Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

[DisplacedKnick]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Have we had one hurricane yet.

I heard for over a year now that because of global warming hurricanes will get more numerous and more severe. Well we must have solved that global warming thing because hurricanes have been nonexistant so far.

Good work

Well, since nobody else has gotten to this, Global Warming has little to no effect on Hurricane Activity.

S Atlantic Sea Temperatures have risen about 1 degree F since 1995 but that's due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which is a periodic shift in sea currents impacting ocean temperatures. We're currently in the middle of a warm phase. 1970-1994 was a cool phase.

These phases have been charted based on ocean temperatures from freighters since the 1850's and from tree ring data for 500 years.

The theory that increased incidence of hurricanes would result from Global Warming was posited by Michael Mann - the same Michael Mann and the same data which has been shown to be so flawed in the article I linked earlier in this thread.

Global Warming causing more hurricanes is dead.

Which it should be if anyone with any common sense in the field had ever bothered to look at what they believed the pattern of global warming would be.

The theoretical pattern of global warming said that the arctic and antarctic regions act as giant refrigerators, moderating temperatures. Temperature increases would begin first at the poles and move into lower latitudes with little or no increase in the tropics. In essence, the temperature difference would end up being greatest at the poles and negligible in the tropics. Hurricanes begin in the tropics.

In fact, if global warming theory was true, you should actually see less powerful hurricanes, and possibly even a lower incidence. Hurricanes are fueled by warm air rising into a low pressure area. As that air cools, it releases energy - into the heart of the storm, fueling its growth. There's more to it than that - humidity vs dry air and shear effects have a role but this is the area that Global Warming Theory should impact. Because, theoretically, the atmospheric temperatures should be higher, there would be less cooling as the air rises and less fuel for the hurricane.

Also, because the temperature gradient between the tropics and temperate and polar regions is less, we should see fewer atmospheric disturbances overall, including the formation of tropical lows. So, fewer tropical depressions, storms and hurricanes forming. This would hold true for all weather patterns. A cold front coming into the US from Canada would be less cold so thunderstorm activity would be less severe. A warm front moving up from the south would interact with less cold northern air - less severe weather. Rainfall overall would increase because warm air is able to hold more moisture, but this moisture would fall in generally gentler patterns because of less severe frontal and storm activity generated by less of a temperature gradient.

However, since the global warming model posited is dead, this isn't occurring. The global warming pattern was based on scientists believing (or manipulating the data to create this indication) that the Arctic and Antarctic regions were getting cooler. They based this on temperature data from the Antarctic peninsula and Alaska.

Here's the problem - at the time the Antarctic Peninsula was getting warmer but the continent was getting cooler. The continent temperature has decreased about .7 degrees C over the past decade or so.

Alaska is getting warmer (until about a year ago - the last 12 months have been cooler) - but Greenland and Eastern N Canada are getting colder. The Arctic has been going through a positive Arctic Oscillation cycle for about the past ten years which results in colder weather to the East and warmer weather to the West (Alaska). That has changed in the past year BTW - expect a cold Midwest winter this year.

The main Global Warming Model is dead. It is insupportable based on the data. The model was created based on faulty data (Polar cooling) and without that it completely falls apart.

Here's what we reliably know about Global Warming: Over the past century temperatures based on land-based measurements have risen about .8 degrees C ( I could make one heckuva argument that we don't even KNOW this - but I'd be guilty of the same fault as most global warming scientists have been - for now they're the best we've got). Over the past century atmospheric CO2 levels have risen about 30%.

Beyond that we know nothing. Scientists have hypothesized a causal link between the two - but have been completely unable to prove it. The models have all fallen apart because of junk science.

Ultimately I believe that nobody knows what's going on. We don't know enough about climate on a global level to even begin to explain what's happening. At best, we have measurements for about the last 100-150 years, and in most regions of the world we only have them for the last 30. That's basically knowing nothing when you compare it to Earth's history.

Theories keep popping up but they get blown away with the same regularity. We're about at the same point in studying global climate as we were in studying brain structure and chemistry a hundred years ago. We may never understand climate on a global scale very well. I don't expect it in my lifetime.

There may be man-made global warming going on and it may cause some future problems (though the models talking about anything more than about a 1 degree temperature rise this century have all been debunked). But that hasn't been proven. And blindly accepting junk science rather than applying a standard of proof and the same criteria for acceptance as other science will do nothing to help us figure out what's going on.

That answer your question UB? I could go on.

[Gamble]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

I asked you a very simple set of questions based on the data that has been used to create faulty models and impossible predictions - models and predictions that have been widely published throughout the scientific community.

Instead you appear to be incapable of addressing these issues - but prefer to pontificate from a pedestal titled ignorance.

If you are uninformed about global warming, perhaps you shouldn't post as if you know something about it.

I tried to offer some respect to you but since you are inclined to shove
it in my face I will gladly extend some love.

To call your questions simple is absurd and if I don't want to answer them
I should have that right. (For the main fact you projected that I believed
all of it which I have never claimed.)

Here is an article that may benifit you and anyone else concerned about
global warming. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG6UJJ9RQ1.DTL



Earth's average temperature has been hotter over the last quarter century than during the previous four centuries and possibly much longer, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report Thursday that substantially supports the findings of a controversial 1998 climate study.


The report by a scientific panel appointed by the academy backed the most vivid feature of the so-called hockey stick graphic, a chart showing a long-term rise in temperature between A.D. 900 and today.

The panelists agreed that "the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years." But they showed less confidence in the researchers' conclusion that the climate is warmer now than it has been in 1,000 years, a conjecture the scientists said was only scientifically plausible. More research is needed to investigate that possibility, the panelists said.


Even so, the 141-page report by a dozen prominent scientists who reviewed the latest scientific reports on global warming and heard testimony from climate experts could offer ammunition to those who are calling for tightened controls on greenhouse gases that many scientists believe may be causing global warming. The study was sparked by a 2005 congressional dispute over the reliability of the 1998 study and chart.
The chart got its name for its vague resemblance to a hockey stick, the shaft depicting temperature fluctuations over a long stretch of time until about the mid-19th century, when warming suddenly spiked into the form of a blade.

First published in Nature magazine, the study thrilled global warming activists and angered some congressional Republicans and oil-industry executives.
The work by climate scientist Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, and two colleagues depicted a soaring rise in the Earth's average temperature since about the beginning of the Industrial Age, compared to generally cooler global temperatures through most of the Middle Ages.
Reliable, widespread thermometer records weren't available before the mid-19th century. To infer temperature averages in different eras, the scientists based most of their chart on natural or proxy records such as the width of rings inside trees that grew during the Middle Ages, the ratios of oxygen isotopes in polar ice cores and centuries-old paintings of glaciers in locales that are now ice-free.
However, the methodology was not sufficient to persuade the panel to throw its full weight behind the most sweeping claim by Mann and his colleagues: that temperatures through the Middle Ages were generally much cooler than they are today.
The panel's use of the word "plausible" in judging the claim puzzled Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, who published the original study with Mann and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona. In an e-mail, Bradley called the use of the word strange and speculated the panel chose it to strengthen consensus. "I guess it was selected so that everybody on the committee could agree," he said.
A more sardonic view was taken by prominent Bay Area physicist Richard Muller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who served as a peer reviewer for the academy's report. In 2004, he publicly criticized the Mann team's work, calling it "an artifact of poor mathematics ... when applied to the (temperature records of the) last millennium," he recalled in an e-mail Thursday.

Although Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming, "the fact that the original conclusion of Mann et al. is 'plausible' is damning with faint praise," he said. "Theories are plausible; discoveries are supposed to be proven."

Despite these caveats, the scientists involved in Thursday's report agreed that there's no doubt that the planet is getting unusually hot -- and fast.

"The last 400 years has experienced a warming. The last 25 to 30 years have been warmer than any comparable period (in) that span," the panel's chairman, physicist-climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M University said Thursday in Washington.

The academy panelists also dismissed critics' earlier insinuations that the Mann team played fast and loose with data, a point that pleased Mann, who is now at Pennsylvania State University.

"The report ... provides absolutely no support for the oft-heard claims that the original hockey stick was the result of 'programming errors,' or was 'not reproducible,' or there was some scientific misconduct involved," he said in an e-mail.

"These claims were always spurious and should now finally be laid to rest ... The (academy) report is very good, and I'm pretty happy with it, especially given the short time interval over which the committee had to familiarize themselves with a complex and often quite technical debate."

The academy report was born from a political dispute. In 2005, the hockey-stick chart became the target for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, who regards global warming theory in general as a hoax. Last year, another doubter, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, asked Mann to give the House Energy Committee his team's scientific data, plus details on their funding.
Barton's request sparked protests from committee member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and from scientific organizations who feared it was an attempt to intimidate researchers.
To cool tempers, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. and chair of the House Committee on Science, asked the academy to assess the Mann team's work. The result is the 141-page report unveiled Thursday. It is available online at www.national-academies.org. This is direct. http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover....ng&restric=NAP

If you look through the report you may find some answers to your
questions. I want to make this clear that as far as I can tell this is a nonbias report.

IF you think its ignorant to believe:
Gerald R North (Panel director)
Fronco Biondi
Peter Bloomfield
John R Christy
Kurt M Cuffey
Robert E Dickinson
Elen R. M. Druffel
Douglas Nychka
Bette Otto Bliesner
Neil Roberts
Karl K. Turekian
John M. Wallace, http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/138.html

Over you, THEN I GUESS I AM IGNORANT.

Since I am here I might as well ask you a question.
Are you a scientist and if so what field?

Now does that qualify you to call someones research crap you
being an expert that is.

[Gamble]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Can I also get some links that support your claims about global warming.

[DisplacedKnick]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

This is from Richard Moritz, from the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/psw/science_info.html

Among the things he asks are:

Scientists want answers to big questions: Are the changes progressive, as appears to be the case for sea-ice extent, or up-and-down as with the Porcupine Caribou population? Do the changes differ from one part of the Arctic to another? How are the changes related to one another, and to global warming? What caused the changes? To get good, scientifically-tested answers usually requires in-depth research. For example, it seems plausible that the Arctic warming and reductions of ice are related to global warming, but how does this work, and should the Arctic warm faster or slower than the rest of the planet? Also, if the warming is truly global, how can science explain what has happened in the Antarctic?

Changes in the Antarctic differ. Antarctic sea-ice extent shows no sign of progressive change during the past 30 years. Although surface temperature increased over the Antarctic Peninsula and the nearby Larsen-B ice shelf broke up, the average surface temperature of Antarctica did not change significantly. The concentration of stratospheric ozone above Antarctica in austral springtime declined significantly during the 1980’s and 1990’s, driven by chemical reactions involving Freon and other man-made compounds that release chlorine and bromine into the stratosphere, leading to the famous “Antarctic Ozone Hole”, but this explanation would work with or without global warming.

This is from Richard Lindzen, MIT Meteorology Professor:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

He has a lot of stuff, including the following. I've bolded some parts however you really should read the whole thing - he covers Global Warming Hysteria as well.

It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates. More important, the climate is a complex system where it is impossible for all other internal factors to remain constant. In present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood of four to five degrees centigrade. Internal processes within the climate system that change in response to warming in such a manner as to amplify the response are known as positive feedbacks. Internal processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks. The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be diminished.

It is commonly suggested that society should not depend on negative feedbacks to spare us from a "greenhouse catastrophe.'' What is omitted from such suggestions is that current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming. The effects of clouds have been receiving the closest scrutiny. That is not unreasonable. Cloud cover in models is poorly treated and inaccurately predicted. Yet clouds reflect about seventy-five watts per square meter. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter, it is evident that a small change in cloud cover can strongly affect the response to carbon dioxide. The situation is complicated by the fact that clouds at high altitudes can also supplement the greenhouse effect. Indeed, the effects of clouds in reflecting light and in enhancing the greenhouse effect are roughly in balance. Their actual effect on climate depends both on the response of clouds to warming and on the possible imbalance of their cooling and heating effects.

Similarly, factors involving the contribution of snow cover to reflectivity serve, in current models, to amplify warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. What happens seems reasonable enough; warmer climates presumably are associated with less snow cover and less reflectivity--which, in turn, amplify the warming. Snow is associated with winter when incident sunlight is minimal, however. Moreover, clouds shield the Earth's surface from the sun and minimize the response to snow cover. Indeed, there is growing evidence that clouds accompany diminishing snow cover to such an extent as to make that feedback factor negative. If, however, one asks why current models predict that large warming will accompany increasing carbon dioxide, the answer is mostly due to the effect of the water vapor feedback. Current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels. As already noted, such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor. Recent studies of the physics of how deep clouds moisturize the atmosphere strongly suggest that this largest of the positive feedbacks is not only negative, but very large.

Not only are there major reasons to believe that models are exaggerating the response to increasing carbon dioxide, but, perhaps even more significantly, the models' predictions for the past century incorrectly describe the pattern of warming and greatly overestimate its magnitude. The global average temperature record for the past century or so is irregular and not without problems. It does, however, show an average increase in temperature of about .45 degree centigrade plus or minus .15 degree centigrade with most of the increase occurring before 1940, followed by some cooling through the early 1970s and a rapid (but modest) temperature increase in the late 1970s. As noted, we have already seen an increase in "equivalent'' carbon dioxide of 50 percent. Thus, on the basis of models that predict a four degree centigrade warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide we might expect to have seen a warming of two degrees centigrade already. If, however, we include the delay imposed by the oceans' heat capacity, we might expect a warming of about one degree centigrade--which is still twice what has been observed. Moreover, most of that warming occurred before the bulk of the minor greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows what might have been expected for models with differing sensitivities to a doubling of carbon dioxide. What we see is that the past record is most consistent with an equilibrium response to a doubling of about 1.3 degrees centigrade--assuming that all the observed warming was due to increasing carbon dioxide. There is nothing in the record that can be distinguished from the natural variability of the climate, however.

If one considers the tropics, that conclusion is even more disturbing. There is ample evidence that the average equatorial sea surface has remained within plus or minus one degree centigrade of its present temperature for billions of years, yet current models predict average warming of from two to four degrees centigrade even at the equator. It should be noted that for much of the Earth's history, the atmosphere had much more carbon dioxide than is currently anticipated for centuries to come. I could, in fact, go on at great length listing the evidence for small responses to a doubling of carbon dioxide; there are space constraints, however.

Here's the original IPCC report from 1998: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/index.htm

That's the one everyone refers to. It even admits that at that time most Antarctic measurements came from the peninsula.

You have to be a subscriber to get the full article but here's the abstract of one from Nature discussing cooling in the Anarctic interior and how this is in direct opposition to the proposed global warming patterns.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...nature710.html

As for my background - how much background does someone need to know that when someone writes a program that excludes data from a set because it doesn't agree with a model that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy - or that averaging data from 25 Antarctic stations when only two are in the interior (and those show cooling) is a flawed way of showing that the entire continent is warming?

Are you saying that if someone doesn't publish research papers on climate they have to blindly accept a hoax?

That said, I'm not a scientist per se - as in publishing research papers. But I do serve as a consultant on a variety of environmental systems projects. Frex, right now I'm working with someone on installing an electrical generation system from methane. He has a choice between installing an ambient air covered lagoon digester or a complete-mix digester. In order to evaluate which is more cost-effective I have to enter environmental data for the two systems to calculate production and balance those results against the relative costs of the two systems.

So I don't do the research but I've seen enough of it and had to deal with lousy data enough to know when someone's tossing around crap - and one indicator of a crap theory is when the empirical results don't match the theoretical models.

They need to come up with a new model - the one they're using doesn't work.

Now please explain your credentials. Are you a climatologist? A professor in meteorology? How are you qualified to judge anyone's research and consider it valid?

[Gamble]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Am I a climatologist? No but I am a scientist and I do have published work.
I know how funding works and I know why certian scientist battle with
one another.

I've worked long enough in a field to know that there is bad research in
every field. I do have an issue with calling the theory a hoax. To many
good scientist have produce convincing data to discredit them with the word
"hoax". That doesn't mean I believe the sea will rise by 20 ft in the year
2100 but to call their work a hoax is an insult to every scientist who tries
very hard to present honest work.


I don't know which particular model you are refering to as there are many
with global warming but strictily as a scientist empirical results on average
don't meet theoretical models. Thats not to dismiss what you posted but
data has to be proven significant based on its "p" value. The more data
points the tighter the P value will be if it is true.

With that said I do not know how much data you have looked at. This
theory covers more than any one person and no one should assume
enough data has been collected and reviewed.

I hope this has not been a complete waste of you time but to me I found
it very benefical.

Here is the article.... mind you its at 2003..if you want the pdf let me know.

Letters to Nature
Nature 415, 517-520 (31 January 2002) | doi: 10.1038/nature710

Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Peter T. Doran1, John C. Priscu2, W. Berry Lyons3, John E. Walsh4, Andrew G. Fountain5, Diane M. McKnight6, Daryl L. Moorhead7, Ross A. Virginia8, Diana H. Wall9, Gary D. Clow10, Christian H. Fritsen11, Christopher P. McKay12 and Andrew N. Parsons9

Top of pageAbstractThe average air temperature at the Earth's surface has increased by 0.06 °C per decade during the 20th century1, and by 0.19 °C per decade from 1979 to 19982. Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions3, 4, as observed in Antarctica's peninsula region over the second half of the 20th century5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends. Summer cooling is particularly important to Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems that are poised at the interface of ice and water. Here we present data from the dry valleys representing evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased primary productivity of lakes (6−9% per year) and declining numbers of soil invertebrates (more than 10% per year). Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change.

Terrestrial ecosystem research in the Antarctic is restricted to a few ice-free areas of the coast, including the McMurdo Dry Valleys (77−78° S, 160−164° E). The dry valleys region is the largest ice-free area on the Antarctic continent. It is a cold desert, comprising a mosaic of perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, arid soils, exposed bedrock, and alpine glaciers. Published historical weather observations in the dry valleys are limited11, 12, 13, 14. Biological activity is microbially dominated and diversity is low. The largest animals are soil invertebrates, of which soil nematodes are the most widely distributed15.

Our 14-year, continuous automatic weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 °C per decade (P = 0.21) from 1986 to 1999 (Fig. 1a). The temperature decrease is most pronounced in the summer (December−February = 1.2 °C per decade, P = 0.02) and autumn (March−May = 2.0 °C per decade, P = 0.11). Winter (June−August) and spring (September−November) show smaller temperature increases (0.6 °C and 0.1 °C per decade, P = 0.62 and 0.95, respectively). The dry valley cooling, and its seasonal pattern (that is, dominated by summer and autumn), reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000 (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Owing to the exclusion of dry valley records in Fig. 2, compatibility with the dry valley data increases the validity of the analysis. Moreover, Fig. 2 is consistent with maps of individual station trends during 1976−2000 presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report1. We focus here on the Lake Hoare record because it is the longest dry valley record, but seven other dry valley floor stations show similar trends16.

Figure 1: Meteorological and ecosystem changes in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, 1986−2000.
a, Seasonally averaged air temperature over time at Lake Hoare station (full data set) with summer values highlighted (open squares). Trend lines are annual (solid line) and summer only (dashed lines). b, Seasonally averaged wind speed over time at Lake Hoare station. c, Seasonally averaged solar flux at Lake Hoare station (excluding winter, June−August). d, Total annual stream flow from eight streams in the Lake Fryxell basin. e, Lake level change in Lake Hoare (inverted triangles), Lake Fryxell (triangles), and Lake Bonney (circles). f, Lake ice thickness of west lobe Lake Bonney (squares), east lobe Lake Bonney (circles), Lake Fryxell (triangles), and Lake Hoare (inverted triangles). Ice thickness is measured from the water level to the bottom of the ice in holes drilled through the ice. The vertical bars indicate the range of measurements within a season. g, Mean monthly (November and December only) photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) 10 m below the surface of the ice in the east lobe of Lake Bonney. h, Depth-integrated primary productivity during November and December in east (circles and lower trend line) and west (squares and upper trend line) lobes of Lake Bonney. i, Total number of soil nematodes over time in experimental plots on the south shore of Lake Hoare.

High resolution image and legend (82K)


Figure 2: Annual and seasonal Antarctic surface temperature trends (°C per decade) between 1966 and 2000 calculated from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit's 5°5° data set28.
High resolution image and legend (88K)


Table 1: Proportions of Antarctica warming and cooling (1966−2000)
Full table



The seasonally averaged wind speed decreased by 0.23 m s-1 per decade (P = 0.07) at Lake Hoare from 1986 to 1999 (Fig. 1b), and is significantly correlated with the seasonally averaged temperature decrease (P<0.01). Furthermore, both easterly on-shore coastal (dominant in the summer) and westerly katabatic (dominant in winter, spring and autumn) wind speeds are significantly correlated (P<0.01) with temperature. Annual temperatures at individual dry valley sites are strongly controlled by exposure to wind; the dry adiabatic lapse rate and distance to the coast are of secondary importance16. Our results suggest that estimating long-term temperature change in coastal Antarctica requires an understanding of the synoptic controls on surface wind variability, which at present are incompletely understood17, 18.

Seasonally averaged (excluding June−August) solar radiation has increased from 1986 to 1999 by 8.1 W m-2 per decade (P = 0.05; Fig. 1c). Radiation during non-winter months decreased with increasing wind speed during this period (P = 0.08). The inverse relationship between wind speed and radiation is highly significant for spring and autumn (P<0.01). Radiation decreases significantly with easterly wind speed during the summer (P = 0.02), and with westerly wind speed during the spring (P = 0.03). Observers in the field routinely noted cloudiness during high wind events. Together, these results indicate that increased solar radiation in the dry valleys is related to decreased wind and associated cloudiness over time.

Changes in dry valley moisture indices (relative humidity and precipitation) are inconclusive because of measurement uncertainties. Snow accumulation (precipitation minus evaporation) on two local valley glaciers showed no clear trend between the summers of 1993−94 and 1999−2000. We infer from the increased clear-sky conditions that cloudiness decreased from 1986 to 1999. Soil moisture decreased from 2.2% (by weight) to 1.4% between 1993 and 1999 in an elevational transect in Taylor Valley.

The McMurdo Dry Valley environment has long been viewed as sensitive to low amplitude climatic shifts19, 20, 21. Local hydrology is dependent on small changes in summer temperature and solar radiation, which can melt glacier ice and provide liquid runoff to soils, streams and lakes. From 1969 to 2000, all discharge observations were made in dry valley streams between 10 November and 24 March, but typically most flow occurs in December and January. All streams are fed largely by glacial melt, with minor inputs coming from seasonal snow banks. Storage of stream water occurs in hyporheic zones: moist soil areas adjacent to and beneath the streams22. The discharge from the eight principal inflow streams in the Lake Fryxell basin since 1990−91 (except 1992−93 when field measurements were not made) decreased nonlinearly by an average rate of 1.8105 m3 yr-1 (Fig. 1d). Total annual stream flow in these streams increased by 41,000 m3 per degree-day above freezing at the Lake Fryxell meteorological station (P<0.01).

Lake levels rose at an average rate of 16 cm yr-1 between 1903 and approximately 1990, and lake ice thinned before 198619, 21. Our data show that lake levels receded (Fig. 1e) in response to cooler summers and decreased stream flow since 1990. Cooler, quiescent conditions in summer reduce sublimation loss from lakes, but not enough to compensate for the decreased stream flow. The thickness of lake ice has increased since 1986 by an average of 11 cm yr-1 (P<0.01) in response to the lower temperatures (Fig. 1f).

We believe that climate cooling has significantly impacted ecosystem properties in the McMurdo Dry Valleys. The climate-induced increase in lake ice thickness has reduced underwater irradiance during November−December in the east lobe of Lake Bonney by 0.055 mol photons m-2 d-1 (P = 0.01) since 1990 (Fig. 1g). Because phytoplankton primary production in the dry valley lakes is limited by light23, we suggest that this decrease in irradiance has affected the rate of primary production in the lakes (Fig. 1h). Depth-integrated primary production in the east and west lobes of Lake Bonney has decreased by 0.88 (P<0.01) and 2.6 (P = 0.03) mg C m-2 d-1 annually, amounting to a 6% and 9% decrease per year, respectively. Recent data on the carbon biogeochemistry of Lake Bonney show that contemporary photosynthesis to respiration ratios are less than unity24. The inferred climate-induced reduction in primary production will exacerbate this situation, producing a system that may act as a CO2 source and eventually become depleted in organic carbon stores. Reduced nutrient loading associated with decreasing stream flows is not the cause of the noted reduction in primary production, as a large portion of the nutrient supply for phytoplankton growth arises from internal vertical diffusion24.

Soil invertebrate communities showed changes in diversity and abundance from 1993 to 1998. The abundance of tardigrades and nematodes, including the dominant nematode species Scottnema lindsayae, declined in an elevational transect29, and across all treatments (moisture, temperature, and carbon) in a climate manipulation experiment by 200 individuals (>10%) per year (P = 0.01, Fig. 1i). Given the low diversity and long generation times of these invertebrates, these declines in population represent important shifts in the diversity, life cycles, trophic relationships and functioning of dry valley soils25.

We have shown a 14-yr Antarctic dry valley meteorological record and 35-yr continental temperature compilation that indicate an annual cooling trend during recent time over much of the continent of Antarctica, outside of the peninsula. Although other studies (for example, ref. 10) have cited a trend of continental warming in Antarctica, the trends are sensitive to the period analysed and to the distribution of stations. The warming reported in ref. 10 occurs almost entirely from 1958 to 1978, but not thereafter. As the shorter term dry valley data are for the period subsequent to the primary warming, the trends deduced in the different studies are not incompatible. Moreover, the large-scale cooling reported here results from an approach designed to avoid over-weighting of station-dense regions (for example, the peninsula) in the evaluation of overall trends. In the dry valleys, the cooling trend is significantly correlated with decreased winds and increased clear-sky conditions over the period of record. These changes are indicative of the strong influence that winds (mostly onshore during the summer and katabatic during other seasons) have on the dry valley climate. We propose that prolonged summer cooling will diminish aquatic and soil biological assemblages throughout the valleys, and possibly in other terrestrial Antarctic ecosystems. Winter temperatures are well below the threshold for liquid water production and can fluctuate significantly with minimal direct hydrological or ecological impact. Summer temperatures are the critical driver of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems, and our data are the first, to our knowledge, to highlight the cascade of ecological consequences that results from the recent summer cooling.

Top of pageMethods
Dry valley ecosystem parameters
All dry valley meteorological data were collected using Campbell Scientific data loggers. The network consists of four stations in Taylor Valley, two in Wright Valley, and one in Victoria Valley. Precise station locations can be found in ref. 26. Four other stations on glacier surfaces in Taylor Valley are not discussed in this paper. Air temperature was collected at 3 m from the ground using a fenwall-type thermistor in a shielded Campbell Scientific model 207 probe. We calculated all temperature data from raw voltages using a Steinhart−Hart equation. Wind speed was measured at 3 m above the ground using a Met One model 014A wind speed sensor and model 024A wind direction sensor, up to 1993, and an R.M. Young model 05103 wind speed and direction sensor thereafter. Since 1993, we replaced all wind monitors once for recalibration. Solar flux was measured using Li-Cor model LI-200 pyranometers, which have a maximum stated uncertainty of 5%, and were recalibrated against an Eppley pyranometer every 2 yr. These pyranometers do not measure the ultraviolet range absorbed by ozone. Relative humidity was measured at all stations using Phys-Chem humidity transducers in Campbell Scientific 207 probes. Calibration drift in these transducers is significant, thereby possibly obscuring any long-term trends. We measured stream flow using pressure transducers in flumes. We calibrated rating curves frequently during the melt season.

Soil moisture was determined gravimetrically (48 h at 105 &#176;C) from 50-g soil samples that were collected in polyethylene bags in the field. On each sampling date, soil moisture was determined for 51 soil samples collected from 1010 m grids established at 83, 121 and 188 m elevation near the south shore of Lake Hoare, Taylor Valley. See ref. 27 for further details on the transect.

Irradiance in the water column of the Taylor Valley lakes was measured with a Li-Cor model 193 spherical quantum (400−700 nm) sensor moored 10 m beneath the surface of the permanent lake ice. The data were logged with a Campbell 21 data logger at 20-min intervals throughout the year. Primary productivity in lakes was measured using the 14C method, outlined in ref. 22, during 24-h in situ incubations.

For nematode analysis, soil samples were collected with pre-sterilized plastic scoops and placed in sterile polyethylene Whirl-Pak bags. All soils were transported in insulated coolers to the McMurdo station laboratory facilities, where they were immediately stored at 4 &#176;C. Nematodes, tardigrades and rotifers were extracted from the soils within 48 h using standard sugar centrifugation procedures, modified to keep the soils and all extraction materials at a constant cold temperature. Extracted nematodes were identified to genus level. All nematode counts were adjusted for soil moisture to give number of nematodes per kilogram of dry soil.

Continental temperature trends
Continental temperature trend maps were computed from the gridded University of East Anglia HadCRUT temperature data set, based on land station and ship reports28. The trends for each 5&#176;5&#176; grid cell were evaluated by a least-squares fit for the period 1965−2000. The gridded trend values were then smoothed spatially using a Cressman analysis, which effectively determines a pixel value as a weighted sum of contributions from surrounding grid points for which data are available. Weights vary as the inverse fourth power of the distance from the pixel in question. The radius of influence is 500 pixels, or approximately one-quarter the maximum width of the image.

Top of pageAcknowledgments
We thank the personnel associated with the McMurdo Long Term Ecological Research site who contributed to the collection of data. T. Chinn provided the three earliest data points on the lake level plot. W. Chapman assisted with the compilation of the continental figures. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs, the United States Geological Survey, and the NASA Exobiology Program.

Competing interests statement: The authors declared no competing interests.

Top of pageReferences

References 1. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001)
2. National Research Council Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2000)
3. Chen, C. T. A. & Drake, E. T. Carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere and oceans and possible effects on climate. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 14, 201-235 (1986) | Article | ISI |
3. Chen, C. T. A. & Drake, E. T. Carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere and oceans and possible effects on climate. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 14, 201-235 (1986) | Article | ISI |
4. Cattle, H. & Crossley, J. Modeling arctic climate change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 352, 201-213 (1995) | ISI |
4. Cattle, H. & Crossley, J. Modeling arctic climate change. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 352, 201-213 (1995) | ISI |
5. Weller, G. Regional impacts of climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic. Ann. Glaciol. 27, 543-552 (1998) | ISI |
5. Weller, G. Regional impacts of climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic. Ann. Glaciol. 27, 543-552 (1998) | ISI |
6. Vaughan, D. G. & Doake, C. S. M. Recent atmospheric warming and retreat of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula. Nature 379, 328-331 (1996) | ISI |
6. Vaughan, D. G. & Doake, C. S. M. Recent atmospheric warming and retreat of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula. Nature 379, 328-331 (1996) | ISI |
7. Comiso, J. C. Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. J. Clim. 13, 1674-1696 (2000) | Article | ISI |
7. Comiso, J. C. Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. J. Clim. 13, 1674-1696 (2000) | Article | ISI |
8. Smith, R. C. et al. Marine ecosystem sensitivity to climate change. BioScience 49, 393-404 (1999) | ISI |
8. Smith, R. C. et al. Marine ecosystem sensitivity to climate change. BioScience 49, 393-404 (1999) | ISI |
9. Vaughan, D. G. et al. Devil in the detail. Science 293, 1777-1779 (2001) | Article | PubMed | ISI |
9. Vaughan, D. G. et al. Devil in the detail. Science 293, 1777-1779 (2001) | Article | PubMed | ISI |
10. Jacka, T. H. & Budd, W. F. Detection of temperature and sea-ice-extent changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean 1949-96. Ann. Glaciol. 27, 553-559 (1998) | ISI |
10. Jacka, T. H. & Budd, W. F. Detection of temperature and sea-ice-extent changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean 1949-96. Ann. Glaciol. 27, 553-559 (1998) | ISI |
11. Riordan, A. J. in Climate of the Arctic (eds Weller, G. & Bowling, S. A.) 268-275 (Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1973)
12. Bromley, A. M. Weather Observations, Wright Valley Antarctica Information Publication no. 11 (New Zealand Meteorological Service, Wellington, 1985)
13. Clow, G. D., McKay, C. P., Simmons, G. M. Jr & Wharton, R. A. Jr Climatological observations and predicted sublimation rates at Lake Hoare. Antarct. J. Clim. 1, 715-728 (1988) | Article |
14. McKay, C. P., Nienow, J. A., Meyer, M. A. & Friedmann, E. I. in Antarctic Meteorology and Climatology: Studies Based on Automatic Weather Stations Antarctic Research Series 61 (eds Bromwich, D. H. & Stearns, C. R.) 201-207 (American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1993)
15. Freckman, D. W. & Virginia, R. A. Low-diversity Antarctic soil nematode communities: distribution and response to disturbance. Ecology 78, 363-369 (1997) | ISI |
15. Freckman, D. W. & Virginia, R. A. Low-diversity Antarctic soil nematode communities: distribution and response to disturbance. Ecology 78, 363-369 (1997) | ISI |
16. Doran, P. T. et al. Climate observations (1986-2000) from the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. J. Clim. (submitted).
17. Bromwich, D. H. & Parish, T. R. (eds) Antarctica: Barometer of Climate Change Report of the National Science Foundation Antarctic Meteorology Working Group (National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, 1998).
18. Parish, T. R. & Cassano, J. J. Forcing of the wintertime Antarctic boundary layer winds from the NCEP-NCAR global reanalysis. J. Appl. Meteorol. 40, 810-821 (2001) | Article | ISI |
18. Parish, T. R. & Cassano, J. J. Forcing of the wintertime Antarctic boundary layer winds from the NCEP-NCAR global reanalysis. J. Appl. Meteorol. 40, 810-821 (2001) | Article | ISI |
19. Wharton, R. A. et al. Changes in ice cover thickness and lake level of Lake Hoare, Antarctica--implications for local climatic change. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 3503-3513 (1993)
20. Fountain, A. G. et al. Physical controls on the Taylor Valley ecosystem, Antarctica. BioScience 49, 961-971 (1999) | ISI |
20. Fountain, A. G. et al. Physical controls on the Taylor Valley ecosystem, Antarctica. BioScience 49, 961-971 (1999) | ISI |
21. Chinn, T. J. in Physical and Biogeochemical Processes in Antarctic Lakes Antarctic Research Series 59 (eds Green, W. J. & Friedmann, E. I.) 1-51 (American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1993)
22. McKnight, D. M. et al. Dry valley streams in Antarctica: ecosystems waiting for water. BioScience 49, 985-995 (1999) | ISI |
22. McKnight, D. M. et al. Dry valley streams in Antarctica: ecosystems waiting for water. BioScience 49, 985-995 (1999) | ISI |
23. Priscu, J. C. et al. Carbon transformations in a perennially ice-covered Antarctic lake. BioScience 49, 997-1008 (1999) | ISI |
23. Priscu, J. C. et al. Carbon transformations in a perennially ice-covered Antarctic lake. BioScience 49, 997-1008 (1999) | ISI |
24. Priscu, J. C. Phytoplankton nutrient deficiency in lakes of the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Freshwat. Biol. 34, 215-227 (1995) | ISI |
24. Priscu, J. C. Phytoplankton nutrient deficiency in lakes of the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Freshwat. Biol. 34, 215-227 (1995) | ISI |
25. Virginia, R. A. & Wall, D. H. How soils structure communities in the Antarctic dry valleys. BioScience 49, 973-983 (1999) | ISI |
25. Virginia, R. A. & Wall, D. H. How soils structure communities in the Antarctic dry valleys. BioScience 49, 973-983 (1999) | ISI |
26. Doran, P. T., Dana, G., Hastings, J. T. & Wharton, R. A. The McMurdo LTER automatic weather network (LAWN). Antarct. J. US 30, 276-280 (1995)
27. Powers, L. E., Ho, M., Freckman, D. W. & Virginia, R. A. Distribution, community structure, and microhabitats of soil invertebrates along an elevational gradient in Taylor Valley, Antarctica. Arct. Alpine Res. 30, 133-141 (1998) | ISI |
27. Powers, L. E., Ho, M., Freckman, D. W. & Virginia, R. A. Distribution, community structure, and microhabitats of soil invertebrates along an elevational gradient in Taylor Valley, Antarctica. Arct. Alpine Res. 30, 133-141 (1998) | ISI |
28. Jones, P. D. et al. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Rev. Geophys. 37, 173-199 (1999) | Article | ISI |
28. Jones, P. D. et al. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Rev. Geophys. 37, 173-199 (1999) | Article | ISI |
29. Porazinska, D. L., Wall, D. H. & Virginia, R. A. Spatial and temporal variation in nematode populations over a six-year period in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antartica. Arctic Antarct. Alp. Res. (in the press).

[DisplacedKnick]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Am I a climatologist? No but I am a scientist and I do have published work.
I know how funding works and I know why certian scientist battle with
one another.

I've worked long enough in a field to know that there is bad research in
every field. I do have an issue with calling the theory a hoax. To many
good scientist have produce convincing data to discredit them with the word
"hoax". That doesn't mean I believe the sea will rise by 20 ft in the year
2100 but to call their work a hoax is an insult to every scientist who tries
very hard to present honest work.

Hoax is probably too strong a term because that implies deliberate misinformation.

That said, the 1998 IPCC report certainly incorporated some invalid assumptions and many, many papers have been published which become invalid - or at the very least partially invalid - because they were based on those findings.

Keep in mind for both the Arctic and Antarctic we only have reliable data for probably 50 and 30 years, respectively. I don't know that the recent 10-year positive AO is something that's occurred many times in the past several thousand years or it's unique and caused by other influences, possibly including enhanced CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The problem is that in this age of computers I'm 100% certain that someone can design a model indicating that it's caused by enhanced greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. But you can also design a model with about 100 other different reasons - there's probably even a way of showing the cooling on the Antarctic continent's the cause.

Scientists design theories all the time - and when part of that theory is invalidated they modify them. But if you ask Global Warming scientists, they're still following a 1998 report - despite strong evidence that at least a portion of it is wrong.

A core aspect of Global Warming theory states that warming in the high latitudes will be an effect. This isn't happening in Antarctica. And when 50% of the polar regions aren't showing the effect your model says it should, the model isn't working.

The fact that every time an unusual weather pattern emerges - such as last year's hurricane season - global warming immediately emerges as the reason behind it, despite no evidence that this is the case (except a computer generated model - I can design a computer generated model to show a lot of things. All I have to do is set my assumptions, even if they don't reflect the real world) doesn't help matters. I'm getting into "Boy Who Cries Wolf" mode on a lot of it.

[Will Galen]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/sc...partner=EXCITE

NASA Scientists See New Signs of Global Warming

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: September 14, 2006
Scientists have long suspected that the recent melting of Arctic Ocean ice in the summer might be a result of heat-trapping gases building up in the atmosphere. But yesterday NASA scientists reported that higher temperatures and a retreat of the sea ice over the last two winters offered new evidence that the gases were influencing the region’s climate.

While the summer melting could be a result of a number of phenomena like the flow of warm water, the scientists said, the reduction of winter ice two seasons in a row is harder to explain without invoking the heat-trapping effects of gases like carbon dioxide.

Such gases block the escape of some heat radiating from the ocean or earth, like an insulating blanket, even in the depths of the dark Arctic winter, said Josefino C. Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center who uses satellites to study Earth’s frozen zones.

In the past two winters, the peak of sea ice growth in the Arctic has been 6 percent below the average peak since the satellite observations began, Dr. Comiso said. His findings are to be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The observed winter changes occur after a string of years in which the amount of sea ice around the Arctic Ocean has steadily shrunk. Last year saw what some Arctic experts said was probably the most open water in the Arctic in a century, and the most since the satellite observations began in 1978.

Mark Serreze, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said that this summer’s ice retreat was not quite as great as that in 2005, but that there was still time, before the long Arctic night begins this month, to see more melting.

Over all, Dr. Serreze said, it was hard to find an explanation for the shifts other than human-caused warming.

[DisplacedKnick]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/sc...partner=EXCITE

NASA Scientists See New Signs of Global Warming

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: September 14, 2006
Scientists have long suspected that the recent melting of Arctic Ocean ice in the summer might be a result of heat-trapping gases building up in the atmosphere. But yesterday NASA scientists reported that higher temperatures and a retreat of the sea ice over the last two winters offered new evidence that the gases were influencing the region’s climate.

While the summer melting could be a result of a number of phenomena like the flow of warm water, the scientists said, the reduction of winter ice two seasons in a row is harder to explain without invoking the heat-trapping effects of gases like carbon dioxide.

Such gases block the escape of some heat radiating from the ocean or earth, like an insulating blanket, even in the depths of the dark Arctic winter, said Josefino C. Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center who uses satellites to study Earth’s frozen zones.

In the past two winters, the peak of sea ice growth in the Arctic has been 6 percent below the average peak since the satellite observations began, Dr. Comiso said. His findings are to be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The observed winter changes occur after a string of years in which the amount of sea ice around the Arctic Ocean has steadily shrunk. Last year saw what some Arctic experts said was probably the most open water in the Arctic in a century, and the most since the satellite observations began in 1978.

Mark Serreze, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said that this summer’s ice retreat was not quite as great as that in 2005, but that there was still time, before the long Arctic night begins this month, to see more melting.

Over all, Dr. Serreze said, it was hard to find an explanation for the shifts other than human-caused warming.

The only problem with that final statement is that it's roughly on a par with someone in the 1st century saying, "It's hard to find an explanation for thunderstorms except the Gods are angry."

And so far they haven't been able to explain the ice retreat FROM human impacts.

I also enjoyed the, "this summer’s ice retreat was not quite as great as that in 2005." Actually - at least in the Western Arctic - this summer's ice extent has been about 25% above average (in terms of surface coverage - I haven't seen anything regarding thickness). Now does that mean the trend is reversing? Impossible to say based on one year. But of course we only have good observations for that for about 35 years since satellites started recording it - the Arctic ice could have retreated far more over a period of several years in the 1500's, the 1600's - or the 1950's.

Unfortunately, this fits with the general tone of the Global Warming argument; "We don't really know what's going on and haven't been able to prove anything - or even develop a reliable model that holds up - but it's been getting warmer in many places and atmospheric CO2 is rising so Humans must be causing it."

[Bball]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

I bet NASA scientists need more money for further research...

-Bball

[3Ball]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

I bet NASA scientists need more money for further research...

-Bball

Yeah, but I bet they also wish they could research something that hasn't already been pretty overwhelmingly confirmed.

[Since86]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Global warming pretty overwhelmingly confirmed? Maybe for you, but hardly for the the rest of the world.

[efx]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Global warming pretty overwhelmingly confirmed? Maybe for you, but hardly for the the rest of the world.

Got any numbers on that?

[Since86]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Got any numbers on that?

Do you?

I, for one, have never saw a poll from experts asking whether or not they believe in Global Warming.

The point of my post wasn't saying that it isn't real, but that it's still in the early stages of a theory. There's still a lot of diversity on the subject, hence the reason why there's so much research on it.

But please exhaust yourself in trying to find any "numbers" either way. I doubt they exist.

[Arcadian]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Doesn't it bother people that these aren't predictions which point towards human induced global warming but just events.

It isn't a case where we see events happening and say, "oh yes this is happening in relationship to this model based our theory". Instead we get these events and say, "There is no rhyme or reason it is happening at this rate so it must be human activity."

I do believe the world is getting warmer. I also have very little faith in the scientific community to design policy because I don't see any model out there predicting what will be affected or at what rate.

[Los Angeles]

Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Things are starting to make sense to me.

1) the water was unusually warm this summer on the beaches of LA
2) starting on the west coast and working its way over, we experienced a massive nation-wide heat wave in July and August.
3) I just got the first reports that a "strong" el nino year is expected this year bringing torrential rain to California and a milder winter to the midwest.

I'll let the science nerds work this one out in detail.

But we seem to be cycling. Let's stary withthe worst El Nino on record (Pacific Ocean, Winter 04-05) which was quickly followed by one of the worst Hurricane seasons on record (Atlantic Ocean, Summer 05). Winter 05-06 had no el nino, and Summer 06 had few hurricanes.

Remember that the El Nino starts its build up in the Summer, at the same time as the Atlantic Hurricane season.

If there is indeed an El Nino this year in the Pacific, I'll be interested to see what happens next summer in the Atlantic.

Then I found this article:

http://www.physorg.com/news76869698.html

Hurricane forecasters say a weather phenomenon called El Nino may make the rest of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season quieter than predicted.

An El Nino is a major warming of the equatorial waters in the Pacific Ocean that usually occurs every 3 to 7 years, producing a shift in normal weather patterns. An El Nino can cause droughts in some places and floods in others, National Geographic News said, but it can also suppress hurricane formation in the Atlantic.

Colorado State University meteorologists Phil Klotzbach and William Gray say they see indications an El Nino might form this fall and that has again led them to reduce their estimate of tropical storms they believe will form in the Atlantic.

The meteorologists say they expect the total seasonal activity will be slightly below the long-term average. During October they say they expect below average activity, with two named storms -- one of which will become a hurricane. But they say they now expect no major hurricanes during October.

Six tropical storms -- one becoming a hurricane -- have formed since the season began June 1. The Atlantic hurricane season ends Nov. 30.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International


Ladies and gentlemen, I think the worst assumption in this entire thread is that the Atlantic Hurricane season is the only weather phenomenon to watch. It's only a small part of a much, much bigger system.