NOAA revises upward its ordinary average 2019 hurricane season prediction
NOAA last week announced that it is revising upward its hurricane prediction for the 2019, changing it from average and ordinary to slightly higher than average and ordinary.
Seasonal forecasters with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center have increased the likelihood of an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season to 45% (up from 30% from the outlook issued in May). The likelihood of near-normal activity is now at 35%, and the chance of below-normal activity has dropped to 20%.
The number of predicted storms is also greater with NOAA now expecting 10-17 named storms (winds of 39 mph or greater), of which 5-9 will become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or greater), including 2-4 major hurricanes (winds of 111 mph or greater). This updated outlook is for the entire six-month hurricane season, which ends Nov. 30.
The problem with NOAA’s desire to imply that we are all going to die from massive hurricanes is twofold. First, take a look at the most recent hurricane graphs at Weatherstreet.com. NOAA’s unrevised prediction for Atlantic hurricanes was totally in the center of the average for the years from 1966 to 2009. It also was significantly below 2005, the worst hurricane year on record that was used by global warming activists to claim global warming was causing more storms that were more extreme.
The problem is that 2005 was an outlier. For almost a dozen years afterward no category 3 or more hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. and only a very few have followed since.
The newly revised prediction still predicts an average and ordinary number of hurricanes in 2019, just very slightly above the average for the past half century.
But no matter. The number will be higher! We are all going to die! We must silence anyone who disagrees because their denialism will cause more deaths!
Welcome to the coming dark age.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
NOAA last week announced that it is revising upward its hurricane prediction for the 2019, changing it from average and ordinary to slightly higher than average and ordinary.
Seasonal forecasters with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center have increased the likelihood of an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season to 45% (up from 30% from the outlook issued in May). The likelihood of near-normal activity is now at 35%, and the chance of below-normal activity has dropped to 20%.
The number of predicted storms is also greater with NOAA now expecting 10-17 named storms (winds of 39 mph or greater), of which 5-9 will become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or greater), including 2-4 major hurricanes (winds of 111 mph or greater). This updated outlook is for the entire six-month hurricane season, which ends Nov. 30.
The problem with NOAA’s desire to imply that we are all going to die from massive hurricanes is twofold. First, take a look at the most recent hurricane graphs at Weatherstreet.com. NOAA’s unrevised prediction for Atlantic hurricanes was totally in the center of the average for the years from 1966 to 2009. It also was significantly below 2005, the worst hurricane year on record that was used by global warming activists to claim global warming was causing more storms that were more extreme.
The problem is that 2005 was an outlier. For almost a dozen years afterward no category 3 or more hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. and only a very few have followed since.
The newly revised prediction still predicts an average and ordinary number of hurricanes in 2019, just very slightly above the average for the past half century.
But no matter. The number will be higher! We are all going to die! We must silence anyone who disagrees because their denialism will cause more deaths!
Welcome to the coming dark age.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
“The problem with NOAA’s desire to imply that we are all going to die from massive hurricanes is twofold.”
That might be a little bit of a straw man.
Andrew_W wrote: “That might be a little bit of a straw man.”
A straw man? Really?
If this is a straw man then why do we have three decades worth of predicted tipping points, many of which have passed without the irreversible tipping and the end of life as we have known it?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/for_the_second_time_in_12_years_we_have_12_years_to_save_the_planet.html
“That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can release these reports and keep a straight face should qualify the group for an Oscar. Even NASA’s top climate scientist is skeptical”
Indeed, we in America recently have been told by some of our leaders that we have until 2030 before the next tipping point.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/al-gore-warns-time-running-out-after-un-gives-worl/
Then there are the poor British, who have recently been given much less time before their next life-ending tipping point.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/prince-charles-18-months-climate-change/
As I said in Robert’s link: “Meanwhile, China and India continue to increase their CO2 production levels, unabated, and the world community does not even suggest slowing their output. They only propose taxes on the developed countries and propose that the undeveloped countries not become developed (e.g. Obama in Africa). The developing countries are fully allowed to continue their development by producing power with fossil fuels and by burning down their rain forests.”
Some countries suffer under predictions of tipping points, yet other countries are allowed to spew CO2 at ever increasing rates. The Chinese have even become the number one source of CO2 emissions, but that hardly made the news and is never discussed when telling the rest of us that humanity will become extinct if we don’t do something soon about all the CO2 in the atmosphere.
It sounds like there is not a good consensus on when doom will overcome us and cause human extinction.
Maybe that is because the science is bogus — er — not settled after all.
Build the SMRs (or thorium reactors or hot gas reactors) and be done with it.
It amazes me often technical problems are so frequently seen as a sign of a flaw in human nature, when in every specific case they show how good we are at solving our own problems.
This too will be solved if the solutions are not regulated out of existence.
Edward, I’ll take notice of you where you reference the IPCC claims directly, not when you reference them third hand via blogs that misrepresent them.
NOAA has been distributing FAKE climate “news” for some time in support of their leftist agenda. It’s yet another corrupt government agency that we don’t need. I find this appalling.
“In summary, the adjustments to the US temperature record made by NOAA are more than double the ones they have admitted to. Furthermore, they have not been making proper allowance for UHI [urban heat island].”
The US temperature record presented by NOAA and GISS is little more than a political construct.”
https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doctored-temperature-data-to-get-record-warm-years/
Andrew_W,
What? Can’t you take the heat? (Yes, pun intended.) You do realize, don’t you, that you are calling Al Gore a liar, because he referenced the IPCC, too. I didn’t rely upon one source for that information, and one source was the IPCC’s fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Gore.
Oh, if the poor IPCC was misrepresented by Gore, then what do you think that the IPCC actually said in its SR15 report, and why do you suppose Gore chose to misrepresent their report?
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Perhaps they said, “Kyoto worked as intended; the U.S. has reduced emissions properly despite not signing on; the “pause” shows that we are all saved, hurrah! It is time to disband the IPCC.”
No. That is not what they said.
You choose to rely on a government panel whose stated purpose is to put blame on humans for climate change, despite the fact that climates are known to have been constantly changing for the past few billion years.
Meanwhile, you have ignored that we keep getting told over and over that an irreversible tipping point is coming and that we have to act now to avoid it. These tipping points never occur when they are promised to occur, and instead new tipping points are announced in order to hide the previous cry of wolf. These tipping points have been passing by ever since 1999, one after another after another. Whoosh. Was that another one passing by, just now?
And yes, the quote from Prince Charles is: “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.”
According to him, what you think is a straw man is that we have a year and a half to restore nature to an acceptable equilibrium. He tells us that climate change in this time frame is an existential threat. Our very survival depends upon doing as he says in the time he has allotted.
Aren’t the straw men, in reality, the predicted tipping points, and don’t they get knocked down every time one of these tipping points passes by? Whoosh. Another straw man bites the dust.
At the risk of adding to the heat that you cannot take:
How do you think we can do as Prince Charles directs when China, India, and others are allowed to continue their dramatic increase of their CO2 emissions, destroying what he believes to be the necessary equilibrium?
Edward, I place as much trust in Gore’s opinions on AGW as I do your’s, ie. I only trust him when he quotes peer reviewed studies on AGW in papers in reputable journals, Gore probably occasionally does quote peer reviewed studies in such journals, I doubt you ever do.
“No. That is not what they said.”
If you want to be taken seriously in your claims about what the IPCC says, quote what they say rather than making things up or quoting blogs that make things up.
You claim that we’ve passed lots of dates on which the IPCC claimed we’d reached tipping points and no such tipping point occurred. In fact your claim is total fiction, you will not be able to back up your claim with even one example.
Edward waffles about Prince Charles.
I don’t care what Prince Charles says on climate or almost anything else, I’m very surprised that you do.
Andrew_W,
You wrote: “If you want to be taken seriously in your claims about what the IPCC says, quote what they say rather than making things up or quoting blogs that make things up.”
If the IPCC wanted to be taken seriously then they would have relied on actual science for their papers, not a lot of opinion pieces.
“You claim that we’ve passed lots of dates on which the IPCC claimed we’d reached tipping points and no such tipping point occurred.”
That is not what I claimed. You see where you always go wrong? Of course you don’t. You don’t pay any attention to what anyone says, including yourself. No wonder you have no idea what the IPCC says or doesn’t say.
By the way, what I suggested the SR15 report should have said is what it should have said.
“I don’t care what Prince Charles says on climate or almost anything else, I’m very surprised that you do.”
This is just another case of how you do not comprehend what you read. Prince Charles was one of the concrete examples that you always insist that we present to you. It is a case of him giving yet another tipping point and including not only a time frame but a catastrophic consequence. This is the point of my comments, yet you just don’t understand.
When I say “No. That is not what they said,” it is because I bothered to read the link that you aren’t even interested in. You have no idea what the SR15 report says or does not say, so you have no idea what has or has not been made up.
If you want to be taken seriously then you need to pay attention, and you definitely have to stop mischaracterizing what others write. After all, what we write is right there for all to review and see that you just don’t understand.
Then you take what you don’t understand and attempt to tell the rest of us what is what. Since we already know more on the topic than you do, you just look silly trying to look like you have successfully distracted us from that incorrect comment about straw men.
Even from the other side of the world, you are so terribly transparent.
Please reread and comprehend the thread (do both), then come back and discuss the topic with some sort of intelligent comments.
Maybe even answer a question or two that we have asked. For instance, why do you insist upon relying so heavily on an organization whose stated purpose is to put blame on humans for climate change? They have no interest or incentive to seek any other source of climate change, yet climates have changed without human input.
Edward you said “If this is a straw man then why do we have three decades worth of predicted tipping points, many of which have passed without the irreversible tipping and the end of life as we have known it?”
And then quoted this passage from one of your links in support of that claim:
“That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can release these reports and keep a straight face should qualify the group for an Oscar. Even NASA’s top climate scientist is skeptical”
“Prince Charles was one of the concrete examples that you always insist that we present to you.”
I’ve never insisted or suggested that Prince Charles was a concrete example of anything, you’re comprehension is faulty.
“why do you insist upon relying so heavily on an organization whose stated purpose is to put blame on humans for climate change?”
Again you’re dishonest in your claims, the IPCC does not have the “stated purpose” of attributing climate change to humans.
Why do you persist in relying on blogs rather than peer reviewed sources to support your arguments
Edward: “A straw man? Really?”
I think obviously so, Mr. Zimmerman claims that NOAA desires to imply that “we are all going to die from massive hurricanes”, as you evidently believe that Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is accurate perhaps you could provide evidence of such a desire to imply everyone’s impending death from hurricanes.
Andrew_W,
You wrote: “I’ve never insisted or suggested that Prince Charles was a concrete example of anything, you’re comprehension is faulty.”
Duh. I have long understood that if it isn’t stated by the IPCC then you reject it on principle. Your mind is so seriously closed that I do not write these notes to you in an attempt to change your immovable mind but as practice for other people — open minded people.
“A straw man? Really?I think obviously so [it is a straw man], Mr. Zimmerman claims that NOAA desires to imply that ‘we are all going to die from massive hurricanes’, as you evidently believe that Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is accurate perhaps you could provide evidence of such a desire to imply everyone’s impending death from hurricanes.”
You have not done your homework.
I have already performed the task you have requested. Their implications have been so widely believed that even policy makers repeat it emphatically, as I demonstrated.
“Again you’re dishonest in your claims, the IPCC does not have the “stated purpose” of attributing climate change to humans.”
It is in their founding document. Once again, you have not done your homework and follow blindly a political organization as it abuses science for its own nefarious ends.
And don’t think that I didn’t notice that you failed to answer any of my questions, although you attempted to make it look like you answered one of them.
“Why do you persist in relying on blogs rather than peer reviewed sources to support your arguments”
Actually, I do go to the sources:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/bad-climate-science-bad-climate-journalism/#comment-1064648
I even gave you a link to the SR15 report in order to make it easier for you to do your homework, but not only didn’t you do it but you ignored the fact that I presented it to you. Or do you not consider it to be peer reviewed?
Then again, as you have demonstrated on multiple occasions, you won’t accept any source other than the IPCC, and you won’t accept the IPCC, either, whenever they conflict with your immutable worldview. I even presented multiple examples of claims of tipping points — which was the entire basis of this straw-man discussion — and you rejected them as examples despite this widespread belief being the point of the discussion.
On the other hand, since journals and even newspapers are no longer willing to publish peer reviewed papers, it is increasingly difficult to reference them.
On the third hand (the gripping hand), you still don’t reference peer reviewed paper, either, so your complaint rings hollow. Many months ago, I asked you for such references, and all you could produce were opinion pieces, sometimes looking like they were official, because they came from government agencies. Keep in mind that the IPCC releases are not peer reviewed scientific papers, they are only opinions based upon whatever supports their conclusions.
You make clear why it is important to the climate-change-hoax community to not publish any paper or opinion that is skeptical. It could all too easily be used against the hoaxers in an attempt to convince even the closed minded, such as yourself.