Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Montanan]

Okay, so I must be confused as I am left wondering how the AMOC could shutdown.





Doesn't the ocean water just simply spill over the edge of the earth and draws a current by draining?

Please enlighten me.

[Montanan]

Study documents slowing of Atlantic currents


https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/study-documents-slowing-of-atlantic-currents/ar-BB1kvbV0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8f257385ff574d 4593192b23d19b86f0&ei=61

While scientists have observed oceans heating up for decades and theorized that their rising temperatures weaken global currents, a new study led by a University of Maryland researcher documents for the first time a significant slowing of a crucial ocean current system that plays a role in regulating Earth's climate.

Published recently in Frontiers in Marine Science, the paper led by Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC) scientist Alexey Mishonov examined decades of data on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) found in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) World Ocean Atlas.

Mishonov and co-authors Dan Seidov and James Reagan from NOAA discovered that the current system's flow remained stable and consistent from 1955 to 1994. However, in the mid-1990s, AMOC strength began to decline and the current began to move slower, which the scientists attribute to the continued warming of the ocean's surface and the accompanying changes in the salinity of its upper layers.

[killyourguitar]

This seems to be a rather long discussion, I understand this season is supposed to be particularly active according to forecasters. So far I haven't seen any definitive answer on whether Sailors agree with this. Well? Who agrees?

[Montanan]

I perceive that due to the much warmer ocean temperatures that in particular one can expect that there is more likely to be storms that intensify incredibly rapidly, like jumping from Category 1 to 3, 4, 5 in 24 hours to 36 hours which intensification shortens the window for preparedness, avoidance and evacuation, and of course destruction.

The shift from El Nino and La Nina tends to change if there is much wind shear that can break off the tops of storm centers and thus inhibit hurricane formation.

I haven't been keeping up on what the Pacific change is happening as to El Nino / La Nina.

[killyourguitar]

I originally came to visit today to see if I could get some assistance in weather routing for a transatlantic I'm about to embark on. Departing Galveston Texas in about a week.

[GordMay]

Climate Change Has Made Heat Waves Move Slower, Last Longer, Spike Hotter, All Over Larger Areas; Thus Hurting More People, More

Since 1979, global heat waves are moving 20% more slowly [meaning more people stay hot longer], and they are happening 67% more often, according to a study [1], in Friday's Science Advances.
The study found the highest temperatures, in the heat waves, are warmer than 40 years ago, and the area under a heat dome is larger.
From 1979 to 1983, global heat waves would last eight days on average, but by 2016 to 2020, that was up to 12 days, the study [1] said.

Eurasia was especially hit harder, with longer lasting heat waves, the study said. Heat waves slowed down most in Africa, while North America and Australia saw the biggest increases in overall magnitude, which measures temperature and area, according to the study.

The study also looks at the changes in weather patterns [2], that propagate heat waves. Atmospheric waves, that move weather systems along, such as the jet stream, are weakening, so they are not moving heat waves along as quickly — west to east in most, but not all, continents.

This shows how heat waves evolve in three dimensions, and move regionally, and across continents, rather than just looking at temperatures, at individual locations.

[1] “Anthropogenic forcing has increased the risk of longer-traveling and slower-moving large contiguous heatwaves” ~ by Ming Luo et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl1598

[2] See also, additional science news about Weather Patterns ➥ https://phys.org/tags/weather+patterns/

[killyourguitar]

In my experience I will be sailing looking at Windy or a similar app and they display conditions at my location far from what my instruments say. I guess we're headed back to the stone age.

[donradcliffe]

This latest article is not science. It drips with bias and cherry picking. Read it carefully, and you have to conclude there is too much money and fame being thrown at these 'researchers'. Just another product of the anthropegenic global warming cult.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

This latest article is not science. It drips with bias and cherry picking...
... Just another product of the anthropegenic global warming cult.

Could you provide an example, of what you consider “biased” or “cherry “picked” [non-scientific] data?
I suspect your underlying objection is that the authors draw conclusions*, that discomfit your world view, rather than the science that informes them.

* For instance:

Originally Posted by Ming Luo et al

“... Temporal changes of contiguous heatwaves in more recent decades ...
... The results suggest that longer-traveling and slower-moving large contiguous heatwaves will cause more devastating impacts on natural and societal systems in the future if GHG keep rising, and no effective mitigation measures are taken...”

It would be fair to question/refute how their conclusions are not supported, by the scientific facts [as they present them, or otherwise].

Another fair issue, for debate, might be: How far should scientists go [beyond mere research], in advocating specific public policy?
Recently, the politicization of major areas of scientific inquiry, including climate change, and public health, have impacted the relationship between scientists, politicians, and the public.
Although academic research may often be perceived as detached from the public interest, there is an important reciprocal relationship between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Communication, between scientists and lawmakers [or the public], can facilitate a stronger understanding of scientific priorities, and big-picture issues, in addition to challenging myths, misunderstandings, and mistrust in science, and promote it’s use, for the public good [influence science-informed policy-making].

I found the best part of your contribution to be it’s brevity.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Could you provide an example, of what you consider “biased” or “cherry “picked” [non-scientific] data?
I suspect your underlying objection is that the authors draw conclusions*, that discomfit your world view, rather than the science that informes them.

* For instance:

It would be fair to question/refute how their conclusions are not supported, by the scientific facts [as they present them, or otherwise].

Another fair issue, for debate, might be: How far should scientists go [beyond mere research], in advocating specific public policy?
Recently, the politicization of major areas of scientific inquiry, including climate change, and public health, have impacted the relationship between scientists, politicians, and the public.
Although academic research may often be perceived as detached from the public interest, there is an important reciprocal relationship between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Communication, between scientists and lawmakers [or the public], can facilitate a stronger understanding of scientific priorities, and big-picture issues, in addition to challenging myths, misunderstandings, and mistrust in science, and promote it’s use, for the public good [influence science-informed policy-making].

I found the best part of your contribution to be it’s brevity.

I was typing on my phone, so it was short. I knew it was likely that you or one of the other acolytes in the Global Warming Church would invite me to expand.

First of all, the title turned me off. It screams that its a given that global warming is all our fault. Many books could be written on the complexity of predicting climate change, and I don't trust them to be unbiased

The next highlight was "Heat waves slowed down most in Africa while North America and Australia saw the biggest increases in overall magnitude". Their data shows fewer heat waves in equatorial Africa and South America, the southern US, and Western Australia.

I take exception to their curve fitting in Figure 3c, which actually shows constant or increased velocity of heat waves from 1979 until 2010. Its like they new what their masters wanted.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by GordMay

It would be fair to question/refute how their conclusions are not supported, by the scientific facts [as they present them, or otherwise].

CLIMATE The Movie
"A devastating new film by British documentary filmmaker Martin Durkin has obliterated the climate change scam in just 80 minutes.

Durkin, a former revolutionary communist turned staunch libertarian, exposes the climate change scam by interviewing a cast of world renowned academics and researchers who calmly break down how the earth’s climate has always been changing and not a result of human activity."

https://youtu.be/bOAUsvVhgsU?si=QvvnExmM5L-nTT0v

[MHTinkler]

1970's the big upcoming "Global Crisis" was Global Cooling. We're all going to freeze to death. Didn't happen. So now the alarmists are screaming Global Warming. We're all going to fry to death. Hogwash. Ain't gonna happen either. Nothing will ever affect the global climate faster than humans can adapt. We have been doing that for thousands of years, we will continue to do so! ��
Yes, things change. Always have, always will. Not gonna worry about mountains made from molehills.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by MHTinkler

[1] 1970's the big upcoming "Global Crisis" was Global Cooling...
... [2] Nothing will ever affect the global climate faster than humans can adapt. We have been doing that for thousands of years, we will continue to do so! ...

1. There was no scientific consensus, in the 1970s, that the Earth was cooling, and headed into an imminent ice age.

The supposed "global cooling" consensus, among scientists in the, 1970s, is frequently offered, by global-warming skeptics, as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds [or just don’t know] — is an inaccurate myth, whose basis lies in a selective reading of the literature, at the time, and by some observers today.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek*, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

Additionally, views on the impact of a possible “nuclear winter”, in the 1970s, were sometimes conflated, with discussions about global cooling. The nuclear winter argument was entirely unrelated to the [longer term] discussion, by scientists, about global warming.

Thomas Peterson [1], of the National Climatic Data Center, surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles, from 1965 to 1979, and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral, in their assessments of climate trends.

See:
[1] THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” ~ by Thomas C. Peterson et al
➥ https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...3dVbbkQ5haC75i

“... An enduring popular myth suggests that, in the 1970s, the climate science community was predicting “global cooling”, and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used, by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.
A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming, even then, dominated scientists' thinking, as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate, on human time scales ...”

See also:
“Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming” ~ NASA
➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fe...mperature2.php

* Peter Gwynne's [April 28, 1975] "global cooling" story, in “Newsweek” [and a similar Time Magazine piece] have been brandished, gleefully, by those who say it shows global warming is not happening, or at least that scientists [and often journalists] don't know what they are talking about.

The story accurately observed, that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures, from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols, that offered a partial shield to the earth, as well as the gradual retreat, of an abnormally warm interlude.

But, there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.


2. What's become clear is, we [humanity] are a force of nature. Human activity [the burning of fossil fuels, and land change] is having a massive influence on our climate. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment.
One our prime adaptations, to our changing climate, will have to be to stop emitting carbon dioxide, to the best of our ability.

[GordMay]

Thank you for your critique*, donradcliffe. I always welcome specific arguments, such as yours, which can be very helpful in advancing our understanding, of any difficult subject.

* ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3886114

[Montanan]

Accuweather forecast.

Hurricane season begins in two months, but may arrive earlier.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurri...s-warn/1633944

Snipets.

"The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season is forecast to feature well above the historical average number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes and direct U.S. impacts," AccuWeather Lead Hurricane Forecaster Alex DaSilva said.
How many tropical storms and hurricanes are predicted in 2024?
AccuWeather meteorologists are forecasting 20-25 named storms across the Atlantic basin in 2024, including 8-12 hurricanes, four to seven major hurricanes and four to six direct U.S. impacts. This is all above the 30-year historical average of 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, three major hurricanes and four direct U.S. impacts.

. . .

Warm water is fuel for tropical systems, and there will be plenty of warm water for fledgling systems to tap into and strengthen. "Sea-surface temperatures are well above historical average across much of the Atlantic basin, especially across the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and the Main Development Region [for hurricanes],"



Not only will this promote frequent development, but it will increase the potential for systems to undergo rapid intensification, a phenomenon that has occurred in recent years with historic hurricanes.

. . .

The other major factor in AccuWeather's Atlantic hurricane forecast is hitched to the Pacific Ocean. Water near the equator of the eastern Pacific is in the process of quickly flipping from El Niño, when temperatures in this area are higher than historical averages, to La Niña, when temperatures in this zone are lower than long-term normals. This swift transition may have significant implications across the Atlantic Ocean.
La Niña results in less disruptive winds, known as wind shear, over most of the Atlantic basin.



Meanwhile, snow and rain mix likely this weekend in Montana, which is a good thing as our snowpack is only about 70% of average. Our four seasons being June, July, August and Winter. The lawn is greening and will be needing its start of the mowing season, expect our first "haying" in a couple of weeks.