Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[1] Yes, as the CSU team indicated [to both].
[2] That "popular media" editorial, should it come to pass,l might get posted the "In The News" thread, but THIS is a science-based thread.
Thanks for contributing.

If only the distinctions between "editorial" opinions, newsworthy "facts," and actual "science" were made as clear-cut to the public as you're suggesting. When it comes to attributing hurricanes and other natural disasters to AGW, there is certainly legitimate scientific and science-based lay opinion for theorizing and editorializing, but when the media portrays such unsettled opinions as settled "fact" it is obviously misleading. This serves various agendas, but eventually only serves to undercut the credibility of the science itself in the eyes of the public. Ironically, it seems like it's mostly lay people portraying the science in an erroneous or even dishonest light who are doing the most damage to its credibility.

I'm not seeing the usual "enemies" -- oil cos., skeptics, deniers, Heartland Institute, etc. -- being blamed for corrupting any of the scientific research you've cited about tropical cyclones throughout this thread. In the longer run the blame will lie in the increasingly obvious divergence between rhetoric and reality.

[Exile]

In deference to Gord's efforts to keep this a science-based thread, and for others who have trouble discerning differences between science, facts, opinions, or just the ubiquitous politically-inspired BS, there's no need to take the word of some stranger on the internet. Not when the writings of a leading scientist and former science advisor for the Obama administration (Stephen Koonin) are available.

https://www.benbellabooks.com/shop/unsettled/

From the intro:

“Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts.”

“Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent.”

“Climate change will be an economic disaster.”

You’ve heard all this presented as fact. But according to science, all of these statements are profoundly misleading.

When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that “the science is settled.” In reality, the long game of telephone from research to reports to the popular media is corrupted by misunderstanding and misinformation. Core questions—about the way the climate is responding to our influence, and what the impacts will be—remain largely unanswered. The climate is changing, but the why and how aren’t as clear as you’ve probably been led to believe.

Like many others with any sort of contrarian message, this scientist doesn't dispute that humans are affecting the planet or question whether AGW exists. But that doesn't seem to matter to those with a political or personal agenda, so don't expect to hear about it on the nightly news or from leading politicians. But why would you expect such sources to be neutral, objective sources of science-based information?

[Elzaar]

Exile - Thanks for this link. I just downloaded the book and look forward to reading it.

Just the summary sums it up for me. In this and many things, I feel there are two different issues - the actual observable facts (ice is melting) vs what people and publications try to spin from them through ignorance or for personal gain. The former is useful and important for everyone to consider. The latter is at best a distraction and at worst is a tool to manipulate people and is dangerous.

We all need to do our best to understand and be aware of the difference. As someone involved in journalism said to me recently, "We each need to sincerely question ourselves personally about what we think we know and why we believe what we believe."

This book potentially looks like a good step in that direction. I applaud the author and anyone willing to stand up and call for rational thought and considered observations against the tide.

[GordMay]

Tropical Storm ‘Andres’ came to life on Sunday, May 9 in the eastern Pacific Ocean after developing into a depression on the weekend. This comes six days ahead of schedule for the May 15 start of the eastern Pacific Ocean hurricane season, which will conclude Nov. 30.
It is now the earliest named storm ever, in the eastern Pacific, beating out the previous record, set by Tropical Storm ‘Adrian’ in 2017 [by just 12 hours], according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC).

T/S ‘Andres’ ➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refres.../091451.shtml?

[Montanan]

It doesn't take a climate scientist to see the changes that have occurred. In the maps below, using NOAA data, Climate Central illustrates the warmer temperatures the U.S. has experienced. When comparing the latest "normals" to what used to be normal a century ago, the difference is clear — seen in red from coast to coast. The map on the left depicts the updated climate "normals" compared to the normal temperatures of the early 20th century (1901-1930). In that time the U.S. has warmed an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit. But the shades of the map show that not all areas are warming uniformly, with the darker red indicating temperature increases in some regions of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The map on the right is more muted in tone and shows the difference between recent 30-year averages, comparing the 1981-2010 normals to the new 1991-2020 normals. While the new normals are just 10 years removed from the earlier set, the changes are still significant. In that time the nation has warmed an average of half a degree Fahrenheit.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Tropical Storm ‘Andres’ came to life on Sunday, May 9 in the eastern Pacific Ocean after developing into a depression on the weekend. This comes six days ahead of schedule for the May 15 start of the eastern Pacific Ocean hurricane season, which will conclude Nov. 30.
It is now the earliest named storm ever, in the eastern Pacific, beating out the previous record, set by Tropical Storm ‘Adrian’ in 2017 [by just 12 hours], according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC).

T/S ‘Andres’ ➥ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refres.../091451.shtml?

To avoid yet another bout of alarmism, I took some liberties with your choice of highlighting & emphasis above.

"The earliest named storm ever."

"Beating out the previous record."

Two obvious questions before your implication of some sort of "aberration" can be correlated to AGW:

(i) How long have storms been "named?"

(ii) What type of data underlies the "record?" (presumably satellites?)

When comparing current events to a historical record, sometimes it's what's left out as opposed to what is stated which can be misleading.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

It doesn't take a climate scientist to see the changes that have occurred. In the maps below, using NOAA data, Climate Central illustrates the warmer temperatures the U.S. has experienced. When comparing the latest "normals" to what used to be normal a century ago, the difference is clear — seen in red from coast to coast. The map on the left depicts the updated climate "normals" compared to the normal temperatures of the early 20th century (1901-1930). In that time the U.S. has warmed an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit. But the shades of the map show that not all areas are warming uniformly, with the darker red indicating temperature increases in some regions of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The map on the right is more muted in tone and shows the difference between recent 30-year averages, comparing the 1981-2010 normals to the new 1991-2020 normals. While the new normals are just 10 years removed from the earlier set, the changes are still significant. In that time the nation has warmed an average of half a degree Fahrenheit.

You're right that it doesn't take a climate scientist to see such changes, but it does take one who's also objective to interpret them properly. There's little if any dispute that the planet has been in an overall warming trend since the last ice age, with multitudes of shorter term periods of warming & cooling since. Whether the rate of more recent warming definitively correlates with AGW is the source of much of the scientific inquiry & controversy, and is hardly resolved by a pretty graph presented from a biased source who's website plainly reveals a desire for a predetermined outcome. In fact, the satellite temp data -- widely accepted within the scientific community -- now shows a cooling trend (attributed to a La Nina) that recently dipped below the 30-year average (1990-2020), along with overall average temps that are ~50% less than what the models predicted.

https://www.drroyspencer.com

Should we declare or insinuate a "new normal" from this data as well?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

To avoid yet another bout of alarmism, I took some liberties with your choice of highlighting & emphasis above.

"The earliest named storm ever."

"Beating out the previous record."

Two obvious questions before your implication of some sort of "aberration" can be correlated to AGW:

(i) How long have storms been "named?"

(ii) What type of data underlies the "record?" (presumably satellites?)

When comparing current events to a historical record, sometimes it's what's left out as opposed to what is stated which can be misleading.

AKA... Alarmism.. always good for personal agendas.
Kinda like the Atlantic Hurricane season starting June 1st... when in actual fact they can happen any time of the year.

January 1938, 1951, 1978, 2016
February 1952
March 1908
April 1992, 2003, 2017
May 1887, 2012, 2020
June 1886, 1909, 1936, 1968
July 2005, 2020
August 2004, 2012
September 2020
October 1950
November 1931, 1961, 2001, 2005, 2020
December 1887, 2003

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

AKA... Alarmism.. always good for personal agendas.
Kinda like the Atlantic Hurricane season starting June 1st... when in actual fact they can happen any time of the year.

January 1938, 1951, 1978, 2016
February 1952
March 1908
April 1992, 2003, 2017
May 1887, 2012, 2020
June 1886, 1909, 1936, 1968
July 2005, 2020
August 2004, 2012
September 2020
October 1950
November 1931, 1961, 2001, 2005, 2020
December 1887, 2003

Dang! Since I'm planning on sailing the Atlantic to Bermuda in a few weeks, I (almost) wish you hadn't told me!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

Dang! Since I'm planning on sailing the Atlantic to Bermuda in a few weeks, I (almost) wish you hadn't told me!

June is usually the quietest month..

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Exile

To avoid yet another bout of alarmism, I took some liberties with your choice of highlighting & emphasis above.

"The earliest named storm ever."

"Beating out the previous record."

Two obvious questions before your implication of some sort of "aberration" can be correlated to AGW:

(i) How long have storms been "named?"

(ii) What type of data underlies the "record?" (presumably satellites?) No records far predate satellites, albeit satellites certainly aid in locating storms that might not be reported that were far out to sea and without maritime traffic to relay data thereof.

When comparing current events to a historical record, sometimes it's what's left out as opposed to what is stated which can be misleading.

History of Hurricane Names
For several hundred years many hurricanes in the West Indies were named after the particular saint's day on which the hurricane occurred. Ivan R. Tannehill describes in his book "Hurricanes" the major tropical storms of recorded history and mentions many hurricanes named after saints. For example, there was "Hurricane Santa Ana" which struck Puerto Rico with exceptional violence on July 26, 1825, and "San Felipe" (the first) and "San Felipe" (the second) which hit Puerto Rico on September 13 in both 1876 and 1928.

Tannehill also tells of Clement Wragge, an Australian meteorologist who began giving women's names to tropical storms before the end of the 19th century.

An early example of the use of a woman's name for a storm was in the novel "Storm" by George R. Stewart, published by Random House in 1941, and since filmed by Walt Disney. During World War II this practice became widespread in weather map discussions among forecasters, especially Army and Navy meteorologists who plotted the movements of storms over the wide expanses of the Pacific Ocean.

In 1953, the United States abandoned a confusing two-year old plan to name storms by a phonetic alphabet (Able, Baker, Charlie) when a new, international phonetic alphabet was introduced. That year, the United States began using female names for storms.

The practice of naming hurricanes solely after women came to an end in 1978 when men's and women's names were included in the Eastern North Pacific storm lists. In 1979, male and female names were included in lists for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

What's in a name? A storm by any other name would blow as strong.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Montanan

History of Hurricane Names
For several hundred years many hurricanes in the West Indies were named after the particular saint's day on which the hurricane occurred. Ivan R. Tannehill describes in his book "Hurricanes" the major tropical storms of recorded history and mentions many hurricanes named after saints. For example, there was "Hurricane Santa Ana" which struck Puerto Rico with exceptional violence on July 26, 1825, and "San Felipe" (the first) and "San Felipe" (the second) which hit Puerto Rico on September 13 in both 1876 and 1928.

Tannehill also tells of Clement Wragge, an Australian meteorologist who began giving women's names to tropical storms before the end of the 19th century.

An early example of the use of a woman's name for a storm was in the novel "Storm" by George R. Stewart, published by Random House in 1941, and since filmed by Walt Disney. During World War II this practice became widespread in weather map discussions among forecasters, especially Army and Navy meteorologists who plotted the movements of storms over the wide expanses of the Pacific Ocean.

In 1953, the United States abandoned a confusing two-year old plan to name storms by a phonetic alphabet (Able, Baker, Charlie) when a new, international phonetic alphabet was introduced. That year, the United States began using female names for storms.

The practice of naming hurricanes solely after women came to an end in 1978 when men's and women's names were included in the Eastern North Pacific storm lists. In 1979, male and female names were included in lists for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

What's in a name? A storm by any other name would blow as strong.

A copy & paste, without proper attribution, straight from the NOAA website. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames_history.shtml. Either that or you are a person of extraordinary scholarship & erudition.

The short answers, of course, are that storms were not routinely and regularly named until relatively modern times, and satellites have only been around for several decades. Prior to, it is only logical that countless storms never made landfall and were therefore never recorded. So the next time you read about another "record" that's been "broken," perhaps you'll consider the objectivity of the source. This is, after all, supposed to be a thread about the science.

[mjscottinnc]

For the record, ever since the fabricated ‘hockey stick’ data from East Anglia and other complicit universities... I trust nothing or no one, especially ‘computer predicted’ trends and models.

[SuW]

[QUOTE=mjscottinnc;3404774...I trust nothing or no one...[/QUOTE]

Then, dear sir, you'll oblige us by saying nothing either.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by Exile

(ii) What type of data underlies the "record?" (presumably satellites?)

I would put this record in the "alarmism" category. I would guess this record is composed of an amazingly short 20 years or so of accurate satellite data.

Doppler LIDAR is really new. Less than 5 years maybe? SAR and scatterometers have been used for weather for maybe 20 years. Taking a picture from space and flying a plane into the storm has been used for 50 years or so but that is useless as a means of determining when a storm became a tropical storm.