It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NOAA hiding truth about hurricanes, scientists say

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:59 AM

The national agency is accused of fudging data and censoring top scientists who link hurricane intensity with global warming.

Hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, a veteran climate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, made that assertion to a roomful of University of Rhode Island scientists a few months ago. He also charged the federal government's top science agency with ignoring the growing research making that link.

Instead of telling the public the truth, he said, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration officials are insisting that hurricanes are worse because of a natural cycle.


Yet another article indicating the ball is being hidden.

The article continues:

In February, New Republic magazine published a story about the NOAA's insistence both in news conferences and on its Web site that global warming has no effect on hurricanes.

Many respected climate scientists, including some working at the NOAA, believe that is wrong, according to the article. It quoted Don Kennedy, editor in chief of Science magazine, as saying, "There are a lot of scientists there who know it is nonsense . . . but they are being discouraged from talking to the press about it."


"NOAA talks about natural cycles, but there is no evidence this is cyclic," Emanuel said.

Despite growing scientific evidence that global warming is making hurricanes more frequent and more severe, Emanuel said the NOAA has adopted the stance that there is no global-warming effect on hurricanes.

This was not the first time for such accusations. Two years ago, 60 of the country's leading scientists had signed a statement calling for an end to the "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends" by the Bush administration.

This is a pretty well-balanced article. I urge you to read it. The article even attempted to verify the accusations by calling other NOAA scientists.

...which got me to thinking... I have always partially bought into the "natural cycle argument" because...well...NOAA said so.

Then I realized I should look at the data myself. But, here's the odd thing. How easy do you think it is to find a complete listing of Hurricanes on NOAA's site, complete with intensity data????

The best I could find was the following:

Chronological List of All Hurricanes which Affected the Continental
United States: 1851-2004.

I don't think that includes all Atlantic Basin activity. Why would this data be so hard to find???

Regenmacher: Have you looked into this issue yourself???? I think it very disturbing that well respected scientists are disputing such a fundamental claim as the cyclical behavior of hurricane intesity.

Where's the data, and what does it say???

Anybody else???

[edit on 4-5-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:09 PM
it';s a members only article

but I'm not surprised

there seems to be lots

of manipulations

for various reasons

just add this to the very very very long list of them

was there any discussion about the object
seen by satellite imaging that got SHOT
into one of the hurricanes last year ?

do you recall that ?

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:13 PM
Great find Loam, I've encountered the same frustration when looking up data on the NOAA site, somewhat convenient huh?

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by dangermouse
somewhat convenient huh?

My thoughts exactly, and I feel stupid for having blindly accepted the "cyclical" theory, when it should be such an easy thing to verify.

I guess when this guy shows up and tells me it's so, I like the rest just trusted him. :shk:

This definitely needs to be looked into.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:02 PM
as far as noaa hurricane data..i found this in two clicks

however i do feel valuable climate information is witheld from the masses as well. things are changing and we see it everyday. i believe the ocean temps are abnormally high, causing the hurricane strength to be greater. one of my main concearns is that information about yellowstone is being witheld. oh well, we should be used to being lied to, controlled, and manipulated by now!

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by devolution
as far as noaa hurricane data..i found this in two clicks

Keep clickin' and tell me what you find.

A simple list of all Atlantic Basin hurricanes with corresponding intensity shouldn't be that hard to find.

Why do you think it is???

[edit on 26-3-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:15 PM
If you need a password for the above article and
hate the hassle of registering, you can geta free one here:

Here's one of the stories in contention of the above article:


Max Mayfield, director of the Tropical Prediction Center at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Fla., also heightened awareness of the tropical multi-decadal signal when testifying at a congressional hearing earlier this year (Sept. 20, 2005). He stated that hurricane activity in the Atlantic ebbs and surges in cycles, each of which lasts several decades.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Here's another in regards to no clear trend for increase of frequency:

Scientists’ Recent Comments onGlobal Warming and Hurricane

They found that the total number of tropical storms (tropical cyclones with maximum
winds less than 75 mph) and hurricanes (tropical cyclones with winds equal to or
exceeding 75mph) varies a bit from year to year, but over the last 30 years, there
has been no trend towards either more or fewer storms.

NOAA: Slow to react and tight on funding
It's becoming readily accepted by meteorologists that tropical system intensities are increasing as the facts are fairly clear in these regards. There is still conflicting data about hurricane frequency increasing with multiple variables to sort thru, so for now they will equate it to a decadal oscillation trend until they get more facts that supports a new hypothesis. The NOAA isn't going reformulate time tested atmospheric models without extremely concrete facts and is under severe budget contraints. We could easily go from accurate weather prediction to false alarms and skewed forecasts, when things are done in haste and models are infused with unsubstantiated data and algorithms.

As for my observations:
tropical system frequency is increasing and it is not solely because of decadal oscillations as global warming is a co-factor. Greenhouse gases have changed the fluid dynamics of our atmosphere and raised the baseline of sea temps and salinity, which in turn increases the potential of tropical storm genesis. (see Global Warming and Hurricanes -GFDL/NOAA)

Dr Gray's 2006 Pre-season Hurricane Forecast comes out on April 4th and he's not going to pull any bureaucratic tactics and destroy his credibility with the insurance industry. (see GE Insurance Report-Coastal Warning: The Rising Costs of Hurricane Frequency and Severity)

More Hot Air - Global Warming and Hurricanes - Fact Sheet

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:41 PM
Regenmacher, you are awesome!

I'm curious. Are there graphs that incorporate data from the last few years? Are there similar observations for the Pacific Basin?

I note with interest that the second report you mention is dated October 23, 2005.... a full three months before the last storm of the 2005 season.

The third report doesn't appear to analyze 2005 data at all.

We all know how unusual the 2005 season was... I wonder HOW unusual?

So, what's your sense? Jury still out? Are these other scientists jumping the gun?

EDIT: BTW, if that graph were a stock performance graph, I'd buy boat loads now.....

[edit on 26-3-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by loam
I'm curious. Are there graphs that incorporate data from the last few years?

Above chart is from the Kos w/source of data from and it goes into mid 2005.

Readers can go here and for additional 2005 data:

Many would argue all these record breakers are more than cyclic. They are anomalies that warrant more study, before opening thine yappers and calling it a normal part of the decadal oscillation.

Lots of charts here:
Global Warming and recent hurricane activity -UCAR

Here's the ACE data:
West Pacific 2005: 305.5275 X 10^4 65.85% above normal
East Atlantic 2005: 249.2775 x 10^4 284.89% above normal

So, what's your sense? Jury still out? Are these other scientists jumping the gun?

No, they aren't jumping the gun and their warnings are sincere. It's not rocket science to know that increases in kinetic energy will increase the propensity and voracity of storm systems.

Changes come slow at the NWS/NOAA and the current batch of anti-science jugheads in congress aren't going to just throw the weather services a funding bone while Bush is in charge with his war-state priorities.

Are there similar observations for the Pacific Basin?

East Pacific intensity chart here.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:10 PM
Nice work guys, this is an awsome thread.

Are there any graphs that use data from further back in time?

Do these graphs really point to an increase in the amount of hurricanes, in terms of strength and numbers? Also, even if hurricane activity is cyclical, this cycle could ultimately be knocked into overdrive by global warming. Just I don't see what "Is hurricane activity cyclical?" has to do with "Are we causing global warming?".

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:59 PM
Ok this is where a discussion needs an eye-opener. What you see now in the form or more and bigger hurricanes doesn't come from any change in climate. What you are seeing today is the Andrew effect. This is where the NHC has changed how they report data because of Andrew. Storms that you see today at 100mph sustained winds prior to Andrew would have been reported at about 80mph. They have greatly adjusted the conversion of flight level winds to surface level winds. So the storms will seem stronger when in reality they aren't. They will also upgrade every lousy looking system to a tropical storm. I have seen them this past year upgrade a system to a tropical storm that by their own admission didn't have a closed low. Do you know what a system without a closed low is called? A tropical wave. There has been a great deal of dishonesty coming from NOAA but it has to do with how strong they are reporting storms. Look at the storms that made landfall last year. I challenge anyone to find an observed sustained wind anywhere near what was reported as the storm strength. In fact you will often have a problem even finding a wind gust that strong. They are a dishonest lot to say the least.

What do you expect from an organization that found it necessary to lower the treshhold for a twister to be classified an F5? So down the road people can comment on how we have so many more F5's than in the past. Or perhaps how they rigged the windchill tables about 4 years ago to make it look as if the wildchills are significantly warmer. It is basically psychological warfare by NOAA, NWS, NHC. It is all to trick the public in to thinking that things are changing more than they really are. They will use any BS excuse they can think of to justify the changes but in reality the claims don't hold water.

Prior to Andrew the hurricane reporting was relatively accurate.

Windchills were more accurate prior to the change. What they call a 25 degree windchill now is nonsense. I've felt 25 with no wind. The 25 windchill feels alot colder.

F5 damage at the old wind speeds was accurate. There was a big difference between what an F4 did and an F5 did. The change was completley unnecessary.

Beware of wool being pulled over your eyes.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Indy
Ok this is where a discussion needs an eye-opener. What you see now in the form or more and bigger hurricanes doesn't come from any change in climate.

What part of fluid and thermodynamics applies to your logic? Show me your data that says increasing kinetic and radiant energy in fluidic and atmospheric systerms doesn't increase cyclogenesis potential, intensity and/or volume. I am dieing to see this new physics and the insurance industry would too. Maybe I should ask when did you consider global warming a reality or do you deny that also?

Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment -Science Magazine

Cyclone intensities around the world are estimated by pattern recognition of satellite features based on the Dvorak scheme (25). The exceptions are the North Atlantic, where there has been continuous aircraft reconnaissance; the eastern North Pacific, which has occasional aircraft reconnaissance; and the western North Pacific, which had aircraft reconnaissance up to the mid-1980s. There have been substantial changes in the manner in which the Dvorak technique has been applied (26). These changes may lead to a trend toward more intense cyclones, but in terms of central pressure (27) and not in terms of maximum winds that are used here. Furthermore, the consistent trends in the North Atlantic and eastern North Pacific, where the Dvorak scheme has been calibrated against aircraft penetrations, give credence to the trends noted here as being independent of the observational and analysis techniques used. In addition, in the Southern Hemisphere and the North Indian Ocean basins, where only satellite data have been used to determine intensity throughout the data period, the same trends are apparent as in the Northern Hemisphere regions.

Since 1976, El Nios have been stronger, more frequent, and more persistent than they were earlier in the century. "Some of the models suggest that stronger, more frequent El Nios would be a tendency in a warmer world," Karl says. But there is no consensus in the scientific community about how these would change. Scientists are doing a lot of research to see if they can establish a cause-effect relationship between global warming and the change in the pattern of El Nios.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Why don't you tell us your theory on how ENSO/MJO effects tropical weather with the above article in mind?

They changed Andrew based on solid data and theory, you act as if some monkey's came in and threw darts. I gave a multitude of data, that says your wrong. So where's your scientific studies from reputable sources?

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:41 PM
What in the world does this have to do with how the NHC changed their reporting as a result of Andrew? Prior to Andrew they would adjust the flight level winds by something like .75 or .80. So if the flight level winds were reported at 100kts the offical advisory would be for sustained winds of 75 or 80kts. As a result of Andrew the NHC changed their system. The adjustment now is like .90. So 100kts flight level gets reported as 90kts surface. So you take the same storms and get two completely different results. For some of us that have followed the tropics closely for many years this is common knowledge. If you haven't followed this for well over a decade you wouldn't understand this. All of this change came as a result of Andrew. So much of the increase that we saw last year can be attributed to data collection and reporting. There were so many systems that were classified tropical that had no business being classified as tropical depressions. There were storms upgraded to storms that weren't anything more than depressions and hurricanes that were barely tropical storms. I have followed this for 20 years and have seen endless systems. I know BS when I see it. This is BS. There were some impressive storms last year. But the season itself wasn't as grand as it was being played up. I believe it was 1986 when 6 hurricanes made landfall in the US. It happens. When the Bermuda high sets up in the right place you are going to get alot of landfalling storms. Combine that with an active storm phase and you have problems. BTW there are historically active storm cycles. We are entering one of those phases. This was predicted years ago. And when the Bermuda high shifts further east again the number of landfalling storms will go way down. The further west the high goes the bigger of a problem the season becomes.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:48 PM
BTW for those of you that don't know about the reporting change here is an article that talks about it...

"They showed that a hurricane's winds at ground level are about 90 percent of the wind speeds at 10,000 feet, where hurricane hunters penetrate a storm's eye wall."

This is so completely incorrect. This is why you cannot find surface observations that match what the hunters come up with. Because this 90% rule is nonsense. They get one freak storm like Andrew and they destroy their reporting system to make the Andrew data fit. There wasn't a problem with hurricane reporting prior to Andrew. No change was necessary. It wasn't broken but they elected to fix it.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Indy
I know BS when I see it. This is BS.

Whats global warming have to with increasing landfall percentages?

20 years means you have yet to catch up to me then young one and the burden of proof is on you. A warmer sea surface is the primary factor of global warming and will cause more significant hurricanes.

Has to do with you mocking the laws of physics to fit your global weather cabal ideas and ignoring a multitude of anomalies. It has to do with your not seeing global warming as a co-factor in cyclogenisis development and then not having any data to support your hypothesis.

NHC is not the only proponent of weather data collection and there are numerous independent studies, so go look at the other government's wpac, spac, indian, north atlantic data, etc,

You seem to also forget they also adjust all that historical data to fit the new modeling or you would see canes forecasted for Indiana. Accuracy in weather forecasting has increased. Even if you "think" they didn't adjust the older values to fit the new data or algorithms, the trend is still increasing. It is you that is playing the fool, if you think all these meterological phd's are in on a secret data skewing cabal that tries to cheat the industry with inaccuracies or they all are idiots, cept you. NOAA does not make changes without years and years of review.

Hurricane intensity linked to warmer oceans

Extreme Wind SFMR Algorithm Adjustment, 2005

Here go attend, might learn something:
27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology

Why don't you go post your theory and find out what a multitude of pro mets say?

You can start here:
Attention all Meteorologists, My theory

Go back and read the lead article, says NOAA is under reporting the effects of global warming...not over reporting them. Your idea that the NOAA is increasing intensity data that supports global warming, so they can deny global warming and chastize the independent scientists is ridiculous. It's always been about improving accuracy and the NOAA hasn't done enough study on global warming , they are slow to react, and have limited funding.

Laborde made it clear that the NOAA has discounted the research tying global warming to worsening hurricanes.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:58 PM
I challenge you to find proof that all storm historical data has been adjusted to meet the new standards. If you read the article I posted you will see that they were considering adjust a few historical storms like Hugo. They most certainly haven't made adjustments to all previous storms. They may have made a few adjustments to storms since 1992 and definately are reporting differently since 2002. Say what you will but the NHC says clearly they have changed the reporting. Say what you will but there is no evidence to support their 90% claim. None. Not a bit. You cannot find surface observations to match the hunter reports. You say you have more experience in this but I seriously have my doubts. You may have taken a class in fluid dynamics in college but that doesn't impress me in this case. I frankly don't care what kind of political battle is going on between an individual NOAA scientist or two and Washington. But the fact is they have altered their reporting. They admit it. Don't think for a second that the adjusted storm strengths don't influence public perception of climate change. A storm with 100mph winds now gets reported as a major hurricane. Public hears "major" and "major" = bad no matter if winds of that strength are ever observed at the surface. Look at all those landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. last year. Show me a surface observation close to what was the reported maximum sustained winds. You can talk about theory all you want and lab science. But the reality is that the storms last year and in recent years were not as strong as they were reported. Those of us who actually follow the tropics closely know this.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Indy
I challenge you to find proof that all storm historical data has been adjusted to meet the new standards.

First of all, I shouldn't even bother with the I have to prove your wrong cause have proven nothing game, but there's others that might want to actually learn something beyond what you clamored off the Weather Channel.

So here's your proof. Models use historical observed data. Model accuracy has increased while you claim data has become less accurate = a mathematical impossiblity. It's more like your powers of observation are becoming less accurate, not the NOAA's data input.

Site me an example of your overhyped storm. I didn't see any,
so pick one:

As for your theory of dropsonde data not reflecting ground obs, the reduction factor is not a constant and should never be treated as one because it correlates with many variables.

Operational Recommendations

Based on these and similar analyses for other normalization altitudes, the following reduction factors are recommended for reducing flight-level winds in the inner core of a tropical cyclone to the surface (33 ft) level: for the 700 mb level, R = 0.90; for the 850 mb level (commonly flown in tropical storms), R = 0.80. For investigative flights at 1,000 ft, R = 0.85. As significant variations from these means have been noted in individual storms; these guidelines can be modified as conditions warrant.Storm-to-storm variability will primarily be influenced by wind speed, cyclone convective intensity, and sea-surface temperature.

Don't like NOAA try the WMO:
UN: Report Predicts Global Warming, Extreme Weather In 2005

You think your smarter and have more experience than Dr, Gray?


I am now giving more of my efforts to the global warming issue and in synthesizing my projects’ many years of hurricane and typhoon studies.

Here's some more, where's yours that says diff?
Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?
Major New Paper on Hurricanes and Global Warming
Studies Link Strong Storms With Rising Sea Surface Temperatures

I notice how you evade or disgard the data, links and questions, that conflict and admonish your unproven cabal ideas. You provide no references but some newspaper article written by a layman that has nothing to do with global warming. You have failed to see the official postion of the NOAA says global warming needs more study. Then you presume their data is flawed and claim there are no effects of global warming while using their presumed flawed data to base your assumptions on. So tell me what science class did you take that says if you presume your data is flawed, you can still prove the theory that supports your hypothesis?

The burden of proof is still on you to prove your outrageous theory and you have supplied ZERO in regards to proving global warming doesn't effect hurricane intensity or frequency, while dozens of scientists doing thousands of hours off research say your wrong and the data stands on its own merits.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:49 AM
Okay, the ocean is warmer and rising. We have more hurricances. The question is, Is man making this happen? I think not. We might be contributors at best. Can we reverse? I think not. The mechanics envoled here are beyond our abilities. The cause and effects are simply to vast to model. We can try, but we still have a lot to learn. Hell, we have a hard enough time trying to control the climate in buildings, much less the planet.

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:59 PM
This is shaping up as a great debate.

Don't let your emotions get the best of you though. No need for the personal digs at each other. I'd hate to see two of my favourite posters on weather related topics ending up hating each other.

Both Indy and Regenmacher make valid points in my opinion but they are talking past each other. There has been a change in the way data is interpreted and reported AND there are some climate change (i.e. thermodynamic) effects. Perhaps you guys could concentrate on what those two changes mean and how they alter the data and our perceptions etc?

Anyway, keep it professional.

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Gools
There has been a change in the way data is interpreted and reported AND there are some climate change (i.e. thermodynamic) effects. Perhaps you guys could concentrate on what those two changes mean and how they alter the data and our perceptions etc?

Anyway, keep it professional. .

I'll go for that. It's not about whether one discounts the other or visa versa, since they both are at work. There has been media manipulation of the public's view while global warming is changing mesoscale and synoptic systems. Those two changes, one based on a fear driven agenda and one based on hard science and math = better to be safe than sorry. We can see what occured in New Orleans, when we didn't error on the side of caution.

So maybe the question is do the unwashed masses need to be hyped, cause they might stay in their homes or on the beach and posssibly end up as a statistic? I surfed the Salsa Brava, CR many times while a cane was churning in the Carribean. I also have seen many a schlock get pulled under by a crosscurrent or riptide and drown, because they didn't fathom the risk and no one was warning them.

There's no second chances, if you lose while gambling with the reaper.
There's plenty of second chances, if you choose not to play his game at all.

So thanks Gools for playing referee and sorry Indy for being belligerent and rude.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in