Dr. Gray at it again...

[x-y-no]

I have no problem with what Dr. Gray is saying, prove him wrong. Hurricane history does not lie neither does observations, but you can get a model to say anything you want.

Well, I don't know that it quite amounts to "proof," but the result in Bryden et. al. certainly is problematic for Dr. Gray's hypothesis.

[terstorm1012]

also, thanks for the warm welcome!

No problem. Speaking of your MA...if it's the program I'm thinking of up there in NYC...is an undergrad degree in a science field necessary? Sorry to get off topic.

[philnyc]

My opinion (only maginally backed up by data) is that the extreme warmth in 2005 in the MDR was largely due to reduced trade winds that year, resulting in less evaporative cooling.

I agree with this and I wish to look into it more. Do you know if the Azores High was weaker or displaced earlier in the year in 2005? Usually, in late summer, surface pressures in the eastern Atlantic decrease. This allows OHC to gain latitude in the MDR. Where as in the early part of summer, surface pressures are much higher and drive lower tropospheric winds much stronger along and just north of the ITCZ. This brings the SAL west over the MDR and with a very low moisture content, allows radiational cooling to bleed off much of the OHC what would be there otherwise. In 2005, I am sure this was the overall influence.

The surface pressures over much of the Atlantic basin were well below normal from June-July 2005. I strongly believe the weaker Azores High led to less upwelling, more atmospheric instability (weakened trade wind inversion), and an ITCZ that was further north than usual, thus the abnormally active early season.

I posted the climo normal and 2005 plots of North Atlantic pressures from ESRL. I just tried to get the surface vector winds and for some reason the color shading is not working right now - darn! I'll try later and post them when I get them. I would fully expect that you are right and that the data will show the trade winds were slower in 2005, weakening the trade wind inversion, as you said...

[btangy]

Those figures of THC are strictly cartoons for introductory physical oceanography classes. I wouldn't take them too seriously. Measuring the strength of the THC is really difficult observationally, and any such attempt would probably have error bars larger than any signal. Unlike the atmosphere, think about what 'observations' (e.g. their density, time resolution, spatial resolution (esp. in the vertical)) we really have in the ocean. Most physical oceanography work needs to use models, but there are very few observations to constrain them.

The problem I have with Bill Gray, as does most of the rest of the research community, is that although he is very vocal with this theories, he chooses to voice them in speaking engagements and editorials rather than peer reviewed journals. So far, I've been disappointed that Dr. Gray has chosen not to present his work, which he claims is very robust, to the research community first. That is how one generates discussion, stimulates further research on the topic, and gains credibility. Running to the WSJ editorial section to generate controversy is bad for the science, IMO.

[TCmet]

also, thanks for the warm welcome!

No problem. Speaking of your MA...if it's the program I'm thinking of up there in NYC...is an undergrad degree in a science field necessary? Sorry to get off topic.

It's the MA in Climate and Society from Columbia University.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/climatesociety/

A science background is recommended, but the program is interdisciplinary, so they teach you "what you need to know" when you get there. Policy, economics, agriculture, water resources, etc. are all covered along with climate science (taught by some of the world's experts - but still not as in depth as I might have liked!)

[philnyc]

Those figures of THC are strictly cartoons for introductory physical oceanography classes. I wouldn't take them too seriously. Measuring the strength of the THC is really difficult observationally, and any such attempt would probably have error bars larger than any signal. Unlike the atmosphere, think about what 'observations' (e.g. their density, time resolution, spatial resolution (esp. in the vertical)) we really have in the ocean. Most physical oceanography work needs to use models, but there are very few observations to constrain them.

The problem I have with Bill Gray, as does most of the rest of the research community, is that although he is very vocal with this theories, he chooses to voice them in speaking engagements and editorials rather than peer reviewed journals. So far, I've been disappointed that Dr. Gray has chosen not to present his work, which he claims is very robust, to the research community first. That is how one generates discussion, stimulates further research on the topic, and gains credibility. Running to the WSJ editorial section to generate controversy is bad for the science, IMO.

I just have to agree. He has sacrificed a lot of credibility in the scientific community of his peers. Even his students publish papers that can be properly vetted.

[x-y-no]

Those figures of THC are strictly cartoons for introductory physical oceanography classes. I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Yes, I know. But since that particular figure appears with considerable regularity, I feel compelled to point out that it's not even remotely accurate.

Measuring the strength of the THC is really difficult observationally, and any such attempt would probably have error bars larger than any signal.

Yeah. Bryden et. al. says +/- 6 Sverdrups, which is pretty huge.

Unlike the atmosphere, think about what 'observations' (e.g. their density, time resolution, spatial resolution (esp. in the vertical)) we really have in the ocean. Most physical oceanography work needs to use models, but there are very few observations to constrain them.

Yeah, that's my dad's field, so I've observed that up close all my life.

The problem I have with Bill Gray, as does most of the rest of the research community, is that although he is very vocal with this theories, he chooses to voice them in speaking engagements and editorials rather than peer reviewed journals. So far, I've been disappointed that Dr. Gray has chosen not to present his work, which he claims is very robust, to the research community first. That is how one generates discussion, stimulates further research on the topic, and gains credibility. Running to the WSJ editorial section to generate controversy is bad for the science, IMO.

Yeah, well. I spent a fair amount of time trying to make sense of his powerpoint presentations from the AMS and Hurricane conferences in recent years and I'm afraid there's a lot of muddled thinking there.