March 12th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Tropical Storm 90Q is a remarkable event because it's only the 2nd South Atlantic tropical storm that we know about (records go back more than 400 years--with degrading certainty as one goes back). It's not forecast to make landfall.
The first South Atlantic storm ever recorded was in 2004.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sos031110.php
Interesting, for how many years have weather satellites been monitoring that area continuously? Without weather satellites, how would they have been observed?
I'll pretend you have sincere interest and it's not just another deliberately cynical comment against anything involving observations and analysis related to science.
--
The same way we know about North Atlantic tropical storms going all the way back to 1495 and reported by Christopher Columbus. (some proxy data is beginning to put together even earlier events--some large tropical storm events left sedimentation deposits more than 3000 years ago).
By direct land and sea observations before about 1930--many such as wave action detectable hundreds of miles away. After that commercial aviation started to make observations mostly to avoid them. By the 50's military missions to observe them. There's were many ways to detect them before we had satellites.
Ships logs from voyages around Africa and across to the northeastern coast of SA provide thousands of detailed and professionally observed transect observations, more or less continuously from the 1500s on.Originally Posted by cypress
The records kept at various churches and colonial government stations along the African and SA coasts recorded many weather events - but no hurricanes.
And the storm marks, etc, along the coast reveal only ordinary wind and rain and tide, on all investigated bordering coasts.
And so forth.
Of course there may have been cyclones missed. But not very many.
That cyclone (Caterina) was predicted - its location, development, size, and track to landfall were described with uncanny accuracy by one of those climate models the AGW folks use.
That caught my attention. That was the most impressive bit of weather forecasting I have ever seen - the prediction of a weather event never before seen, that accurate.
The kinds of observations mentioned tend to make the part of the South Atlantic where tropical cyclones might form light on coverage prior to the 1950's. Given that they have been rare since the advent of global satellite coverage, it does not seem out of the ordinary that prior to the 1970's none were documented. I wonder if anyone has attempted to estimate the frequency? I wonder if any occurred during prior warm periods like in the 1930's-1940's or 900-1100.
As for weather models, the ability to predict and track hurricanes five to 10 days out, have improved greatly. Katrina's eye passed over my house, and I have watched these models improve over the years. To suggest that they are therefore accurate at predicting future climate trends is not only a huge stretch but it is just plain false. Hard data continues to demonstrate that they have poor predictive capability for this purpose. The primary reason is that we do not fully understand the earth's energy budget and therefore the models do not and cannot take into account enough of the factors that account for long term oscillations in sea and atmospheric patterns. They tend to tweak effects they want to think they understand to overcompensate for these items they don't understand in an effort to get them to track historical patterns and in the process the models become opinion generators rather than simulators.
This graphic demonstrates my point. Note the poor correlation between predictions compared to the global mean temperature proxy.
Now some will say that this graphic has the general long term trend correct and that observation just plays into my point that the designers have tweaked the models to get them to display a long term effect they believe occurs. However let's go back to iceaura's faulty insinuation. He noted that some GCM's do a good job of predicting tropical cyclone development and paths over the period of days. Ice suggests that therefore they should be trusted for long term predictions (30 years plus), however they are not good at predicting patterns in the months to 25 years range (as the graphic shows) and if you randomly select any 50-100 year period going back as far as 600 for which we have reasonable temperature proxy data, they are terrible. As a point of fact, the only periods in history they do a reasonable long term job is when the longer term trend for that period is upwards. They only seem capable of predicting upward trends. Hmm, imagine that, models that seem to have a built in upward bias.
Completely barking.
the above observational data are further substantiated by the meteorology of the region (apologies to LynxFox if I am using the term incorrectly!) such as:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G6.htmlThough many people might speculate that the sea surface temperatures are too cold, the primary reasons that the South Atlantic Ocean gets few tropical cyclones are that the tropospheric (near surface to 200mb) vertical wind shear is much too strong and there is typically no inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) over the ocean (Gray 1968). Without an ITCZ to provide synoptic vorticity and convergence (i.e. large scale spin and thunderstorm activity) as well as having strong wind shear, it becomes very difficult to nearly impossible to have genesis of tropical cyclones.
Of course, that link is from noaa so completely unreliable.
Again you are ignorant, but feel confident to just state stuff---anything cynical to throw doubt on a particular piece of scientist data.
The reality is the Western South Atlantic Ocean has had regular ship traffic for more than 200 years, both to service the cities in South America, as a being a common route for commercial trade and whaling ships to and from the Pacific.
Nobody has ever suggested the models used for predicting next week's local weather are of any use for predicting next century's global climate.
No, I didn't.
No, I don't.
The model that predicted Caterina was making an exploratory guesswork run several decades into the future - if things kept getting warmer could we get cyclones in the South Atlantic, where none had ever been seen, and if so how and where. The answer from the model was yes, and the predicted most likely formation and track was almost exactly what was observed with Caterina.
It was entirely speculative. It did not predict the year, even, let alone 'five or ten days out".
The guys who ran the model and then saw a storm hit that matched it to a T have repudiated the model, btw. They say its assumptions were flawed, and it just got lucky.
I don't see any "poor correlation". Where is it, and how do you figure?
Sorry for the confusion, bad interpretation on my part.
Actually you have, several times.No, I don't.Ice suggests that therefore they should be trusted for long term predictions (30 years plus), however they are not good at predicting patterns in the months to 25 years range (as the graphic shows)
As generally seems to be the case for GCM's.The guys who ran the model and then saw a storm hit that matched it to a T have repudiated the model, btw. They say its assumptions were flawed, and it just got lucky.
I'm not surprised you don't see it.I don't see any "poor correlation". Where is it, and how do you figure?
Rather than jumping to conclusions you should be prepared to support your statements. I don't doubt the scientific data but I do doubt the narrative you provided with no scientific data to support it.Again you are ignorant, but feel confident to just state stuff---anything cynical to throw doubt on a particular piece of scientist data.
The reality is the Western South Atlantic Ocean has had regular ship traffic for more than 200 years, both to service the cities in South America, as a being a common route for commercial trade and whaling ships to and from the Pacific.
How regular was coverage? What total percentage of the area got daily or even weekly coverage? Can you offer data?
Not going to happen.
You weren't even interested enough to actually think for a second about how we know about tropical storms before satellites and than make generalized statements that coverage was light before 1950. You seem to have absolutely no sincere interest in knowing the answers, are completely inorant of the volume of ship traffic and unwilling to do any actual research on your own. You just depositing turds in the punchbowl
Surely you know the Spanish and other Europeans were traveling that part of the world for up to four centuries. In the North Hemisphere, they other recorded hundreds of storms on land and on the sea--sometime loosing nearly entire fleets to their effects. That didn't happen in the Southern Atlantic not because there weren't ships there, but because they weren't experiencing storms. Later there are even more ships.
"Dr. Lyman has estimated that some 10,000 ships rounded Cape Horn bound for San Francisco during the period 1850 – 1920; all contributing to the population and economies of the Pacific States. And in reverse, the this Westward migration spawned the salmon, timber and grain industries of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, which rapidly became important sources of raw materials and food for the population centers of the Atlantic States and Europe."
http://www.caphorniers.cl/ruta_cabo/route.htm
That's ten thousand ships traversing the South Atlantic though the area we're talking about during mostly during the warm season to avoid Cape Horn's winter, each taking and recording log entries during watches on wind, weather, often sea temperature, waves and in particular storms. If there were large ones like tropical storm. Yet they didn't record tropical storms in what's probably well over million log entries in tropical and subtropical South Atlantic were water temperatures are warm enough to produce tropical storms.
And that doesn't get into land observations and many other ships supporting local commerce.
--
Cypress respectively I don't at all mind you asking questions which you doubt or a skeptical. What makes you consistently a poor participant in the forums is you make broad brush statements of fact (e.g., "light on coverage prior to the 1950's."), without bringing either credible evidence, intelligent questioning or insight to the conversation--almost always casting scientist or those in the forums that probably know more on the topic as more ignorant. If you are ignorant about something it's simply more respectful to ask a question than make a sweeping generalization that presumes everyone is ignorant--particularly scientist that spend their lives researching the topic (or posters summarizing their conclusions)
10,000 ships in 70 years ... lets say all during the warm season ... 5 months * 70 years *30 days is 10500. About a ship a day in the region to make observations over about 6 million square miles of ocean (just the warm region beyond range of land observations) or more. That is pretty light coverage.
I am quite certain that storms in the the South Atlantic are rare, that is my point. But I suspect they have occurred in the past but because observtion is limited, they would have been missed.
Lynx-Fox you must really dislike people who disagree with you to be so quick to ridicule the person when it is quite obvious, your tendency to jump to conclusions is stronger than what you accuse others of. Does it dawn on you that I do check my facks before asking these questions? You are anything but respectful by the way.
Most posts are light on supporting information. If you doubt something you can ask, but in this case it seems silly to doubt this. Seems quite obvious that tropical cyclones in the South Antlantic would only occur when the ocean is much warmer than average and then under other unusual atmospheric patterns as free radical indicates, thus only during the previous warm periods similar to the current one.
[quote="cypress"]10,000 ships in 70 years ... lets say all during the warm season ... 5 months * 70 years *30 days is 10500. About a ship a day in the region to make observations over about 6 million square miles of ocean (just the warm region beyond range of land observations) or more. That is pretty light coverage.
[quote]
Those ships took over 30 days to cross that region so your back to about 30 ships a day in the region. Tropical storms wind and cloud effects are on average more than a quarter of a million square miles; their wave effects often extend over more than a million square miles at any one time.
Wrong. I dislike people who make broad sweeping generalizations that others who know far more are wrong--without credible support.Lynx-Fox you must really dislike people who disagree
In this thread you make sweeping statements when you obviously didn't know other numerous ways pre-satellite tropical storms could be detected, were obviously ignorant of the amount of ship traffic in the region, and haven't even gotten around to addressing other areas such as land-falls, local ship traffic, etc. This is how you tend to operate on these forums: Being cynical of anything related to science (from climate to evolution) without exhibiting the ability to evaluate the work of others or exhibiting any of your own expertise on subjects in question.
Not even once. Do not confuse your assertions with other people's - they are not the same thing. You tend to throw in words like "therefore", radically changing the meanings and implications, that do not appear in the posts you ostensibly critique.
That the people who employ them recognize their flaws, and argue honestly? Yes.
Let's not say any such silly thing, how about. Entirely too much goofball ignorance has been employed as foundation for speculations devoid of physical basis, by you.
So rare that they have never been observed over hundreds of years, in any of the cities on the coasts and islands, by any of the tens of thousands of ships, or by anyone investigating the area for evidence of their having occurred in the past.
We have now seen two in less than ten years, both of which have been observed by ships and coastal residents, matching predictions by climate modelers incorporating CO2 boost warming in their models.
The predictions of those assuming no CO2 boost warming have been much less successful, or lucky, or whatever.
Still don't, and still don't see an explanation. Are you talking about those odd little straight lines someone drew in that graph for some reason? Then you will have to explain their relevance to some kind of argument - I can draw lines on a graph, for purposes of decoration maybe.
Lynx-Fox, unless you are attempting to argue that these storms have never occurred in this area before 2004, that they did not occur during prior warming periods in 1930-1945 or 900-1100 then we are in agreement they are rare.
If your point is not that had they occurred in the past they would have been noted and recorded then you are simply whining about my semantics. It is a pattern with you and and a few others here to focus on the person rather than the substance.
Here I argue that opportunities for observations were rare in the past so it should not be unusual for rare events to go unnoticed particularly when you consider that condidtions favoring these storms are very rare. You seem to agree with the general case but you want to argue about what light coverage means. Whether it takes 5 days or 30 days to cross the area of interest it is still very little coverage compared to the area involved.
It would be pointless to attempt to explain it to you ice, you seem impervious to explanation. Just as it would be pointless to expalin why it is unwaranted to assign these storms to AGW as you have done.Still don't, and still don't see an explanation. Are you talking about those odd little straight lines someone drew in that graph for some reason? Then you will have to explain their relevance to some kind of argument - I can draw lines on a graph, for purposes of decoration maybe.
Nice cop-out, cypress. You've made evasion an art form.
Tens of thousands of observation is rare opportunity? Centuries by a multitude of coastal villages is rare opportunity?
No this is not a semantical argument, it a demonstration of amazing ignorance on your part, broad sweeping hand waving, and complete unwillingness to engage in healthy constructive discussion about the mater or learn anything. And a pattern in these forums of doing the same across a broad range of scientific matters.
--
Furthermore this is a discussion about South Atlantic Tropical storms. The hokey economist charts you keep wanting to drag around of one (of many) models isn't part of that discussion unless it's clearly linked to tropical storm formation (e.g. sea surface temps, tropospheric vertical wind share etc).
--
Lastly, Cypress consider this a formal warning.
Do not hyjack or derail treads. In this case, you attempted to turn this into yet another general discussion of global climate model's average global temperature forecast or how biased modelers are. See here:Responses to the warning should be via PM to the moderator/admin team or publicly via the Site Feedback forum. Do not argue about it here.
I can't for the life of me see how one ship per day (even if each remain in the area for 5-30 days) traversing a narrow path through 8 million square miles is frequent, and gives anything but light coverage and I am quite certain you will never be able to adequately explain it, but so be it.
Also if anyone will care to look, the post of mine quoted was a response to iceaura's mention of GCM's and insinuation that these storms validate the models.
Far be it from me to complain about your style of moderating. The site admin will not hear from me.
Here's the thing. Your response didn't address Iceaura's comment in the least--which was specifically about tropical storm formation in the Western South Atlantic--not the global average temperature.
Rather than attacking windmills and trying to hijack the thread into the very same discussion you've dragged several other threads into--you could have simple asked him--what models? When? etc.
Or you could have taken the 30 second to look up what Iceaura was writing about (perhaps a bit longer because you might not be as familiar with the sources). You would have found the only known South Atlantic Hurricane (Catarina) superimposed over one of the Hadley Center Climate model results that predict a future of tropical storm formation over the same area.
Lynx_Fox here is what Iceaura later said about the model predictions:
I have long argued that these models and the assumptions are flawed.
| « New estimates of large methane flux from Siberian sediments | Warmest January in 32 years » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
