NOAA news conference=Links to summary from NOAA posted

[Canelaw99]

Here's a link for those who might not be able to watch a TV for the end-of-season news conference:

http://treets.nbc6.net/svc/lnk.cfm?l=63855853&t=1

[cycloneye]

Here's a link for those who might not be able to watch a TV for the end-of-season news conference:

http://treets.nbc6.net/svc/lnk.cfm?l=63855853&t=1

At what time will be held?

[x-y-no]

If this is the NOAA 2005 Hurricane Season Review, it's also scheduled to be on CSPAN 3 at 11:15 am eastern time.

A link to the CSPAN 3 stream is available at http://www.cspan.org/homepage.asp down near the bottom of the page.

[cycloneye]

If this is the NOAA 2005 Hurricane Season Review, it's also scheduled to be on CSPAN 3 at 11:15 am eastern time.

A link to the CSPAN 3 stream is available at http://www.cspan.org/homepage.asp down near the bottom of the page.

Thank you Jan.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Thanks for link!

[dhweather]

This is a great news conference going on. Thanks for the heads up!

[Canelaw99]

Maybe someone could post a synopsis of the conference when all is said and done

[southerngale]

I guess I missed it. Hopefully CSPAN will rerun it.

[SouthFloridawx]

Maybe someone could post a synopsis of the conference when all is said and done

bump

[cycloneye]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540b.htm

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm




At links above there is a summary of what they said and all the records of the 2005 season.And at third link from bottom to top is what NOAA says about the active cycle of activity.

[cjrciadt]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540b.htm

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm




At links above there is a summary of what they said and all the records of the 2005 season.And at third link from bottom to top is what NOAA says about the active cycle of activity.

Thank You, Luis already bookmarked.

[SouthFloridawx]

This was an interesting graphic

[cycloneye]

Canelaw99 I had to let you know that I edited the title of your thread to reflect the latest and that is the three links that I posted about what NOAA said,about the records of the 2005 season and about what NOAA says about the active cycle of activity.

[f5]

what about Emily will she be upgraded?

[cycloneye]

what about Emily will she be upgraded?

About Emily we will know when the report comes out and upgrades here or not to a cat 5.I think that Emilys report will be one of the last ones to come out.

[mike815]

Yeah it was an awesome conference i hope to attend the national conference in orlando in april. They sure did a great job!

[Canelaw99]

No problem Luis

[x-y-no]

I watched the re-run last night on CSPAN, and thought for the most part it was a good presentation. I'm a bit perturbed by the categorical way Dr. Bell replied to the two questions about whether GW played any role in this years activity, however. Here are some of my thoughts:

He bagan by saying that "by far the dominant" feature driving this high activity is the multidecadal tropical signal (in other words the AMO). If he had kept it at that, I would have absolutely no dispute with what he said. But he went on later to say that "we have no indication whatsoever" that global warming played any role. Given the state of the science right now, I think that statement is much too strong. There has been recent work which indicates a correlation between global warming and cumulative cyclone intensity worldwide. This work is new, and there may be some methodological problems, but it's not "no indication."

He went on to give a qualitative argument for why the entire activity anomaly is due to the AMO, but it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. He argued that SSTs are not the only factor, but that begs the question of why one can then conclude that an incremental increase in SSTs due to AGW would not be a contributing factor.

He also argued that the other contributing factors (active African monsoon, suppressed South American monsoon, weak trade winds, weak vertical shear, etc) are not confined to the Atlantic. But then again, neither is global warming, so I'm not at all sure why he thought this argument was relevant.

When asked towards the end what drives the AMO, his answer was a good one which expressed the considerable uncertainties we have about that. But given those considerable uncertainties, how could he have been so categorical about rejecting AGW as a contributing factor? I just don't get it.

[themusk]

When asked towards the end what drives the AMO, his answer was a good one which expressed the considerable uncertainties we have about that. But given those considerable uncertainties, how could he have been so categorical about rejecting AGW as a contributing factor? I just don't get it.

I do. I watched the magnetosphere and climate scientists in the hallways of NOAA discuss, and then fervently, categorically reject any possibility that the sunspot cycle influenced climate as the first evidence began to trickle in that it did. Scientists are generally conservative-- not "conservative" as in "political ideology" but in the root sense of preferring whatever is currently established theory over change. Scientists are sometimes too slow to adopt new ideas (the early data on climate and sunspot cycles looked pretty good to me, but then I was just one of those number crunching monkeys sitting over there pounding randomly for eternity on our keypunch machines or something ). But, on the whole, this conservative stance is a necessary outgrowth of the scientific method. Science demands proof, not mere plausibility.

[Jim Hughes]

When asked towards the end what drives the AMO, his answer was a good one which expressed the considerable uncertainties we have about that. But given those considerable uncertainties, how could he have been so categorical about rejecting AGW as a contributing factor? I just don't get it.

I do. I watched the magnetosphere and climate scientists in the hallways of NOAA discuss, and then fervently, categorically reject any possibility that the sunspot cycle influenced climate as the first evidence began to trickle in that it did. Scientists are generally conservative-- not "conservative" as in "political ideology" but in the root sense of preferring whatever is currently established theory over change. Scientists are sometimes too slow to adopt new ideas (the early data on climate and sunspot cycles looked pretty good to me, but then I was just one of those number crunching monkeys sitting over there pounding randomly for eternity on our keypunch machines or something ). But, on the whole, this conservative stance is a necessary outgrowth of the scientific method. Science demands proof, not mere plausibility.

Do I understand you correctly? You think they are digging their heels in about the AMO being more influential because it was in their mind set prior to the GW ruckus?

The true sense of what the AMO is, hasn't been around any longer then the GW theory. Gray was throwing it out there 20 + years ago but that was as much about the cyclical nature of the storms not the AMO as a whole.

I was out of the loop for a while so I am unsure of exactly when the AMO Indices came out. But I do not believe it was that long ago.

Heck the PDO Indices were only put out in 1995. I can recall talking to some local meteorologists back in early 96' about the PDO and they hadn't a clue of what I was talking about.

They would probably deny it now though.


Jim