EVER since Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ there has been a fear that every year will bring more destructive cyclones because of global warming.
The 2008 hurricane season for the Atlantic officially ended on November 30 and Phillip Klotzbach and William Gray have already published their 50 plus-page report on the season.
They explain that it was an active and destructive season with an early start followed by five major hurricanes.
They conclude that the Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the last 14-year period as a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation and that this is not directly related to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide or global sea surface temperatures.
*********************************
Summary of 2008 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity and Verification of Author’s Seasonal and Monthly Forecasts. Phillip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, November 2008. http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2008/nov2008/nov2008.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Can the deniers just let me know one thing.
Is this correct and accepted?
When does his cycle end?
No – it’s not accepted for the following reasons
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/11/21/hurricane-history-lessons/
“Before any claim can be made that the 1995 to near-present period is all that unusual, the pair notes “This dramatic multidecadal landfall variability is even more pronounced when considering MH landfalls along the Florida Peninsula. During the 33-yr period from 1933 to 1965, 11 MH made landfall, while during the following 38-yr period (1966–2003), only one MH made landfall (Hurricane Andrew in 1992).” So much of a great increase in hurricane activity thanks to the buildup of greenhouse gases!
Klotzbach and Gray are seasoned players, and they end with the sentence “Additional research involving potential physical drivers of the AMO should be conducted.” Send your millions of tax dollars to World Climate Report, and we’ll look into it?
The bottom line is that claims that hurricanes are increasing due to global warming are questionable, if not laughable given the enormous amount of evidence that at the very least suggests this is a very complex question.”
SJT
As long as you call us deniers, which implicitly associates us with holocaust denial, and thus the rejection of facts, which we don’t, you will get no answer. This post is not an answer to your question, by the way.
SJT,
In the above post I reference William Gray a known sceptic and hurricane expert. There is more information in his report which I link to.
And it is perhaps worth reiterating, that few sceptics will subscribe to any form of consensus – they would prefer you tried to understand the data rather than worried about what was “correct and accepted”.
Other hurricane experts, like Chris Landsea, may appear to have a different view, because their reference may be a different time frame.
But I understand that both Landsea and Gray agree that there has been no human influence on the number or intensity of hurricanes over the last 100 or so years.
You are making things up again, Louis. I don’t believe there is any correlation between Holocaust Denial and being an AGW denier. The idea that there is has been manufactured by the climate change deniers, it has no basis in evidence.
But they all agree that AGW is wrong. 😉
SJT
You are quite possibly the most profoundly ignorant poster here – the association to holocaust denial is well known and public knowledge and was started by the global warmers. Grist Magazine started it epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 by calling for Nuremberg style trials for climate sceptics.
Another bit of evidence is here – http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/387373.aspx
Incidentally AGW is an unfalsifiable proposition, hence it isn’t a scientific theory.
I have seen people like Birdy boy call me a pedophile. I don’t think everyone here thinks that I am. When I say denier, I know exactly what I mean, a denier of AGW.
SJT
So your statement that the term “climate denier” was linked to the holocaust was created by the climate skeptics has been comprehensively refuted? You are unaware of the common usage of this phrase?
You may know what you mean but no one else does because your posts here consistently breach common courtesy by addressing a post to the person concerned.
And you are a computer programmer employed by the AGO?
“So your statement that the term “climate denier” was linked to the holocaust was created by the climate skeptics has been comprehensively refuted? You are unaware of the common usage of this phrase?”
Common? I don’t think so.
What do you know about the AGO?
EVER since Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ there has been a fear that every year will bring more destructive cyclones because of global warming.
this is complete nonsense.
noone with even a basic understanding of climate would have such a “fear”.
in stark contrast to the denialists, we actually do understand the difference between weather and climate. and we know what a TREND is.
noone. yes, utterly noone here is waiting for every year to beat the last on any scale (be it storms, temp or ice melt)
we do understand the long term trend, and it is clear in each of those fields.
SJT
“What do you know about the AGO?”
The Australian Gestapo Office?
Louis – SJT being a person of refinement and character would have better taste than to work for the AGO.
So Louis when did this urge to deny first start. You can tell us.
Lamprey
looking for another host?
Metaphorically, that is.
Sod,
Sorry most people don’t have a basic understand of the climate, have limited understanding of “trends”, and most people believe what Al Gore says to be true.
Now, tell me, what does Al Gore mean when he suggests the end is near unless we change our ways?
I want to know who is it that have been expressing ‘fear’ over possible links between cyclone activity and AGW. Why should we worry about them or is this post just another straw man?
Let me put an idea up….
Is this post on fear and cyclones the sort of thing where both AGW supporters and deniers can both agree? Think about it.
Or to take part in these posts should we all spend some time reading up on epistemology.
Sod,
Sorry most people don’t have a basic understand of the climate, have limited understanding of “trends”, and most people believe what Al Gore says to be true.
this thesis is easy to test.
go to any busy street . and ask people.
explain to them, that Gore (why not use the IPCC?) thinks that the planet is warming. ask them, whether this means that the coming winter will be hotter than last summer.
tell them that Gore (again, why not talk about scientist instead?) think that the number of storms is increasing. ask them, whether this means, that New orleans should have been hit by 2, 3, … storms in the years following Catrina.
sorry Jennifer, but the average guy on the street will be able to give you the correct answer to those questions.
it is only denialists, who think that arctic ice regrowth during winter is a contradicting global warming. or that some years being colder since 1998 is contradicting the scientific consensus.
Sod
scientific consensus here
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23508724-7583,00.html
more here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/schulte_two_colmun_fomat.pdf
get an education rather than parroting someone else’s stupidity
Sod
Does the “scientific consensus” take account of antartica sea ice being at its maximum extent since satellite records began?
That Artic sea ice is at its long term average?
That global temperatures (for what this is worth) is only 0.6 deg C higher over the last 100 years? (in science this is called “noise”)
That there is no evidence for this “scientific consensus”?
“Sorry most people don’t have a basic understand of the climate.”
Most people don’t have a basic understanding of most science, the climate is no different. Being rational people, they defer to the experts.
Sigh … how many times have we been over this
(1) it’s not about increased numbers
(2) it’s about peak intensity and storm life
(3) CSIRO modelling in Coral Sea predicts LESS tropical cyclones, but with some more intense, lasting longer, with possible more southerly trajectories along Qld coast
(4) Emmanuel’s work of PDI being up in all ocean basins still holds IMO
(5) El Nino, La Nina, AMO, PDO all probably affect behaviour of hurricanes/tropical cyclones – number, location, trajectory
(6) seeing a clear signal emerge from the noise of inter-annual variability will take some time – we’ll eventually find out
In the mean time anything terribly definitive is going to be difficult.
sod,
You say:
“noone. yes, utterly noone here is waiting for every year to beat the last on any scale (be it storms, temp or ice melt)”
Maybe you missed this?
“Few challenges facing America — and the world — are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”
Barack Obama
“(3) CSIRO modelling in Coral Sea predicts LESS tropical cyclones, but with some more intense, lasting longer, with possible more southerly trajectories along Qld coast”
here’s what CSIRO predicted in 2000
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2000/Prwarmer.htm
None of their predictions have occured if you do a before and after comparison. Cyclone numbers the same – cyclone intensity the same. In the 7 years after their prediction one cyclone was further south than Rockhampton whereas there were two in the previous 7 years.
Jeez Janama – they have not “predicted” for “7 years”. You wouldn’t expect to find anything in that time. Why do you continually bring up MORE storms when that’s not what they’re saying.
Why do sceptics continually misrepresent the research? Probably coz you can’t read !
But gee – if you want to do the discussion – Ingrid, Larry, Vance, Nancy Monica and Zoe – all fast system in the region – Monica and Zoe the most intense systems ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.
Not enough for a trend but data are not incompatible with the theory either. Give it a few decades and give us a break.
7 years – LOL !! ROTFLcopter.
Lack of coast crossing cyclones in Queensland is another matter. Possibly a PDO/IPO type effect. Although we do have our AGW-ish weakening Walker circulation too.
“Monica and Zoe the most intense systems ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.”
That doesn’t mean they ARE the most intense, only the measured ones. You warmers throw the word RECORD around with gay abandon. Over the past 30 years there has been a decline in the number of cyclones.
The Bathurst Bay Hurricane stands out in history as the most severe storm experienced on the Queensland coast. It occurred in March 1899, so it can only be “estimated” as a category 5 tropical cyclone by the complete devastation it caused; over 350 people were killed and 100 vessels destroyed. Dolphins were found 15m up trees, sharks were found up to 40k inland and 64k of coastline was wrecked.
There you are quoting NUMBERS again. What’s the difference between Janama and a computer – you only have to punch the data into a computer once.
Weally? Any photos. How much is folklore? The storm surge made 5km inland. And the 15m was a cliff on Flinders Island in the Bay.
OMIGOD – now we have to fantasise data that may or may not exist to please the deniers. Lordy me !
And what’s this – a sample size of one event that Steve McIntryre hasn’t personally audited.
And you guys go nuts about anyone who dares mention Katrina. LOLZ.
In any case it’s about trends long term – you can break records anytime – get the right steering systems, sea temperatures, wind shear, rides etc and you can get a big system.
But how often is the question.
The real question is there a trend in the distribution over a reasonable period of time. And having multiple interacting factors is a complexity. AGW does NOT predict that some this day hence all cyclones will be records ! If so – where does it say that Janama?
The entire style of the typical sceptic argument on this issue is disingenuous.
The study Severe storms on the east coast of Australia 1770–2008 is the result of seven years work by coastal planning researcher Dr Peter Helman and recently retired BOM extreme weather forecaster Jeff Callaghan.
http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/ertiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=19081
The figures came from a LNL interview with Dr Helman.
Sure – it’s about longterm trends and the TREND is ??
“In the last 30 years, even allowing for TC Larry (2000), there have been a relatively low number of storms.”
but – hey – don’t let the facts get in the way of your hopes and dreams.
“Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of equator; 105 – 160°E) show that the total number of cyclones has decreased in recent decades. However, the number of stronger cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) has not declined. ”
The number of stronger cyclones has NOT increased either.
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/tc-trends.shtml
HELLO !!!
We’re not talking about numbers of storms.
HELLO !!
Regional modelling is saying “less” storms in the long term….
Earth to Janama … “HELLO”
But perhaps we need to get all sophistamuckated with Janama
Strange that the blog never seems to report the wider range of scientific opinion on this issue – gee I wonder why that might be 🙂
Such as THIS SEPTEMBER:
Nature 455, 92-95 (4 September 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07234; Received 25 January 2008; Accepted 27 June 2008
The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones
James B. Elsner1, James P. Kossin2 & Thomas H. Jagger1
1. Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA
2. Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a
30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures
over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere1–4. Over the rest
of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity
are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness
of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous
trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome
these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles
of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum
intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated
from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite
records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles
above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.36
0.09ms21 yr21 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate
upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of
the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each
ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring
over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically
significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with
the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to
convert to tropical cyclone wind.”
Recent results from the analyses of global tropical cyclone trends
have been questioned owing to a lack of consensus regarding the
reliability of the data. Moreover, results have not been matched to
theory, because the focus was on a change in mean tropical cyclone
statistics. In contrast, the results presented here are conclusive in
showing significant increasing trends in the satellite-derived lifetime-
maximum wind speeds of the strongest tropical cyclones globally,
and are qualitatively consistent with the heat-engine theory of
cyclone intensity. Thus, as seas warm, the ocean has more energy that
can be converted to tropical cyclone wind.
What was that again? Trends in upper storm strengths? oooooooooo !
Nah must be a commie stats analysis … LOLZ
Luke – you stated the following
(3) CSIRO modelling in Coral Sea predicts LESS tropical cyclones, but with some more intense, lasting longer, with possible more southerly trajectories along Qld coast
I showed that the number of INTENSE cyclones is NOT increasing. I also showed that the number were decreasing but have been doing so for many years well before the CSIRO report..
In other words – your CSIRO modelling is total hogwash!
BTW – we were talking about coral sea cyclones NOT Atlantic but feel free to change the subject if it allows you to avoid commenting on the BoM report I posted saying the numbers were diminishing and THEY WEREN’T GETTING STRONGER!!
Luke – you stated the following
(3) CSIRO modelling in Coral Sea predicts LESS tropical cyclones, but with some more intense, lasting longer, with possible more southerly trajectories along Qld coast
I showed that the number of INTENSE cyclones is NOT increasing. I also showed that the number were decreasing but have been doing so for many years well before the CSIRO report..
In other words – your CSIRO modelling is total hogwash!
BTW – we were talking about coral sea cyclones NOT Atlantic but feel free to change the subject if it allows you to avoid commenting on the BoM report I posted saying the numbers were diminishing and THEY WEREN’T GETTING STRONGER!!
This will help explain
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vNhLYW_e4
LMAO
pathetic!
NUMBERS – ARGH – WTF !!
The lead was about Atlantic but let’s be expansive and look at all ocean basins as well as the Coral Sea. Numbers of Coral Sea cyclones have in deed been down for our immediate region – but there have been some BIG systems nevertheless around the region since 2000. i.i. Monica etc
BoM’s info snippet isn’t the depth of the Nature paper numb nuts. The paper shows that the distribution has changed qualitatively in line with theory. And gee AGW is just getting started.
Wait for it !
And funny that the highest percentile storms ARE actually increasing – oh dear !
And what was the time period that the CSIRO modelling was for perchance?? Point out where it says 7 years. What page was that?
even more pathetic! Put your thumb back in you mouth and crawl back under your mother’s skirt – it suits you better.
“And funny that the highest percentile storms ARE actually increasing – oh dear !”
Luke, How can you claim this when you say [rightfully] that you can’t quantify historical storms.
The fact is that we just don’t know and we should all remain sceptical. [as I know you are.]
Pyjamas having been exposed talking b/s does a runner into the ad homs.
Spanglers – read the Nature paper abstract carefully. It specifically discusses the issue of observational record. No you tell me – why would there be an increase in the fastest wind speeds of the fastest storms….
from a global sample size of 2,097 storms
So you guys would in the coal mine with canaries fainting and say – maybe it’s the birds. She’ll be right mate.
They would be saying it’s just part of a natural cycle, canaries die all the time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-link-between-hurricanes-and-global-warming.html
Probably a bit sophistamuckated for the sceptic blogoids…
Bove et al. (1998) examined the characteristics of all recorded landfalling U.S. Gulf Coast hurricanes — defined as those whose eyes made landfall between Cape Sable, Florida and Brownsville, Texas — from 1896 to 1995. In doing so, they found that the first half of this period saw considerably more hurricanes than the last half: 11.8 per decade vs. 9.4 per decade, while the same was true for intense hurricanes of category 3 or more on the Saffir-Simpson storm scale: 4.8 vs. 3.6. In fact, the numbers of all hurricanes and the numbers of intense hurricanes both tended downward from 1966 to the end of the period investigated, with the decade 1986-1995 exhibiting the fewest intense hurricanes of the entire century. Hence, the three researchers concluded that “fears of increased hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico are premature.”
Most recently, Parisi and Lund (2008) calculated return periods of Atlantic-basin U.S. landfalling hurricanes based on “historical data from the 1900 to 2006 period via extreme value methods and Poisson regression techniques” for each of the categories (1-5) of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. This work revealed that return periods (in years) for these hurricanes were, in ascending Saffir-Simpson Scale category order: (1) 0.9, (2) 1.3, (3) 2.0, (4) 4.7, and (5) 23.1. In addition, the two researchers reported that corresponding non-encounter probabilities in any one hurricane season were calculated to be (1) 0.17, (2) 0.37, (3) 0.55, (4) 0.78, and (5) 0.95; and they stated that the hypothesis that U.S. hurricane strike frequencies are “increasing in time” — which is often stated as fact by climate alarmists — is “statistically rejected.”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/hurratlangwe.php
200,000 canaries died in one storm in Bangladesh in the ’70s and no one blamed global cooling.
“Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades (Lander and Guard 1998; Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a lack of theory for future changes in storm frequencies, the few global modeling results are contradictory (Henderson-Sellers et al 1998; IPCC 2001). Because historical and observational data on hurricanes and tropical cyclones are relatively robust, it is clear that storm frequency has not tracked recent tropical climate trends. Research on possible future changes in hurricane frequency due to global warming is ambiguous, with most studies suggesting that future changes will be regionally-dependent, and showing a lack of consistency in projecting an increase or decrease in the total global number of storms (Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998, Royer et al. 1998; Sugi et al. 2002). These studies give such contradictory results as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a foundation to base any projections about the future. While there is always some degree of uncertainty about the future and model-based results are often fickle, the state of current understanding is such that we should expect hurricanes frequencies in the future to have a great deal of year-to-year and decade-to- decade variation as has been observed over the past decades and longer.”
http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/FAQ/Climatology.php
“Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency”
Hey, but it looks like your supporters are losing frequency!
From http://talbyv.blogspot.com/
Tom Nelson reports as follows in the London Rally for Climate Change:
2006 22,000
2007 10,000
2008 5,000
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/12/diminishing-co2-hysteria-in-london.html
Has this thread been fumigated after the Deltoid interloper? I really like those guys, such unassuming and friendly types; not wankers at all.
Anyway Janama’s BoM graph shows unequivocally a decline in SH storms; this site unequivocally shows a decline in NH huricanes;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~mauve/tropical/
The thing is, I thought AGW would logically mean less storms since there would be less of a temperature gradient between the poles and the equator; either AGW is being vindicated in which case this ‘fingerprint’ is also indisputable evidence of the benefits of AGW, or AGW didn’t predict this decline and another black mark is added to the already abysmal success rate of AGW.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Perhaps there might have been a trend in the last month, week, hour or minute. And let’s not worry about peak intensity. Are you all on drugs?
EVER since Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ there has been a fear that every year will bring more destructive cyclones because of global warming.
i am slightly surprised, by the lack of defence for Jennifer s opening sentence.
so do we agree, that it was simply a false statement?
why open an article, with something that is obviously false?
to warn new visitors, of what to expect in the comment section?
some sort of a cohenite alert?
sod,
And I am somewhat surprised at your lack of acknowledgement of my Obama quote:
“… and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”
Barack Obama, Nov 2008.
“… and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”
now my english isn t perfect, but what Obama said, looks right to me. he doesn t claim that storms are getting stronger EVERY year.
obviously he is able to understand, what a trend is.
looks good for our future.
sod,
I guess it depend on the meaning of “each”.
let me guess, you don t have an English Major either?
there has been a fear that every year will bring more destructive cyclones
and
storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season
interpretation of the first sentence is pretty clear, isn t it?
sod,
I’d be happy to try your “busy street” test with this one.
good. please report back with results.
i am rather confident, that many people will spot the difference.
sod,
And let me know what Santa brings you too.
What a polite lad sod is, not at all snide, patronising or foul-tongued like some of those other Deltoid hoodlums; he even has time for a gentle little jibe or 2; how jolly; but even the most pleasant tempered young man can make mistakes; I mean apart from general errors like defending Gore and castigating Lomborg; sod innocently says;
i am slightly surprised by the lack of defence for Jennifer’s opening sentence. so do we agree, that it is simply a false statement?”
No sod we don’t agree; we certainly agree that your syntax and sentence structuring needs work, but in respect of Jennifer’s statement, does the notion of self-evident mean anything to you? No? Of course not. Well, then, let’s look at what the Gorical has said about hurricanes; first Katrina;
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
And cyclone Nargis;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23667548-25717,00.html
Gore is a disgrace and possibly deranged; it is beyond me how anyone can place the slightest creedence in what this festering ego says; but then, intelligent people like eli continue to defend Mann, so I guess anything is possible.
In know the article is about Atlantic Hurricanes, but in a related way, our Climate Change Minister yesterday on the Insiders said that, as a result of Global Warming Australia as going to suffer many MORE storms but LESS rainfall.
I have just received a BoM Severe thunderstorm warning issued 30 minutes ago.
“For people in the MID NORTH COAST, HUNTER, METROPOLITAN, NORTHERN TABLELANDS, NORTH WEST SLOPES, NORTH WEST PLAINS and parts of the ILLAWARRA, CENTRAL TABLELANDS and CENTRAL WEST SLOPES Forecast Districts.
Severe thunderstorms may produce large hailstones, very heavy rainfall, flash flooding and damaging winds in the warning area over the next several hours. Locations which may be affected include Newcastle, Gosford, Sydney, Armidale, Tamworth and Moree.”
Can some-one tell Penny that MORE storms can produce MORE rainfall, not LESS rainfall.
I suppose stu[idity is its own reward
“Can some-one tell Penny that MORE storms can produce MORE rainfall, not LESS rainfall.”
Can someone TELL Taluka Byvalnian that not all RAINFALL comes in STORMS?
so what exactly is a storm without rainfall?
“Gore is a disgrace and possibly deranged;” – well most politicians have been accused of this ! By all sides.
The less rainfall and more rainfall while counter intuitive is logically not inconsistent.
Circulation changes can cause more drought or prolonged drought – as has already beenw ell demonstrated to Cohenite.
And when rain bearing systems are present rainfall might be more intense.
There is already some evidence of this http://www.dar.csiro.au/impacts/hennessyappendix1.html#supp1
Well Can someone TELL FDB that the BoM (do we still believe them) say storms MAY produce heavy rainfall.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
storm: an extreme weather condition with very strong wind, heavy rain and often thunder and lightning.
Maybe “F”(Can I call you by your first… er… letter?) as you say: ” all RAINFALL comes in STORMS?” However if you don’t believe all storms result in heavy rain, then perhaps you should be advising the Cambridge Dictionary.
OK we can have rainfall without storms, agreed. Meanwhile if Penny Wong says we are going to have more storms, can she then say we are going to have less rainfall?
Yes, not at all like the hoodlums here?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=3499&cp=10#comment-73770
Isn’t that right, cohenite?
OK we can have rainfall without storms, agreed. Meanwhile if Penny Wong says we are going to have more storms, can she then say we are going to have less rainfall?
this is no contradiction what so ever.
global warming will cause more heat and more rain. but regional distribution will vary. yes, we could get lucky and heavy thunderstorms will carry rain deeply inland, to place that normally see little rain.
or we could get not so lucky, and the rain hits places that are already flooded, while the heat strikes, where water is needed most.
it takes a healthy dose of “the market fixes everything” believes or some creationist trust that some higher power will fix it, to assume that the rain and heat will be in all the right places.
if you have some connections: i d have my share of the extra heat on summer weekends. i prefer my rain in small, nightly doses during growing season. pronto, please.
Jen, O/T since this thread is degenerating into the usual slanging match (not that there’s anything wrong with that), may I just say that your new signature pic is quite fetching. Although I should warn you that we squares have strict rules against what is known as ‘head tilting’. Your elegant visage inclined at about 45 degrees may prove somewhat disconcerting for some of your readers. However, let me assure you that in your case we are prepared to overlook the indiscretion.
The Will and sod variety show;
sod; the rain in Spain falls mostly on the plain.
Will; does it sod?
sod; yes Will, and it never rains but it pours.
Will; we’ll all be ruined!
sod; no Will, because every cloud has a silver lining; Mr Gore will save us.
Will; oh sod, you’re not a hoodlum; you’re my hero!
If they hate it so much why do Luke and SJT hang around here? – because it’s their day job courtesy of whatever flatulent public service department (without performance metrics) they work for has this (or maybe they’re being entrepreneurial) in the job description. Your taxes working for you… be sure of it. Small brains.
Lazlo
So, Luke and SJT and NT, what constitututes a refutation of an hypothesis? What evidence would be required for the Department of Climate Change to advise the Minister that there was no further need for the existence of the Department and her Ministry? None, non-refutable, you are all rent-seeking liars. Worst still you are turning into Stalinists- and you are going to deny this..
Yes, you haven’t got a clue.
So, Luke and SJT and NT, what constitututes a refutation of an hypothesis? What evidence would be required for the Department of Climate Change to advise the Minister that there was no further need for the existence of the Department and her Ministry?
look, Hansen made his famous models in 1988.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
why didn t you bring up some models yourself? some, that we could look at now, with 20 years of data.
you mean this one??
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/HANSEN.jpg
How can someone make such an erroneous prediction and still have people pray at his altar!
How can someone make such an erroneous prediction and still have people pray at his altar!
now see, i would simply LOVE to look at your “prediction” from 1988.
as it would have been downward all the way, it wouldn t look all that good, with the real data added in…
cutting the Hansen part BEFORE 1980 is a pretty cheap trick, btw. if you include that time 8as my graph does), you will notice, that Hansens Models were above and below the real data, even in the years BEFORE 1988. that is years, that he had data from, when he developted the models.
can you figure out what that means, or do you need some help with it?
I don’t need any help to see that Hansen’s predictions don’t match reality, i.e. Hansen A, do nothing – totally off the scale even compared to the distorted GISS figures your chart uses.
I can’t see how you can say his predictions (modelling) were correct when it is so obviously incorrect, even using your chart!
He predicted extreme warming – it hasn’t happened!! he even says it’s still happening
but as Lucia shows it here
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sattelitethroughnov-500×341.jpg
it’s not!
sod,
Speaking of cutting out data, aren’t we in 2008?
sod; you seem to be cut from the same clothe as Will; ignore what you can’t refute and rabbit on about the peripherals; but really, Hansen is hopeless; he’s made all these predictions in his 1988 speech and repeated them at various times; Koutsoyiannis has shown that the AGW modelling is unwell, as have Douglass and Christy; I always ask Will whether there has been a verified AGW prediction; temp, rainfall, hurricanes, ice-melting, anything; so, what have you got?
“why didn t you bring up some models yourself? some, that we could look at now, with 20 years of data.”
There seems to be some confusion about where the burden of proof lies for the AGW apocalypse hypothesis. Just to be clear, because Luke has been really confused about this too: The burden of proof lies with the those who propose the hypothesis is the best explanation for the observed data, NOT with its detractors.
No one has to submit a competing “model” for the AGW apocalypse hypothesis to be measured against.
For a hypothesis to be useful it must make predictions that can be then tested.
“it takes a healthy dose of “the market fixes everything” believes or some creationist trust that some higher power will fix it, to assume that the rain and heat will be in all the right places.”
Does Sod mean to say that he believes a government bureaucracy is needed to assure “that the rain and heat will be in all the right places”?
Really now. I find it more akin to a sort of “creationist” nonsense to imagine that a human political institution might someday wield so exact control over the weather to direct climate towards an optimum stasis.
She forgot to put in the big circle at the end of the graph with the words “La Nina” attached to it. The cherry picking of Lucia is strictly amateur.
Taluka Byvalnian:
“However if you don’t believe all storms result in heavy rain, then perhaps you should be advising the Cambridge Dictionary.
OK we can have rainfall without storms, agreed. Meanwhile if Penny Wong says we are going to have more storms, can she then say we are going to have less rainfall?”
Oh dear. You will persist in making a dork of yourself, won’t you?
Let’s say I have a fulltime job at Macdonald’s flipping burgers ($22,000p.a.), and another very occasional job selling my sweet arse to businessmen ($22,000 pa). An unprecedented change in the economy means that although demand for botty sex with hirsute drummers goes up (netting me $40,000pa), the fast food industry lies in ruins ($0pa).
Am I now better off or worse off than before in financial terms?
You see, it’s possible for one source of something to increase, while another decreases. I’m so sorry you found this so terribly hard to understand, and I have been glad to help you out.
“She forgot to put in the big circle at the end of the graph with the words “La Nina” attached to it. The cherry picking of Lucia is strictly amateur.”
why should she? – you didn’t announce El Nino in your chart when the temp went up in 98
you are pathetic.
I’m going on the standards that are in force here. The El Nino in 1998 always gets a big tag on it. I don’t care myself if it is labelled as such or not, but Lucia seems to be interested in picking cherries. If she is going to do that, I want my cherries clearly labelled.
Maybe we should eliminate all the years with El Nino’s from the trend too.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/
Of course, this is how professionals handle unusual ENSO events.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/1999GL010877.shtml
A number of papers have removed ENSO to isolate the ghg effect; Trenberth et el, Douglass and Christy and Lucia did a good analysis; after deducting foe ENSO, volcanos and insolation there is little left; the Karl, Knight and Baker paper is erroneous in claiming the 1997-1998 period was the hottest stetch; GISS’s before and after records based on the US show this;
Before;
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
After;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/GHCNvsUSHCN.lrg.pdf
Perhaps John M can point to a place in the world which correlates to the GISS global temperature record since the US so emphaticallt does not.
Perhaps John M can point to a place in the world which correlates to the GISS global temperature record since the US so emphaticallt does not.
sorry cohenite, but you have obviously an extremely limited understanding of statistics.
even an eyeball analysis between the US and the global temperature will show you a pretty high correlation.
i would surely expect an r² above 0.5. any one got a number?
cohenite “Perhaps John M can point to a place in the world which correlates to the GISS global temperature record since the US so emphaticallt does not”.
There’s something seriously wrong with the way Hansen et al have adjusted those temperatures. Look at the difference in US temperatures before and after. 1934 is heads and shoulders above 1998 in the first graph, yet they have doctored the second to show them on par. As you say, why should the rest of the globe be so different than the US?
Also, look at the vertical axes on both graphs. One shows graticules of 0.5 C and the other is stretched to make global warming appear to be so serious. That’s cheap theatrics.
As you say, why should the rest of the globe be so different than the US?
why would the arctic be different from the sahara desert?
sorry guys, but are you serious?
Exactly right Gordon.
sod; you stand revealed as a sophist and qualified graduate of the Will school of non sequitur; the point here is not the climate disparity, as you so foppishly say, between the Sahara and the Arctic, but the anomolous trend in each region; the trend in the US, which apart from England, has the longest and most reliable instrument record and is a text-book example of UHI effect, has been manipulated by GISS; here we have a large region of the world which showed that the first half of the 20thC, in contradiction to the AGW orthodoxy, was warmer than the latter half; my question was, what other major regions of the world show a contrary record, and how do we know some fiddling has not taken place; even if other regions of the world are contrary to the US, that still undermines AGW because it shows that it is not a global phenomena, but expressed regionally, something which NASA has already conceded through the papers by Shindell.
An r2 above 0.5? Who are you, Amman or Wahl?
“which apart from England, has the longest and most reliable instrument record and is a text-book example of UHI effect, has been manipulated by GISS;”
Another example of self contradiction, this time in the one sentence.
The longest and most reliable temperature record, except for the UHI? If it was reliable, there wouldn’t be a UHI. As for notion that the US has a monopoly on reliable temperature measurements, that’s just some unsubstantiated xenophobia started by Chrichton.
The land surface record has been manipulated no more or less than the satellite temperature record.
the point here is not the climate disparity, as you so foppishly say, between the Sahara and the Arctic, but the anomolous trend in each region;
anybody with even some minor understanding of climate, will immediately notice, that a global change will have different effects, in the arctic and the sahara.
yet you claim, that the US should be the same as global temp. (SH????)
An r2 above 0.5? Who are you, Amman or Wahl?
why don t you simply provide a number? the claim was about “no correlation” between the US temp and the global one.
this is simply false.
sod,
Even with the Hansen adjustments, as noted above, look at these two graphs.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
You really want to stand behind this statement?
“…even an eyeball analysis between the US and the global temperature will show you a pretty high correlation. ”
Maybe your eyeballs are as descriminating as your English language skills.
sod; a number; well 0.0 was good enough for Amman and Wahl; r2 is the fit between 2 sets of variables; in the above examples my main concern was not between the US and GMST,although I’m willing to bet it’s less than 0.5; my main concern was the adjustment GISS had performed on the temp history of the US; it appears that my ‘before’ data is not appearing; more GISS censorship :-); so I’ll put up this link and the 2 graph US, adjusted and unadjusted data is on p3;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/print.html
The relevance of this clear indication that temps in the 1st part of the 20thC, the 30’s in particular, were higher than the 2nd part, is that, if it is argued, as was done at deltoid, where you and your cronies demonstrated your usual degree of tolerance and open-mindedness, that AGW really has kicked on in the 2nd part of the 20thC, then the AGW effect must be less than natural factors which presumably dominated in the 1st half; the Keenlyside et al paper has proffered such a theory; given this, why don’t you put a number on AGW sensitivity; how much will the temperature response be for a doubling of CO2, or part thereof?
cohenite,
Never fear, even using Hansen’s “adjusted” data, a correlation plot of Global Land vs. US Only using annual data gives an r^2 value of 0.38. Who knows what the 1999 version would give.
I’m sure, however, one could do a bunch of smoothing and get it better. Why, I bet if you did a 25 year centered moving average of both data sets, you might get that r^2 value pretty high. Heck, do a 75 year cma and you might even get it above 0.9.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/09/08/demonstration-of-how-smoothing-causes-inflated-certainty/
A question now occurs to me now. Didn’t sod make the claim? Why the heck didn’t he calculate it?
John M; Because he’s a lazy little sod.
sod “why would the arctic be different from the sahara desert? sorry guys, but are you serious”?
very serious. What possible mechanism would cause the US to have record high temperatures, and the Arctic as well, in the same time frame, without it affecting temperatures globally? It’s the same Sun the US passes under as the globe rotates. Why was the rest of the globe not affected? I think that’s a legitimate question.
Today, they explain away high temperatures as the result of anthropogen CO2. Why were the temperatures betwen 1920 and 1940 so high in the US, with a fraction of the CO2? Why do newspapers in the 1920 era have articles about record melting in the Arctic?
If you look at global temperatures for the 1920 to 1940 era, according to GISS, they are all under zero on the graph, yet the US is going through record high years. Why?? Those graphs are anomalies based on ‘averaged’ temperatures. How did GISS arrive at those averages? If the average temperature in the US was a record high, even hotter than today, the rest of the globe must have been unusually cold. What mechanism would cause that?
I think I have the answer. It was creative record keeping and adjusting by GISS. You have no doubt heard about the sudden spike in temperatures in the 1970 that no one could explain. Being unable to live with that, some anal scientists recently claimed it was a mistake and has smoothed it out. Sure it was a mistake!! Instruments that have been reliable all along suddenly make a mistake, and some dillweeds, years later, like GISS, decide to amend the record.
Even some of the Hadley crew are in on it. They can’t accept that temperatures have leveled off the past ten years and warn us it’s just a matter of time till the warming resumes. Just what we need, record keepers with a bias. You should know that certain scientists looking for proof of a theory are liable to adjust things to find that proof. It’s called immaturity, ambition, an ego-tripping…anything but science.
Quite a conspiracy theory there, have you any actual evidence?
As for the differences in temperature, as people here keep reminding us, the earth’s climate is a chaotic system, and it contains significant fixed factors as well. For example, why is the Southern Hemisphere warming more slowly than the Northern Hemisphere? The South has more ocean area. Variations in temperatures are to be expected.
Gordon
I finally remembered the link to the peculiar propertites of water: http://www.physorg.com/news110191847.html.
Strange substance when subject to electriocity.
SJT
The southern hemisphere is mainly water, the northern dominated by land and human civilisation – the observed warming is simply the urban heat island effect.
Simple.
Never fear, even using Hansen’s “adjusted” data, a correlation plot of Global Land vs. US Only using annual data gives an r^2 value of 0.38. Who knows what the 1999 version would give.
0.4 i am pretty impressed. with annual data, that shows wide fluctuations.
it is obvious, that smoothing might distort correlation, but it is also obvious, that annual values include a lot of random noise.
so there is a r²=0.38 correlation between a huge thing, including the antarctic and another, being basically california + some minor rest? on an annual basis?
and you are not impressed?
do you notice, the vast differences between the random noise plots in the article you cited, and the obvious similarities in the two temperature records?
i ll try to do some tests on this, but surely not before the weekend…
What possible mechanism would cause the US to have record high temperatures, and the Arctic as well, in the same time frame, without it affecting temperatures globally? It’s the same Sun the US passes under as the globe rotates. Why was the rest of the globe not affected? I think that’s a legitimate question.
even your understanding of the earth rotation is seriously flawed…
in winter, arctic isn t getting the same sun, as the US does….
“John M; Because he’s a lazy little sod.”
No wonder you’re in such a grumpy mood. You’re getting your **** belted around the ground at Deltoid.
Will, being insulted and verbally abused is not getting my backside kicked; haughty Houghton misquoted me and fudged the rest; the test of Deltoid is their pack approach to hardworking Bob Tisdale who is doing some excellent work; the measure of Deltoid is, despite some weasel politeness from NT, who is truly revealed as a pack member, that when Bob makes a telling point there is no discussion about it, merely a dismissal based on that a correlation doesn’t a cause make; this from condescending exponents of a theory which doesn’t even have a correlation between its agent/cause, CO2, and the result, which is problematic anyway, global warming. You can’t shower that rubbish away.
sod,
Impressed by an r^2 of 0.38? Not really, but I guess you are.
So it makes be wonder, when you said:
“i would surely expect an r² above 0.5. any one got a number?”
Was that a prediction, projection, or scenario?
Anyway, you seem like a decent (if stubborn) guy. I will give you this, the 5 year CMA datasets give a correlation plot with r^2 = 0.62.
Still not great, but I admit it’s higher than I would have expected. Note however, that the annual data already consist of average upon average upon average upon….
Steve McIntyre has a good take on world compared with US data collection;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711
Steve’s weather station maps show that the US, England, Japan and the East coast of Australia had the best coverage; here is England via CET;
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/cet