Amplitude And 2006

[Sanibel]

For those who thought the weak season of 2006 dispelled any idea of global warming, don't be too sure. While some might say the prediction of a busy season for 2006 that ended up being a below-average season would undermine global warming theories, the reason why 2006 was weak could actually back global warming. Why? Because of amplitude. Global warming is supposed to increase overall atmospheric energy. This causes an energized and agitated atmosphere. If you look at 2006, the reason few storms formed was because of unusually disrupted upper atmospheric winds and patterns. Well, that is the sign of an energized and active atmosphere. You could even speculate that it would take such an energized atmosphere to prevent the high Atlantic SST's from producing another active year. So, in the end, global warming could, at least, be responsible for BOTH the highly active year of 2005 AND the inactive year of 2006, seeing how such agitation could be a symptom of global warming. This [amplitude] effect of higher highs and lower lows is right in line with global warming patterns. Within this scenario it could be possible to have much more favorable conditions (2005) as well as a much more hostile atmosphere (2006). Both of these being in line with broader amplitude caused by an energizing of the atmosphere. The 2006 El Nino was weak. It wasn't enough to account for the intrusion of the subsiding, troughy upper Atlantic pattern present in the hurricane belt last year. I suggest this pattern existed because of the pattern shifts caused by global warming energies that disrupt normal patterns. This Florida Nino is warm rather than cool. Another sign of altered patterns.

[wxmann_91]

The truth is that nobody knows what global warming will do to the climate. It's really not that simple. Could it mean more extremes? Sure! However it could also mean higher temperatures in the mid levels of the atmosphere, which act to suppress thunderstorm activity and thus global angular momentum.

[Sanibel]

Sure, I would agree with that, but the 2006 Atlantic saw a disruptive pattern dip well into the hurricane belt with upper level westerlies that made inhospitible conditions as well as enhanced tradewinds from the east. This sort of large scale pattern dipping into the hurricane belt in what was supposed to be good conditions for formation bespeaks out of whack macro-patterns the same type that would make it 80 degrees in December and January down here - as well as globally - this year. I don't think this weak Nino would have accounted for this massive disruption simply because it hadn't formed until late in the season - even though the disruption was well ongoing before it formed. Also, there are hints that this is a freakish Nino combined with global warming because the temperatures are higher than a normal Nino year event. Especially here in Florida where Nino winters are supposed to be cool - but we have been in April-like heat for a month now at a time we normally get chilly fronts.

I would be worried about Atlantic SST's not cooling that much this winter and allowing monster SST's again this year. But, as you say, and as 2006 proved, it isn't that simple - BUT it isn't necessarily not global warming either.

[SouthFloridawx]

Awesome topic and thanks to both of you for the good read....

[Aslkahuna]

This idea is one reason why I'm quick to point out that GW does not of necessity negate the possibility of extreme cold events to go along with the warm.

Steve

[Ptarmigan]

I think with Global Warming, we are more likely to see more intense hurricanes to form, while the number of storms forming will remain the same or increase slightly.

[TheRingo]

This does not explain anything. How do you account for what happened in the pacific last year?

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, some studies of GW suggest that while storms may become more intense the actual numbers may drop.

Steve

[Aquawind]

Actually, some studies of GW suggest that while storms may become more intense the actual numbers may drop.

Steve

I don't think The EPAC and Atlantic are down.

So many studies every possible scenario is covered..

[Javlin]

Sounds like another case of eating the cake and a piece of the pie.GW is all over the place.I say that maybe in another 100yrs with GOOD data maybe we will know something.But if a mini Ice Age occured 400-500yrs ago with little or no fossil fuel and it may of been an occilation of nature what else is?

[Aslkahuna]

Well, we are talking globally. For the most recently concluded seasons, CENPAC and EPAC were up, NIO was normal and everyone else was down.

Steve

[Sanibel]

I can't credit the California cold snap to Global Warming, but it is in accordance to amplitude patterns. These record high's combined with crop-destroying lows are in direct conformity to amplitude fluxes.

Since freezes need not be GW you can't directly claim this is GW amplitude - but it doesn't NOT conform either. Amplitude would show up as record warms followed by such cold snaps however.

We are in the 80's again here in south Florida because we are on the warm side of a divide caused by the Atlantic High combined with the sub-jet. This appears to be finally easing out. We could see some normal fronts and cold nights soon. We'll see if the weak Nino is strong enough to pump out and re-establish the warm Pacific zonal flow. Right now a deeply-diving arctic trough is pinched in the west.

[P.K.]

Sorry I managed to miss this thread. My stats show that the 2005-2006 Australian season was slightly above average in terms of named storms, RSMCs La Reunion and Nadi were below average though. I assume Steve was referring to the Southern Hemisphere as a whole and would agree that was a little below average.

[Sanibel]

While the Phillipines were pummeled one storm after the other.

[P.K.]

True, of the systems that did form in that basin there were a lot of very strong systems. Have a look at the 100kt vs TS graphs in the NW Pacific Climatology thread in the TA area I posted.

[tailgater]

Sounds like another case of eating the cake and a piece of the pie.GW is all over the place.I say that maybe in another 100yrs with GOOD data maybe we will know something.But if a mini Ice Age occured 400-500yrs ago with little or no fossil fuel and it may of been an occilation of nature what else is?

Well let me throw my to cents in:

This planet has been changing since it's conception, it warming this decade( century) and cooling the next.

The use of a individual event or set of events over a short period of time does not really make a point of GW one way or the other.

The Media loves to scare us, it's profitable.

This subject is very good for discussion though.Take it easy on me proponets, I'm still gonna drive my 16 mpg Titan

[Ptarmigan]

Well let me throw my to cents in:

This planet has been changing since it's conception, it warming this decade( century) and cooling the next.

The use of a individual event or set of events over a short period of time does not really make a point of GW one way or the other.

The Media loves to scare us, it's profitable.

This subject is very good for discussion though.Take it easy on me proponets, I'm still gonna drive my 16 mpg Titan

True. I agree that Earth is warming up, but nothing I would be alarmed about. Earth's climate is dyanmic and never static. It's dynamic because of Earth's axis and Sun. Our Sun is getting larger and will become a red supergiant. Also, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor.

[Sanibel]

The stuck trough in the west and jet pattern broke and we've had cold air descend in successive fronts. The Atlantic High has broken letting cold fronts sweep all the way east. Still the pattern is fairly moderate - even though deep cold temperatures have finally penetrated.

This is no Nino winter here. We are dry and below average on rain instead of the opposite. California is NOT having Nino crashers and rain. This probably says 2006 wasn't diminished by the alleged Nino as speculated but was instead stifled by upper wind patterns associated with weather pattern shifts. This begs the question: "If the weak Nino didn't disrupt 2006, what did?" GW? Maybe - maybe not? The NW had 80 mile per hour gales that took out 80% of the coastal trees in Vancouver. That is an intensified atmosphere.

As to the posts trying to troll GW, just look at who can stay on-topic to the thread and who trolls. Speaks for itself. I have yet to see any of these rhetoriticians scientifically explain how huge amounts of CO2 could have no effect.

[Sanibel]

I think, since there's no systems pounding the California coast and no rain in Florida, that this Nino should be called:

"El No-no"

[boca]

The stuck trough in the west and jet pattern broke and we've had cold air descend in successive fronts. The Atlantic High has broken letting cold fronts sweep all the way east. Still the pattern is fairly moderate - even though deep cold temperatures have finally penetrated.

This is no Nino winter here. We are dry and below average on rain instead of the opposite. California is NOT having Nino crashers and rain. This probably says 2006 wasn't diminished by the alleged Nino as speculated but was instead stifled by upper wind patterns associated with weather pattern shifts. This begs the question: "If the weak Nino didn't disrupt 2006, what did?" GW? Maybe - maybe not? The NW had 80 mile per hour gales that took out 80% of the coastal trees in Vancouver. That is an intensified atmosphere.

As to the posts trying to troll GW, just look at who can stay on-topic to the thread and who trolls. Speaks for itself. I have yet to see any of these rhetoriticians scientifically explain how huge amounts of CO2 could have no effect.

I think during the 2006 season El Nino was developing which was causing high shear and I'm sure Sal didn't help the situation for storm development. Know during our winter El Nino just diminished as fast as it developed so cool and wetter became warm and dry because it didn;t stick around long enough to affect our weather.