Following Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ many have come to expect an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the US coast each year as the so-called “climate crisis” intensifies.
According to the US National Climatic Data Center, over the 10 years to the end of 2005, seasonal activity in the North Atlantic basin was 13 named storms, 7.7 hurricanes and 3.6 major hurricanes representing an increase over the average of the preceding 25 years (1970-1994) of 8.6 named storms, 5 hurricanes and 1.5 major hurricanes.
Today, the 30th November marks the official end of the 2006 hurricane season in the US and this year, according to a recent press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research, the number of hurricanes was 38 percent below the number originally forecast by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The number of hurricanes that qualified as “major” – category 3 or above – fell 50 percent below NOAA forecasts and not a single hurricane made landfall.
“If we can’t depend on hurricane forecasts made one to six months ahead of time, how can we expect to depend on predictions about the behavior of hurricanes decades from now,” asked David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. “Those who claim that rising global temperatures would definitely lead to more intense hurricanes appear to be relying upon political science, not climate science.”
The 2006 summary at the US National Climatic Data Center simply states that the Atlantic season has been much quieter than had been initially forecast.
All good news.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It is good news that there were less hurricanes this year.
If there is a link, then the TREND is toward more years with increased intensity hurricanes. That does not mean every year will have more hurricanes than the past one. No one has ever claimed this. It is a denialist straw man argument.
David Ridenour’s statement is another straw man. If you flip a coin 100 times, you get roughly 50 heads and 50 tails. You can predict this. You cannot predict whether each throw will be a head or a tail. Same thing with climate. Short-term = hard, long-term easier.
Jen, I sometimes thought you were on the side of searching for the hopefully emerging and converging truth, and even the meaning of life, and so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But promoting a flip of the coin story (a la nexus)puts the odds on demeaning. I now sadly see you as simply a shameless self-interested stirrer given the clear evidence of your selective leads. Go altruism bye Jen.
Baaz, when I reported that last year was the hottest on record for Australia, you were OK: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001093.html .
But Baaz, now I report that this year there weren’t so many hurricanes you are upset.
I reckon you and Gavin both wish for the worst.
Few hurricanes but still lots of spin
No Jen, not upset, just sad and wishing and ahoping that truth will out if you let it.. Your example is pure self serving ( sorry and OK if it is ignorant )bias – the annual temperature trend is highly significant, ie big bias in the coin so most years are up and no news if it is. But annual hurricane frequency is a very noisy series so the comparision is simply silly and just plain mischevious. Bye again.
I think you have two issues here. (a) does AGW predict every year to be a record hurricane year? or (b) does it predict that over time hurricanes will on average have a high power dissipation index and no finding on numbers?
Think it’s (b) !
Interesting that the anti-AGW guys and gals look for an up up trend with records broken every day. Probably don’t understand the basics. Oh well. We’ll just have to wait and see. But that’s all boring party line stuff.
Obviouly Bazz is not going to use NOAA to pick the Melbourne Cup next year. Bloody useless organisation. Couldn’t pick a trifecta in a 3 horse race.
My personal thoughts: I reckon the solar torque is about to kick in and and it’s getting cooler. Well it has since 1998 – I reckon it’s started already. I think we’re gonna need as much CO2 as we can get to ward off an imminent ice age so I’ve just emailed Johnny telling him to replace the Commonwealth fleet with V8s. And the extra CO2 will help the plants grow too. I reckon we need a GMO crop plant that does well in a high CO2 atmosphere.
I also think we should get nuclear power plants, keep all our uranium, and brew our own nuke material. Then we can nuke the Japanese whaling boats and save the whales. I’m personally lobbying for a power plant in western Brissy suburbs right on the river so plenty of cooling water. We want our own fast breeder reactors. I’ve always been interested in radioactive materials since primary school and feel qualified to be in the industry. If we get some weapons grade plutonium brewing we can close down our embassy in Jakarta and tell them to bugga off too. Anyone annoys us – we nuke’em. Same with Fiji – don’t send Konoodla little boat – just nuke’em. Same with the Solomons. Will also help getting votes at the IWC – be no more ratting out and siding with the Japs. And more more water supply problems – we just nuke the Ronne ice shelf and break off a few ice bergs. Using the Japanese fleet we have captured (the ones not nuked too badly) we tow them up to the Gold Coast and melt them down. Trees clogging up your catchment – let’s just use a medium nuke and do some clearing. Generates a nice ash bed. Locusts getting out of hand – nuke’em.
Woody weeds in western NSW – literally gone in a flash. And simplifies problems with NSW goverment – “Gee I just went into town – came back and found 10,000 hectares vaporised”. The legislation hasn’t thought of that loophole!
Fire hazard reduction burning – safer – no fighting fires for days – we just nuke it at 3am.
Problems with malaria mossies in your third world situation – don’t risk potential ineffective chemicals on mossies or thinning bird shells – we’ll nuke the malaria habitat – they won’t come back.
Nah nah Nuke, OUT with centralised infrastructure, it just costs and crumbles.
Liberalise it! Free infrastructure!
IN with massively distributed and asymmetrically networked DIY infrastructure: personalised wearable watertanks, solar PV tshirts, DIY co-op electic hover vehicles, deconstructed roadways, wireless electrity, backyard sewerage reed canals, portable floating housing, game-show reality govt, vitamin-enriched crop insecticides, hackable desktop reactors and Borg farmers.
Pinx – where did you say to get those organic incontinence pads again – I just had a problem after looking up the NCPPR.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=59
And incidentally didn’t your sister used to go out with a Ridenour?
Oh they’re actually serviettes Nuke. I just chuck em in the bio-enzyme wash when guests come for dinner. Still a persistent curry stain on one though.
Ah yeah, a sorry tale that Ridenour affair: he went off the rails after she died of lung cancer. A 2 packs a day chickadee she was. Didn’t go the funeral, he denied she was even dead, wouldn’t even believe the Drs. Might be the same guy, long time since we last talked.
In a recent article in Geophysical Research Letters, Keim and Robbins note “The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season set many records including the greatest number of named tropical storms and hurricanes at 27, and the greatest total hurricanes at 15. Another record from 2005 includes 7 named tropical storms and hurricanes before 1 August. The 2005 season began early and remained active from June to January (2006).”
They gathered data on start dates of hurricanes from 1851-2005, and found that “Other seasons with storms with early dates of occurrence include 1887, 1933, 1936, and 1995.” There is no trend here with three of the five years with early storms occurring between 1887 and 1936. They made no link to global warming, but they did conclude, “All of these seasons are associated with a positive phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation” which is the warm phase of the oscillation.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L21706, doi:10.1029/ 2006GL027671, 2006
Occurrence dates of North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes: 2005 in perspective
Barry D. Keim
Department of Geography and Anthropology and Louisiana Office of State Climatology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Kevin D. Robbins
Department of Geography and Anthropology and Southern Regional Climate Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Abstract This paper compares dates of the nth storm (1st, 2nd,…etc.) in sequence for all tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin from 1851–2005. The year 2005 stands out as a season that got off to an early start, remained active throughout the season, and set many records for earliest occurrence dates for the nth named storm. Exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures may help explain the record breaking season of 2005. Other seasons with storms with early dates of occurrence include 1887, 1933, 1936, and 1995. All of these seasons are associated with a positive phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation.
Received 25 July 2006; accepted 9 October 2006; published 4 November 2006.
Keywords: tropical storms; hurricanes; Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Index Terms: 3309 Atmospheric Processes: Climatology (1616, 1620, 3305, 4215, 8408); 3305 Atmospheric Processes: Climate change and variability (1616, 1635, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1610 Global Change: Atmosphere (0315, 0325); 1630 Global Change: Impacts of global change (1225); 3374 Atmospheric Processes: Tropical meteorology.
Another article on hurricanes comes from the Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan in which a team of scientists investigated the effects of greenhouse warming on tropical cyclone frequency. Yoshimura et al. used a very high resolution (110 km grid spacing) atmospheric general circulation model to examine the effect of sea surface temperature conditions, altered by global warming, on tropical cyclone (TC) frequency.
In the global warming experiments, the team found the “frequency of TS formation decreases by 9.0–18.4% globally, and some of these changes are statistically significant. Total frequency of Tropical Stormss and Tropical Depressions decreases significantly in all of the warm-climate experiments. For relatively intense TCs (e.g., maximum surface wind > 25 m s-1), there are no coherent changes in global frequency.”
From Yoshimura et al. (2006) showing changes in Tropical Storm (TS) frequency in response to global warming, from earlier and present studies:
Bengtsson et al (1996) – 36.6% decrease
Sugi et al (2002) – 33.6% decrease
Present study (2006) – 18.4% decrease (statistically significant)
Yoshimura, J., M. Sugi, and A. Noda, 2006. Influence of greenhouse warming on tropical cyclone frequency, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 84, 405-428.
Statement on the U.S. Hurricane Problem
July 25th 2006
As the Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the possible influence of climate change on hurricane activity is receiving renewed attention. While the debate on this issue is of considerable scientific and societal interest and concern, it should in no event detract from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions. These demographic trends are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters, especially in this era of heightened activity. Scores of scientists and engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climate change was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was (and is) inevitable even in a stable climate.
Rapidly escalating hurricane damage in recent decades owes much to government policies that serve to subsidize risk. State regulation of insurance is captive to political pressures that hold down premiums in risky coastal areas at the expense of higher premiums in less risky places. Federal flood insurance programs likewise undercharge property owners in vulnerable areas. Federal disaster policies, while providing obvious humanitarian benefits, also serve to promote risky behavior in the long run.
We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much of the current controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. But the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention. We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.
Kerry Emanuel
Richard Anthes
Judith Curry
James Elsner
Greg Holland
Phil Klotzbach
Tom Knutson
Chris Landsea
Max Mayfield
Peter Webster
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Hurricane_threat.htm
I didn’t look too hard, but I couldn’t find this on sourcewatch:
Generation Investment Management
http://www.generationim.com/
The firm was created in 2004 by six founding Partners:
Hon. Al Gore is Chairman;
David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Managing Partner;
Mark Ferguson, previously co-Head of Pan-European Research at Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a Global Equities Portfolio Manager, is Chief Investment Officer;
Peter Harris, previously head of International Operations for Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Chief Operating Officer;
Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton’s successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.; and
Colin le Duc, previously Director of Research for SAM Sustainable Asset Management in Zurich and strategy consultant for Arthur D. Little in London, is Head of Research.
Our Chairman, former Vice President Al Gore, has assembled Generation’s Advisory Board which consists of global leaders and thinkers from capital markets, industry, sustainability, economics, and geopolitical fields. The Advisory Board plays an important part in establishing our long term thematic research agenda into global sustainability issues, such as poverty, climate change, ecosystem services, biodiversity, pandemics, demographics, migration, public policy and responsible lobbying.
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
“Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense” – Al Gore, Chairman
http://www.generationim.com/philosophy/
Possible translation – hype up climate change and set up a ‘green’ investment company to rake in the profits.
Surely we’re not going to have a serious conversation on a thread that cites a bullshit organisation such as the NCPPR (shill central) as a source. (I just got it PPR – hehehehe)
Biggsy strangely omits Emanuel and Webster’s papers. Probably no good. Below probably been refuted somewhere too.
It’s almost like he’s collected a series of papers that projects one side of the story. I wonder what would happen if I searched for a series of papers that didn’t support his list. Nah not worth it.
Anyway I reckon we’re in for a cooling phase from solar torque influences. Ice Age is coming soon.
All AGW types are commie/socialists hell bent on destroying western civilisation. Buy a V8.
What’s our old mate YOSHIMURA also been up to?
Tropical Cyclone Climatology in a Global-Warming Climate as Simulated in a 20 km-Mesh Global Atmospheric Model: Frequency and Wind Intensity Analyses
Kazuyoshi OOUCHI1), Jun YOSHIMURA2), Hiromasa YOSHIMURA2), Ryo MIZUTA3), Shoji KUSUNOKI2) and Akira NODA2)
1) Advanced Earth Science and Technology Organization, Earth Simulator Center, Yokohama
2) Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba
3) Advanced Earth Science and Technology Organization, Tsukuba
Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan
Vol. 84 (2006) , No. 2 pp.259-276
Abstract
Possible changes in the tropical cyclones in a future, greenhouse-warmed climate are investigated using a 20 km-mesh, high-resolution, global atmospheric model of MRI/JMA, with the analyses focused on the evaluation of the frequency and wind intensity. Two types of 10-year climate experiments are conducted. One is a present-day climate experiment, and the other is a greenhouse-warmed climate experiment, with a forcing of higher sea surface temperature and increased greenhouse-gas concentration. A comparison of the experiments suggests that the tropical cyclone frequency in the warm-climate experiment is globally reduced by about 30% (but increased in the North Atlantic) compared to the present-day-climate experiment. Furthermore, the number of intense tropical cyclones increases. The maximum surface wind speed for the most intense tropical cyclone generally increases under the greenhouse-warmed condition (by 7.3 m s−1 in the Northern Hemisphere and by 3.3 m s−1 in the Southern Hemisphere). On average, these findings suggest the possibility of higher risks of more devastating tropical cyclones across the globe in a future greenhouse-warmed climate.
Tropical Cyclone Changes in the western North
Pacific in a global warming scenario
Markus Stowasser, YuqingWang and Kevin Hamilton
¤International Pacific Research Center
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii
submitted to Journal of Climate, revised version 2006
¤Corresponding author address: Markus Stowasser, IPRC/SOEST, University of Hawaii, 1680 East West Road,
POST Bldg. 401, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, stowasse@hawaii.edu
Abstract
The influence of global warming on the climatology of tropical cyclones in the
western North Pacific basin is examined using the high-resolution IPRC regional climate
model forced by ocean temperatures and horizontal boundary fields taken from
the NCAR CCSM2 coupled global climate model. The regional model is first tested in
ten years of simulation with boundary forcing taken from observations and is shown to
produce a reasonably good representation of the observed statistics of tropical cyclone
numbers and locations. The model was then run for ten years with forcing from a
present-day control run of the CCSM2 and then for ten years with forcing fields taken
from the end of a long run with six times the present day atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The global-mean surface air temperature warming in the perturbed run is 4.5
K, while the surface warming in the tropical western North Pacific is about 3K. The
results of these experiments reveal no statistically significant change in basin-wide
tropical cyclone numbers in the peak season from July to October in response to the
CO2 increase. However, a pronounced and statistically significant increase in tropical
cyclone occurrence in the South China Sea is found. While the basin-wide total number
of storms remains nearly unchanged in the warm climate, there is a statistically
significant increase in the average strength of the cyclones and in the number of the
storms in the strongest wind categories.
1
Global Warming Surpassed Natural Cycles in Fueling 2005 Hurricane Season, NCAR Scientists Conclude
June 22, 2006
BOULDER—Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor, according to a new analysis by Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study will appear in the June 27 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, published by the American Geophysical Union.
“The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity,” Trenberth says. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.
The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise. Last year produced a record 28 tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all reached Category 5 strength.
Trenberth and Shea’s research focuses on an increase in ocean temperatures. During much of last year’s hurricane season, sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic between 10 and 20 degrees north, which is where many Atlantic hurricanes originate, were a record 1.7 degrees F above the 1901-1970 average. While researchers agree that the warming waters fueled hurricane intensity, they have been uncertain whether Atlantic waters have heated up because of a natural, decades-long cycle, or because of global warming.
By analyzing worldwide data on sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) since the early 20th century, Trenberth and Shea were able to calculate the causes of the increased temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic. Their calculations show that global warming explained about 0.8 degrees F of this rise. After effects from the 2004-05 El Nino accounted for about 0.4 degrees F. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in SSTs, explained less than 0.2 degrees F of the rise, according to Trenberth. The remainder is due to year-to-year variability in temperatures.
Previous studies have attributed the warming and cooling patterns of North Atlantic ocean temperatures in the 20th century—and associated hurricane activity—to the AMO. But Trenberth, suspecting that global warming was also playing a role, looked beyond the Atlantic to temperature patterns throughout Earth’s tropical and midlatitude waters. He subtracted the global trend from the irregular Atlantic temperatures—in effect, separating global warming from the Atlantic natural cycle. The results show that the AMO is actually much weaker now than it was in the 1950s, when Atlantic hurricanes were also quite active. However, the AMO did contribute to the lull in hurricane activity from about 1970 to 1990 in the Atlantic.
Global warming does not guarantee that each year will set records for hurricanes, according to Trenberth. He notes that last year’s activity was related to very favorable upper-level winds as well as the extremely warm SSTs. Each year will bring ups and downs in tropical Atlantic SSTs due to natural variations, such as the presence or absence of El Nino, says Trenberth. However, he adds, the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity.
There is argument on both sides but there is agreement that both the data and/or models are “too crude” (Landsea, Curry and Emanuel) and that the continued population growth in known hurricane prone areas presents a greater risk to loss of life and structure.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/downscaling_2006.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060728-hurricane-warming.html
Cripes we agree on something.
Rog: I’m just stuffed with wondering how Luke is going to find a chance to nuke the big seas down the Gold Coast after Pinxi Liberalized the process.
Well well Jen – no more inconvenient truths from YOU young lady!!
I think in a recent thread we had general agreement that Gore’s ( and other AGW boosters ) citing increased hurricane activity as evidence of AGW was horses–t.
Unfortunately , we don’t often see similar hissy fits when individual droughts or heatwaves are referenced as AGW evidence.
If we want a bias free discussion ( oh if only ) then rigour is required all round.
ITs great that the Atlantic Hurricane season was milder than expected this year.
The East Pacific seemed to be slightly above average though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_typhoon_season
And while it seemed that the West Pacific Typhoon season had a lot going on, it seems to be heading for average so far, with a month still to go. I’ll have to look further to see if the intensity of storms was higher than normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Pacific_typhoon_season
http://tsr.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/docs/TSRNWPForecastAug2006.pdf
Anyhoo, we shouldn’t just focus on the storms in the Atlantic that might affect the USA, which is why I’m posting this. China and the Philippines copped a pounding this year with over 1600 dead and who knows how many displaced, from multiple storms.
Jennifer has posted it before, but i thought it worthwhile to again remind people of Jeff Masters’ blog at http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
Jeff gives regular updates of hurricane activity across the whole hurricane season.
His latest post has some good stats on how uneventful the Atlantic Hurricane season has been.
http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com is also good for seeing what storms are currently active and their strength. You can see Super Typhoon Durian’s path across the Philippines at the moment.
Jim – the science world is divided. There’s some tantalising evidence that things are happening but counter arguments on past variation and decadal/multi-decadal cycles. You’re trying to detect a trend coming out of a fog of natural variability. Any bias free discussion would admit this would be a difficult analysis.
If there is an effect at some point it will have become obvious. Rog makes a good point above.
AGW does not excuse us from worrying about our current problems with climate variability. Like big shifts of people settling in cyclone prone areas. Bad decisions with infrastructure – Cairns hospital on the Esplanade.
The real level of difficulty is how much energy would a globally warmed world add to a hurricane/typhoon/ tropical cyclone. Enough to make a big storm a super storm ?? How much of risk are we walking about. The problem becomes can you do anything about it if you wait for 100% certainty in 50 years time? CO2 will all be up in the atmosphere then.
And yes we’re too Atlantic focussed. It’s a big world out there.
LeNuke, given that you do actually give a balanced assessment despite frenzied attacks otherwise, and given a the risk or GW or GC (coin flip anyone?), what would you advise our esteemed PM to do – mitigate, adapt, invest, GHG trading or taxes, etc? Would you tell him to put a bob each way or go home & mow the lawn instead in case it rains tomorrow?
(1) Adapt coz reductions probably won’t happen. Prepare for the impacts. Do cost neutral actions now. i.e. don’t build infrastructure in harms way
(2) Keep you eye on international developments – as when the USA moves on climate change it will probably be a massive technological response. We don’t want to left out in the cold (errr heat).
(3) I’d want to see a comparison of low emission coal vs nuclear vs renewables vs hybrid models. I’d have CSIRO climate, Treasury and ABARE working over time.
(4) If the world can get up an all-in GHG trading scheme we need to be in it. And close off any loopholes/amigiguities/anomalies.
(5) I’d want to know wtf if happening to southern hemisphere climate right now.
(6) I’d want best advice how to transit the economy and energy basis of the nation and how to persuade the many angry punters to make a move.
(7) If the rest of the world does nothing – we might as well do nothing ourselves except throw everything at adaptation.
(8) I’d be careful above one-off reactions. needs a long term comprehensive response
(9)Train up heaps of practical engineers
(10)Reduce all our transport distances
(11) Stop reacting hysterically to AGW scepticism no matter how ill-informed. It makes pro-AGW’ers look frightened and shrill. The majority of experts have convinced the media who has convinced the voters who are convincing the politicians – no need to “silence” anyone.
BTW Luke ( now fawned over by Pinxi as well !!) isn’t nuclear still cleaner than low emission coal? It seems a carbon tax of some description is inevitable – won’t that end the price advantage coal enjoys?
Just filing this link here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200611/NAT20061130b.html
Or this;
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf
regards,
Jim
Jim – Pinxi and I are married. Pls keep up.
On low emission coal vs nuclear not sure on costs. But I’m OK with nukes – see above.
Jim as for confronting denialists (who are still campaigning full tilt) – still really necessary – the populace will backslide when it rains or if it costs anything to implement. Anyway – you think we’re hysterical – mate we’re mild.
Jen as for CNSNEWS quoting Ridenour – what a joke. Actually what a whole lot of crap. He wouldn’t know if his arse was on fire. He’s just doing some paid for disinformation campaigning. He should go back to ciggies. AGW did not ever suggest this year or any particular year would be a big hurricane year.
As for Pielke article – much better – he’s entitled to his view but the review is by no means exhaustive. They’ve been very selective with the literature. It’s simply too early to tell. Incidentally changing the peak speed a few % makes a massive increase to damage energy.
Your children will tell you which experts were right or not.
Considering her comments – newly weds?
Luke,
I was filing a link provided by Crikey.com … a favourite read of Pinxis.
And come on, stop making it up as you go along… Al Gore has clearly suggested we are going to get more hurricanes and more intense hurricanes every next year … and he is the guru according to the popular press. Furthermore, the NCDC predicted as much … but then there were none.
Now I’m not drawing any conclusions. I’m just quoting a few people and institutions here and there.
It is though hard to be unprovocative when everyone takes Al so seriously.
Making it up as you go along !! – I just spilt my drink. What a load of b/s.
Jen your whole post is a provocative try-on and you know it. You should have simulated our response in advance and got an r-squared of 0.99
Who cares about Al Gore really – I’m not comfortable with his style or substance or the movie. It’s the popular politics of the debate and it is quasi-infotainment – not evidence based science discussion. But the dry debate is pretty boring n’est pas.
And the popular press run hot and cold. We’re due for some denialist stuff before Xmas surely. What are Bob and the guys doing – not slacking I hope.
And of course you never draw any conclusions – it’s great tactic for running in and out of the shrubbery as the moment suits. (of course Ian will be thinning it shortly so that may not be a good analogy)
Come on you’re a smart lady – do you think AGW theory says every year will have more and more hurricanes that will be more intense. Straight line up, no deviations. Do you think the scientists are actually saying that?
Luke,
Of course, I know that is not what the scientists are saying/how natural systems work even if there is a forcing agent so to speak … but it’s what Al Gore is saying and it is what Joe Smith has come to expect based on what they think the experts are saying.
And perhaps Baaz and Gavin at least wish as much.
Yes, I’m having some fun … ’tis the season.
So you didn’t even smile at the Ridenour quote? I had a good laugh.
January 17, 2005
Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.
Dear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely, Chris Landsea
Yes we know you’re evil – that’s why we like you so much.
And of course you can now probably simulate our responses before we even post them. That’s why Pinx and I (newly married, Phil is soooo angry) are trying to be unpredictable. But I guess even that is predictable.
So what we all really want to know is “does the IPA have a sense of humour, and is there an IPA calendar? The Bureau of Met ones are very good -if not classic – and worth getting.
Check out a sample at
http://www.bom.gov.au/calendar/index.shtml
Beautiful meteorological phenomena for socialist/commie/herbal tea drinking/left wing AGW sympathisers as well as virtuous/free market/DDT drinking/whale munching/GMO spreading/tree thinning/salinity denying right wing facists.
I was going to get one for Rog and Louis.
David Jones said if you can explain climate change attribution to him he’ll send you one.
Oh jeepers – Biggsy has wheeled out the Landsea’s dummy spit letter. He’s really going for it. Didn’t we do that 12 months ago? Landsea’s a whinger. Good riddance. We want people who tow the party line.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894, 2006
Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005
Kevin E. Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Dennis J. Shea
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Abstract
The 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season (1 June to 30 November) was the most active on record by several measures, surpassing the very active season of 2004 and causing an unprecedented level of damage. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical North Atlantic (TNA) region critical for hurricanes (10° to 20°N) were at record high levels in the extended summer (June to October) of 2005 at 0.9°C above the 1901–70 normal and were a major reason for the record hurricane season. Changes in TNA SSTs are associated with a pattern of natural variation known as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). However, previous AMO indices are conflated with linear trends and a revised AMO index accounts for between 0 and 0.1°C of the 2005 SST anomaly. About 0.45°C of the SST anomaly is common to global SST and is thus linked to global warming and, based on regression, about 0.2°C stemmed from after-effects of the 2004–05 El Niño.
New WMO Consensus Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001005wmo_consensus_statem.html
The ten consensus statements are as follows:
Consensus Statements by International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones-VI (IWTC-VI) Participants
1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.
2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.
3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.
4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.
5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes
detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.
6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per
degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.
7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.
8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate, there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.
9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.
10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.
In addition the WMO has released a lengthy statement (PDF) co-authored by the WMO Tropical Meteorology Research Programme Committee, with members, John McBride (Australia, Committee Chair); Kerry Emanuel, Thomas Knutson, Chris Landsea, Greg Holland, Hugh Willoughby (USA); Johnny Chan, C-Y Lam (Hong Kong, China); Julian Heming (United Kingdom), Jeff Kepert (Australia).
The Committee’s statement describes its purpose as follows:
This statement was developed, discussed and endorsed at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Sixth International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones, San Jose Costa Rica, November 2006. These invitation-only WMO International Tropical Cyclone Workshops are held every four years to bring together researchers and practitioners in the field of tropical cyclone forecasting. The Sixth Workshop was attended by 125 delegates from 34 different countries and regions. The Statement has been requested by WMO leadership and many heads of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services so they can respond to questions from the media, and also to assist in advising their governments on future activities and how to respond to climate change effects.
The statement includes the following conclusions:
On debate surrounding the trends documented in the Emanuel and Webster et al. papers from 2005: “This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion.”
On what to expect for the future: “Given the consistency between high resolution global models, regional hurricane models and MPI theories, it is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone intensity will occur if the climate continues to warm.”
On attribution of recent storms and seasons: “The possibility that greenhouse gas induced global warming may have already caused a substantial increase in some tropical cyclone indices has been raised (e.g. Mann and Emanuel, 2006), but no consensus has been reached on this issue.”
On the societal factors driving losses: “Recent decades have seen a continuous increase in economic damage and disruption by tropical cyclones. This has been caused, to a large extent, by increasing coastal populations, by increasing insured values in coastal areas (e.g., Pielke 2005) and, perhaps, a rising sensitivity of modern societies to disruptions of infrastructure. For developing countries large loss of human life will continue as the increasing coastal populations are a result of population growth and social factors that are not easily countered (Zapata-Marti, 2006).”
On the expectations of new knowledge in this area: “Because of the rapid advances being made with this research, the findings in this statement may be soon superceded by new findings. It is recommended that a careful watch on the published literature be maintained.”
Bottom line?
The perspective that we have provided here over the past several years and summarized in two BAMS articles has held up extremely well:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch, 2005. Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86:1571-1575. (PDF)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R. A., C.W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch, 2006. Reply to Hurricanes and Global Warming Potential Linkages and Consequences, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 87, pp. 628-631. (PDF)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf
Luke,
I only munch whales off and on – does that entitle me to an honorary right wing facist badge that I´m only allowed to wear on every third sunday when there´s a full moon ? would thinning some trees help my application?. where´s that axe now… ( or do I need a petrol driven chainsaw to qualify? )
Statler
Luke – Landsea is the world’s leading hurricane expert – even an alarmist like you should see something wrong with Landsea’s report being politically altered. The ‘party line’ is that there is no consensus on a link between ‘global warming’ and hurricanes.
Yep know about that meeting Paul. We have discussed befoe ethis blog.
Trenberth’s work post-dates the meeting.
And Landsea is “THE” expert is he? Says who?
Landsea should have stayed in the tent and fought it out. Lotsa science rivalry in the hurricane research game.
The statement says: “1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.”
This is correct. If you did deeper I think you’ll find two camps.
But logically this also does not mean there is NO evidence of a link. Simply a lack of consensus and hard to be definitive at this early stage.
WHAT ELSE would you expect? (give natural variability). This will be a problem for some time.
And is this not a major AGW problem – seeing a signal emerge from a fog of climate variation.
Paul – I don’t think our summary opinions are that far apart. HOW AM I an alarmist – please demonstrate. Until you do I’m going badge you as a DENIALIST to redress the imbalance.
However some conservative planning can be done on existing climate variation with tropical cyclones and expected future impacts. Like calculating Maxiumum Envelopes of Waters from Storm Surge. No point in developing hazardous areas.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/ClimateChanges/pub/OceanHazardsSynthesis.html
Do you mean we can nuke Byron Bay Luke?
Luke, I hope we are not that far apart.
There is no escape from the fact that climate alarmists have claimed that there is a definite link between global warming and hurricanes, when there clearly is no scientific consensus for such a claim.
The IPCC process is more political than scientific. I find it incredible that the ‘Advice for Policy Makers’ is actually overseen by policy makers and amended at the request of the policy makers themselves.
I suppose the clue is in the title – InterGOVERNMENTAL P C C.
Paul – touche
Ian – OK – give us the exact grid coords so we miss your place. We can start again – if we miss the lighthouse.