pealed for enemy fleets and cruisers looking for action ought to have produced an strong uptick
of "found" storms that might otherwise have been missed in the counts. That is not true in the actual record.
More eyes did not produce higher counts. The counts reflect the actual, not the hypothetical, cyclone
activity.

Look HE http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html

Explain how the counting got so good in certain early years and was so bad in years just before and after
peak years in the record? That is the burden of proof required on those who accuse the elders of shoddy
record keeping. Neither you, nor Landsea have met your burden of proof and you slurs and insults on the
integrity of the early record keepers is rejected summarily until you meet your burden of proof.

1914 was a WAR year. All eyes open for enemy. The US fleet was in Tampico, Mexico, fighting for
Satandard Oil companies (as usual) from April of that year. By August, Europe was at war, with fleets
scrambling to stock in strategic supplies. Explain how storms got missed in 1914? How much storm activity
was there in 1914? There was exactly ONE tropical Storm and ZERO hurricanes. This record is not because
there were no satellites on duty, but because the world was different then, the climate was different then.

Accept reality and deal with it like an adult -- we are discussing the social course of human survival on the
planet, not trying to win points in a debate.

Landsea does not have better data than I have -- we both have the same data. Landsea has less
conscience than I have and he has been an associate with discredited science fraudsters. Landsea has
diminishing credibility and may end his career being called a crook if he doesn't stop trying to spread
disinformation.

"James" wrote in :


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in
the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html

This page compares everything. From WWII onwards there were hurricane
hunters flying into the eyes of hurricanes. Before that there were the
decades of 1930-145 where commercial passenger flights connected all the
islands with all the mainlands. As big as hurricanes are, there is no
possibility any were missed during this period. Barnstormers were trained
for WWI and there was private flyers and airmail runs from 1918 through
1930 island hopping to and fro between North and South America.


Chris Landsea spent years of his life pouring over the HURDAT database and
old records trying to locate evidences of storms that were somehow skipped
from being included in the official record. Thanks to him and his team an
average of one or two storms were added to the records from antique
sources including journals and diaries from scientists who kept good daily
weather records, newspaper reports from captains who encountered storms at
sea, from army coastal forts who took twice daily weather readings, from
ship captain's logs preserved in local state historical societies and
museums. He's not the only one who made the effort to make sure nothing
possibly was omitted.

The record we have is the OFFICIAL record. There is no better private
records available for love or money. There is no other source for the best
data. Landsea himself made sure of that.

From the Gold Rush of 1849 the pathways of hurricanes were thick with
sailing ships traversing the same seas, using the same steering winds that
hurricanes use. BY 1849 there were regularly scheduled weekly sailings of
steam paddlewheeler mail & supply ships from Boston, NYC & Washington DC
to the gold fields of California. The official records starts 2 years
after the seas were crowded by both sailing and steam vessels.

One faster route to the Gold Fields was via Panama, where people debarked
on the east, hiked 50 miles to the west, and embarked if a ship passing
had room. We have complete coverage of every possible point on the seas
where a hurricane could exist. Most hurricanes at sea were reported by six
or more ships. The sailors used actual "knots" as a measure of speed, not
as a metaphor for a measure of speed. They were lifelong trained in
gauging wind speeds and ship motion, not like the loss-of-skills of
today's seamen might cause you to judge the elders.

Barometers are the most precise measurement of hurricane strength today,
superior by far to satellite estimations. Barometers were standard
equipment early, well before the official records begin. Although the
"official" record at HURDAT does not put barometric readings in the
database for early era storms, the raw data at the same website includes
barameter readings from many obvservers even very early in the record
period. You have to ask Landsea why the raw data barometer records are
left out of the official record he helped create.

Shortly after the record begins we have the Civil War, with coastal
blockades of picket ship fleets and smuggler blockade runners. Nobody can
effectively argue that that the Atlantic and Gulf were not fully
monitored so that not one single storm could pass uncounted.

By 1909 the Panama Canal was opened with a non-stop stream of traffic
through in both directions from all points to all points. The Carribean
was also heavily monitored during the year of the Spanish-American War as
well as the south Atlantic and Gulf.

The years of the Civil War, Spanish-American War, the opening of the
Panama Canal, World War I, years with all eyes pealed for enemy fleets and
cruisers looking for action ought to have produced an strong uptick of
"found" storms that might otherwise have been missed in the counts. That
is not true in the actual record. More eyes did not produce higher counts.
The counts reflect the actual, not the hypothetical, cyclone activity.

Look HE http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html

Explain how the counting got so good in certain early years and was so bad
in years just before and after peak years in the record? That is the
burden of proof required on those who accuse the elders of shoddy record
keeping. Neither you, nor Landsea have met your burden of proof and you
slurs and insults on the integrity of the early record keepers is rejected
summarily until you meet your burden of proof.

1914 was a WAR year. All eyes open for enemy. The US fleet was in Tampico,
Mexico, fighting for Satandard Oil companies (as usual) from April of that
year. By August, Europe was at war, with fleets scrambling to stock in
strategic supplies. Explain how storms got missed in 1914? How much storm
activity was there in 1914? There was exactly ONE tropical Storm and ZERO
hurricanes. This record is not because there were no satellites on duty,
but because the world was different then, the climate was different then.

Accept reality and deal with it like an adult -- we are discussing the
social course of human survival on the planet, not trying to win points in
a debate.

Landsea does not have better data than I have -- we both have the same
data. Landsea has less conscience than I have and he has been an associate
with discredited science fraudsters. Landsea has diminishing credibility
and may end his career being called a crook if he doesn't stop trying to
spread disinformation.

"Prosecute Killer Koch Bros for Global Warming Deaths"
wrote in message
. 17.102...
"James" wrote in :


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in
the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

"The North Atlantic data clearly show that - in the last
decade (since 1995) relative to the decade centered around 1950
(previous peak period) - there are 50% more named storms, 50% more
hurricanes, and 50% more category 4 and 5 storms.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in
oups.com:

James wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
James wrote:
Prior to the first satellite that looked at this stuff sometime in
the
70s,
many storms went unnoticed.

Yes. When I looked at hurricane data I also found increases
at about the time ships gave up sail power, and another near
the time when ships started carrying radio.

That's a problem to be sure, but I don't think it's the major
one here. According to what I have read, models do not
show increasing hurricanes for another half-century or so.
I think everyone is counting hurricanes before they're hatched.
This business about increasing strengths, is tricky to model
and hard to measure, so the claims are hard to verify. Put
me in the doubters camp on this issue, at least for about
another two decades.


How about a few more decades. To compare 1995 - 2005 is a bit much
comparing the period the 1950 -1960 don't you think?

The cycle's thing is just fossil fool spin.
Seeing bumps on a graph is not detecting a cycle.
Much more information is needed. A mechanism
for starts.

The AMO can be debunked on the basis of this year's satellite records, of which I daily download copies for
my personal archives every day.

The flooding two days ago in Madison, WI, Cleveland, OH, BUffalo, NY would in times past have been
attributed to Atlantic moisture, but in fact was remnants of an Asian Pacific typhoon Ewiniar. You can follow
the cloud masses every half hour as they move over the screens -- but they don't move fast enough to
bother with that level of detail for most oceanic areas -- I collect every 2-hourly intervals.

In science nothing is ever sure except that somethings are proved not true. There's always some element of
suspense that what you know may be undone by new discoveries. The AMO is undone by this discovery that
powerful eastern US and even European moisture events can be tracked to the Pacific, both EPAC and
WPAC. Tree rings can't tell you where the moisture rose up in the world.

There is NO 50-60 year cycle of Atlantic cyclones. There was a strong uptick from 1945 through 1969 and it
has a likely genesis from the carbon burning of WWII. One would need to be a student of history to
understand the intensity of war production in order to find this causal role, and most climatologists are not
human history buffs. They never associated it before. Tree rings can't tell you if the moisture was ATL, EPAC
or WPAC.