Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The one area I'm absolutely convinced AGW made a large impact with Sandy was sea level rise. There's no doubt in my mind (and its quite easy to show given the storm tide levels that induce flooding and storm tide levels during Sandy) that the AGW contribution to sea level rise allowed a substantial amount of water into NYC that would have otherwise not gone in. Furthermore, this obviously has large implications as we go forth because a meter of SL increase over the next 100 years will substantially lower the bar on what type of storm is capable of producing this type of damage on coastal cities all along the US east coast. This is simply easy to show when you consider the levels of surge that are involved with storms in the area and SL rise. Its simple math. But every other claim of AGW influence in the thread seems to be predicated on "take our words for it" because several posters here have a hypothesis on what the affects of global warming are and should be. Well, there is no taking your word for it in science. Prove it. And pointing to a warmer arctic and saying "duh" is not proving it. If you can't prove it, then just maybe you don't actually know if its the case. Shocking concept, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Have to separate the sheep from the goats so to speak on sea level rise and hence the height of the storm tide. How much of the rise is due to warming SST's due to AGW and how much to the +AMO? That there IS an AGW component there I agree. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Verg I can't see the downward trend that so many have been claiming. If we just looked at the peaks, and ignored everything after 2000 we could claim that the 30's were the worst years. If we eliminated everything after 1975 we could prove that AGW hasn't made any difference at all, and if we just looked at the 1875 to 1925 period the down slope would be evident. I suppose we now have to prepare for the usual round of - they didn't record hurricanes back then, no records before 19?? (fill in the blanks as needed) can be relied on, before the age of satellite the troglodytes were unable to observe events outside the dim glow of their campfires. As a guy who watched Sputnik in awe, whose father and grandfather were both scientists, it's painful to hear children assuming that everything prior to their birth was crap. Back in the age of sail, when sailors lives and the wealth that each shipment represented depended wholly on the whims of sea breezes, trading nations spent a good deal of time and resources compiling and recording everything brought back in Captains log books. Oceanic winds were arguably more important in that era than in this and as the sinking of the Bounty replica demonstrated - "fish" hurricanes cost fortunes and lives. Terry Vergent's graph has been debunked by peer review research already in this thread. You will have to do better than a "named storms" graph to prove AGW is increasing hurricane frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well the specific amount is obviously up for debate as you'd have to attribute specific percentages to the various factors but the fact that there is a component to sea level rise that is AGW and that said component is significant allows someone to easily conclude that AGW sea level rise had serious consequences for NY in this storm and that those consequences only look to grow as a result of AGW in the coming century. I think its completely valid to say that AGW made the storm worse, in other words, but as with all AGW attribution being done the exact quantification of how much worse is a more difficult thing to nail down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 If flooding does indeed begin with a storm tide at the Batter of 10.5 feet and the max tide was 13.9 feet then you have 3.4 feet of water flooding in. Even if AGW only accounted for 4 inches of that, that is quite a lot of water pouring in lower Manhattan that would otherwise not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 If flooding does indeed begin with a storm tide at the Batter of 10.5 feet and the max tide was 13.9 feet then you have 3.4 feet of water flooding in. Even if AGW only accounted for 4 inches of that, that is quite a lot of water pouring in lower Manhattan that would otherwise not have. If AGW accounted for 4 inches of that, then that is a very minor effect for a storm surge 3.4 feet above flood stage. 4 inches less water would not have made hardly any difference in the amount of water that flooded Manhattan. The overwhelming factors that contributed to the record storm surge and flooding was the sheer size of the storm and the power/direction of the winds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Skier and Steve, I must disagree with what you are saying. Here's why: The vertical variations of the temperature change also have a climatic effect through the lapse-rate feedback λL. For instance, the models predict enhanced warming in the upper troposphere of tropical regions in response to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Because of this change in the lapse rate, the outgoing longwave radiation will be more than in an homogenous temperature change over the vertical. The system will then lose more energy, so inducing a negative feedback (Fig. 4.10). Moreover, at mid to high latitudes, a larger low level warming is projected as a response to the positive radiative warming, providing a positive feedback (Fig. 4.10). The global mean value of λL thus depends on the relative magnitude of those two opposite effects. On average, the influence of the tropics dominates, leading to a value of λL of around -0.8 Wm-2K-1 (Soden and Held, 2006) in recent models driven by a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Source ============= Outside the tropics the lapse rate feedback to warming becomes positive. The surface warms faster than the mid-troposphere. This graphic, based on the GISS climate model, clearly shows that mid-troposphere warming is greater than lower troposphere warming all the way from 60S to 60N. Since Sandy made landfall near 40N, it certainly falls within this range, as does all tropical activity and it is subject to the 'capping' effect on tropical convection Steve and I have been discussing. I think the confusion arises that although you are correct that the lapse rate feedback is positive outside the tropics, this does not necessarily mean the surface warms faster. I think the radiative physics of CO2 itself dictates that the mid-troposphere warms the most, and the lapse rate feedback would only serve to dampen this effect but not eliminate it. But regardless of lapse rate feedbacks, I am quite sure that maximum warming in the mid-troposphere is a consistent product of climate models... only in the arctic where there is a very strong surface albedo feedback is the reverse true. (also btw I think we have had this conversation before). I'd also like to point out that even if warming of the atmosphere was completely homogenous, there would be far less tropical convection than if ONLY the ocean surface warmed and the atmosphere did not. You are correct that a warmer atmosphere+warmer SSTs = more moisture and more convection, the effect is smaller than if ONLY SSTs warmed. If SSTs warmed, but the atmosphere did not, things would be highly unstable. But the statistics several people have presented in this thread assume no change in atmospheric temperature. They are in effect statistics for the strengthening of a storm that passes over a warm ocean eddy, which often leads to major intensification if all atmospheric factors remain constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The one area I'm absolutely convinced AGW made a large impact with Sandy was sea level rise. There's no doubt in my mind (and its quite easy to show given the storm tide levels that induce flooding and storm tide levels during Sandy) that the AGW contribution to sea level rise allowed a substantial amount of water into NYC that would have otherwise not gone in. Furthermore, this obviously has large implications as we go forth because a meter of SL increase over the next 100 years will substantially lower the bar on what type of storm is capable of producing this type of damage on coastal cities all along the US east coast. This is simply easy to show when you consider the levels of surge that are involved with storms in the area and SL rise. Its simple math. But every other claim of AGW influence in the thread seems to be predicated on "take our words for it" because several posters here have a hypothesis on what the affects of global warming are and should be. Well, there is no taking your word for it in science. Prove it. And pointing to a warmer arctic and saying "duh" is not proving it. If you can't prove it, then just maybe you don't actually know if its the case. Shocking concept, isn't it? Perhaps a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method? Find me a proof for gravity, relativity or quantum physics. Proofs are for mathematics - not science. Are you actually postulating a non AGW driver for the loss of ice in the Arctic? I thought those deniest arguments had dissolved with the ice cover this past August. When Arctic ice drops lower than it has for thousands of years, and GG's reach peaks not seen for even longer periods, natural variations cease to be viable mechanisms to explain what we're witnessing. To assume that fundamental changes that can be observed in one climate zone won't cause changes in a neighboring climate zone is a rather amazing leap of faith. One that I don't think even a goddard or Watts would attempt. I'd love to hear your explanation - preferably some time when I'm in need of humorous relief If you don't like my explanations, come up with a theory that explains the events and does not involve AGW - either that or find a hole in the data I rely on or a flaw in my methodology - that is the way science works. Not through proofs. Duh!! Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 4 inches? come on. Going back to the 1860-1880 period to now is your answer. The AMO has very little to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I've seen maps indicating sea level rise in different regions, and recall the north eastern coast of the US as being one of the areas most affected. While this undoubtedly had a role on the damage to coastal areas, it's interesting how strongly the storm was felt in Chicago, Sarnia and Cleveland. What made this storm different was the westward track dictated by Greenland blocking that was somewhere between 4 and 6 deviations from the norm (I've seen both figures used). While 4 std deviations might just possibly be due to natural variability, if 6 is the correct figure another mechanism has to be found. If you make 4 straight passes rolling dice you're lucky, if you make 14 you're cheating. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The one area I'm absolutely convinced AGW made a large impact with Sandy was sea level rise. There's no doubt in my mind (and its quite easy to show given the storm tide levels that induce flooding and storm tide levels during Sandy) that the AGW contribution to sea level rise allowed a substantial amount of water into NYC that would have otherwise not gone in. Furthermore, this obviously has large implications as we go forth because a meter of SL increase over the next 100 years will substantially lower the bar on what type of storm is capable of producing this type of damage on coastal cities all along the US east coast. This is simply easy to show when you consider the levels of surge that are involved with storms in the area and SL rise. Its simple math. But every other claim of AGW influence in the thread seems to be predicated on "take our words for it" because several posters here have a hypothesis on what the affects of global warming are and should be. Well, there is no taking your word for it in science. Prove it. And pointing to a warmer arctic and saying "duh" is not proving it. If you can't prove it, then just maybe you don't actually know if its the case. Shocking concept, isn't it? less than a foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Vergent's graph has been debunked by peer review research already in this thread. You will have to do better than a "named storms" graph to prove AGW is increasing hurricane frequency. These guys no better than even the guys studying this stuff, apparently. Landsea and Emanuel got nothing on these rockstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 These guys no better than even the guys studying this stuff, apparently. Landsea and Emanuel got nothing on these rockstars. We don't even claim to be "no better" - where did you claim to get your degree? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 4 inches? come on. Going back to the 1860-1880 period to now is your answer. The AMO has very little to do with it. I don't know how the AMO effects sea level, if at all, but it certainly has a strong correlation with East Coast tropical-based storms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I've seen maps indicating sea level rise in different regions, and recall the north eastern coast of the US as being one of the areas most affected. While this undoubtedly had a role on the damage to coastal areas, it's interesting how strongly the storm was felt in Chicago, Sarnia and Cleveland. What made this storm different was the westward track dictated by Greenland blocking that was somewhere between 4 and 6 deviations from the norm (I've seen both figures used). While 4 std deviations might just possibly be due to natural variability, if 6 is the correct figure another mechanism has to be found. If you make 4 straight passes rolling dice you're lucky, if you make 14 you're cheating. Terry Again, there is no solid evidence that AGW causes more severe blocking. This theory didn't really emerge until it was evident that was what we were seeing in the NH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 That left wing nest of over aged hippies, socialists and Blame America Firsters at Bloomberg Businessweek has posted a piece that quotes everyone from bloggers and tweeters to Scientific American's Mark Fischetti. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid Personally I just like the headline It's Global Warming, Stupid Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The most notable thing about the reaction of alarmists any time there is any sort of weather disaster is that they don't really care about the facts - they just want to get "the message" out, and see any weather event that grabs headlines as an opportunity to do so. It's this sort of dogmatic allegiance to the AGW-alarmism flag that really turns a lot of people off, and unfortunately causes many people to dismiss the scientific side to AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 If AGW accounted for 4 inches of that, then that is a very minor effect for a storm surge 3.4 feet above flood stage. 4 inches less water would not have made hardly any difference in the amount of water that flooded Manhattan. The overwhelming factors that contributed to the record storm surge and flooding was the sheer size of the storm and the power/direction of the winds. 4 inches would have made a substantial difference anyway you slice it. Its far from "very minor" and I'm being extremely conservative with a 4 inches mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 less than a foot. And that less than a foot contributed to this mess. Do you disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 HadAT is very outdated. Using satellites from NOAA, UAH, and RSS that measure the warming trends in the middle upper troposphere gives you about the same result. There is no statistically significant difference between the rate at which the surface is warming and the rate that the upper troposphere is warming in the Tropics. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf Observations 0.130 ± 0.083 (NCDC) 0.115 ± 0.100 (GISTEMP) 0.122 ± 0.105 (HadCrut3v) 0.084 ± 0.124 (UAH) 0.145 ± 0.118 (RSS) 0.160 ± 0.133 (RSS) 0.196 ± 0.138 (NOAA) 0.089 ± 0.134 (UAH) The average of all three of the surface temperature trends result in a 0.12 Degree C/Decade temperature increase. Up in altitude at the middle lower troposphere, the average warming rate is 0.11 Degrees C/Decade, and further up in altitude still in the middle upper troposphere, the warming rate is at 0.14 Degrees C/Decade. There is no statistically significant difference between either of these temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere, suggesting that the positive water vapor feedback and the negative lapse rate feedback are greatly overestimated and are probably closer to no feedback, since the lapse rate has not changed as we have warmed. The models, which predict a strong positive water vapor feedback and a strong negative lapse rate feedback (but still providing overall positive feedback between these two feedbacks) are at 0.26 Degrees C/decade in the lower middle troposphere, and at 0.31 Degrees C in the middle upper troposphere. Something is not correct with how the computers are modeling the Tropical atmosphere if there is this much of a discrepency between observations and their modeled forecasts, and I am willing to wager that they are showing too strong of a positive water vapor feedback than actually exists in reality, thus overestimating the climate sensitivity and producing too strong of warming rates in the middle troposphere than actually observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Perhaps a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method? Find me a proof for gravity, relativity or quantum physics. Proofs are for mathematics - not science. Are you actually postulating a non AGW driver for the loss of ice in the Arctic? I thought those deniest arguments had dissolved with the ice cover this past August. When Arctic ice drops lower than it has for thousands of years, and GG's reach peaks not seen for even longer periods, natural variations cease to be viable mechanisms to explain what we're witnessing. To assume that fundamental changes that can be observed in one climate zone won't cause changes in a neighboring climate zone is a rather amazing leap of faith. One that I don't think even a goddard or Watts would attempt. I'd love to hear your explanation - preferably some time when I'm in need of humorous relief If you don't like my explanations, come up with a theory that explains the events and does not involve AGW - either that or find a hole in the data I rely on or a flaw in my methodology - that is the way science works. Not through proofs. Duh!! Terry Why on earth are you bringing up arctic ice drops? What does taht have to do with proving the associations you've made in this thread? First of all, I never said that the changes were isolated to any particular area. Just like above, you're constructing some beautiful straw men and then doing a bang up job of taking them down. I'm saying that there is no proof for the affects you are claiming are a direct result of AGW. You're connecting dots that can't be connected and wen you're called on the lack of evidence your fallback is to compare your theories to those of gravity and the like? humorous relief indeed. You want a theory for Sandy that doesn't involve AGW, Terry? Its not very hard. A hurricane formed, moved north, ran into a ridge and changed paths, gained energy from the jet stream and formed into a very usual although very strong mid latitude storm system. Let me know when you have data that contradicts that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 "S" as in "Sandy" = 19 http://www.aoml.noaa.../tcfaq/E11.html And of course this is cherry picked from the Atlantic Basin, as if you expect that this has any relevance to global trends. Global Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is at record lows, which is something that few people who are pushing the agenda that Global Warming caused Hurricane Sandy are willing to accept. If Sandy were caused by a Global phenomenon, don't you expect that we should expect a GLOBAL response to Tropical Cyclones, not just the Atlantic Basin? The recent increase in Tropical Cyclone Activity in the Atlantic Basin wheras Global Tropical Cyclonic Energy being at record lows is more consistent with Oceanic Cycles like the AMO being responsible for such an increase recently in Atlantic Hurricanes, rather than a Global phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 4 inches? come on. Going back to the 1860-1880 period to now is your answer. The AMO has very little to do with it. The 4 inch amount was extremely conservative but the point was to illustrate that even at that conservative level there was an effect. I don't know why everyone is so damn tied to the amount. The point was that there is a big point to be made here on how AGW will affect us in the future. The exact amount of current rise is secondary to the fact that AGW has attributed in a meaningful way to sea level rise which in turn attributed to a major weather disaster. Billions of dollars in damage occurred because of AGW and it really is undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 "S" as in "Sandy" = 19 http://www.aoml.noaa.../tcfaq/E11.html Verg I can't see the downward trend that so many have been claiming. If we just looked at the peaks, and ignored everything after 2000 we could claim that the 30's were the worst years. If we eliminated everything after 1975 we could prove that AGW hasn't made any difference at all, and if we just looked at the 1875 to 1925 period the down slope would be evident. I suppose we now have to prepare for the usual round of - they didn't record hurricanes back then, no records before 19?? (fill in the blanks as needed) can be relied on, before the age of satellite the troglodytes were unable to observe events outside the dim glow of their campfires. As a guy who watched Sputnik in awe, whose father and grandfather were both scientists, it's painful to hear children assuming that everything prior to their birth was crap. Back in the age of sail, when sailors lives and the wealth that each shipment represented depended wholly on the whims of sea breezes, trading nations spent a good deal of time and resources compiling and recording everything brought back in Captains log books. Oceanic winds were arguably more important in that era than in this and as the sinking of the Bounty replica demonstrated - "fish" hurricanes cost fortunes and lives. Terry Vergent's graph has been debunked by peer review research already in this thread. You will have to do better than a "named storms" graph to prove AGW is increasing hurricane frequency. Where did I say hurricane frequency, clearly TCs have increased we have had 1 year with fewer than 10 in the last 14 years. Before that more than half the years had fewer than 10. The data after 1966 is known to be accurate because of continuous satellite coverage. The average named TCs from 1968-2011 is 11.7, the average from 2000-2011 is 15.8. The 1968-2011 average for major hurricanes was 2.4/year, 2000-2011 average 3.7. The average for total Atlantic hurricanes 1968-2011 is 6.2/year, for 2000-2011 it is 7.7/year. anticipating +AMO stuff, 1950-1970 averaged 9.8 named TCs, 3.2 major hurricanes and 6.4 total hurricanes. The idea that we missed 126 TCs, 27 hurricanes, and 10 major hurricanes in this period of time is absurd. This is data from NOAA NHC. How do you debunk data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Where did I say hurricane frequency, clearly TCs have increased we have had 1 year with fewer than 10 in the last 14 years. Before that more than half the years had fewer than 10. The data after 1966 is known to be accurate because of continuous satellite coverage. The average named TCs from 1968-2011 is 11.7, the average from 2000-2011 is 15.8. The 1968-2011 average for major hurricanes was 2.4/year, 2000-2011 average 3.7. The average for total Atlantic hurricanes 1968-2011 is 6.2/year, for 2000-2011 it is 7.7/year. anticipating +AMO stuff, 1950-1970 averaged 9.8 named TCs, 3.2 major hurricanes and 6.4 total hurricanes. The idea that we missed 126 TCs, 27 hurricanes, and 10 major hurricanes in this period of time is absurd. This is data from NOAA NHC. How do you debunk data? Three NOAA (one of them works at NHC) scientists published this paper in 2010: http://www.nhc.noaa....l-jclim2010.pdf They explain why the graph you posted does not represent actual TC count. I suggest reading it in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 And of course this is cherry picked from the Atlantic Basin, as if you expect that this has any relevance to global trends. Global Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is at record lows, which is something that few people who are pushing the agenda that Global Warming caused Hurricane Sandy are willing to accept. If Sandy were caused by a Global phenomenon, don't you expect that we should expect a GLOBAL response to Tropical Cyclones, not just the Atlantic Basin? The recent increase in Tropical Cyclone Activity in the Atlantic Basin wheras Global Tropical Cyclonic Energy being at record lows is more consistent with Oceanic Cycles like the AMO being responsible for such an increase recently in Atlantic Hurricanes, rather than a Global phenomenon. They conclude that it is the ENSO and PDO, that have known natural forcing, unlike AMO, which does not Its just the nonlinearity in the last centuries Atlantic warming, volcanoes, aerosols, methane, fluorocarbons, ect.. The pre-industrial signal is very weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan11295 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Much better looking my Hurricane frequency then just TC's. Had more than a few "junk" cyclones in the past 10 years than would have never been counted in 1900. Oscar this year is a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 4 inches would have made a substantial difference anyway you slice it. Its far from "very minor" and I'm being extremely conservative with a 4 inches mark. I don't see how you get to that conclusion. If Sandy's storm surge had peaked 4" lower, that hardly would have effected the flooding impact. The real flooding began about 2' below the peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The 4 inch amount was extremely conservative but the point was to illustrate that even at that conservative level there was an effect. I don't know why everyone is so damn tied to the amount. The point was that there is a big point to be made here on how AGW will affect us in the future. The exact amount of current rise is secondary to the fact that AGW has attributed in a meaningful way to sea level rise which in turn attributed to a major weather disaster. Billions of dollars in damage occurred because of AGW and it really is undeniable. So without AGW, Sandy wouldn't have caused billions in damage? This just doesn't make sense. There have been many other storms in east coast history that would have caused billions in damage if they happened today. And take out inflation and factor in increased population, and those storms did have a similar overall impact when they occurred. Maybe Sandy was a little bit worse because of AGW. Maybe. That's all we can really say, but we definitely can't say that this disaster occurred because of AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Where did I say hurricane frequency, clearly TCs have increased we have had 1 year with fewer than 10 in the last 14 years. Before that more than half the years had fewer than 10. The data after 1966 is known to be accurate because of continuous satellite coverage. The average named TCs from 1968-2011 is 11.7, the average from 2000-2011 is 15.8. The 1968-2011 average for major hurricanes was 2.4/year, 2000-2011 average 3.7. The average for total Atlantic hurricanes 1968-2011 is 6.2/year, for 2000-2011 it is 7.7/year. anticipating +AMO stuff, 1950-1970 averaged 9.8 named TCs, 3.2 major hurricanes and 6.4 total hurricanes. The idea that we missed 126 TCs, 27 hurricanes, and 10 major hurricanes in this period of time is absurd. This is data from NOAA NHC. How do you debunk data? The previous +AMO phase was roughly from the 1930s - 1950s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.