Journal: Agency blocked hurricane report

[Aslkahuna]

If it were a report, then you would be right but it was NOT a formal report but only a fact sheet to be included in a press kit. The comments within regarding GW were very low key and nothing like what was intimated in article. Why the fact sheet was pulled is hard to say-maybe someone felt that it was redundant-it certainly wasn't technical. As usual, someone has overstated what really happened.

Steve

[DrCloud]

As usual, someone has overstated what really happened.

I think this is the most perceptive comment in this entire thread -- the whole affair is another tempest in a teapot artificially created by some media types on a slow news day.

Unlike university and private-sector researchers, the federal agency scientists are constrained by several factors, only one of which -- probably the one at the bottom of the list -- is politics.

Just as NHC forecasts of hurricanes are the official word, carrying weight in a surprising number of places in terms of the legalities of things, other federal agencies' pronouncements also carry weight in a similar fashion. NOAA, in official announcements and so on, has to be careful of what it says.

Research papers by individual scientists submitted to journals have to be vetted in-house as well as by peer reviewers. This isn't new news by any means. Some of the biggest hassles I had in getting journal articles published were associated with my co-authors' affiliations with NOAA and other agencies. This happened under administrations by both parties. It's just life as a fed. HPH

[MGC]

So how do we explain 1933, the previous record holder for most tropical cyclones in one season in the Atlantic basin? Why, we didn't even have satellite back then. I wonder how many were missed out in the far reaches of the Atlantic seldom traveled by ship? The GW argument has about as many holes in it as Swiss Cheese. This is just more positioning by the GW crowd to convince the ill informed of the existence of something that is a natural occurrence.......MGC

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

These are all highly speculative assumptions. After all we can not even yet accurately predict TC intensity changes on a storm by storm standard, what makes anyone think that we can accurately predict the response of a Global System to GW (natural caused, or otherwise)? Look at how completely everyone failed with their predications for the North Atlantic hurricane season.

We all know that the lead time for an accurate forecast is between 48 and 72 hr, and that after five days, other than picking out possible trends, your usually just guessing. What it boils down too is that predicting the effects of GW is murky at best, and pseudo-science at worst.

Nothing I posted is speculative. Global warming-induced moistening of the Sahel and the upper troposphere were predicted and supported by observational tests - the very essence of scientific theory. I posted links to reports - you can go look at them. The link between upper trophospheric moisture and cyclone formation is also well-established. I suppose you could argue with Dr. Grey's correlational connection of Sahel rainfall and hurricane activity, but even that is certainly not speculative.

There's a lot more to climate science than short-term numerical prediction models. Do we need accurate daily forecasts for weeks or years in advance to say Antarctica gets colder in June? If not, why do we need them to predict associations between hurricane activity and atmospheric conditions?

To try too predicate how many hurricanes will form in a given year, and how strong they will be. Same goes for seasonal forecast; how hot a Summer, or cold a Winter it will be. Though I guess would you could just use a dart board. I'm not down on people for trying, I just wish certain ones wouldn't sell everything to the general public as gospel. We are still far from being Masters of the Earth.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

So how do we explain 1933

1933 = Evil Oil Emissions

1869 = (two cat 3 hit New England) = Evil Coal Emissions

1635 = (cat 3, maybe cat 4, hit New England) Evil Wood Emissions

Before Human Activity = Emissions from Dino Farts


It all makes sense, see.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

If it were a report, then you would be right but it was NOT a formal report but only a fact sheet to be included in a press kit. The comments within regarding GW were very low key and nothing like what was intimated in article. Why the fact sheet was pulled is hard to say-maybe someone felt that it was redundant-it certainly wasn't technical. As usual, someone has overstated what really happened.

Steve

Oh okay i hadn't read that it wasn't a report...whoops sorry didn't see that.