Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles In Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season

[phantom power]

Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.

(...)

Trenberth and Shea's research focuses on an increase in ocean temperatures. During much of last year's hurricane season, sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic between 10 and 20 degrees north, which is where many Atlantic hurricanes originate, were a record 1.7 degrees F above the 1901-1970 average. While researchers agree that the warming waters fueled hurricane intensity, they have been uncertain whether Atlantic waters have heated up because of a natural, decades-long cycle, or because of global warming.

By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic. Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. Aftereffects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.

Previous studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century—and associated hurricane activity—to the AMO. But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming was also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth's tropical and midlatitude waters. He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures—in effect, separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle. The results show that the AMO is actually much weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also quite active. However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060622173129.htm

[Javaman]

1. Just imagine when the AMO is strong again...

they will need a new catagory on the hurricane scale. The "kiss your ass goodbye" level.

[phantom power]

2. My guess is, we have made the AMO irrelevent.

GHG climate forcing, along with the various feedback loops we've kicked off, are going to dominate the climate into the forseeable future. I'm starting to view a latter-day Younger-Dryas event(*) as the optimistic scenario. At least that would halt the warming feedbacks. Humans have survived previous ice-ages. I'm not so sure we would survive the alternative, which is a planet 10-20C hotter at the equator, and possibly up to 50C hotter at the poles.

(*) Kim Stanley Robinson has coined this the Youngest-Dryas.

[cezebrgr]

3. front lens of the SOHO satellite

This is a plot of the plot of the temperature of the front lens of the SOHO satellite it measures heat not light and it is somewhere between hear and the Sun. Please notice the heat is going up there also.



The point at issue here are the issues that cause the swing. To do that hypothesizes are formed about the data and are tested using a current understanding of physic. When the Greenhouse Gas hypothesis was formed it was believed that luminescence was the major factor in surface heat on earth. Now the new understanding (which is actually the old understanding) is taking hold and it relates surface temperature of earth to the Solar Constant, which by the way isn’t constant. It has been increasing noticeable over the last decade, but it should drop of some as New Sun Cycle gets going. This cycle is forecast to have a considerable peak which could relate to some cold wet winters in 2011 2012.

The Greenhouse Gas Hoax understates in a very careful, expensive, scientific way that the Earth is warming. When table one of the EPA 1982 paper on sea level rise (the table shows various estimates of sea level rise over one hundred years) is compared to the actual difference between NGVD 1929 and NAVD 1977 the GHG model understates the problem by 90 percent.

The GHG model was developed before Windows, Spread Sheets, and the Internet. It is an oversimplification of a problem that is getting worse, but not for the causes stated in the original text. The input factors are not understood even 30 years after the evidentiary case was proven.

It is clear to me that the industry that has built up around the hypothesis is having troubles coming to grips with the fact that the initial verification of global warming was the tip of the iceberg of the climate change issues that are present today.

There is a substantial amount of discussion that the steady rise of surface temperatures may be indicative of a rapid cool in the near future. The current warming rate cannot be sustained without causing a mini ice age because of the geologic maximum sea level height does not fit in the glaciation cycle. The glaciation cycle is 270,000 years total sea level rise should be in 135,000 years. The current rate is 70 times that. Which means that global warming probably occurs in stages with intermittent cool downs.

You need to archive your GHG under ancient historical proof modules.

[hatrack]

4. Wow! Your "current understanding of physic" is absolutely amazing!

And to think that we blindly accept Thomas Newton, who lacked Spread Sheets and the Internet! What a FOOL I've been all these years!

I guess I'll just file all my E/E postings under the ancient historical proof modules and have yet another beer.

:eyes:

[bananas]

5. This Thomas Newton?

http://www.wchstv.com/abc/thencameyou/newton.html

[hatrack]

7. Sheesh! Did I say "Thomas"? Glad I can't remember last night . . .

:evilgrin:

[Nihil]

11. Hey ...

... even super-heroes are allowed the odd balls-up!

If nothing else, it sent several of us to Google to find out if Isaac had
a middle name ...

:P

[bananas]

6. Solar variation is included in the IPCC aka "GHG Hoax" model

but I'm sure you knew that already.

[megatherium]

8. This is blatantly dishonest; I think you've been deceived by somebody,

cezebrgr. The MDI instrument on SOHO is an instrument that measures the Sun's diameter. The temperature of the lens is monitored because changes in temperature of the lens can change the focal length of the instrument. The temperature of the lens has changed for two reasons: there is a periodic seasonal change due to the position of SOHO and a secular change due to the degradation of the lens. The tip-off that this MDI lens temperature says nothing about solar radiation variability is that the temperature changes are so big: the Sun's output only changes by amounts on the order of 0.1 percent, yet this graph shows 10 degrees C changes.

[Boomer]

9. There ya go

Confusing him with logic and scientific knowledge. You American-hating tree-huggers are all alike.

:sarcasm:

[cezebrgr]

10. Subject 3. SOHO front lens temperature.

http://stereo.nrl.navy.mil/orig_stereo/secchi_prop_sect1-2etc.pdf

OK read the provided link. The front lens temperature is raw sun side operating temperature of the vehicle and it is recorded and posted to insure that the defusing filter along with other more temperature sensitive equipment are not compromised by an excessive environment. The craft is equipped with heaters and radiators and has several thermostats to regulate temperature. The lens thermometer measures temperature that is why the plot reverses at aphelion and perihelion. If you look at the graph of the lens temperature it did not reconfigure at the last perihelion it double plotted the graph. That seems to indicate that the satellite may fail before Cycle 24 is over.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Not sure where you you got that from...

...but you might want to wonder why a multi-million-dollar solar observation satellite is relying on a lens thermometer to measure solar radiation. Especially when it has the Coronal Diagnostics Spectrometer, Solar Ultraviolet Measurement of Emitted Radiation Intrument, and the Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer to take direct readings of the Sun's surface temperature. These might be a little more relevant, don'tcha think?

And guess what they show... :)

Trying to work out how hot the Sun is from the lens temperature is like trying to work out what setting my microwave oven is on, by measuring the temperature of my cat's food bowl.

[cezebrgr]

13. You don't know how to determine a solar constant I guess.

BTW the thermometer just measures temperature, but this means the luminescence versus irradiation discussion is obviously out of your league.

[NNadir]

14. This should be good. n/t.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. It's got "long day" written all over it. nt.

[NNadir]

21. It's probably why God created the ignore button.

Eighth or ninth day, I think, right after creating the French Fry, I mean Freedom Fry.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Don't let Elad hear you say that....

:evilgrin:

[NNadir]

23. Are you saying that Elad isn't God?

Just asking.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Tricky.

If Elad is God, what is Skinner?
Pascal's Wager has nothing on the perils of Undergroundism. :scared:

[NNadir]

26. Surely, even in New Zealand, you've heard of the Trinity.

I hope you're not supposing that EarlG, Elad and Skinner are three by coincidence. It is impossible for it to be a coincidence.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. In which case...

Which one has the robes and beard, which one does the woodwork, and which one sits in your head making you speak in tougues?

I'm guessing Skinner, EarlG and Elad, in that order, but I'm open to a theological debate. :D

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Facts might be more useful than guesses.

First off, which constant are you talking about? I assume you're talking about the solar constant, which is incident radiation per unit area: In which case I would direct you to this page as being educational.



Wow, look at sucker crank up. Or not.

I might just manage a discussion on luminescence vs irradiance, but since the two are directly (and easily) linked via the inverse square law I don't see it being a very long discussion. Still, fire away.

And for an encore, please explain why you think a lens thermometer is a useful measure of anything other than lens temperature.

Edit: Just to 'fess up, I see I missed the VIRGO package off my list of slighly-more-useful SOHO instuments. I guess I should have looked them up... :dunce:

[seasat]

19. ROTFLMAO!

"BTW the thermometer just measures temperature, but this means the luminescence versus irradiation discussion is obviously out of your league."

I've got to save that post. That is one of the stupidest comments, I've heard heard from one of the neoluddites. He's measuring TSI in lumens m^-2 sr^-1 vs watts m^-2?

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Ouch, that's a thought...

I assumed he was talking about "luminescence" as in radiance, not limiting himself to 400-700 nm light. Which would be a very strange thing to do when you're talking about SOHO and irradiance, but no worse than using a lens thermometer...

I'm getting a headache.

[seasat]

24. I'm actually guessing that he mean't luminance.

Luminescence, in my field at least, is usually in reference to absorption and re-emmission at a slightly shifted longer wavelength (LINK). I hope he continues his posts. I could use a good laugh.

I especially like in that previous post where he refers to "GHG" models and spreadsheets. I think he means GCM models. Man, I never knew I could do a GCM model in Excel. I'll have to tell some of the modelers I know that they've been wasting their time with C code and Fortran when they could simply use Excel.

On a serious note, we use a simple fortran code to estimate spectral solar irradiance in the visible. The solar constant spetrum in this model is from the mid 80's. It matches the spectral irradiance measurments by a Licor 1800 to the point where the difference is in the noise level of the instrument. That is how little TSI has changed over the last 25 years.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Oh, I don't know...

Given a few centuries hard work, you could probably get a working grid model on a few million networked PCs running excel. :crazy: Probably quicker and easier just to watch it happen, though, so it sort of defeats the point.

Squinting at the graph I posted up-thread, the mean variance seems be +/- 0.5 wm² across the full spectrum. Counting on my toes, that's 0.07%: Not exactly huge... :)

But yeah, I eagerly await his return to find out what all the long words really meant. :D

[seasat]

29. And that is for the integrated value of irradiance

The model that I use, RADTRAN (Gregg and Carder, 1990), produces output in 1 nm increments from 350 to 700 nm. At that resolution it is truly infintesimal.

I imagine that we're going to see this graph pasted all across boards on the net. I sounds like it is the neo-luddites new talking point.

Maybe we should prepare a couple of flash cards to help him out with the really long words. Hand puppets help my 1 year olds. They really enjoy them. We could probably work out a little presentation for him to help with his next post. :D

[Dead_Parrot]

30. It's been suggested before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDvRwWSS0bc

Edit: the video's better...

:evilgrin:

[skids]

15. You heat your cat's food?

We just attach a lightbulb to ours and put him out on the porch with the moths.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. No...

...but I'm guessing it still has some sort of temperature. :crazy:

Unfortunatly, our cat is too old and stupid to catch anything faster than a cold. She used to be a moth-er, though :)