Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Here we go again...

From the second paragraph;

"It is found that the entire sunspot cycle does not play a major role in hurricane activity. A correlation of only 0.0235 between number of storms and sunspot activity was found."


What was found, if I interpret the article correctly, is that there is a remarkably weak correlation between sunspot activity and hurrican activity, both in frequency and intensity, but even that small correlation should be included to aid in producing more accurate models.

file:///C:/Users/owner/Downloads/160259.pdf

It should be noted that the Climate Central article is dated 2014, and the abstract from Brian Hutton 2010.

While an eyeblink in geological or a day in generational time, 7-11 years in scientific time is an era nowadays, and even more so for a quickly evolving disciplne like climate science...

Nice cherrypicking, now read the rest of the article.

"While there is only a weak causality overall, there is a stronger coorelation between sunspots and hurricane frequency at peaks, and minimums", and THAT should be used in predictions ".

And yes, sunspots don't cause hurricanes, but they DO control the Sun's total energy output by as much as 5%, and THAT coupled with Atlantic currents including the Halocline which is affected by total rainfall, which solar radiation has been correlated to cloud formation.

We are dealing with a complex system pointing to ANY single cause is nonsense, NOT science.

[Chris31415]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Here we go again...

From the second paragraph;

"It is found that the entire sunspot cycle does not play a major role in hurricane activity. A correlation of only 0.0235 between number of storms and sunspot activity was found."


What was found, if I interpret the article correctly, is that there is a remarkably weak correlation between sunspot activity and hurrican activity, both in frequency and intensity, but even that small correlation should be included to aid in producing more accurate models.

I don’t think that’s how it works. My guess, without looking at the data, is that the correlation coefficient is not statistically different from zero. No need to add noise to the model.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Nice cherrypicking, now read the rest of the article.

"While there is only a weak causality overall, there is a stronger coorelation between sunspots and hurricane frequency at peaks, and minimums", and THAT should be used in predictions ".

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

And yes, sunspots don't cause hurricanes, but they DO control the Sun's total energy output by as much as 5%, and THAT coupled with Atlantic currents including the Halocline which is affected by total rainfall, which solar radiation has been correlated to cloud formation.

Take a breath. You're beginning to sound like Newhaul.

We are dealing with a complex system pointing to ANY single cause is nonsense, NOT science.

To my definition, not cherrypicking at all. Though quoting an abstract as the totality of a paper, to some, might appear to be.

Sunspots do not "control the Sun's total energy output by as much as 5%". They are the result of magneto-hydrodynamic forces originating within the interior of the star, which does control almost the entire amount of its energy output.

Sunspots are a result not a cause, reflecting whatever output variability the sun's internal dynamics produce.

Please show where I pointed to "ANY single cause" doing anything at all.

As far as global warming changing storm frequency, the number, and spacing of tropical waves has not changed, however there is a clear coorelation, and connection to sunspot cycles which follow a similar pattern, and show more hurricanes during peak sunpots, and less hurricanes during years with little, or no sunspots.

Would like some back up on that startling claim. As well as clarification regarding the use of the terms 'tropical waves' and 'hurricanes' in the statement.

Is there some mechanism where sunspot's correlation (whatever the significance of it's 'strength') with hurricanes is not also reflected in tropical waves, or is that just another 'semantics' issue, same as your first?


The only thing this mostly useless exchange illustrates is the true complexity of the Earth's climate. Most of which, it should be remembered, takes place in an zone no thicker than a thousandth the diameter of the Earth...

Originally Posted by Chris31415

I don’t think that’s how it works. My guess, without looking at the data, is that the correlation coefficient is not statistically different from zero. No need to add noise to the model.

Ahhh, do I feel the slight zepher generated by the beat of a butterfly's wing...

[GordMay]

Although not generally accepted, there is, at least, one study [1] that suggests that more sunspots mean less intense hurricanes on Earth. But many hurricane/climate experts are cool on the idea [AGW skeptic, Judith Curry, for one].

James Elsner, a climatologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, analyzed hurricane data, going back more than a century, and says he has identified a 10- to 12-year cycle in hurricane records, that corresponds to the solar cycle, in which the Sun's magnetic activity rises and falls.

The idea is that increased solar activity, associated with sunspots, means more ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's upper atmosphere. That warms the airs aloft, and decreases the temperature differential between high and low elevations, that otherwise would fuel hurricanes.

He says his statistical analysis suggests a 10% decrease in hurricane intensity, for every 100 sunspots. At the peak of its cycle, the Sun might exhibit around 250 sunspots.

[1] “The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones” ~ byJames B. Elsner, James P. Kossin & Thomas H. Jagger [2008]
➥ https://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Re...Jagger2008.pdf

[GordMay]

See also “Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled”
➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3468128

[jimbunyard]

And where are we at in the 'sunspot cycle' again?

[jimbunyard]

Also, can you provide a link to th paper where the "a 10% decrease in hurricane intensity, for every 100 sunspots" statemenet is made?

As far as I could tell in my admittedly speedy read of the one to which you previously linked, it wasn't there.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And where are we at in the 'sunspot cycle' again?

Good question, but it doesn't make much difference.

Experts have predicted that Cycle 25, which was announced to have begun in September of 2020, will be another weak sunspot cycle, as was Cycle 24 [December 2008 - 2020].

In direct contradiction to the official forecast [1], from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, a team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado is predicting [2] that sunspot cycle 25 that started last fall could be one of the strongest since record-keeping began.
Sunspot Cycle 24, peaked with a sunspot number of 116.

[1] The SWPC predicts a peak sunspot number of 115 ➥ https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar...m6GviIFiEjdH34
➥ https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

[2] NCAR forecasts 210 to 260 ➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...7-020-01723-y/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Also, can you provide a link to th paper where the "a 10% decrease in hurricane intensity, for every 100 sunspots" statemenet is made?
As far as I could tell in my admittedly speedy read of the one to which you previously linked, it wasn't there.

Good catch!


“The Spatial Pattern of the Sun-Hurricane Connection across the North Atlantic” ~ by Robert E. Hodges and James B. Elsner
➥ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/517962/

... Elsner and Jagger [4] showed that the annual counts of US-affecting hurricanes are negatively related to high sunspots. Poisson regression modeling revealed that, after accounting for known climate covariates important to hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic, September sunspot number (SSN) was negatively related to seasonal hurricane counts. An SSN value of 100 sunspots yielded a 26% reduction in the probability of a US hurricane. The relationship was found to be weak but consistent and statistically significant for the entire duration of the HURDAT records, reaching back into the mid-19th century ...

➥ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/517962/

See also:

“Solar impacts on hurricanes” ~ by Dr. Jeff Masters
➥ https://www.wunderground.com/blog/Je...urricanes.html

[GordMay]

More birds are getting whipped around in stronger hurricanes

For hundreds of years, people have witnessed birds being drawn into hurricanes, and historical records, dating back to the 1800s, include observations from sailors, that noticed the exhausted animals landing on the bow of the ship, while travelling through the hurricane’s eye. Now that hurricanes are becoming stronger and more frequent, how are the birds being affected?

Matthew Van Den Broeke, an associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, explored the answer to this question in his latest study [1] published in Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation.

Van Den Broeke analyzed the dual-polarimetric radar data, from 33 Atlantic hurricanes, that struck the U.S. coast or Puerto Rico, from 2011 to 2020, and noticed bioscatter in various parts of a hurricane, such as in the eye and outer rainbands. Bioscatter was found in every single hurricane, but Van Den Broeke says that the amount of bioscatter significantly differed, based on the type of storm. It seemed like these more intense hurricanes that had a really well-defined eye often had bigger, taller, more dense signatures which would indicate more birds in there.

Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall on Texas and Louisiana, in August 2017, as a Category 4 storm, was cited by Van Den Broeke as an example of a particularly notable hurricane he analyzed. Harvey set the record for the wettest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the U.S., a trend that many climate scientists link to human-induced climate change.

Hurricane intensity was the variable that was most strongly associated with bioscatter, which the study says could be because birds are there, when the storm forms, or because it is unlikely they will try flying through the winds and thunderstorms, that surround the hurricane’s eye.

It is dangerous for a bird to attempt to leave a hurricane with high wind speeds and Van Den Broeke stated that this causes birds to stay in severe hurricanes for significant lengths of time, which can be a week in the air and travelling thousands of miles. In fact, the study says that the researchers “speculate that a mature hurricane could transport a bird for as long as the hurricane is over water.”

The study reported that the largest amounts of bioscatter appeared in hurricanes from July to October, when many avian species are migrating south for the winter. On average, bioscatter was also larger and denser in hurricanes that made landfall on the Gulf Coast and in Florida, likely due to higher avian biodiversity and concentration of birds.

Van Den Broeke says that increasingly frequent and strengthening hurricanes could have impacts on bird diversity and avian ecosystems. “Population dynamics could hypothetically be skewed, or invasive species introduced, by a hurricane of the right intensity crossing a migratory route at the wrong time,” Van Den Broeke stated in the university’s press release. [2]

There is still much to learn about how birds are transported by hurricanes. The study’s data analysis revealed that the cruising altitude of trapped birds also increases with hurricane intensity, but it is not clear why. Van Den Broeke suspects it could be because of hot, moist air near the ocean’s surface that rises in the eye until it reaches a boundary beyond which drier air from above is sinking.

Given the curiosities about how birds spend their time, during the hurricane’s eye, and how these twisters are changing, as the climate warms, Van Den Broeke says that bioscatter data could be used to provide more details to forecasters and meteorologists, that are studying hurricanes.

[1] Bioscatter transport by tropical cyclones: insights from 10 years in the Atlantic basin” ~ by Matthew S. Van Den Broeke
➥ https://zslpublications.onlinelibrar....1002/rse2.225

[2] “Feather phenomenon: Radar indicates stronger hurricanes trap, transport more birds” ~ by Scott Schrage | University Communication
Higher winds, more T-storms keep birds confined to calm-eyed center of cyclones
➥ https://news.unl.edu/newsrooms/today...ransport-more/

[bstreep]

Gord, I love you like a brother...

One first has to accept that tropical cyclones ARE increasing in intensity. If you are looking at the Atlantic basin, for instance, the NHC has cooked the books on the data. They change the way they interpret flight level winds (the multiplier has changed, effectively adding 1 to each storm's intensity), and they changed their definition of "sustained winds". One can't make these changes without normalizing the data from before the change, so that one is comparing apples to apples. And they haven't.

We are Hurricane Harvey "survivors". $236K in repairs. Direct hit. Yeah, I echo what everyone else says that Harvey was a Category 4. Don't tell anyone, but it was just a 3... Really, it was. I have all of the data to prove it. Somewhere.

Another area where the NHC cheats: Get this. One would expect the NHC to be very, very particular about their data, right? Nope. Earlier this year, they bumped a hurricane to a Category 3 (Major Storm) from a 2 based on a single weather station report. So, you might be thinking that this weather station might be a NOAA station, or some other type of station that has been calibrated, costs a million bucks, something like that, right? Once again, NO. It was a $99 unit on a house that reports through crowd source reporting to a website. I kid you not.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by bstreep

.... One can't make these changes without normalizing the data from before the change, so that one is comparing apples to apples. And they haven't.
....

Another area where the NHC cheats: Get this. One would expect the NHC to be very, very particular about their data, right? Nope. Earlier this year, they bumped a hurricane to a Category 3 (Major Storm) from a 2 based on a single weather station report. So, you might be thinking that this weather station might be a NOAA station, or some other type of station that has been calibrated, costs a million bucks, something like that, right? Once again, NO. It was a $99 unit on a house that reports through crowd source reporting to a website. I kid you not.

One of the weather data collection centers in my state is at the RDU airport. Before the airport, the weather station was in Raleigh, which is close by. RDU and Raleigh are in Wake County.

In 1900, Wake county was something like 90% farmland, with a bit of forest land and town/cities. By the end of the 1900's, much of the county was forest and town/cities with only a bit of farmland. I have yet to see data for the 2000s, but there is far more city and towns, and much less forest and even less farm land. I have seen the changes in the last 30 years where the forest were cleared for houses, commercial buildings, highways, road expansion, etc. Places that used to be woods, which were once farmland in the 1900's, have been paved or built over.

My question is how is the temp data normalized. Wake county is very much a heat island. I see a good 5-10 degrees of higher temperature in the urban areas compared to my house in the woods. There are now two major water lakes that have been built in the 1900's that would affect temperature. How is this normalized?

Decades ago, I looked at buying a nice, as in $500 nice, weather station for the house. This never happened and one reason was the proper sitting of the weather station, per weather service guidelines, was impossible at my site for temp, humidity and wind sensors. Somewhere along the way, I read that either a large minority or small majority of weather stations are not properly sited, which I would believe from the reading the guidelines.

How is weather data normalized when so many of the weather stations are not correctly sited? What is the process?

I don't expect you to answer the questions.

Later,
Dan

[bstreep]

One could spend forever just looking at the stupid things done to/with weather stations, at this site. But, it does appear that folks are listening. https://wattsupwiththat.wpcomstaging...rence-network/

[Hermia II]

IPCC is talking less about warming and more about storms, adjusting its arguments to the weather and not the climate. Wether the climate is affected by CO2 has yet to be proven, but this is a popular political tool designed to increase tax revenue and to focus populations towards a threat, now that Russia, Talibans etc. has faded as threats.
To facilitate the climate narrative the level of severity of storms designated by name has been lowered, CO2 is often measured on Hawaii close to the volcano and weather stations increasingly placed in urban areas, which by nature are warmer.
If you would like to have a sober view of the development of the climate there is one very simple thing to follow. Start drawing the curves well before 1850 (which was the end of the small ice age). It is a fact that not so far back in history, Geenland was in fact green etc. etc. There are loads of scientific proof of these things.
Don't buy the current alarmistic climate narrative, it is simply false.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Hermia II

IPCC is talking less about warming and more about storms, adjusting its arguments to the weather and not the climate. Wether the climate is affected by CO2 has yet to be proven, but this is a popular political tool designed to increase tax revenue and to focus populations towards a threat, now that Russia, Talibans etc. has faded as threats.
To facilitate the climate narrative the level of severity of storms designated by name has been lowered, CO2 is often measured on Hawaii close to the volcano and weather stations increasingly placed in urban areas, which by nature are warmer.
If you would like to have a sober view of the development of the climate there is one very simple thing to follow. Start drawing the curves well before 1850 (which was the end of the small ice age). It is a fact that not so far back in history, Geenland was in fact green etc. etc. There are loads of scientific proof of these things.
Don't buy the current alarmistic climate narrative, it is simply false.

Virtually every comment above is scientifically verifiable as a lie, or, at best, a deliberate attempt to mislead, both strictly against the 'rules'.

All are easily refuted with a very cursory look at the actual data, as well as the experimentally proved qualities of greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is a major constituent in the Earth's atmosphere, though there are several others that have a significant effect due to their increased efficacy at heat absorption.

Enough so that the net GHG concentration is more like 500 ppm, instead of the 410 or so one sees as the 'official' number...

Laziness is not an excuse for ignorance; if someone presents as true an easily proveably false narrative, an ulterior agenda should be assumed. The claims of fear of 'excessive taxes' only reveals a misunderstanding of economics; the loss, or substitution, of one 'threat' by another, likewise, only reveals a misunderstanding of politics and political influence, as well as an apparent failure to grasp and synthesize the complexity of the systems in question...