Wednesday, June 05, 2013

English major Chris Mooney: Just before the longest major hurricane absence in U.S. history began, some guy became convinced that CO2 causes hurricanes

One Meteorologist's Come-to-Jesus Moment on Climate Change | Mother Jones
Ostro's conversion was gradual, but the clincher was the stupefying hurricane season of 2005.
May 4, 2013:  Severe Weather Drought: Tornadoes drop to a new all time record low, major hurricane absence is setting a new record every day | Watts Up With That?
it has been 2750 days (7 years, 6 months, 11 days) since the last major Hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) hit the USA on October 24th 2005 when hurricane Wilma made landfall. Each new day is a new record in this major hurricane drought.


Joe Bastardi said...

Landfalls in 1916 and 1933 just as intense, could not see intensity over the water cause Snoopy and the Red Baron could not fly constant recons. In addition Gray points out and rightly so that the 1933 hurricane season had nothing detected in areas where the 2005 season addition of storms ( eye sores near the azores) made the difference in number.
if I see more than 6 storms hit the east coast in 2 years 5 of them major, or see something BIGGER than 1938 actually occur , then perhaps there is reason for pause. Otherwise the reaction to 05 is a proven over reaction given global ace index since, and more importantly, having respect for what happen before understanding we could not have observed that even if did happen out of the water before. The landfall intensity and landfalling storms are the metric of consistency and there are several seasons that would give 05 a run for its money. In addition, the 1930s-1950s, were far worse as far as landfalling intensity than what we have seen so far in this cycle which has several more years to go and finds the east coast in a higher than average peril zone

Harry Dale Huffman said...

2005 was an aberrant year, with 28 total Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes altogether (not just landfalling storms), and 4 category 5 (strongest) hurricanes in that one year. More typically, there has been about 1 category 5 hurricane every 3 years, for the past 90 years. On average, in the years before and after 2005, only about half as many storms occurred (about 15 per year, on average) as in 2005. Landfalling storms are not the measure of consistency, either, but total number of atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, and the average intensity for all of them--and there is no trend in the average Atlantic storm strength over the period 1851 through 2010. So hurricanes are a non-story in the global warming (or "climate change") debate, and it is a waste of time listening to hysterical weathermen who are too lazy to look at the data readily available to anyone on the web, at

You can see my short article on the average atlantic storm strength, 1851 to 2010, at

Joe Bastardi said...

I disagree. The intensity of landfalling is most certainly a reliable metric since the oceans and the US have not moved. The biggest storms usually weaken as they approach the coast or parallel it because of the big circulations entraining dry air. So the total number is not, since we now can measure it, but landfall intensity is most certainly tied to the amo as can be seen by watching decadol oscillations and landfalls. If anything landfalls may have been understated also, but its certainly something that can be linked directly to the oceanic cycles. with a cold pdo, warm amo, as we have now, a recipe for instance for the most trouble on the east coast. I have no problem with the rest of your comments but I can show you ( and do in my talks) the linkage to that. The fact is that there is no reason not to believe that large strong storms weaken as they approach the coast most of the time. Its the smaller fists of fury that are the intensify till landfall problems. Example. the difference between a Katrina and Rita, and Camille. All had cat 5 ratings but the much smaller circulation of Camille remained powerful till landfall. Charley is another example this relatively tiny storm deepeend as it came to the coast. A possible example against this is Hugo, but Hugo had a very low pressure with lower reported winds against the pressure and the storm "tightened" as it came to the coast, coming out of the inflow shadow caused by Hispianola where it weakened.

Joe Bastardi said...

And by the way. I know Stu and he is a great meteorologist and outstanding forecaster. Lets make sure we don't lose site of that. He is probably someone you can rationally talk to about this and wind up with him taking a stand for reasons and MAKING A FORECAST and not running from it. I do not believe he is of the closed minded ilk that could have ice floes moving into the gulf and saying, see I told you. So right or wrong. i would never question his motives, nor does this diminish what I witnessed first hand when we worked together. The man is a great, dedicated meteorologist. We share this in common.. when ( if) the climate fight goes away both of us have the weather. That is the common bond. Most of the people on his side of the fight only use the weather as a tool to get something they want, and also if they are proven wrong, have nothing. A Stu Ostro has a much more genuine foundation and therefore my respect. He does forecast, he does have to get on the front lines and take the shots. I saw it first hand.

Loyalty is big with me, so are motives. Even brothers can disagree.In this case its someone who I will always consider a friend and great forecaster.

If this disappoints someone on my side of the debate, so be it. Chalk it up to my upbringing

papertiger said...

After all these years of great forecasting, if Chris Mooney started singing the praises of Joe Bastardi I'd have to give you the greasy eyeball, because that is the sort of rat that Chris Mooney is.

It's that strong a reek that comes off him.

Sort of like being sprayed by a skunk. Stu might be a good friend, but he'll have to ride in the trailer. Stinks too much to let him in the cab.