I am in the middle of my finals right now, but once they end, I will answer all questions and post our graphs.

So check back this weekend! Thanks a lot for reading the paper!

I am in the middle of studying for my finals, but once they end (this friday) I will be more than happy to answer all
your questions and will also post our graphs.

check back this weekend! and thanks for reading the paper!

It’s a well known principle in science, that the best way to increase your funding is to discover a future catastrophe that can only be avoided by increases in your teams budget.

We also did some research on Goldenberg to see if he is a credible source of information and not someone who would have financial or other types of gains from disproving global warming.

I am curious to know if your instructor requires this “credibility” search as a litmus test when it comes to doing critical research of a global warming topic such as hurricanes? Also, what is your definition of financial gain from research? I wonder if your prescribed notion of impartiality is violated by certain figures like Al Gore, James Hansen, UN IPCC, etc. who have considerable investments in “proving” global warming.

Though, despite saying that predicting the future of hurricanes is very difficult, NOAA made a climate prediction for the year 2007 saying that it will be an “above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season,” with “7-10 hurricanes [and] 3-5 major hurricanes.” This prediction was based primarily on the rise of the sea surface temperatures, which were “above average [0.56oC].” But as witnessed by all of us, 2007 was an extremely pacific year, with six hurricanes, of which only two were major. This shows that sea surface temperature do not affect hurricane activity as much as most people assume they do.

Seasonal forecasting is a totally different animal from global warming/climate change predictions. The sea surface temperature (SST) is an important contributor to Atlantic hurricane activity, yet it is not the whole story, and in some years like 2007, may give the wrong answer. It is well known that other factors are responsible which range from ENSO teleconnections to Sahel Africa rainfall to Saharan dust. Extenstive discussion of this topic is found throughout Climate Audit’s archives. You are correct in stating that SST effects are overstated in general, but it is an open research question.

At the beginning of this project, we expected to find a major flaw in Goldenberg’s theory. Yet after weeks of research and data analysis, we came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough evidence and data consistency to prove a link between sea surface temperatures, global warming and hurricanes. This discovery came as an interesting surprise to our group. It is reasonable to assume that the public did not understand the full facts that surfaced on major news networks after hurricane Katrina and therefore falsely believes that major hurricanes are a direct cause of increasing Global Temperatures. As the incorrect NOAA prediction for 2007 hurricane season showed, a large increase in sea surface temperature, .56 °C, has no impact on category or number of hurricanes.

Why was your initial assumption that Goldenberg’s theory was flawed, and why were you surprised about your results? Also, you are remarking that the “public” does not understand the full facts. Journalists tend to use this type of language (some say… it has been noted that…) to editorialize their own experiences or feelings into an article through generalized anecdotes. Thus, in the very next stanza, you discuss “full facts” and then present a completely false statement:

As the incorrect NOAA prediction for 2007 hurricane season showed, a large increase in sea surface temperature, .56 °C, has no impact on category or number of hurricanes.

Researchers have to be very careful with word choice and separating cause and effect, especially when examining such quantities correlated highly like hurricane activity and sea-surface temperature. In your case, you evidence one quiet season with a busted seasonal forecast as being contrary to global warming. This evidence has no more or less weight than evidencing 2005 as commensurate with AGW theory.

Editor and Co-writer: Sarah Costa

April 25, 2008

Stony Brook University

No rights reserved.

Hurricane Trends

For a course on global warming at Stony Brook University, our semester-long project was to analyze a published set of data concerning climate change. The class was divided into different groups and each group was given an article to analyze. The figure that our team had was concerning the trend of major hurricanes and was published by Stanley B. Goldenberg. It stated that hurricane wind speed and number of violent hurricanes per year have remained relatively constant. After doing some research, we discovered that Goldenberg has a theory, which got published in the Science magazine, about the trends of major hurricanes. The theory states that the frequency of storms alternates every decade, where a 10-15 year period with a high occurrence of major hurricanes, is followed by 10-15 year period with a much lower frequency.

Our first step in examining this information, was finding the set of data used by the author and graphing it on our own computers to see if it matches. We found that data at weather.unisys.com website. This set of data was plotted using Microsoft Excel and then scrutinized closely. This figure supported the article, except that our data started in the year 1854, while the one in the article began in 1944. Looking at both figures, it is clear that the annual number of major hurricanes fluctuates in accordance with Goldenberg’s theory of decadal trends. Our information was also consistent with figures made by Goldenberg in the article published in Science Magazine.

We also did some research on Goldenberg to see if he is a credible source of information and not someone who would have financial or other types of gains from disproving global warming. After several hours of browsing the World Wide Web, we came to the conclusion that Goldenberg is a very well known and respected scientist who works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), a federal group that monitors things like hurricanes, tsunamis and other climate phenomena.

NOAA has a large amount of data regarding the subject of hurricanes. This organization not only monitors and records hurricane activities and data, it also analyzes that data and tries to make predictions for the future. According to their website, the large number of major hurricanes since 1994 further supports Goldenberg’s theory. This trend of intense hurricane seasons is normal because the previous twenty years, 1974-1994, only had an average of 1.5 major hurricanes a year. It is also said that current research regarding hurricanes and their future trends is “inconsistent” and “such contradictory results as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a foundation to base any projections about the future.”

Though, despite saying that predicting the future of hurricanes is very difficult, NOAA made a climate prediction for the year 2007 saying that it will be an “above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season,” with “7-10 hurricanes [and] 3-5 major hurricanes.” This prediction was based primarily on the rise of the sea surface temperatures, which were “above average [0.56oC].” But as witnessed by all of us, 2007 was an extremely pacific year, with six hurricanes, of which only two were major. This shows that sea surface temperature do not affect hurricane activity as much as most people assume they do.

Yet Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology are saying that the hurricane activity has doubles over the past century and even a quiet year like 2006 six, “with five hurricanes and four other named storms… would be considered normal or slightly active compared to an average year in the early part of the 20th century.” Greg Holland and Peter Webster both assume that such increase in hurricanes is largely due to the rise of the sea surface temperatures (SST). But as seen by the predictions made by NOAA and the actual outcome, such assumption is flawed.

The article by Holland and Weber says that “data errors alone cannot explain the sharp, high-amplitude transitions between the climatic regimes,” but there is more than just data errors. Collection of data from aircrafts did not start until 1944, the first hurricane was named in 1954 (econet.com) and the satellite imaging began in mid 1970s. Therefore, most data before 1940s is extremely unreliable, and considering that the population of most regions was a lot lower, the effects of some hurricanes did not appear as drastic as it could have been today. Hence it is likely that a hurricane in that time period was not given a proper category. And if looking carefully at the figure of major hurricane trends, it is clear that the storm occurrence has changed very little, and if it was not for the above normal 2004 and 2005, years 1995-2005 would have been identical to 1965-1974 and 1936-1946.

At the beginning of this project, we expected to find a major flaw in Goldenberg’s theory. Yet after weeks of research and data analysis, we came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough evidence and data consistency to prove a link between sea surface temperatures, global warming and hurricanes. This discovery came as an interesting surprise to our group. It is reasonable to assume that the public did not understand the full facts that surfaced on major news networks after hurricane Katrina and therefore falsely believes that major hurricanes are a direct cause of increasing Global Temperatures. As the incorrect NOAA prediction for 2007 hurricane season showed, a large increase in sea surface temperature, .56 °C, has no impact on category or number of hurricanes.

There were only three storms in January, which is the second-lowest count of the last 63 years. The normal count is about 6 or 7 storms in January.

Also, a glance at years which had below-normal Januarys indicates that the odds are the entire SH year will be below-normal.

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/GCRHurricanes.pdf

[Abstract] This paper explores a causal relationship between Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) induced ionization and the cloud structure that supports hurricane development. Several observed phenomena can be explained by a relationship between cosmic rays and hurricanes. These are (1) the need for an atmospheric low pressure system, (2) the requirement of strong updraft, (3) and the need for high sustained winds along the ocean’s surface for hurricane development; and (4) the disintegration of a hurricane system as it comes onshore and travels over land. An atmospheric low pressure system allows greater penetration of GCRs at the ocean’s surface. A strong updraft pulls ocean salt water aerosols high into the atmosphere where they are exposed to very high levels of ionization. High sustained winds at the ocean’s surface controls production of ocean salt water aerosols. As hurricanes travel over land, they are starved of marine aerosols which in turn constrain hurricane cloud development & lifetime. This paper presents the hypothesis that ocean salt water aerosols and GCR ionization are primary components of the hurricane formation and intensification process. Surface wind speed drives the production rate of marine aerosols and GCR induced ionization drives the nucleation of marine aerosols and cloud growth.