New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity:

[CrusaderFrank]

New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity:

During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.​

LOLOL....I see you denier dingbats are as gullible as ever.

This is being spun the same way that deniers try to spin the massive loss of Arctic sea ice by merging it with the AGW caused growth of Antarctic sea ice to claim that sea ice amounts are "globally stable or even growing".

2010 was actually a very active year in the Atlantic basin but a less than average year in the Pacific basin in terms of sheer numbers, due largely to the suppressing effect of La Nina, but including a tie for the strongest eastern Pacific hurricane on record (Celia) and a category 5 hurricane hitting the Philippines (Megi).


Extremely Active Atlantic Hurricane Season was a 'Gentle Giant' for U.S.

NOAA's Prediction for Active Season Realized; Slow Eastern Pacific Season Sets Record
November 29, 2010

According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record. In contrast, the eastern North Pacific season had the fewest storms on record since the satellite era began.

In the Atlantic Basin a total of 19 named storms formed – tied with 1887 and 1995 for third highest on record. Of those, 12 became hurricanes – tied with 1969 for second highest on record. Five of those reached major hurricane status of Category 3 or higher.

These totals are within the ranges predicted in NOAA's seasonal outlooks issued on May 27 (14-23 named storms; 8-14 hurricanes; 3-7 major hurricanes) and August 5 (14-20 named storms; 8-12 hurricanes; 4-6 major hurricanes). An average Atlantic season produces 11 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes.

Large-scale climate features strongly influenced this year's hurricane activity, as they often do. This year, record warm Atlantic waters, combined with the favorable winds coming off Africa and weak wind shear aided by La Niña energized developing storms. The 2010 season continues the string of active hurricane seasons that began in 1995.

Hurricanes Karl, Igor and Julia (from left to right on Sept. 16) were part of the onslaught of Atlantic storms this season.
Download here (Credit: NOAA)

But short-term weather patterns dictate where storms actually travel and in many cases this season, that was away from the United States. The jet stream's position contributed to warm and dry conditions in the eastern U.S. and acted as a barrier that kept many storms over open water. Also, because many storms formed in the extreme eastern Atlantic, they re-curved back out to sea without threatening land.

"As NOAA forecasters predicted, the Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record, though fortunately most storms avoided the U.S. For that reason, you could say the season was a gentle giant," said Jack Hayes, Ph.D., director of NOAA's National Weather Service.

Other parts of the Atlantic basin weren't as fortunate. Hurricane Tomas brought heavy rain to earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and several storms, including Alex, battered eastern Mexico and Central America with heavy rain, mudslides and deadly flooding.

Though La Niña helped to enhance the Atlantic hurricane season, it also suppressed storms from forming and strengthening in the eastern North Pacific. Of that region's seven named storms this year, three grew into hurricanes and two of those became major hurricanes. This is the fewest named storms (previous record low was eight in 1977) and the fewest hurricanes (previous record low was four in 1969, 1970, 1977 and 2007) on record since the satellite era began in the mid-1960s. An average eastern North Pacific season produces 15 named storms, nine hurricanes and four major hurricanes.

So Global Warming isn't really global. Gotcha

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOL....I see you denier dingbats are as gullible as ever.

If I were gullible, I'd be on your side.

LOL....you mean if you weren't scientifically ignorant and illiterate, ideologically blinded and dumber than a bag of retarded rocks you might begin to have a glimmer of the truth about the reality and danger of AGW. Unfortunately you are far too ignorant, retarded and brainwashed for any facts to penetrate your wall of stupidity and denial.

This is being spun the same way that deniers try to spin the massive loss of Arctic sea ice by merging it with the AGW caused growth of Antarctic sea ice to claim that sea ice amounts are "globally stable or even growing".

"AGW caused growth of Antarctic sea ice"?

Yeah, moron, that's how it works.

The southern ocean has warmed even faster than the global average and this leads to increased precipitation (rainfall/snowfall) which both builds up the sea ice and freshens the surface layers of water, inhibiting the normal thermal exchange with the lower warmer layers that would melt the sea ice.

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions - Zhang, Jinlun, 2007: J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529. doi: 10.1175/JCLI4136.1 - Abstract - Cached


The science behind increasing Antarctic sea ice
(excerpts)

Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it’s warming faster than the global trend.

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

You might want to read the OP again. I can tell you didn't.

According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.

Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.​

Fewer storms, less energy.

I've long suspected that you don't bother to read even the stuff you post yourself, let alone any information anybody else posts.

From the OP:
"...the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010"
...which agrees with the info I just posted:
"According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record."

Of course, if someone is dumb enough to claim Antartic(sic) sea ice growth is caused by global warming, they're dumb enough to claim that adding more energy to a system will make it less energetic.

And you're dumb enough.

Of course, if someone is dumb enough to ignore all the experts in a field of science and cling to the debunked lies spread by those with a financial interest in denying the science, they're more than dumb enough to fall for any spun up nonsense that suits their politically determined delusions about the subject in question. And you, davedink, are way more than dumb enough. You are a full blown flaming retard.

 

[daveman]

LOLOL....I see you denier dingbats are as gullible as ever.

If I were gullible, I'd be on your side.

LOL....you mean if you weren't scientifically ignorant and illiterate, ideologically blinded and dumber than a bag of retarded rocks you might begin to have a glimmer of the truth about the reality and danger of AGW. Unfortunately you are far too ignorant, retarded and brainwashed for any facts to penetrate your wall of stupidity and denial.

Guess you missed this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ific-literacy-correlates-with-scepticism.html

Yeah, moron, that's how it works.

The southern ocean has warmed even faster than the global average and this leads to increased precipitation (rainfall/snowfall) which both builds up the sea ice and freshens the surface layers of water, inhibiting the normal thermal exchange with the lower warmer layers that would melt the sea ice.

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions - Zhang, Jinlun, 2007: J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529. doi: 10.1175/JCLI4136.1 - Abstract - Cached


The science behind increasing Antarctic sea ice
(excerpts)

Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it’s warming faster than the global trend.

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

Global Warming drank all my beer.

You might want to read the OP again. I can tell you didn't.

According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.

Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.​

Fewer storms, less energy.

I've long suspected that you don't bother to read even the stuff you post yourself, let alone any information anybody else posts.

From the OP:
"...the North Atlantic continued a 16-year period of above-normal activity in 2010"
...which agrees with the info I just posted:
"According to NOAA the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which ends tomorrow, was one of the busiest on record."

Yeah. The OP is about global activity, not just the North Atlantic. I guess you missed the part about there being fewer storms worldwide with less energy.

And we all know why you "missed" it, too.

Of course, if someone is dumb enough to claim Antartic(sic) sea ice growth is caused by global warming, they're dumb enough to claim that adding more energy to a system will make it less energetic.

And you're dumb enough.

Of course, if someone is dumb enough to ignore all the experts in a field of science and cling to the debunked lies spread by those with a financial interest in denying the science, they're more than dumb enough to fall for any spun up nonsense that suits their politically determined delusions about the subject in question. And you, davedink, are way more than dumb enough. You are a full blown flaming retard.

The AGW cult is in it for the money. Hansen's proved that.

NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself - FoxNews.com

Your science is flawed, your scientists are frauds.

And you're an idiot.