re: No named storms for first time since 1992

quote:

---

You don't have blunders like this in regards to evolution. We don't hear scientists predict or state something that is then proven to be completely wrong in evolution or gravity or even space. We do with global warming. Quite often.

---

Well, first of all, you did. When Darwinism was as young as AGW, you had a lot of blunders, which is why every creationist catechism recites Haeckel and Piltdown and every other screw-up from the early 1900s as though it's relevant today.

Second of all, Al Gore isn't a scientist. What were the actual scientists saying in the late aughts when Katrina and Ike and Irene/Sandy were landing?

Well, they were saying this: LINK

quote:

---

Using a high-horizontal-resolution atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM), impacts of SST warming and CO2 increase on the tropical cyclone (TC) climatology are investigated. The SST effect is examined from numerical experiments in which SST is uniformly higher/lower by 2 K, without changing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The CO2 effect is shown from doubled and quadrupled CO2 experiments with a fixed SST condition. The results demonstrate that the increases in CO2 have large impacts to reduce TC frequency globally, while the SST changes have relatively small influences on the TC frequency ...As the effect of CO2 enhancement, precipitation decreases significantly in the tropics, which may lead to the reduction in TC frequency.

---

And this: LINK

quote:

---

Our regional climate model of the Atlantic basin reproduces the observed rise in hurricane counts between 1980 and 2006, along with much of the interannual variability, when forced with observed sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions. Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.

---

And this: LINK

quote:

---

Tropical cyclones (TC) under different climate conditions in the Northern Hemisphere have been investigated with the Max Planck Institute (MPI) coupled (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) and atmosphere (ECHAM5) climate models ... While there is no significant change between the 19th and the 20th century, there is a considerable reduction in the number of the TC by some 20% in the 21st century, but no change in the number of the more intense storms. Reduction in the number of storms occurs in all regions.

---

And about 2005, specifically, they were saying this: LINK

quote:

---

The latent heat loss from the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean was less in late spring and early summer 2005 than preceding years, due to anomalously weak trade winds associated with weaker SLP. This resulted in anomalously high SSTs. These factors contributed to earlier and more intense hurricanes in 2005. Similar conditions in the tropical Atlantic were seen in fall, also a time of active hurricane formation. While anomalous, these conditions in the Atlantic and Caribbean during 2004 and 2005 were not unprecedented and were equally favorable during the active hurricane seasons of 1958, 1969, 1980, 1995 and 1998.

---

It's all well and good to dump on ALGORE but issuing gaseous accusations at "scientists" or "warmists" or "the AGW crowd" or whatever isn't well-supported. There has never been much of a consensus around hurricanes. There were some studies showing that this decrease in frequency would be accompanied by an increase in intensity among the hurricanes that DID form (e.g. Bender et al, Emanuel et al), but there was never much of a consensus either way. IPCC AR4 could only recite the dueling papers and speak of "a less certain possibility" and AR5 has even backed off that.