http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=AtTS06

It will get more interesting if they turn out to be as wrong this year as they were last year and we have some near or new records.

Try this:

“The predicted 2006 activity strongly reflects an expected continuation of conditions associated with the multi-decadal signal, which has favored above-normal Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995. These conditions include considerably warmer than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs), lower wind shear, reduced sea level pressure, and a more conducive structure of the African easterly jet.”

and

“Over the North Atlantic, key aspects of the multi-decadal signal expected during the 2006 hurricane season include 1) warmer SSTs, lower surface air pressure, and increased moisture across the tropical Atlantic, 2) an amplified ridge at upper levels across the central and eastern subtropical North Atlantic, 3) reduced vertical wind shear in the deep tropics over the central North Atlantic, which results from an expanded area of easterly winds in the upper atmosphere (green arrows) and weaker easterly trade winds in the lower atmosphere (dark blue arrows), and 4) weaker easterly winds in the middle and lower atmosphere, resulting in a configuration of the African easterly jet (wavy blue arrow) that favors hurricane development from tropical waves moving westward from the African coast.”

Have a look at the whole page here, which also provides citations to the peer reviewed literature on which their forecasts are based, and where you can find out exactly how they produce the forecasts:

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

And it is not just NOAA that does not mention global warming in their seasonal forecasts, I don’t see it mentioned in any of the forecasts listed at this page, from around the world:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/F3.html

Given that NOAA is issuing their seasonal forecasts in exactly the same manner, using the exact same methodology, as in past years, I don’t think this is a big deal or, as you suggest, a deliberate omission.

Thanks.

The main difference between me and most people talking about 21st century economic growth is that I actually know what I’m talking about.

What do you think the per capita GDP in Bangladesh and the world will be in 2080?

You repeated a few times in your response to me (thanks for that) that a GW signal is not a factor in a seasonal prediction. I have no doubt you are correct. I take it from this that the AMO cycle *is* a factor that NOAA includes in their seasonal prediction methodology. Can you point me somewhere where I could see that?

Because if not, I’m afraid you may have a serious blindspot and I am sure that is something you try hard to avoid judging from what I have read from you.

From that page ( http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm ), the only relevant passage is this:

“Warmer ocean water combined with lower wind
shear, weaker easterly trade winds, and a more
favorable wind pattern in the mid-levels of the
atmosphere are the factors that collectively
will favor the development of storms in greater
numbers and to greater intensity. Warm water is
the energy source for storms while favorable
wind patterns limit the wind shear that can
tear apart a storm’s building cloud structure.

This confluence of conditions in the ocean and
atmosphere is strongly related to a climate
pattern known as the multi-decadal signal,
which has been in place since 1995.”

It doesn’t really suggest that this AMO pattern is a factor in their prediction, rather it is a factor in producing the confluence of conditions apon which they base their predictions. Again, you may have some information I don’t, this is *very* little to go on.

But assuming the absence of this AMO as input into the model, we are left with a reference to warmer waters, which certainly are a GW issue.

Given the legitimate scientific case that can be made for a connection between strong hurricanes and GW, I think NOAA is doing the public a grave disservice by this omission. Given the heated nature of this debate, I also think it is more than likely this was a very delibrate omission.

Given the way you take scientists to task for inappropriate political behaviour where science interfaces with the public, I would think that this would bother you.

Of course the above is much weakened if in fact AMO cycles are an input into the seasonal prediction methodology. It would not be enough to sway my personal opinion, but it would weaken the case enough that I would have no trouble accepting that this does not pique your interests.

Thanks for your attention.

Once again I am left in awe of the craftmanship with which your optician assembles your rose lensed spectacles )

Surely if you are going to cite the banglapedia page for construction techniques you should also investigate the same source’s view on flooding?

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/F_0103.HTM

My particular favourite (ironic) is a selection from the list of historic events:

“2000: Five southwestern districts of Bangladesh bordering India were devastated by flood rendering nearly 3 million people homeless. The flood was caused due to the outcome of the failure of small river dykes in West Bengal that were overtopped by excessive water collected through heavy downpour.”

One assumes this displaced population were really counting their blessings that their homes weren’t constructed more substantially? (irony)

Another educational quote from this page is:
“During severe floods, the affected area may exceed 55% of the total area of the country.”

Sort of limits the potential to move away and build somewhere else I’d suggest.

But then, perhaps everyone could just squeeze onto the remaining 45% of land in order to extend the “half life” of their family ‘pad’ toward the 62.46 years of life expectancy?

Well, considering the description of the national situation as described here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html

“…many people are landless and forced to live on and cultivate flood-prone land; water-borne diseases prevalent in surface water; water pollution, especially of fishing areas, results from the use of commercial pesticides; ground water contaminated by naturally occurring arsenic; intermittent water shortages because of falling water tables in the northern and central parts of the country; soil degradation and erosion; deforestation; severe overpopulation”

…perhaps that might not be as easily achieved in the foreseeable future you’d have us believe?

But, then they could always build levees with the wealth you’re predicting for them…but, No… they don’t work when based in deltaic sediment…do they!

Hugh ;o)

Thanks for these links. I wouldn’t be too worked up about the NOAA seasonal prediction not mentioning global warming, though they very easily could have linked to the WMO statement if they wanted to be preemptively defensive.

The reason for my not being too worked up is that global warming is not a factor that NOAA includes in their seasonal prediction methodology (and I am unaware of any peer-reviewed studies that link global warmingt to seasonal prediction), so it only makes sense in their description of their forecasts they explain the methodology as they apply it.

Now the methodology may be scientifically flawed, and if so, the route for RealClimate would be to show how it is flawed and provide an alternative forecast and methodology. But simply complaining about the lack of “acknowledgement” without explaining why it makes a difference in the seasonal forecast seems misplaced. NOAA doesn’t discuss coastal development either, but I’m not complaining. Its a seasonal forecast, not a Christmas tree.

I’d further note that NOAA provides forecasts for the Eastern and Central Pacific and in both cases is predicting a lower-than-average season (according to their same methodology). Here as well they could have linked to the WMO statement, I suppose. But what role does the global warming linkage have in these forecasts?

Criticizing NOAA for the 2005 seasonal forecast is extremely unfair as papers by Emanuel, Webster et al. etc. all were published after the forecasts were produced.

Bottom line: If NOAA seasonal forecasters wanted to preempt the sort of criticism they get from RC then yes, they could have linked to the WMO statement for a consensus perspective on global warming and hurricanes. But given that it is unclear what, if any, significance that the global warming studies have for seasonal prediction, I am not too concerned that it wasn’t mentioned in this context. NOAA similarly does not mention global warming in its forecasts of the tracks and intensities of particular hurricanes.

If Real Climate wants to explain why it matters that global warming be considered as a factor in seasonal predictions for the NATL, EPAC, and CPAC, I’d love to hear it. If it matters for the forecast, then they’d have a much stronger case I believe.

Thanks!

What do you think the per capita GDP of Bangladesh is going to be in 2080 (in year 2000 dollars)? What do you think will be the world average per capita GDP in 2080 (again, in year 2000 dollars)?

“It is in developing nations that population is and will be the greatest, as well as there that people are least able to relocate away from the coast.”

Which is harder to relocate away from the coast…the Empire State Building or a bamboo hut? A key question about how hard it is to relocate away from a coast (ignoring the possibility of development of technology to move structures away from the coast intact) is the “half-life” of the structures. That is, how long does it take before half the structures are replaced? This is important, because when a structure is replaced, it can be rebuilt farther away from the shore. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would be pretty shocked if the “half-life” of bamboo huts was longer than the half-life of skyscrapers. Therefore, it should be easier for people in Bangladesh to move away from coasts.

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/A_0293.htm

“Though, given the inertia to remain in New Orleans, I see no tangible willingness yet, even among the wealthiest of nations, to move away from unsound locations.”

Do you think that the same storm as Katrina would result in the same number of people in New Orleans being in “unsound locations” 20+ years from now?

I was thinking of this:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2634.htm

which I saw via RC’s latest post
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/noaa-apres-moi-le-deluge/

also a commenter referred to a 2005 summary
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/noaa-apres-moi-le-deluge/#comment-14583
that apparently takes the same AMO only position (caveat: did not check this myself)
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane-archive.shtml

This may have been thouroughly discussed before, I am relatively new to your blog, (unlike ‘normal’ people, I tend to enter the room asking questions and making comments rather than respectfully lurking for the proper length of time however my recollection is that this issue was left as “problem fixed”, which may have been premature.