Chantal

VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT CHANTAL HAS STRENGTHENED THIS
MORNING WITH IMPRESSIVE CURVED BANDING ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTHERN
SEMICIRCLE. THE LOW-LEVEL CENTER OF THE STORM APPEARS TO BE
DISPLACED TO THE SOUTHEAST OF A CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE MID-LEVEL
CENTER ON SATELLITE. A QUIKSCAT PASS JUST BEFORE 1000 UTC SHOWED
BELIEVABLE WIND VECTORS IN THE 40-45 KT RANGE AND THE INITIAL
INTENSITY WILL BE SET TO 45 KT. THE TROPICAL CYCLONE IS QUICKLY
MOVING INTO COOLER WATERS AND LITTLE ADDITIONAL INTENSIFICATION AS A
TROPICAL CYCLONE IS EXPECTED.

FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INITIAL 31/1500Z 40.2N 62.7W 45 KT
12HR VT 01/0000Z 43.0N 59.7W 45 KT
24HR VT 01/1200Z 47.0N 52.7W 45 KT...EXTRATROPICAL
36HR VT 02/0000Z 51.2N 44.7W 50 KT...EXTRATROPICAL
48HR VT 02/1200Z 56.0N 36.0W 50 KT...EXTRATROPICAL
72HR VT 03/1200Z 60.0N 27.5W 50 KT...EXTRATROPICAL
96HR VT 04/1200Z 62.0N 20.0W 45 KT...EXTRATROPICAL
120HR VT 05/1200Z 64.5N 12.5W 40 KT...EXTRATROPICAL

It Is Worse Than Even *I* Thought

The Holland and Webster paper is now available and it is a doozy.

I've been having a discussion on another site with a true believer where the following exchange has taken place.

“While there are limitations to the data set, this is addressed in the article”

To which I responded:

No it isn’t. This is what the paper says:

We use the ‘best track’ tropical cyclone database from the National Hurricane Center (Jarvinan et al. 1984). The only changes to the dataset data have been to include the intensity corrections recommended by Landsea (1993).

Then when they get to addressing Landsea’s contention about undercounting of Mid-Atlantic storms they say the following:

Our conclusion is that the number of earlier missed storms most likely lies between 1 and 3 per year prior to 1900, less than 2 in the early nineteenth century and dropping off to essentially zero by 1960. The conclusion by Landsea (2007) of much higher numbers of missing storms is considered to be based on a false premise of an assumed constancy of landfalling storms ratio (Mann et al. submitted a,b; Holland in press).

So they “refute” the contention by referring to non-published material (some of it written BY THEMSELVES) that no one can check in any way shape or form. (Although you will notice, even though they claim they accept some problems in the data set they do not alter it an iota. The undercounting is ignored by their data set even after they acknowledge it.)

How is that acceptable? How did you find that convincing since you had no way of checking it at all?

(Although I’m intrigued at what this new and hitherto never discovered mechanism that makes current hurricanes LESS likely to strike land compared to storms in the past will prove to be. I think they might start having an Ockham’s Razor problem soon.)

I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu when I deal with this stuff. As I'm sitting here speculating about the natural mechanism that will cause more North Atlantic hurricanes to form while at the same time decreasing their landfalling incidence, I cannot help but think I've been here before.

And then it hit me. I wrote this back in September of 2005:

This brings me to the point of postulating unknown forces to back up your theory. A good rule of thumb is never subscribe to any theory that relies on such a rhetorical device.

So, in order for these folks to hold onto their pet theory of AGW fueling increasing numbers of more intense hurricanes, they have to postulate a brand new mechanism that keep present day hurricanes from hitting, let's say, Florida, where hurricanes 50 years ago would have rudely barged right into it. We will keep the sheer ridiculous nature of the claim to one side for the moment. It must be admitted that these researchers are taking an approach to science that is positively Ptolemaic in its scope. Just like the followers of Ptolemey they pile complexity upon complexity in order to keep their vision afloat. As each new inconsistency is brought forward a new previously unknown mechanism is postulated as the "answer."

The end result is a hybrid monster of a theory which lacks for nothing but coherence and persuasiveness.

More BS Is Brewing

You can always tell when folks are selling bullshit as science because they feel the need to run everything like a public relations campaign. Which begs the question: What kind of snake oil are they selling?

First the story from Reuters: Study blames climate change for hurricanes

The number of Atlantic hurricanes in an average season has doubled in the last century due in part to warmer seas and changing wind patterns caused by global warming, according to a study released on Sunday.

Hurricane researchers have debated for years whether climate change caused by greenhouse gases from cars, factories and other human activity is resulting in more, and more intense, tropical storms and hurricanes.

The new study, published online in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, said the increased numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the last 100 years is closely related to a 1.3-degree Fahrenheit rise in sea surface temperatures.

The influential U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report this year warning that humans contribute to global warming, said it was "more likely than not" that people also contribute to a trend of increasingly intense hurricanes.

In the new study, conducted by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, researchers found three periods since 1900 when the average number of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes increased sharply, and then leveled off and remained steady.

From 1900 to 1930, Atlantic hurricane seasons saw six storms on average, with four hurricanes and two tropical storms. From 1930 to 1940, the annual average rose to ten, including five hurricanes.

Gee, I'd like to see a study that can do that despite all the myriad problems with comparing satellite collected data from the space age with the spotty reports of the early 20th century. (See my take here, Chris Landsea's that I blogged about here.) Not to mention that the study seemingly contradicts the latest findings in the field which predict warming decreasing the number and intensities of tropical storms. (Blogged about here.)

Of course, maybe they came up with something actually new and they did not (as I suspect) repackage the same old tired garbage that the media loves to print so much. And hey! The Reuters article said it was published online. I've looked for an hour and I cannot find it. If the article is available on the web why wouldn't Reuters have a link to it? Oh, that is because it hasn't actually been published yet. That happens tomorrow.

So what source of information is this "free and independent journalist" writing from?

Oh, I found that most important piece of present day "science"...the press release. Plus it's handy helper, the guide for idiot journalists. (So you can hold their hands when you tell them what to print.) But the actual study itself? Who needs it?!. Ah science.

Of course there is a name for all of this behavior. It is called "stealing a march." By placing sympathetic (with emphasis on the pathetic) stories in the media before anyone else can gainsay the report by doing crazy things like actually reading and studying it, you can get the message you want out in the press. And if it generates a few more press clippings that you can append to your next grant proposal, well who's to say anything against it?? That your actual work may be not worth the paper it is printed on is beside the point. You have what you want: another line on the CV, another hysterical item in the press, and another restful night because you know you will get your version of the story out and never have to deal with criticism from the other side until its too late.

It is bullshit, and unethical bullshit to boot.

Unisys Hurricane Data

The folks who maintain the mirror of the hurricane database over at Unisys are doing a nice job updating their site, this includes adding detailed notes and radar and satellite images for storms that impacted the United States. They are making an already good resource better.

They earn a Typhoon Times Hat Tip!

Tropical Storm 04W (Western Pacific)

1. TROPICAL STORM 04W (MAN-YI) WARNING NR 006
01 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONE IN NORTHWESTPAC
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
---
WARNING POSITION:
081800Z --- NEAR 8.4N 144.0E
MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 285 DEGREES AT 12 KTS
POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 060 NM
POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
REPEAT POSIT: 8.4N 144.0E
---
FORECASTS:
12 HRS, VALID AT:
090600Z --- 9.9N 142.2E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 045 KT, GUSTS 055 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 070 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
060 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
060 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
070 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 24 HR POSIT: 310 DEG/ 11 KTS
---
24 HRS, VALID AT:
091800Z --- 11.2N 140.5E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 055 KT, GUSTS 070 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 030 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
030 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
030 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
030 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 090 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
070 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
070 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
090 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 36 HR POSIT: 310 DEG/ 11 KTS
---
36 HRS, VALID AT:
100600Z --- 12.6N 138.9E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 070 KT, GUSTS 085 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 064 KT WINDS - 025 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
025 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 040 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
040 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
040 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
040 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 120 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
095 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
095 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
120 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 48 HR POSIT: 305 DEG/ 13 KTS

Tropical Storm 03W (Western Pacific)

Missed this one over the holiday. Now a tropical depression as it has hit Vietnam.

051500Z POSITION NEAR 21.6N 107.0E.
TROPICAL DEPRESSION (TD) 03W (TORAJI) LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 85 NM
EAST-NORTHEAST OF HANOI, VIETNAM HAS TRACKED WEST-NORTHWESTWARD
AT 09 KNOTS OVER THE PAST SIX HOURS. THE SYSTEM HAS MADE LANDFALL
IN NORTHEASTERN VIETNAM AND IS FORECAST TO CONTINUE TO TRACK INLAND.
CURRENT INTENSITY IS BASED ON RECENT DVORAK ESTIMATES RANGING FROM
25 TO 35 KNOTS. THE STORM WILL CONTINUE TO WEAKEN AS IT TRACKS TO
THE NORTHWEST OVER LAND AND WILL DISSIPATE BEFORE TAU 24. THIS IS
THE FINAL WARNING ON THIS SYSTEM BY THE JOINT TYPHOON WARNING
CENTER (NAVPACMETOCCEN). THE SYSTEM WILL BE CLOSELY MONITORED FOR
SIGNS OF REGENERATION.