Is LandFall data better?
What is the trend of Cat 4 & 5 storms on land (landfalls)?
Please correct me if I am wrong but don’t records of storm landfalls give us a much longer history and consistent measure of storm activity? So even if we don’t have solid wind speed records landfalls leave other traces in proxies and historical accounts.
WTI dipped below $40 last week then shot up to ~ $45 at the end of the week. The contango dropped to ~$3. Typically, this would indicate the direction of the price of oil is neutral. But given the huge volatility of markets around the world lately, it’s difficult to interpret.
The price of oil is typically soft October to December, then perks up in January. So, this sudden surge in prices might not last long.
8/28/15
OIL 44.51
BRENT 49.20
NAT GAS 2.674
RBOB GAS 1.5218
LOL. Pathetic. I see you attended the same “skool” of fizzikx as donny boy. No wonder you two think alike.
Why do you think they bothered to calculate and draw the Planck blackbody curves on the OLR chart, as they do on just about every other OLR chart? It is because they are comparing the wavelengths/frequencies to “equivalent” blackbody emitting temperatures.
Please lookup Wien’s law, which is derived from Planck’s law, and which may be used to calculate the equivalent blackbody emitting temperature for a particular wavelength/frequency. For 15 microns it is 193K.
You apparently think the mere line-emitter CO2 is some magical super-blackbody with emissivity higher than a true blackbody, and the 15 micron very-low-energy/frequency photons from CO2 can even heat the 5800K SUN!
“To sum it up, there are no physical laws prohibiting a cold object from warming a warmer object.”
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The principle of maximum entropy production/2nd law absolutely prohibits this.
Read an elementary school physics book instead of listening to donny boy fizzikx. I’m not going to waste any more time on this particular thread entertaining your silly theories.
Neutron embrittlement is the primary problem, what high energy neutrons do to any crystalline solid is pretty nasty. In the Deuterium Tritium reaction about 80% of the energy is in the neutron and 20% is in the helium nucleus (AKA alpha particle). The only way of stopping or “guiding” the neutron is by interaction with nuclei of surrounding matter, meaning that the nuclei end up being ejected from the molecule or lattice with a great deal of energy.
The advantage of the Tri Alpha approach and other aneutronic fusion reactions (e.g. D-3He) is that the energy is released in charged particles, which can be stopped or guided by electric or magnetic fields and thus kept away from the wall of the fusion chamber. Neutron embrittlement should be a much smaller problem than with D-T fusion.
Having said that, I’m not making any bets on Tri Alpha achieving the breakeven point.
bobdroege | August 30, 2015 at 9:30 pm |
Well, I believe in wave particle duality being necessary to explain everything.
…
To sum it up, there are no physical laws prohibiting a cold object from warming a warmer object.
Sorry to crush your hopes.
Blackbody radiation follows a Wein/Planck distribution curve.
Claiming that a specific frequency/wavelength represents a specific temperature isn’t correct either.
A cold body can’t warm a warmer body either.
What is happening is a less cold atmosphere will stop the surface from losing heat as fast as a cold atmosphere. The temperature of surface is incoming short wave – (convection + latent + net sensible ) = 0. Net sensible heat lost is outgoing – downwelling. Outgoing is Boltzmann law black body emission. If downwelling increases the temperature of the surface will increase.
catweazle, you need to retrace the argument. You started by arguing with the statement I supported from Tamsin Edwards. The models said downward trends were possible, and you said they didn’t, and when caught being wrong on that, you started to say some angry stuff about models that was off the original point hoping I would be drawn into your game and forget. That’s the way it goes around here. I am used to it.
That’s sufficiently vague that I can sign on to all three, joey. That leaves the main issue, which is: What is the magnitude of the risk?
I am not convinced that the risk is sufficient to require the immediate and drastic action that the Chicken Littles are hollering about. I am not convinced that it’s the greatest threat faced by mankind. That puts me in
the consensus with the vast majority of the folks who put climate change at the bottom of their list of worries.
Tried to understand hurricane trends a bit. Started with dinner table knowledge, as my father was among other things a USAF meterologist who contributed to the development of weather radar at the ‘Sea Girt Inn’ (US Army Wearther Research Lab, Fort Monmouth NJ, then top secret) and a command pilot on B-29 weather recon missions off Guam 1948-1950, the 54th WRS ‘typhoon chasers’. He once brought back a B-29 with the tail bent 17 degrees out of true by turbulence. Quite a saga. They scrapped the plane for parts. Bent useless by a typhoon.
Well, I utterly failed to understand hurricanes in relation to global warming despite nearly three years part time trying. Warmer water should intensify, but NHC itself says warmer water also relates to stronger wind sheer which dissipates (like Danny, Erika this year).
This post provides much personal research consolation, since Judith does not understand yet either. And she is several magnitudes better educated.
It is OK to ‘dunno’. We just dunno about this, as the dueling papers show.
Except in the CAGW meme, where all the science is supposedly settled.
A prediction. IF CAGW makes it to IPCC AR6, this will either not be discussed at all, or glossed over. Like the pause was in AR5, essay Hiding the Hiatus.
“Claiming that a specific frequency/wavelength represents a specific temperature isn’t correct either.”
A misquote. What I said is “Why do you think they bothered to calculate and draw the Planck blackbody curves on the OLR chart, as they do on just about every other OLR chart? It is because they are comparing the wavelengths/frequencies to “equivalent” blackbody emitting temperatures.” Note the quotes around “equivalent.”
“A cold body can’t warm a warmer body either.”
Correct.
“What is happening is a less cold atmosphere will stop the surface from losing heat as fast as a cold atmosphere.”
First of all, all of the 33K “GHE” is gravito-thermal, clearly shown by Feynman, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, US & International Std Atmospheres, Volokin, Chilingar, the HS GH eqn, etc etc.
GHGs increase cooling by decreasing the lapse rate, accelerating convection, increasing Cp, increasing radiative surface area to space.
Gases free to convect and transfer latent heat do NOT act as solid objects that warm by limiting convection, just the opposite.
” If downwelling increases the temperature of the surface will increase.”
Nope, the downwelling low-energy/frequency 15 micron IR from CO2 cannot warm/increase the frequency/energy/temperature of the 95K warmer 288K surface. This is impossible for the reason you just stated above “A cold body can’t warm a warmer body either.”
The molecular line-emitter CO2 is falsely considered by climate scientists to be a true blackbody. It is not. It only emits as a very “partial blackbody” along a 193K Planck curve and thus has emissivity less than a true blackbody. In addition, CO2 emissivity decreases with temperature, unlike a true blackbody.
richardc, the majority of the response to forcing changes occurs within the first decade. How much has the sun changed since 1950 and in what direction? CO2 has added 1.3-1.4 W/m2 forcing since 1950, other GHGs maybe another few tenths. The temperature has changed by 0.7 C. The temperature responds to forcing changes which may be the part you still don’t follow. Which forcing change is most likely responsible? GHGs, of course.
Of course, in comparing past with recent events a major effort is being made to reproduce the means of observation and REPORTAGE of past events, right? Otherwise, those graphs and numbers are pretty futile, aren’t they? Can’t compare satellites with oranges.
To compare the early 19th century with the early 21st you would need to use only the means and extent of 19th century observations for both periods. The 19th century can’t know and copy our standards, so we have to know and copy theirs.
The shabby and vague comparisons thus produced would contain more truth than all the faux precision of statistics which happily ignore the limitations of historical knowledge.
The 2015 spike in the two Klotzbach charts is certainly alarming. Dr. Curry I would greatly appreciate a link to the basin-by-basin data. Does this spike exist across all basins or is it thanks to the maxima of all basins happening to coincide this year? One of the fundamental tenets of my lukewarmist religion is that global warming does not result in more frequent and more destructive tropical storms, thanks to the lowered temp difference between tropics and arctics. I got this from Dr James Hansen whose public pronouncements are more often wrong than right, but it suits my bias set to believe him on this occasion. My ego has taken a few knocks recently and having to admit to warmists that they were right re tropical storms could be a crushing blow.
You have a big point on observational uncertainty. Back before satellites and hurricane hunters, TC would be reported by ships–iff they survived.
In the present airplane era, they were sometimes investigated if ships detected them, or if they were detected on long recon flights for other purposes (e.g. some of my fathers). Only in the short sat era do we detect them ‘all’. Maybe. And then freak out over Danny and Erika. Erika was predicted by Ryan Maue to be pathetic, dissipating over Hispaniola due to wind sheer and elevation. He was right, but I am still in a South Florida flood/storm watch even though the ‘worst’ past several hours ago, and was much less worse than predicted. Krimminy.
Relax, Mike. Klotzback’s own prediction as of 5 Aug for Nth Atlantic tropical cyclones is for less than average.
Note, Klotzback has no links on his blog post and he actually calls the post a blog, which tells us he’s not really into accuracy.
Official responses to the Climategate emails that surfaced six year ago, in late Nov 2009 helped me write this “Sequel to Climategategate“
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273132711_Sequel_to_Climategate
Prof Curry might be helpful to identify some basics for those of us new to ‘hurricane climate science’. I got this from wikipedia FWIW. Be great to get any corrections:
1 The actual scientific topic is tropical cyclones of which a hurricane is just one type alongside, tropical storms, typhoons, cyclonic storms and cyclones.
2 Tropical cyclones are storm systems with low pressure centres i.e big wind and rain occuring over one of 6 ocean basins around the equator.
3 They love warm moist air coming off the oceans around the equatorish:
Northern Hemisphere: North Atlantic, NE Pacific, NW Pacific, North Indian,
Southern Hemisphere: SW Indian, Southern Pacific & Australian region
4 Tropical cyclones are rare in the Southern Atlantic, weirdly enough.
5 Number of tropical cyclones for the planet each year is around 87 + or – 10.
6 Pacific ocean has the most tropical cyclones (that’s north and south together) and within that ocean it’s the NW Pacific that most cops it. They get the super typhoons.
7 In the Northern hemisphere, tropical cyclones are called tropical storms, hurricanes, typhoons or, in the Northern Indian Ocean only, cyclonic storms.
8 In the Southern hemisphere tropical cyclones are just called tropical cyclones.
9 The Beaufort scale sets out wind speeds and duration over 1 and 10 minute periods, lowest speed for tropical storms and moving up into Cat 5 hurricane, supertyphoon, sever tropical cyclonic storm and cat 5 severe cyclone.
10 There’s another scale the Saffir-Simpson scale but it’s just for hurricanes in the NE Pacific and Northern Atlantic i.e US centric focus, not helpful globally.
11 Of the annual average 87 odd tropical cyclones that form each year around the planet, 47 are hurricanes/typhoons and around 20 are intense tropical cyclones leaving around 20 as just tropical storms, the slowest of all.
12 the tropical cyclone season runs July to Nov for North Atlantic, sameish for NE Pacific and all year round for the rest.
13 “ACE” stands for “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” and it comes to us from NOAA, the guys who gave us ‘2014 hottest year ever’. It only ‘measures’ the ‘energy’ of NE Pacific and North Atlantic hurricanes tropical storms so it’s not even a global measure. I guess in the absence of frequency of tropical cyclones and the absence of major losses caused by them (see Pickle Jnr), I guess intensity and ‘energy’ is all the climate alarmists have to fall back on.
David,
I consider RSS to be a green joke.
Okay, this really is a joke. Bizarre!
Rud
We are fortunate that none other than Daniel Defoe thoroughly investigated the extent of Britain’s first properly recorded Hurricane in December 1703
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Storm_(Daniel_Defoe)
Not only could we expect the waters around Britain to be cold in December (currently they are16C on 31st August) but we could expect them to be exceptionally cold as we were just emerging from the coldest phase of the LIA. Fortunately we can see from my chart showing the instrumental record of the time that there had been a decade long period of authenticated severe cold
So Hurricanes do not seem to need warm water. From my own research I would say some of the worst storms on records have occurred during the periods of substantial cold weather.
tonyb
Rud, so much comes down to detection and reportage. 1975’s June remains second only to Tip (1979) in strength, yet, in an earlier era, June may well have been ignored or even unknown. Down the memory hole, as a serf might say. Even Tip may not have left its mark without eg those 60 air reconnaissance missions. Nobody would ever have missed dam-busting Nina (up to 200,000 dead?) in the same year as June, though it was well short of June in strength.
It’s good we’re likely to know so much more about each major storm in our era. It’s not good if we imagine that something is new or unprecedented because we detect it. Not good at all. The scientific definition of that is “absence of horse sense”.
mosomoso
Lets not forget the reasons the Met Office was set up in 1859 by Fitzroy after a ferocious storm. It was to draw together the previously extremely patchy observations and try to create a means to provide storm warnings.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/in-depth/overview
We can trace some storms over hundreds of years and Hubert Lamb wrote a very good book on ‘Great Storms of North West Europe’ which drew together many of these over the last 500 years. How many more were missed due to lack of observations?
So, as you say in comparing modern and past numbers we need to establish the same observational methodology which is impossible.
However, we can say that we have always had great storms and we need to look at the great sweep of history and not just focus on the last few decades before we come to believe they are worse or more frequent than they used to be.
tonyb
