global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[swansont]

I am sorry, iNow. But if you tell someone he is either academically dishonest or personally ignorant, that is an insult, and thus an ad hom attack.

 

Actually, no, it's not. Insults are not going to be tolerated, but ad hom is a personal attack being used as a response in an argument.

 

If a person did happen to be ignorant of some topic, pointing this out and substantiating it would not be an ad hominem attack.

 

 

 

But, as I said above, insults won't be tolerated, and being insulted does not give one leave to retaliate.

 

I have said how many times???? that there are two kinds of storm.

 

1. Tropical hurricanes.

2. Temperate to Arctic storms.

 

All my recent posts have been talking about the latter. So what do you do in argument?????

You post a whole bunch of references about those damn hurricanes!!!

 

iNow. Please read this carefully. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HURRICANES.

 

iNow is talking about hurricanes. You're (mostly) talking about other types of storms. Which means that your point is not currently in contention. Are you conceding iNow's point about hurricanes?

 

If so, move along.

[Rev Blair]

If you are happy to accept that storms and bad weather in general is a normal part of the Earth's variability, and there is no clear evidence of current storms being caused by AGW, then we have no argument here.

 

 

 

I didn't say that current warming wasn't affecting the weather. I said that other factors affect the weather and did so in the past. It was a counter to the fallacy you put forth that if global warming was causing current weather events, then there must not have been weather events in the past.

 

We had several tornadoes in my province yesterday. We've been seeing lightning in January. Predictions are, once again for a hotter summer. Now, no single event can, at least thus far, be attributed to global warming. We don't get a lot of tornadoes here though. I never saw lightning in January until a little less than a decade ago, now it happens almost every year. Not only are our summers getting hotter, but they are more humid as well.

 

Moose and bear are showing up in the city more and more. That didn't used to happen. There are also bear on the farm where I grew up for the first time in memory. That memory goes back four generations and even further if you talk to the native elders. The animals are moving because they are looking for food.

 

I talk to farmers who are unsure of when to seed because spring comes earlier, but the rain is less predictable.

 

In the arctic, where the effects (as predicted) have been more severe, hunters are having trouble predicting both ice conditions and weather. People are dying as a result. Some communities are returning to using dogs instead of snowmobiles. They aren't doing so to reduce emissions, but because if the dogs fall through the ice the hunter has a better chance of saving himself.

 

Melting permafrost has made house-moving the only growth industry in some of these communities. Increased precipitation and faster spring thaws are speeding up the loss of permafrost, causing more damage.

 

There are other problems up north, south of the treeline. Ice roads freeze later and thaw earlier. Those roads are how supplies are brought in. Prices get driven up and people go hungry. Animals trapped for fur have lower quality winter coats. Forest fires are on the rise.

 

In British Colombia, pine beetles are devastating the forests. Pine beetles are usually kept in check by long, cold winters, but that's not happening anymore because the climate is changing.

 

Both above and below the treeline, animals that have never lived there before are moving in.

 

All of that has been documented in one scientific study or another, even my own anecdotal evidence is backed by studies in a variety of disciplines. It is all weather related in one way or another. And those are just a few examples.

 

I don't know what kind of changes you are seeing in New Zealand, although I do know that Tim Flannery certainly doesn't agree with your take on things.

[iNow]

iNow. Please read this carefully. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HURRICANES.

Actually, yes you were. As evidenced by my quote of your words back in post #148 which started this disagreement:

 

And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven.

 

The point is that disasters happen all the time, and ascribing them to human induced global warming is just plain incorrect.

 

I challenged that point, and have repeatedly shown that you were wrong. I have been consistent in my use of references in support of my challenges, and you have not yet successfully argued against any of the challenges I have put forth. Further, I will not allow you to attempt to now move the goal posts (change history) by asserting that we were never even talking about hurricanes.

 

The evidence is plainly here for all to see.

 

Now, we are still waiting for you to show how what happened during the past several millenia has any bearing whatsoever on the causes of the current trends, and how this idea of cooling creating strong storms is relevant to the present increase in storm intensity being experienced during a time of warming.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

Here is a quote from my post of number 167, telling you my position on hurricanes.

 

"There are two categories of storm.

 

1. Tropical hurricanes. Since these are, to a large extent, driven by warm ocean water, then in theory global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. The problem is that, though there was such an increase in 2005, overall there is no statistically significant increase to date. That does not prove yea or nay. But to say that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming is to ignore the proper scientific data. We simply do not know."

 

However, I have been telling iNow about the second kind of storm and he keeps telling me I am wrong while referring to material about hurricanes. I have been specific, and I have been utterly meticulous about ensuring that my discussion was about temperate to Arctic storms, not hurricanes, but iNow still keeps telling me I am wrong, using hurricane data. I would ask iNow, please, to actually read my posts before attacking them using utterly inappropriate data.

 

Now, about hurricanes. These storms follow long term patterns that go up and down in both frequency and intensity. There was a recent trend that peaked in 2005. Some climate scientists claim that is evidence that global warming increases hurricane intensity and/or frequency. Other climate scientists point out that the trend, over a background of 100 years plus, is not statistically significant. I regard it as unproven empirically.

 

In theory, global warming will increase hurricanes. Whether this is true in reality will, no doubt, be proven or otherwise over the years to come.

 

That is my position on hurricanes. However, iNow confuses hurricanes with the other storm variety. Why? When I have been so careful to be specific?

[swansont]

To swansont.

I am happy to accept your apology. I have to admit I am somewhat baffled. I do not know what I am supposed to have done????

 

You may or may not have quoted someone out of context. Compare post 148 and what is quoted in 149. They do not match — a sentence is missing.

 

However, I have been telling iNow about the second kind of storm and he keeps telling me I am wrong while referring to material about hurricanes. I have been specific, and I have been utterly meticulous about ensuring that my discussion was about temperate to Arctic storms, not hurricanes, but iNow still keeps telling me I am wrong, using hurricane data. I would ask iNow, please, to actually read my posts before attacking them using utterly inappropriate data.

 

And iNow made it pretty clear he was discussing Hurricanes, and asked you to return to that topic. Got it? You're trying to steer the topic away from hurricanes, and iNow is trying to steer it back, because you said "The reverse may be true for hurricanes, but that still has not been proved, in spite of 2005 being a bad year." iNow was attempting to engage you on that remark.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

This latest discussion was not about hurricanes. It began way back in post 147 when I said :

 

"During the Little Ice Age, a series of massive Atlantic storms struck the sea coast of Britain causing enormous damage and loss of life. Entire fleets of ships and fishing boats were destroyed. As maritime disasters go, these were the worst in recorded history.

 

Apart from hurricanes, nasty and damaging storms are more common in times of global cooling. And any increase in hurricanes is currently unproven."

 

iNow replied to that over several posts essenitally telling me I was wrong, and coming close to calling me a liar. I have been trying to demonstrate that I am not a liar and that my statement was true as posted.

 

I do not believe that iNow was innocently mixing up the two kinds of storm. I think he was continuing his attempt to prove me wrong, and deliberately using inappropriate data to do that in an illicit way. If that were not the case, then that indicates stupidity, and I do not believe he is stupid.

[iNow]

Please refrain from further speculations regarding my motivations, as you are, in fact, incorrect with the beliefs you've espoused above.

 

Now, how does the idea that cooling has made storms stronger during past epochs have any relevance on the current discussion regarding the impact of a warming climate on weather patterns in the present?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Do you now accept that the type of storms I am referring to - that is; those that normally occur in temperate to Arctic regions - are likely to be more frequent and more severe when temperatures are lower - such as during the Little Ice Age??

 

If you are prepared to say yes to that, I am willing to concede that tropical hurricanes are likely to be more frequent/severe as a result of global warming. It remains unproven, but the theory is probably sound.

 

As to the relevence - that relates to the tendency for those who push the stronger version of global warming ideas to ascribe every severe weather disaster to global warming. Proper science and a little intelligent reasoning should tell us all that sometimes weather is just weather.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow

 

Do you now accept that the type of storms I am referring to - that is; those that normally occur in temperate to Arctic regions - are likely to be more frequent and more severe when temperatures are lower - such as during the Little Ice Age??

 

Maybe or maybe not. Was anyone disputing that?

 

If you are prepared to say yes to that, I am willing to concede that tropical hurricanes are likely to be more frequent/severe as a result of global warming. It remains unproven, but the theory is probably sound.

 

What is this, politics? Did you change you mind that global warming is not proven to lead to an increase in hurricanes, or not? If not, you really should address iNow's points.

 

As to the relevence - that relates to the tendency for those who push the stronger version of global warming ideas to ascribe every severe weather disaster to global warming. Proper science and a little intelligent reasoning should tell us all that sometimes weather is just weather.

 

But on average, the weather is the climate. It is a mistake to attribute all of the weather to either climate or randomness.

[iNow]

As to the relevence - that relates to the tendency for those who push the stronger version of global warming ideas to ascribe every severe weather disaster to global warming. Proper science and a little intelligent reasoning should tell us all that sometimes weather is just weather.

 

Precisely which of the citations that I shared in support of my arguments do you suggest are not accurate?

 

 

 

What is this, politics? Did you change you mind that global warming is not proven to lead to an increase in hurricanes, or not? If not, you really should address iNow's points.

 

Thanks, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Edited June 29, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic said

 

"Did you change you mind that global warming is not proven to lead to an increase in hurricanes, or not?"

 

If you and iNow actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would know that no change of mind is required. I have said, throughout, that the theory would indicate an increase in hurricanes, but that the empirical data so far shows no statistically significant change to provide strong evidence that is the case in reality.

 

There is a difference between evidence strong enough to be as close to 'proof' as we get in science, and something suggested by theory. I accept the theory. Currently the 'proof' is lacking. That does not bother me, because we are gathering data all the time, and if the theory turns out to be correct, then the 'proof' will come later.

 

However, this whole argument started after a statement of mine about temperate to Arctic storms which are very different to hurricanes. iNow implied that I was telling an untruth, and I have tried to demonstrate that was not so. Hurricanes have nothing to do with that, and I am really quite annoyed that iNow should try to use hurricane data to disprove what I have been saying about a totally different type of storm.

 

iNow said :

 

"Precisely which of the citations that I shared in support of my arguments do you suggest are not accurate?"

 

This is a good example of the irrelevence that iNow tries to bring to obfuscate the issue. He suggests I claimed his references were not accurate. I did not. I simply said that they were not pertinent to the issue being argued.

 

Please, please read what I have posted before you come up with stupid rebuttals.

[Rev Blair]

Do you now accept that the type of storms I am referring to - that is; those that normally occur in temperate to Arctic regions - are likely to be more frequent and more severe when temperatures are lower - such as during the Little Ice Age??

 

I happen to live in a temperate to arctic region. I won't speculate on what the weather here was like during the LIA, but in the present:

 

It is the heat that generates summer storms. That's no big mystery...heat causes the water to evaporate and forms clouds etc.

 

In the winter, it has to be relatively warm to storm. It seldom snows when it is really cold, and it's usually right around the freezing mark when a blizzard starts. It usually cools over the course of the blizzard, and the snow stops falling.

 

That's not much of a mystery either...cold air lacks the capacity to hold as much moisture.

 

That's why the current arctic is so dry as well, with most of the precipitation coming in the spring and fall. Of course that's changing now, what with global warming and all.

[SkepticLance]

Rev

The historical data shows more and more intense storms in the LIA.

 

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

 

I quote :

 

"Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea."

 

And also

 

"During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions. "

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know where you live, but if it is a temperate zone, you experience storms caused by temperature differentials. Warm summer weather can be one side of it, and the colder areas further north are the other. It is the difference in temperature that drives the air movement. That is why my earlier reference pointed out that storms in the North Atlantic were worse when Greenland was colder.

 

If you do not understand the fact that hurricanes and this kind of storm are not the same, may I suggest you go back to your meteorology texts.

Edited June 29, 2008 by SkepticLance

[JohnB]

I don't know, go away for a while and the whole place falls down.

 

From page 7;

It's okay if you truly think this, but you should know that you ARE wrong. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you just haven't seen this:

Actually I have, but I take it you haven't seen this. I believe in a right of reply, just as Svensmark and Friis-Christensen reply to Lockwood and Frohlich. To quote from the introduction;

In a recent paper (ref. [1]) Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich have argued that recent trends in solar climate forcing have been in the wrong direction to account for "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures".

These authors accept that "there is considerable evidence for solar in°uence on Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the ¯rst half of the last century." But they argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. Here we rebut their argument comprehensively.

 

Do you have a later paper?

 

Regarding hurricanes.

 

iNow, I would be cautious referencing a blogger that refers to NOAA as "predictably Neo-con approved". I've heard NOAA called many things, but not that before. Anyway, are they getting more frequent and/or stronger?

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

Apparent in the adjusted tropical cyclone frequency record are the multidecadal quiet and active periods (quiet up to 1925, active from 1926 to 1970, quiet from 1971 to 1994, and active from 1995 onward) associated with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation [Goldenberg et al., 2001].

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452

Subjective measurements and variable procedures make existing tropical cyclone databases insufficiently reliable to detect trends in the frequency of extreme cyclones.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0477&volume=79&page=19&ct=1&SESSID=41bd15e5b3574d4a4ea730c5ae17960f

Recent studies indicate the MPI of cyclones will remain the same or undergo a modest increase of up to 10%–20%. These predicted changes are small compared with the observed natural variations and fall within the uncertainty range in current studies. Furthermore, the known omissions (ocean spray, momentum restriction, and possibly also surface to 300-hPa lapse rate changes) could all operate to mitigate the predicted intensification.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025757.shtml

Further, we show that the SST influence varies markedly over time, thereby indicating that other aspects of the tropical environment are also critically important for tropical cyclone intensification. These findings highlight the complex nature of hurricane development and weaken the notion of a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising SST and stronger Atlantic hurricanes.

It would appear not.

 

Let's try the Pacific instead.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032546.shtml

Simple analyses of the data set point to nonrandom behavior in the TC series and suggest that long period variability is an important component of TC activity.

Well they found a trend but,

Damn, it goes the wrong way.

 

Rev Blair.

The "idea" above? Dude, when it gets warm, things melt. There is a whack of plant and animal matter trapped in the permafrost. When plant and animal matter thaw, they rot. When they rot, they emit methane.

 

That's not an idea, those are facts.

Really?

From "Khalil, M.A.K., Butenhoff, C.L. and Rasmussen, R.A. 2007. Atmospheric methane: Trends and cycles of sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology 10.1021/es061791t." (Sorry, I can't find a direct link to the paper) we get this;

Yep, the Methane levels are definitely, er, um, levelling off? Your "facts" are contradicted by the data.

Oh, and for the LIA, the jury I'm afraid is not out. Any competent historian or archeaologist can tell you that both the MWP and LIA existed. Since they both occurred in the historical period, we can compare written records of conditions at the time with the conditions today. But if you want a reference;

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5474/2198

The most recent of these events was the Little Ice Age, which occurred between 1300 to 1850 A.D., when subtropical SSTs were reduced by 3° to 4°C. These events were synchronous with Holocene changes in subpolar North Atlantic SSTs, documenting a strong, in-phase link between millennial-scale variations in high- and low-latitude climate during the Holocene.

I suggest that if something happens in both hemispheres, it is indeed "global".

Actually, it all makes perfect sense. Warming, caused by some sort of forcing, releases GHGs. Those GHGs represent a positive feedback loop and drive more warming. Eventually a negative feedback loop or unrelated mitigating factor is introduced and cooling begins. The cooling allows the oceans to absorb more GHGs etc, slowly over-riding the original feedback loop.

So what are your two unknown forcings? My point was really that the hypothesis I outlined matches the data as well as GHG theory does and does so with one less "unknown". Where's that razor?

It has discounted solar (along with massive volcanic activity) because the facts don't match what is happening, but it did not do so out of hand. In fact the data for those things was closely examined.

This is something I'm still reading about, because on the surface it doesn't quite gell. When we read about TSI etc an often used comment is "not statistically significant" and I certainly grant that an increase over the last 100 years of around 2 W/m² is not massive. However, roughly 1/4 of the TSI at TOA makes it to the surface. Hence an increase of 2 W/m² would give around a .5 W/m² increase at the surface. Since the IPCC puts the increase for the 20th C at circa 2.8 W/m². From this it follows that 20% of the observed warming may be from TSI increase. This would hardly be an insignificant forcing.

Except that desertification has increased with global warming in most of sub-Saharan Africa, and soil quality is poor in the areas where moisture levels have increased. There is little or no evidence pointing to an increased ability to mass produce food in the area.

Funny, the UNCCD makes no mention of global warming. They say "Africa‘s desertification is strongly linked to poverty, migration, and food security."

As for food, if I may quote the USDA;

The earlier study of Eswaran et al. (1997a,b) showed that 55% of the land area in Africa is unsuitable for agriculture, and 11% has high quality soils that can effectively be managed to sustain more than double its current population.

Note, "sustain more than double it's current population". The problem is not GW, it's land use.

A foot is also a whole lot, since much of the world's coastline is less than a foot above sea level. There are also areas, like much of Canada's arctic and some pretty significant chunks of Europe and Asia, that are actually below sea level but protected by a stretch of coast that is less than a foot above sea level.

For the first sentence, I would have thought it axiomatic that a coastline is at sealevel.

 

For the rest I call BS. If your statement was true, the areas would flood at every King tide or minor storm surge. Can you provide proof?

 

And finally. The Biggy.

Besides, the hottest thing in the universe is some girl the neighbour boy and his friend were talking about the other day.

This Sir, is a science forum. We demand proof, not opinion. We demand evidence, pictures preferably. We demand peer reviewed proof. Most of my peers read Playboy, so if she has appeared there, that would count.

 

Cheers, guys.

 

Anecdotal Addendum. When I was a kid, we used to have Cyclone warnings broadcast on TV. They started in November and continued to January. Everybody learnt very young how to prepare for cyclones. In 1971 "Althea" smashed Townsville. In 1974 Brisbane was hit by "Wanda", the river rose over 30 feet. I'm one of the few people who have taken a speedboat through the city centre. On Christmas Eve 1975 "Tracy" wiped out Darwin. (There's actually a song "Santa never made it into Darwin, a big wind came and blew the town away.) "Larry" hit hard in North Queensland in 2006. We no longer have warnings broadcast. Cyclones in North Eastern Australia seem less frequent and make landfall less frequently.

Edited June 30, 2008 by JohnB

[iNow]

Actually I have, but I take it you haven't seen this. I believe in a right of reply, just as Svensmark and Friis-Christensen reply to Lockwood and Frohlich. To quote from the introduction;

 

But they argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. Here we rebut their argument comprehensively.

 

That seems to be a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the actual position, aka a strawman. They never said that the link between the sun and climate came to an end, they said that there is no possible way that the sun is responsible for the current increases we are experiencing, and that those who argue that the current change is the result of the sun are wrong.

 

 

Do you have a later paper?

 

I have not yet looked for one, but perhaps you can tell me in which peer reviewed journal the Svensmark and Friis-Christesen reply was published, and which issue? Once I get more familiar with the validity of the rebuttal, I will spend more effort finding a rebuttal to that. For now, I'm comfortable with the journal Nature as a more valuable source than a random .pdf (that is why I want to know where their rebuttal was published, if even was in the first place).

 

 

 

iNow, I would be cautious referencing a blogger that refers to NOAA as "predictably Neo-con approved". I've heard NOAA called many things, but not that before.

I suppose it's possible that I did this and was not aware, but can you tell me which reference of mine to which you are referring? I've shared quite a huge number of them. I'd like to see if the data of theirs which I shared here was at fault, or if the fault of theirs is contained to just their opinion on NOAA.

 

 

 

Anyway, are they getting more frequent and/or stronger?

 

<...>

 

It would appear not.

 

Thanks for the references. I'll need to look more closely at those. I find it strange ("it would appear not") since I shared so many references suggesting that intensity was increasing. I even posted pretty graphs. Surely, both of our references cannot be correct, and one of us must win this argument. Either the intensity of storms has increased, or, it has not.

 

Upon cursory examimation, your references seem to be discussing frequency of storms overall, which was not my point. However, I will say that I need to look more closely at them than my quick scan to be fair to you and your assertions. I suppose it's possible that they are arguing against an increase in intensity, not just overall frequency, but I'll need to spend more time tunnelling through their data to be sure. I tried to be cautious to make clear in my previous posts that I was referring to storm intensity, and not overall storm frequency.

 

 

 

 

 

iNow said :

 

"Precisely which of the citations that I shared in support of my arguments do you suggest are not accurate?"

 

This is a good example of the irrelevence that iNow tries to bring to obfuscate the issue. He suggests I claimed his references were not accurate. I did not. I simply said that they were not pertinent to the issue being argued.

 

Please, please read what I have posted before you come up with stupid rebuttals.

 

You're ducking the question. I'll take that to mean that you don't have a problem with any of the citations I shared, that my assertions are valid, and that you concede my points. Your concession is also implicit in your need to call my posts "stupid" instead of addressing the actual arguments being made or answering the questions asked of you.

 

If I have mistaken your points, and you've been talking about other types of storms , not hurricanes, then this was not intentional. I've also kept calling "hurricanes" storms which may have added to the miscommunication. However, I've made clear all along for the past several pages that I, myself, was, in fact, talking about hurricanes all along.

Edited June 30, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I have not been ducking your questions. It turns out that it is simply that you were ignoring what I was saying and presenting references on a totally different topic.

 

To JohnB

That was a very impressive post. You must have put in a lot of time researching it, and I appreciate the depth.

 

I also appreciate the fact that it supports my points very well. Certain people on this forum who have been arguing with me for a long time should have come to realise by now that I do not present BS. However, some people are slow learners.

 

For example : I have been saying in this thread that there is no statistically significant data to 'prove' that hurricanes are getting more frequent/severe. JohnB's data shows this point well, and I thank him.

[swansont]

iNow

I have not been ducking your questions. It turns out that it is simply that you were ignoring what I was saying and presenting references on a totally different topic.

 

I think that you and iNow were talking about different points has been abundantly established.

 

Let's move on.

[Pangloss]

Sorry, I missed something here, iNow, are you saying you believe hurricanes are now proven to be affected by global warming? Or just that there is good evidence now that suggests there may be a direct connection?

 

I agree with the latter, and I believe that's the general consensus amongst hurricane experts as well. They see the evidence, and they're concerned about it and want to see more work done in this area, but it's too early for an IPCC-like consensus.

[iNow]

I guess I'm saying that global warming directly impacts the vast majority of the feeding factors which dictate hurricane intensity, and that hurricane intesities are on the rise. Lots of great resources and data at the following:

 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm

[Pangloss]

Fair enough, thanks.

[Edtharan]

We no longer have warnings broadcast. Cyclones in North Eastern Australia seem less frequent and make landfall less frequently.

This can be explained by better path prediction of Cyclones. Before, they could not predict the path as good as they can now, so they would have to release a general alert whenever a cyclone was in the area. Now they can predict the path far better so that they can be more specific with the alerts.

 

And yes, they do have a cyclone alert system (and it is used), it is just the it is now part of a more general disaster alert system, and because the path prediction is better, they can deploy ground personnel to deal directly with the people instead of just relying on them to be listening to a TV or Radio (which in today's variety of media they can guarantee).

[JohnB]

I have not yet looked for one, but perhaps you can tell me in which peer reviewed journal the Svensmark and Friis-Christesen reply was published, and which issue? Once I get more familiar with the validity of the rebuttal, I will spend more effort finding a rebuttal to that. For now, I'm comfortable with the journal Nature as a more valuable source than a random .pdf (that is why I want to know where their rebuttal was published, if even was in the first place).

As far as I can find out, the response was not published in a peer reviewed journal, however I doubt something from the Danish National Space Institute would constitute a "random" pdf. Shall we ignore articles from NASA as well?

 

Seriously, I don't have a degree and so I'm still trying to fathom the "response to" thing. It was my understanding that while an initial paper would be peer reviewed, in say Geophysical Review, the "response to" debate that might follow in GRL is not peer reviewed. On that basis (lack of peer review on the subsequent debate) I fail to see how it matters where the "response to" is published, as there is no peer review regardless of publication. Am I wrong in this basic assumption? (This is not a trick question.)

I suppose it's possible that I did this and was not aware, but can you tell me which reference of mine to which you are referring? I've shared quite a huge number of them. I'd like to see if the data of theirs which I shared here was at fault, or if the fault of theirs is contained to just their opinion on NOAA.

Apologies. It was the gristmill one. Another apology, the comment I referred to was by a poster, not the original author of the article. (I only just noticed the name at the bottom of the post.) However you may want to look into the funding etc for Joseph Romms "Climate Progress" and its affiliates. (Who the hell is George Soros? And why do some people seem to hate his guts?)

 

Anyway, since the comment was by a poster and not the author, I withdraw my comment.

Thanks for the references. I'll need to look more closely at those. I find it strange ("it would appear not") since I shared so many references suggesting that intensity was increasing. I even posted pretty graphs. Surely, both of our references cannot be correct, and one of us must win this argument. Either the intensity of storms has increased, or, it has not.

 

Upon cursory examimation, your references seem to be discussing frequency of storms overall, which was not my point. However, I will say that I need to look more closely at them than my quick scan to be fair to you and your assertions. I suppose it's possible that they are arguing against an increase in intensity, not just overall frequency, but I'll need to spend more time tunnelling through their data to be sure. I tried to be cautious to make clear in my previous posts that I was referring to storm intensity, and not overall storm frequency.

I take your point. It would seem logical to me though that conditions favourable to increased intensity should also breed increased frequency. There should be a correllation. Fewer storms, but of greater intensity seems counter intuitive. (But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.)

 

Since humans automatically see patterns, (even where none exist) could it be that researchers on both sides of the fence are seeing what they want to see?

 

The IPCC Chapter 3 seems to support your argument (Page 316);

Nonetheless, clear evidence exists for increases in category 4 and 5 storms globally since 1970 along with increases in the PDI due to increases in intensity and duration of storms............For extratropical cyclones, positive trends in storm frequency and intensity dominate for recent decades in most regional studies performed.

However it goes on to say;

Longer records for the northeastern Atlantic suggest that the recent extreme period may be similar in level to that of the late 19th century.

I find it hard to reconcile these two statements. If frequency and intensity are increasing due to warming, then how can it be similar to levels when the temp was colder?

Figure 3.41 (Page 313) also shows storms have yet to reach the levels found in 1880 in the North Sea region. Except for a rise in the 1965-1990 period, they show a steady fall and have dropped almost back to the pre-rise levels.

 

Comments in papers and AR4 make it difficult to give credence to the study in http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109701&org=GEO&from=news

About twice as many hurricanes form each year on average in the Atlantic Ocean compared to a century ago, states a new statistical study of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic.

This is clearly at odds with the IPCC comment quoted above. It is also hard to see how they could draw such a conclusion given that just about everybody else in the field comments on a lack of accurate data pre 1950.

 

Consider also that Figure 3.40 (Page 304) pretty much shows that only the North Atlantic could be said to be increasing in the ACE index and even that hints at being cyclic. (The by eye best fit curve looks quite constant.)

 

Cheers.

[iNow]

Seriously, I don't have a degree and so I'm still trying to fathom the "response to" thing. It was my understanding that while an initial paper would be peer reviewed, in say Geophysical Review, the "response to" debate that might follow in GRL is not peer reviewed. On that basis (lack of peer review on the subsequent debate) I fail to see how it matters where the "response to" is published, as there is no peer review regardless of publication. Am I wrong in this basic assumption? (This is not a trick question.)

It does matter. If the response is not published, it could say absolutely anything it wanted to and would have nobody to check its facts or accuracy. I'm not suggesting that anyone at the Danish National Space Institute was intentionally misrepresenting facts, but it is quite possible that they made errors, either intentionally or unintentionally, and their calculations and conclusions need to be verified by other experts working in the field.

 

In sum, I see an unpublished response to be no better than an editorial. To be clear, though, while this may be one shared by the larger scientific community, what I have expressed above is just my own personal opinion.

 

 

 

Anyway, since the comment was by a poster and not the author, I withdraw my comment.

Donka.

 

 

I take your point. It would seem logical to me though that conditions favourable to increased intensity should also breed increased frequency. There should be a correllation. Fewer storms, but of greater intensity seems counter intuitive. (But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.)

Well, it does not appear that this is the case. Storm intensities ARE rising. I think I've been successful in establishing that as an acceptable fact. However, other studies seem to indicate that storm frequencies are on the decline. While this goes against both of our common sense, that's just how it is. It appears that the factors driving overall frequency of landfall are not 100% parallel with the factors driving intensity.

 

The below release from NOAA earlier this year (based on a study published in the Geophysical Review Letters) describes some of this better than I can:

 

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080122_warmeroceans.html

 

The article, to be published on January 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, uses observations to show that warming of global sea surface temperatures is associated with a secular, or sustained long-term increase, of vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased vertical wind shear coincides with a downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.

 

<...>

 

Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” For the article, Wang worked with Sang-Ki Lee of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies-University of Miami.

 

In terms of hurricane strength, Wang notes, “The vertical wind shear is not the only factor affecting Atlantic hurricane activity, although it is an important one.” Other factors include atmospheric humidity, sea level pressure, and sea surface temperature.

 

This study also suggests that where the global ocean warming occurs is important for determining the vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region — within the 10°-20° North latitude belt that stretches from west Africa to Central America. Whether future global warming increases Atlantic hurricane activity will probably depend on the relative role induced by sustained long-term warming over the tropical oceans.

 

 

 

Also, here is a more recent journal publication on the topic:

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo202.html

 

Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.

 

 

 

 

 

Since humans automatically see patterns, (even where none exist) could it be that researchers on both sides of the fence are seeing what they want to see?

Of course that's a possibility, but I'm going to posit that it's of extraordinarily low probability and disregard that as not being a reasonbly plausible option.

 

 

Now, you've also brought up this issue of how difficult it is to have good data on hurricanes more than about 50 years ago. I quite agree that this is an important issue, and it's one that I've found myself sorting through quite a bit as I was reviewing references for the claims I've made during the past several pages of this thread.

 

 

The reference below does (IMO) a fine job of capturing the issues, and describing the work being done in this regard, and is well worth the read:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/tropical-cyclone-history-part-i-how-reliable-are-past-hurricane-records/#more-521

 

 

 

As a final note, I want to thank you, John, for helping to move this conversation forward, and for the attention and effort you put into your responses. You've really helped me to learn new things on this topic, and that (in my book) is the best thing that anyone could ever offer me.

 

Cheers right back atcha.

 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In the meantime, it looks like NOAA recently released a report which extends the impact of human induced global climate change beyond just hurricanes to include other weather events.

 

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html

 

Scientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme Weather Events in North America

 

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research today released a scientific assessment that provides the first comprehensive analysis of observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories.

 

 

Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific future projections include:

 

• Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common.
  
  
• Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
  
  
• Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more intense.
  
  
• Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
  
  
• Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
  
  
• The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights.
  
  

 

 

Edited July 2, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[JohnB]

Thanks iNow. While not yet fully convinced, I'm starting to come round to your position on intensities. (Still a few things to check)

 

On a different note. While looking for other things I came across this. Is it any wonder the "Global Cooling Predicted in the '70s" thing won't die? Newsweek had a pretty good reputation and the article gives almost no hint that there was not "consensus" on the topic.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

Add in some creative journalism.

"A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale" warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences,

Notice there's no mention of whether the report actually refers to cooling. Doncha just love selective quoting?

[SkepticLance]

Another example of global warming predictions missing the mark.

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926634.800-cleaned-up-skies-explain-surprise-rate-of-warming.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20

 

"Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone"

 

Here in New Zealand, over the past few days, we have had the biggest snow dump for about 20 years. It has been incredibly cold! Brrrr. In the town of Christchurch, snow down to sea level which is almost unheard of.

 

Just another example of a normal weather fluctuation that has nothing to do with global warming. Another indicator that the global oven fanatics so frequently exaggerate the impact of global warming.