This is precisely as predicted by AGW theory.

The Theory goes: if X occurs then AGW is cause.

X can be anything.

lol good one frenchie77 like the fires in California started by arsonists.

x =increased rates of arson.

There was 10 cat 3 hurricanes in the 50's 1/2 that many in the 90's.

Oops the MSM's missed that.
x= Catrina sez Al Gore

As I notice another above "average activity year" go by with barely a storm, I start to get this creepy mental image of the Goreacle and Dr. Fruit Fly dancing around a jar of dirt (Gaia Idol) praying for a hurricane, with lots of death and destruction.

Well ... who can say now that gore buying carbon credits from himself doesn't work?

Yep, Klimate Kultists just gotta be dumb.

Can't call the weather two days from now.

Can't call the hurricane season a few months in advance.

Claims to be able to tell you the weather 50 to 90 years from now.

That's podium-finishing stupid.

Yep, Klimate Kultists just gotta be dumb.

Can't call the weather two days from now.

Can't call the hurricane season a few months in advance.

Claims to be able to tell you the weather 50 to 90 years from now.

That's podium-finishing stupid.

Almost as stupid as double-posting...

Sorry Kate

I'm pretty sure that if the numbers were reversed it would be all over the news. But, because this *news* doesn't fit their preconceived notions of the truth, it will never see the light of day.

"I'm pretty sure that if the numbers were reversed it would be all over the news. But, because this *news* doesn't fit their preconceived notions of the truth, it will never see the light of day."

But it fits YOUR preconceived notions, so I guess it doesn't deserve to be questioned, smeared, criticized or in any way brought under suspicion. Where are all the calls to see computer models and code? Where are all the armchair climate scientists crunching numbers into facile, retarded assumptions and writing pointless blog postings? Where is the righteous anger?

Warwick, do you know anything about what you are saying? I suspect you want to claim that b/c a weather system is chaotic and difficult to predict in the short-term, then it necessarily cannot be predicted on a larger scale (either temporal or spatial scale). Unfortunately, you're wrong - chaotic doesn't mean random, it means sensitive to initial conditions - and depending on the characteristic scale that we're interested in, bulk measurements and long-term prediction are possible, at least in a probabilistic sense.

A 4-point magnetic pendulum is a chaotic system also.

http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php

'Forcing' in this simplified analogous case is akin to putting a wedge under the platform. Although we can't predict the exact path of the pendulum bob, we CAN predict quite well the probability that the system will be in one state over another - subject to caveats about how we define states (i.e., divide up state space). When forcing is applied, these probabilities change, and we can say very meaningful things about the new probabilities. This means we can make predictions about the CHANCES that the system will be in a particular state vs. another state, without knowing the day-to-day or week-to-week or even year-to-year weather. It's not magic.

In any case, while some of what you say is true, you are not being honest in describing the nature of nonlinear (chaotic) dynamics, particularly wrt attractors and forcing influences.

It doesn't do the dialogue any favours when people misrepresent one side, either by intention or not.

"Although we can't predict the exact path of the pendulum bob, we CAN predict quite well the probability that..."

HAAA HA HA HA HA HA

Good one.

Great factoid there Kate...another nail in the AGW coffin...or is it?

Facts have never dissuaded a leftoid cult on a good crusade...even if the evidence does not support the cause...it is better to "fight the good fight" than pay attention to insignificant details like reality.

AGW belivers are generally people with no identity and deeply insecure who NEED some crusade to associate with and give them identity and self worth...its a form of moral exhibitionism for losers....this is the value in mindlessly supporting AGW...not facts and not the science...or the climate for that matter....it's a feel good thing that makes you smug and allows you to feel moraly superior without really doing anything...just supporting some cultish cause.

I just find it a bit concerning that in the decades since the 60s no one of left leaning persuasion has learned anything from the long string of frauds perpetrated by mercenary provocateurs who play leftoid naivety and self loathing like a fiddle....prominent among these are eco-green and wildlife welfare cons...they just don't learn...don't want to....it's better to parade around as a supporter of whatever is designated as the morally superior cause of the day than it is to check the validity or reality of the Cause.

So it is with AGW...in reality the elite class who finance the panic politics of AGW have a dark eugenics agenda to reduce human population...AGW gets people thinking of themselves as a "problem" on the earth...a problem which must be eradicated and controlled.... wrap it in a moral green wrapper and the suckers will willingly adopt self loathing, self destructive social agendas.

Somewhere Moe Strong is saying to his global elite finaciers "I told you so"

afp: Thanks for the input. I think you summarized your ignorance pretty succinctly.

I used a very simple analogy to illustrate the problem with saying 'we know nothing', when in fact, there are many things we can say about chaotic systems. All of this ignores the very productive discussion that is ongoing about how much the theory of choatic systems even APPLIES to weather systems (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=204), but the fact remains that Warwick was way off in saying that small-scale prediction means there is NO prediction possible.

I suspect you know this, but have nothing to refute in my post, so rather than address it directly (and there is much to address, since it is admittedly a simplified analogy - and I said as much), you chose to pretend that the assertions were laughable. A commendable effort, but I provided a pretty detailed link that discusses it further, so my assertions can be checked.

Now bug off.

heh heh

*I think you summarized your ignorance...*

*I suspect you know this...*

*A commendable effort,...*

Are you on drugs?

anons are for pussies:

Do you have anything to offer here, or do you just deflect by criticizing my wording?

Also, are you 15? I only ask because the 'are you on drugs' line is in a fight with 'what are you smoking' for the most inane and pointless response ever. Not that I expect anything else around here.

You see, only jackass teenagers would think that making fun of 'geeks' and 'nerds' is 'cool', while penning a monicker like 'anons are for pussies'. Yes...we are all floored by your intellectual prowess and sardonic wit. Now go back to wanking off to Avril Lavigne, you spineless little sh*t.

Boy, you sure have spent a lot of effort to insult me. And others ("Not that I expect anything else around here"). It makes you look so.... brilliant.

Is that how you build your confidence up? With insults? The same way "jackass teenagers" do? Or by calling someone a "spineless little sh*t" under the cover of ANON?

-

BTW, in regards to, "only jackass teenagers would think that making fun of 'geeks' and 'nerds' is 'cool'"

HUH?

In the immortal words of ANON, "do you know anything about what you are saying?"

Anon, seriously, you just made my day. Maybe it is true that 'geeks' and 'nerds' do have something to offer.

Anon: Your remarks about chaotic systems (2:54 PM) are valid but I don't believe that they're relevant. What can't be established is how much effect (if any) increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have on meteorologic chaos. All of the climate model predictions of unprecedented climate change and/or more numerous extreme weather events are valid only if the underlying unproven and unprovable assumption of AGM is correct. i.e. they're faith-based.

Zog: Like I said in a previous post, the AGW is a faith-based cultish moral "imperative" backed by presumed scientific fact is simply a form of moral exhibitionism for losers....but it isn't science...not even close.

The base lone GHG computer models used to presume AGW were proven inaccurate because of input formula omissions...one of which was that CO2 reflects more direct IR band light (heat) than it does reflected IR (insulative) heat...the formula is therefore that more CO2= less direct heating to the earth's surface.

But AGW "believers" continue to function on faith alone (even if they realize the underlying theory is flawed/desputed) because they feel the position itself legitimizes them and the "cause", thus the "science is settled" mantra BS.

Anyone that can seriously argue that theoretical science is "settled science" isn't coming from a scientific frame of reference...only from a faith based belief.

Anon, come off it.

Computer models using a) finite differences to approximate differential equations, b) parameterizations and c) filters inherently make for inaccurate (i.e. wrong, in the end) predictions. Like the meteorological primitive equations, the climate equations are a) not perfectly known, and b) what is known is nonlinear. Show me a computer model that a) has the equations, initial conditions and boundary conditions perfect everywhere and b) can successfully solve integrals and partial differentials perfectly, then we'll talk.

Until that time, don't quote any model output as being even close to an accurate representation as to what will happen. It may be close to right. It WILL be wrong, but we don't know how much. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW. If we stop questioning all the steps and inputs and models and assumptions, i.e. if we stop being true scientists (or "deniers", as some would call us), then we all lose.

I'd be happier if we accepted that climate always changes (saying "climate change" is like saying "water wet"), so we'd be better of getting used to it and spending capital to prepare for likelihoods (which in Canada means burning fewer fossil fuels--YAY, good for less pollution) than sending guilt money to China so that they can pollute in our stead. Harper was right--at least that part of Kyoto was a socialist money transfer scheme.

Anon, don't waste your time, they are dumb as toast and can't be taught.

From PCC AR4
Page 750
Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)
Results from embedded high-resolution models and
global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km,
project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably,
where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation in future
tropical cyclones. --->Most recent published modelling studies
investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in
the overall number of storms in these projections and in the projected --->decrease of relatively
weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of
the most intense tropical cyclones

Page 864 Table 11.2.
Tropical Cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes)
Change in phenomenon Projected changes
Increase in peak wind intensities L (high-resolution Atmospheric GCM (AGCM) and embedded hurricane model
projections)
Over most tropical cyclone areas42
Increase in mean and peak L (high-resolution AGCM projections and embedded hurricane model projections)
precipitation intensities Over most tropical cyclone areas,43 South,44 East45 and southeast Asia46

---->Changes in frequency of occurrence M (some high-resolution AGCM projections)
Decrease in number of weak storms, increase in number of strong storms47

M (several climate model projections)
Globally averaged decrease in number, but specific regional changes dependent on
sea surface temperature change48
Possible increase over the North Atlantic49

Albatros:
So, I take it you disagree with the graph as posted above? And if so, why? I would prefer no Intergalatic Government Panel quotes or links, if that is possible.

"Albatros:
So, I take it you disagree with the graph as posted above?"

No I don't. I posted the reference above.

Albatros: Future hurricane projections from the models aren't representative of actual occurrences observed since 1880. The trend lines of both frequency and intensity of observed Atlantic and Carribean storms are essentially flat. Moreover the two most powerful (and deadly) hurricanes ever to make landfall in the U.S.A. were in 1900 and 1928. I can't speak for other parts of the globe but, neither can anyone else, since Pacific records for the first half of the period are sketchy at best.

The basic problem with all model projections is the same. No matter how carefully they are constructed or how much detail is fed into them, they are all based on unproven basic assumptions, which AGM proponents verify by waving their arms and shouting, " They are true! The science is settled!"

Debating with warmists is like debating with creationists. They are happy to discuss mechanical details and can sometimes present reasonable arguments but, questioning of their underlying assumptions (God is in control; increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 is de facto causing significant increases of IR reflection to earth) simply isn't allowed.

Way back a volcano erupted and cuased freak weather like snow in june and july here in the USA and several other things

Alby,

They "projected" a strong storm season before last year, and again before this year. Both have been below normal, and in fact are showing a trend to decreasing in number and intensity...that's the point.

JCL

For those of you terrified by the apparent mindless following of the popular amongst the youth of today, the following may help brighten your day.

Right after Thanksgiving, my son's chemistry class was discussing the make up of the earth's atmosphere, and of course, what came up? Yep, Global Warming. An assignment was given, the premise of which was, given the unarguable fact the GW is upon us, what can we do to minimize the effects.

So my son says "Excuse me, Mr. Chemteacher, but what if one doesn't believe that GW is unarguably upon us?" Mr. Chemteacher says "What!! How can you even consider for a moment that it isn't?" Explains that he will be showing the class "An Inconvenient Truth" to prove his point.

Kid says that the most inconvenient truth is that the film is long on exagerations, and short on factual information and asks if Mr. Chemteacher has heard about the recent British court ruling vis-a-vis disclaimers before showing the film in schools, and ask if they will be showing "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to keep balance in the presentation.

So, my kid and one other in the class are allowed to present their conflicting point of view as a project.

During the showing of AIT, Mr. Chemteacher stops the video several times during the screening to allow the 2 skeptics to raise and make their points. Following the end of this 2-1/2 week "project", fully 50% of the remainder of the class had switched their view from "It's settled science" to "I really haven't got enough facts to make an informed decision."

Mr. Chemteacher is IMHO, to be commended for not only allowing the 2 boys to voice their dissent, but to actually encourage them. He did tell them after the project was over, that he had discussed this issue with 6 or 8 fellow teachers at a "Professional Development" day seminar, and NOT ONE of the others had any student express a conflicting opinion on Global Warming. He also told them that it was great to see them display skepticism and argue to back it up. It should be noted that he also took the time to send them to a couple of websites they hadn't found themselves, which supported their view. SDA was NOT one of those sites.

So, sorry settled science people, but some of the youngsters are refusing to drink their Koolaid. But they aren't refusing to think outside the "everyone else says so" box. Have an enlightened day!

JCL and all the rest

"in fact are showing a trend to decreasing in number and intensity...that's the point."

So, what don't you understand about the IPCC saying
"Decrease in number of weak storms, increase in number of strong storms"?

and

"Most recent published modelling studies
investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones"?

Whether or not you agree with computer modeling you can't deny that when you look at the two cat 5 storms in the Caribbean and the storms in the Western Pacific, the IPCC AR4 predictions are pretty well spot on. Of course one year does not make a trend and last year's data is fuzzy due to it being an el Nino year.

Of course you do realize the IPCC was released long before this article was produced, so they didn't change the predications to match this result, now did they?

Sober2ndThought it's nice that your son's chem teacher allowed an opposing viewpoint, but I'm sorry that the teacher wasn't informed on the subject enough to point out the few flaws in an Inconvenient Truth and the many flaws, plus the propaganda to be found in the Swindle. I'm afraid your son will remain ignorant to the real science behind the warming with teachers that teach exclusively by showing a film. I'd recommend you tell your son to leave anything related to Gore’s version of global warming on the shelf and open the book "The Weather Makers" by Tom Flannery, as it does a very good job of explain things to the average person.

Albatros: "Decrease in number of weak storms, increase in number of strong storms"

If that's the case, why is there no evidence of either trend? As I mentioned in my previous post, the trend lines for BOTH storm frequency AND storm intensities from the late 1800s to the present are flat. Do you seriously believe that historical trends can be disregarded when making future predictions?

With regard to your most recent post, Tom Flannery is an egotistical charlatan who has a much better handle than Gore on scientific jargon but is, nevertheless, just another peddler of misinformation. If he actually believes his published nonsense, I have a better grasp of science in my ass than he has in his head.

Zog at October 26, 2007 9:12 PM
I don't know where you get your information from but, you are wrong. In a recent exchange I pointed out that one half of all category 5 storms since satellites started tracking storms 40 years ago have occurred in the last 10 years.
Out of the 12 cat 5 storms in the Pacific, 9 or three quarters have occurred since 1994.

Neither of the storms you referred were the strongest. The Galveston storm of 1900 was a Cat 4 and the third deadliest, while the 1928 Okeechobee storm was a cat 5 and killed over 4000 people was nowhere near the strongest on record.