As to Curry reported comments in Norway as provided by Anders Vallant, Curry’s suggesting that we’ve had more hurricanes recently than at any point back to 1850 makes me scratch my head as to why someone would think that we can homogeneously compare hurricane activity now versus 150 (or even 100) years ago. We’ve got some amazing detection tools available now (aircraft, geostationary satellite, polar orbiting satellites like AMSU and QuikSCAT, buoys, radars, and a lot more shipping traffic) that we simply didn’t have back then. If indeed she said this (though i do not know if it is true), then Curry’s being incredibly naive about what the hurricane record can tell us.

As for Ike Solem’s comments about me promoting the Lyman et al. study: i’ve not read nor commented on the paper in question.

Finally, with regards to Michael Mann’s quoted comments: I would agree with him that modeling of the future is very uncertain and that it is quite possible that all 18 of these coupled climate models have it wrong. However, if one wants to make attribution now of what the cause of the increased hurricane activity we’ve seen in the Atlantic since 1995, the Vecchi and Soden study is pretty clear: it can’t be global warming because both the dynamics AND thermodynamics don’t support it, if these models are to be believed.

Chris Landsea

And then turning around and promoting a study that relies entirely on modeling?

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=436&c=1

———————
Mike-

You are simply incorrect when you assert: “Emanuel (2005) shows that the warming SSTs are behind the increased TC intensity in the Atlantic. No impartial reading of that paper could come to any other conclusion.”

Here is what Emanuel actually says:

“Tropical cyclones do not respond directly to SST, however, and the appropriate measure of their thermodynamic environment is the potential intensity, which depends not only on surface temperature but on the whole temperature profile of the troposphere. . . The above discussion suggests that only part of the observed increase in tropical cyclone power dissipation is directly due to increased SSTs; the rest can only be explained by changes in other factors known to influence hurricane intensity, such as vertical wind shear.”

Misrepresenting Emanuel is bad enough, but for a site that often underscores the importance of consensus, your favoring of one single study (on a thread about not favoring one single study) when consensus perspectives exist (WMO, IPCC) does a disservice to your readers.
————

As far as I am concerned, Chris’s comments re: Vecchi and Soden are right on the mark. We have detailed similar thoughts in depth a bit more at our usual spot:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/04/19/hurricaneglobal-warming-link-weakens-further-not-much-left/

Apparently, the boys over at RC aren’t so inclined:

Comment #29 (at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/ ): Gavin, I know this is only tangential to this thread but do you have any comment on the new paper by Vecchi and Soden in GRL, which Chris Landsea is promoting as evidence both that the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity is due to the AMO, and that global warming should reduce activity (because it increases windshear)?

[Response: I have no knowledge of (or frankly, interest in) what Chris Landsea may be is saying about the paper, but I don't see this paper as changing the picture significantly. Two points are relevant here, (1) our modeling of future changes in TC remains an uncertain area of the science. Nonetheless, predictions of increased potential intensity due to rising SST which rest on fairly fundamental thermodynamic arguments, remain robust, and I would refer you back to our discussion of this previously. Climate model predictions of changes in ENSO and the Walker circulation, upon which the conclusions of this paper with regard to possible changes in wind sheer rest, remain far from robust for reasons we discussed here previously. In short, the Emanuel (2005) study continues to stand on its merit, and I don't see where this paper puts even a dent in it. We may have more to say about this paper in the near future. -mike]

I, for one, can’t wait to hear what more thay may have to say about it!

-Chip

As far as where the state of the science is, my sense is that the WMO consensus report remains current, and that our 2005 and 2006 BAMS articles stand up exceedingly well.

I’d be interested to know what you felt came out of the conference, and whether you think there needs to be more cross-disciplinary work between meteorologists and climatologists to further our understanding of the processes involved and improve model outputs?

I’d also be interested to know if there are any recent findings on Pacific TC activity, as there does not seem to be too much about at the moment.
Regards,