Guest post by Joe Bastardi
——————————————————————————–
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/08/fraudster-michael-mann-part-of-trend.html
Michael Mann:
“it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms”
Is Dr. Mann kidding? The facts below will show the fallacy of this statement. I will do him the favor of showing him the facts of the matter, since statements like this reveal he does not know them, of if he does, defies logic with the statement above attributed to him.
First of all, we are in the warm AMO and as you will see, if anything, one has to wonder why this has not been worse!
Global ACE index
That trend is down.
Major impact storms, 3 or greater on the US coast, by Decade
Hit points ( take the intensity category at landall and add up)
1940s 10 Majors ( one double hit, 1947 so it could be 11) 34 hit points
1950s 9 majors ( We could count Donna 3 times to make it 11 as it hit as a major in 3 separate places) by hit points this was number one 37
8 majors 1930s hit points 28
1890s 8 Majors 27 points
1911-1920 8 majors 27 hit points
2001-2010 SEVEN HITS 22 POINTS. How is that any sign of a trend UP?
According to NOAA, this is the longest stretch of of no major hits on the US coast since the 1860s ( btw, because of the physical reality of the overall pattern the next several years, cold pdo, warm amo, that should change and perhaps with a vengeance
In fact even the 1960s Beat this 7 Hits, but more Intensity upon landfall 25 points ( the warm amo lasted into the early to mid 60s)
This warm cycle of the AMO HAS BEEN MILD compared to the last one and the one before and the LANDFALL IMPACT PROVES IT. We did not have the kind of saturation of data gathering we do now, then. For instance, we know that a Katrina was a cat 5 in the gulf but could we have known that in the 1940s, or back in 1915-1916 when storms hit the coast as cat 3s, like Katrina, but may have been stronger in the gulf. If anything, it seems like they ARE NOT AS STRONG at landfall in this current cycle, but I am not willing to attribute that to anything beyond natural variability. But What we do have is reliable landfall data, that is a constant from the 1800s . If you are arguing storms are “more destructive” it can not be from a physically sound meteorological point as the reality proves that. From the point of inflation and more population on the coast, well that has nothing to do with the reality of storm intensity upon landfall
My question to Dr Mann is are you aware of these truths?. This is on the NHC site, anyone can see this. Haven’t you looked at the ACE Index. There is no way anyone can hide the decline since the peak in 04-05 in the ACE, or the decline in the amount of majors/decade striking the US coast in this AMO compared to the others IT IS DOWN, NOT UP. You have to know we are in a warm AMO (I am astounded there has not been more major hurricane activity, especially near the east coast, though now we are entering the period where we should see it before the AMO flips to cold in 10 years). But your statements, along with others, for instance on Irene being a sign of global warming, and now this, are not supported anywhere in the data. You can not compare the saturation of data over the water now with constant recons with what went on before. For instance, one of the only recon flights into the 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane, came back with 50% of the screws stripped. Do you realize how powerful that storm was? But there was no recon every 6 hours into the storms in the last warm cycle of the AMO.
So I submit that in no way is your statement supported by the actual facts, which are plain for everyone to see. If you have not seen them, well hopefully now you will. Many on my side of the debate, the weather intensive group that does not believe in the AGW idea, would love to see your data that supports such a headline grabbing statement, one I am sure the media loves to see. But we have our facts, a few listed above, that would seem to overwhelmingly disprove your idea, so if we can see evidence contrary to ours, please reveal it.
I doubt you get a reply Joe , mann doesn’t do real science . And I doubt he has the courage to come to the website Real Science . The sceptics are not snowed by his BS and his bullying attitude isn’t feared here.
Yeah, he’ll probably just tweet like a canary.
OT
Putin has Garry Kasparov arrested in front of the eyes of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksrFN_D6wt8
Don’t expect an answer Joe.
The focus will be back on the Arctic sea ice in warm world. All the “death spiral” nonsense will be rolled out etc.
How much of an influence is the AMO on Arctic sea ice. The sea ice started its decline about the same time as the AMO switch in 1995. Is this a coincidence, and if not will the sea ice return when the AMO switches back?
That is exactly what I have been saying!! This AGW BS over melting northern hemisphere ice caps is bogus because it is a natural cycle, and it has happened before. Once the AMO becomes cold, along with the cold PDO around 2020, Arctic sea ice will recover. It’s no coincidence when the AMO turned warm in the mid 90s, that sea ice began to decline, CO2 has nothing to do with it because the oceans have (as Joe Bastardi has said): 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and when CO2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere and when humans contribute only 5% of that .04%, (according to the US Department of Energy) anyone blaming this on CO2 has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Eric, do you really think tens of thousands of scientists are unaware of your 0.04% CO2 number, and that all their work over all these decades that has given the concern over CO2 buildup has been despite this fact? Or do you suppose maybe it’s you who doesn’t understand the science?
David, how is it possible for a trace gas necessary for life, that humans only contribute 5% of .04%, have any significant effect on climate, weighed against the PDO, AMO, sunspot cycles, precession, natural variability, and water vapor among many other factors? You have no idea what you are talking about and you just spew AGW talking points.
Eric, science has answered all your questions — you act as if no one ever thought of them before you. Have you even tried to understand the concern about CO2 buildup, given its low fractional content in the atmosphere?
The concerns have no merit as Hansen’s own data shows
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/giss-hits-an-iceberg-and-is-taking-on-water/
You’re even wrong on the basic numbers: humans have created 120 ppm above the baseline of 280 ppm, which is much more than 5%. Again, you don’t get to make up your own data.
Arctic sea ice started its decline in the 1950s….:
Weather and Climate Summit – Day 5, Jennifer Francis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg&
Yes, ice did decline in the 50s, because the AMO was WARM, then from the 1960- 1980s when the AMO was cold arctic ice recovered. After 1995, arctic sea ice declined because the AMO turned warm, not because of CO2. When the AMO becomes cold around 2020, arctic sea ice should begin a recovery similar to that of the 1960s and 70s.
Arctic sea ice did not recover in 1970s:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png
You don’t get to make up data, Eric.
The IPCC said in their 1990 report that there was a large increase in Arctic ice during the 1970s
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/rewriting-the-history-of-the-arctic/
David, where do you get your data from, you are clearly making stuff up, we had satellite technology in the mid 1970s, but the NCDC refuses to use it because it shows that sea ice was increasing during the 1970s.
Didn’t the Cyrosphere Today claim last year that 2011 was the “lowest on record” because one ice site, the University of Bremen purposely had sea ice way too low.
There is more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the last 9000 years. It is normal for Arctic ice to either increase or decrease. The “decrease” of the past few decades is part of normal variation. Only people looking for an opportunity to scare people about “global warming” will cherry pick out a very small time frame of what is happening in Arctic ice and use it to scare the uninformed masses with it.
But then it’s also the fault of the uninformed masses since they continue to leave themselves uninformed. Just a little bit of searching for themselves will show how much they’ve been lied to.
“Peer reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/
From Wikipedia’s newest content:
“A cognitive vulnerability, in cognitive psychology, is an erroneous belief, cognitive bias, or pattern of thought that is believed to predispose the individual to psychological problems.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_vulnerability
So that’s why Hansen, Cook & Mann are doolally. Erroneous belief in CAGW has deprived them of good mental hygiene. Why am I not surprised?
It used to be called “getting out on a limb”.
Good stuff, Joe!
RT
From the introduction to the interview
Two giants from the world of climate science join me on The Green Front. Dr. Joseph Romm,
Jo Romm, a giant?
Michael Mann is an embarrassment. He should should have fired long ago for scientific malfeasance. But, of course, we’re talking about Penn State University. Not much hope of getting the truth or honesty out of that bunch of adminstrators.
Just think of the Children 🙁
Mann will not respond because he is a coward and will continue to propagate his AGW lie as long as possible to keep the funding going. The 1950 and 1940s were so much worse. I’m personally getting somewhat concerned about Invest 94L near Africa, could become a serious hurricane threat down the road. You know if a hurricane hits the east coast the AGW buffoons will be out in full force screaming, “See. I told you so!” or “This is unprecedented!!” or even “This is what we expect in a warmer world.”
Some experts, like Kerry Emanuel, think the Power Dissipation Index (~ velocity cubed) is a better measure than ACE….
The same man who projected stronger more frequent storms too just like many others like Al Gore and Dr. Hansen during and after that impressive 2005 Hurricane season.It has not been close since.
What about the dearth of land falling hurricanes of the last few years?
Can you explain this David?
LOL
The dearth of landfalling hurricanes the last few years? How about not seeing a major hurricane landfall for 7 years, since WIlma in 2005, so where’s the AGW?
There is a trend of more storms, at least in the North Atlantic, according to Ryan Maue’s data:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
NOAA can name as many clouds as the feel like.
David, we didn’t have the technology to detect storms like we do now, the increase of storms is because we have more viable ways to detect storms, not because they have increased. ACE index globally has declined however in the last several years, courtesy of Dr. Ryan Maue.
Maue’s data starts in 1970. We were unable to detect all tropical storms and hurricanes in the 1970s? I find that difficult to believe.
Technology is vastly more sophisticated and abundant now than during the 1970s. NSIDC claims that we don’t have satellite data before 1979.
David, did we name every cloud in the atlantic in the 1970s? No. Did we have the satellite capabilities or the ability to launch drones or hurricane hunter planes at will? No, so you have no idea what you’re talking about. When was the last time a 160 MPH wind gust was reported in Cape Henry, VA, or the last time 3 major hurricanes made a run at the east coast? The 1950s.
We’re not talking about clouds, we’re talking about major storms. We couldn’t count all storms in the 1970s, via ships at sea and satellites? I don’t believe that. And there’s a clear trend whether you start in 1970, 1980, or 1990. You’re grasping at straws.
Get a clue, David. The technology for detecting 35MPH winds at altitude over the sea for a few minutes in the mid Atlantic is vastly more sophisticated now
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf
So what are some storms that are known to have existed, but don’t appear in Maue’s data?
David Appell
Are you knowingly or unknowingly a liar?
“Are you knowingly or unknowingly a liar?”
What is he lying about? Why can’t you quote what he said and show how it is a lie?
David Appell says:
August 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Maue’s data starts in 1970. We were unable to detect all tropical storms and hurricanes in the 1970s? I find that difficult to believe.
====================================================================
In saying this he is intentionally trying to harm the work of Ryan Maue. He is lying.
Furthermore a longer data set is not needed since there is supposed to be no drop in hurricane activity if the global warming hypothesis is correct. But Ryan Maue shows there is no increase.
Beyond that, leave it to a “manmade” global warming believer to pick and \chose when a longer data set is needed and when it is not!
When there is enough historical information rated by that index it might have some meaning.
Even the ACE is to short to be valid for the purpose of climate.
All of the so-called “Experts” have made contradictory claims regarding hurricanes, so other than a few it is hard to know what they really think about hurricane activity. Especially the one you referred to.
How much data is needed, in your opinion?
Given that we know the AMO has an average length of 60 years,I would think ten cycles of that would give us a minimum record to start seeing the patterns.
I will go out on a limb and say 600 years, minimum.
Of course there are other larger cycles that need to be accounted for that also effect the weather in the Atlantic, so we might need 600,000 years to be on the safe side. Of course there is tectonic activity to be considered and other even longer term patterns we are becoming aware of so 60 million years might be needed.
We will only be able to give educated guesses as to what the trends really are. What we are seeing now is artful dodging of historic facts by so called “Experts”.
You should know about “Artful Dodging”, I believe that was your master in school.
No doubt you are aware that the US has not been hit by a major hurricane for seven years – the longest such period since the Ciivil War. As soon as Kerry opened his mouth, the hurricanes stopped.
Lol, I hope these idiots keep opening their mouth, I personally like this quiet period we have seen in major hurricane landfalls.
Steve, I got a little side tracked with all the comments and what has been going on in the non-science news. My immediate thought when I read “As soon as Kerry opened his mouth, the hurricanes stopped” was that you were referring to Sen. John Kerry the selfless global warming enthusiast and humanitarian that removed a fire hydrant from the front of his home in Boston to increase street parking for his lavish parties. I now believe after scrolling up you were probably speaking of Kerry Emanuel. Po-tay-toe or po-tah-toe I suppose it really does not matter. -Paul in Sweden (and I am only putting ‘Paul in Sweden’ because wordpress and gravitar require me to be logged in and switching accounts is time consuming)
“We’re not talking about clouds, we’re talking about major storms. We couldn’t count all storms in the 1970s, via ships at sea and satellites? I don’t believe that. And there’s a clear trend whether you start in 1970, 1980, or 1990. You’re grasping at straws.”
Seeing as how I know people who have been in the shipping business for a very long time (some more than one generation in their family) I can safely tell you that weather records over the Atlantic for the past 100 years are pretty darned accurate. Plenty of ships have been traveling the Atlantic and tropical Atlantic for a long time and they kept amazingly accurate weather records.
Just as an example of how precise and specific these records are, there were direct measurements of the weather and water temperatures of the area where the TItanic sank just a day or two before AND after it sank. We also have water temp records from spots all across that area a couple of days from when it sank.
Shipping was VERY important 100 years ago as it is today. Whenever there was a large storm out there, they KNEW about it because they would tell everyone else about it and avoid it if they could. The captains and the crews back then were very meticulous about keeping weather data of what they were in because time was money, and bad weather would add time to their trip or kill them.
You should ask your connections whether they knowingly and deliberately sailed their ships into cyclone prone areas in the cyclone season in the absence of any reliable weather forecasting. The answer will be no. The records don’t exist.
I see that YOU are ducking these statements because you too busy being a warmist:
Steve:
“No doubt you are aware that the US has not been hit by a major hurricane for seven years – the longest such period since the Ciivil War. As soon as Kerry opened his
mouth, the hurricanes stopped.”
Mine:
“What about the dearth of land falling hurricanes of the last few years?
Can you explain this David?”
Inconvenient reality you warmist liars shrink from.How do you sleep at night after misleading yourself all day every day?
Probably because as I explained before you can still have warm oceans and little tropical development. It takes more than just having a warm ocean for a tropical storm to form, and more than that for it to make landfall.
Patterns are specific to each season or part of the season, so why not look at global ocean heat content over the years instead?
Ocean temperatures look like they are increasing to me:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080618143301.htm
So, it stands to reason that hurricane activity might be greater, but obviously not necessarily greater. You need a lot of conditions to be right and come together at the right time for a tropical cyclone to form. If you have 85F water temps but high shear and no anticyclone above it you probably won’t have any development. If you do have an anticyclone and no shear above it and no catalyst like a tropical wave or complex of thunderstorms to move over it, or no thunderstorms to fire over it, you might never have a storm out of it.
ARGO buoys show the oceans are cooling. Why are you saying the are warming?
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I say MissMarple is completely clueless.
The Arctic ice decline is partly due to the AMO, but also driven by AGW. The latter has become a dominant factor in recent decades. For more information: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011/article
No doubt that caused the 1910 to 1950 Arctic warming too.
Anthropogenic forcings have grown in impact in recent years. Natural variability explained most of the changes during the 1910-50 period. Now it explains less. That relative decline will continue as atmospheric CO2 rises, making the anthropogenic forcing stronger relative to the natural forcings and oceanic cycles.
Greenland was warmer in 1940. Your argument makes no sense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Don, you obviously don’t know why Greenland is called by this name, because during the MWP it was much more habitable and much warmer than it is now, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Eric,
There are two theories on the naming of Greenland: 1) The name was given to create the impression that it was an attractive place to settle and 2) on account of the people living there taking on a “greenish” tinge from their living near the water.
http://cambridge.academia.edu/JonathanGrove/Papers/397439/The_Place_of_Greenland_In_Medieval_Icelandic_Saga_Narrative
The idea that it was given its name due to a warm climate is myth.
That is ridiculous. They were trying to attract people from Denmark to move there.
Attracting people to move from Denmark is exactly what theory #1 is about.
And it is the only theory which makes any sense.
“Don, you obviously don’t know why Greenland is called by this name, because during the MWP it was much more habitable and much warmer than it is now, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
How much more habitable could it really be with 2 miles of ice in the middle of it? The ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old.
“That is ridiculous. They were trying to attract people from Denmark to move there.”
You should read up on the vikings and visit the settlements in Canada sometime. They failed miserably over here and in greenland. It wasn’t a paradise. Most of them died over here and the settlements didn’t last.
It wasn’t a paradise and ‘green’ for them.
They died when temperatures plummeted during the Little Ice Age. You are thoughtlessly smearing five centuries of climate together.
But the effort to attract people to Greenland doesn’t prove that the climate was a warm one. The paleoclimatic record indicates that Greenland’s ice sheet was present. The climate overall was a harsh one.
The farms which are just now appearing from under the ice show very conclusively that the climate was warmer than most of the intervening period.
“The farms which are just now appearing from under the ice show very conclusively that the climate was warmer than most of the intervening period.”
What links show this? I’m too lazy to google. Why don’t you show us with a link?
It is clear that the only hurricane which is important is the one which hit NOLA in 2005.
I can’;t believe there really are people that think Greenland was called green to attract people to come there. So if that’s true and they traveled there and found it was really a land of permafrost where crops could not be grown they decided to just stay there anyway for 400 years and not go back??
There are Viking writings that say they planted crops there every year. The same area is now permafrost.
So why didn’t the name get changed to Permafrostland? Why is there absolutely no evidence in writing anywhere that these people were tricked into going there? And why did they stay for approximately 400 years before leaving a place where food could not be grown??
As can be seen, some people here are not thinking.
MissMarple, if you’re up for more than googling, try H. H. Lamb’s Climate, History, and the Modern World.
Ari Thorgilsson, an Icelandic historian who wrote in the 1120s, is one of the earliest historical sources available on Greenland. It is he who suggested that said Erik the Red gave the new land its name, in order to encourage people to go there. Interestingly, the word green in Old Norse is used to refer metaphorically to things that are pleasant and attractive, and not simply green. There’s a late tenth century poem called Thórsdrápa, in which the god Thórr is advised (maliciously) to visit giant land, and he is told (wrongly) that the paths that lie that way are ‘green’: i.e. pleasant and easy to travel. He nearly dies on the journey. The chronology of this usage is interesting, as the poet, Eilífr Godrúnarson, would have been a contemporary of Erik’s.
The only earlier historical source on Greenland is north German chronicle of the bishops of Hamburg-Bremen by a churchman called Adam of Bremen, written in c. 1075. Adam was evidently perplexed about why a land that was not renowned for being green should have acquired this name. It is interesting that his (erroneous) explanation has nothing to do with the land itself: he says the place was called Greenland because the inhabitants were green, because they had lived next to the see for so long. If this is not just a joke, then it reflects the kind of lore that you expect to find in medieval geographies, which were as interested in the fantastical as anything else. On the other hand, anyone who has seen the brilliant green sediment heavy glacial waters of the Greenlandic fjords won’t sniff quite so loudly at Adam’s notion, even if the theory is still patently absurd.
“Don, you obviously don’t know why Greenland is called by this name, because during the MWP it was much more habitable and much warmer than it is now, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
The 2 mile thick ice cap has existed there for hundreds of thousands of years. Parts of southern greenland are green right now:
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/greenland/aerial_view_nuuk_greenland_photo_signe_vest_greenland_tourism.jpg
MissMarple:
Biological activity has not yet returned to the extent experienced during the time the Vikings were living on Greenland and Vinland.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/archeo.html
They were growing crops where permafrost still makes farming impossible.
“Biological activity has not yet returned to the extent experienced during the time the Vikings were living on Greenland and Vinland.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/archeo.html
They were growing crops where permafrost still makes farming impossible.”
I read through your link 3 times and it doesn’t say that anywhere.
My link was only about Vinland, called that because they grew wine grapes there.
Maybe you should research the agriculture of Greenland and Labrador for the last 50 years. Just a couple of years ago they found roots from plants that grew during the time the Vikings occupied Greenland. They found the roots when the ice cover melted.
Mike, the link said:
“Or was Vinland – that bounteous “picture book” southern land of grapes and pastures – as much a mythical paradise to the Vikings as it seems to us today? ”
It asks a question. It doesn’t answer it. You can’t conclude that this said they grew grapes.
I googled that for you:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/vineland-was-full-of-grapes/
You need to do more research on that region. all it would take is a long term change in the ocean atmosphere currents to make that region into a grape growing region today. It could be everything with the right climate conditions, just like they were during the MWP and RWP.
Try these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm
“http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm”
None of them mention grapes in greenland. They all point out that it wasn’t a paradise, and there still was 2 miles of ice in central greenland.
Next?
The remains of the farms and churches of the Norse are found throughout South Greenland. The large granite and sandstone blocks at the ruins have many good stories to tell. The oldest is about Erik the Red who was banished from Iceland in 982.
Back then, the climate was milder than it is today.
http://www.greenland-guide.dk/pdf/southgreenland-uk.pdf
“The remains of the farms and churches of the Norse are found throughout South Greenland. The large granite and sandstone blocks at the ruins have many good stories to tell. The oldest is about Erik the Red who was banished from Iceland in 982.
Back then, the climate was milder than it is today. ”
Finally a link.
However in southern greenland you can still grow things and there are grasslands today. Maybe not grapes, but other crops more suited to colder climates yes.
There was still 2 miles of ice in central greenland 1000 years ago. Do you dispute these facts?
It might have been slightly warmer, but not incredibly much warmer.
I have posted dozens of articles about the MWP in Greenland. Are you used to having a personal babysitter?
“Additional evidence is given by…peats and relics in Greenland–the northern limits may have been displaced northward through several degrees of latitude…and [by] other plants in Novaya Zemlya, and by peat and ripe fruit stones [fruit pits]…in Spitsbergen that no longer ripen in these northern lands. Various plants were more generally distributed in Ellesmere [Island and] birch grew more widely in Iceland….”
Charlesworth J. B., The Quaternary Era, London, England, 1957, Vol. II, p. 1494.
To put it in Context, the people who were to be attracted, were based in Norway ? so maybe Greenland in the MWP would have seemed much like home ? We ought also to try to remember that the Norse community on Greenland persisted until the 16th century ? and its long decline could be interpreted so as to match the progress from MWP to LIA ?
“Additional evidence is given by…peats and relics in Greenland–the northern limits may have been displaced northward through several degrees of latitude…and [by] other plants in Novaya Zemlya, and by peat and ripe fruit stones [fruit pits]…in Spitsbergen that no longer ripen in these northern lands. Various plants were more generally distributed in Ellesmere [Island and] birch grew more widely in Iceland….”
Charlesworth J. B., The Quaternary Era, London, England, 1957, Vol. II, p. 1494.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to use hurricane energy/landfall numbers to determine whether the ocean is getting warmer.
First, hurricanes are in just one ocean basin. What about the Pacific or Indian ocean?
Second, you can have very warm ocean temperatures and not have much hurricane activity. Many times very warm pockets of the Atlantic remain untapped because the conditions all season for a hurricane to form over that water were unfavorable. In 2005, the western Caribbean was pretty much the hottest part of the Atlantic basin, but nothing developed over it for a very long time. The loop current took water from that area and that’s how Katrina and Rita both exploded, but the water itself down there was untapped until Wilma came along. If the wave that became Wilma didn’t have the chance to form a circulation down there due to wind shear then it would have never formed. So you ended up with one of the most powerful hurricanes in recorded history at a very late part of the season because finally conditions were right for it to form.
That being said, it stands to reason that warmer ocean temperatures CAN lead to stronger hurricanes, but if the patterns aren’t there to allow for development then you won’t have an active season. More ocean energy and higher ocean temps lead to a higher maximum storm potential.
That’s obvious, and you can’t really argue against it. Whether we’re getting warmer by natural or manmade forces, if the conditions are right for a tropical storm to develop, they will likely be larger and stronger due to the ocean heat content.
That’s why 2005 was such an active year. The ocean temperatures were not only very warm, but the patterns in most areas of the Atlantic were conducive for development. This year is also a very warm year, but the conditions aren’t as favorable for development.
You don’t have an active season happen magically from a warm ocean. It takes more than that for tropical cyclones to form. I thought this would be obvious?
Miss Marple Hurricane ACE, globally has been in decline the last several years.
“Miss Marple Hurricane ACE, globally has been in decline the last several years.”
If all oceanic heat content was transferred by hurricanes 100% of the time, then ACE would be useful.
However it’s not from season to season, and many times very warm waters don’t lead to tropical cyclones because the conditions aren’t right for them to form.
By your logic, on a hot humid summer day, 100% of the region should get a thunderstorm. However only rarely do you get pop up thunderstorms, and they miss a bulk of the area most of the time.
Do you know why?
Is there something about the hurricane charts above which isn’t clear?
“Is there something about the hurricane charts above which isn’t clear?”
It’s pointless. You might as well count the number of pirates in the Atlantic ocean.
I explained why.
Why? Because your eyes and ears are closed, but not your mouth.
“Why? Because your eyes and ears are closed, but not your mouth.”
That’s not a very helpful or constructive comment. My daughter could do better than that when she was two.
Why don’t you address my point instead of stamping your feet like my daughter did when she didn’t want to go potty?
I have addressed it several times, but you are too busy yapping.
Great point, Miss Maple. A far better measure is Oceanic Heat Content. The data can be found at: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
No, OHC just measures the amount available energy to a hurricane, ACE index measures the actual amount produced, OHC is irrelevant to actually measuring the amount of energy that is produced from hurricanes. Globally, ACE has been in sharp decline the last several years, so where’s your AGW?
David Appell says: “We couldn’t count all storms in the 1970s, via ships at sea and satellites? I don’t believe that.”
David, I cannot dispute your disbelief nor the hubris of global warming industry. I would however recommend that you find someone to point out to the frequent data gaps in satellite, SST, land surface temperature, and even common sense that exist now during this freaking chilli summer that my family has been subject in Sweden.
Hahahahahahaha , I see the warmist prostitutes are back and appell has dragged ( yes that is intentional ) in a new one named marple . They are still bringing up the same old debunked tripe we heard years ago . These two wackjobs evidently don’t keep up on the advances in science as their arguements are patheticly weak . They will soon be reduced to their usual appeals to authority and their cheap shots as that is their specialty.
You would think that someone taking the moniker missmarple would be able to find somebody out there to give them a clue….
That was good . 🙂
So where have I been wrong? What data can you show to back your claim up? Can you not resort to name-calling?
There’s no need to engage in name-calling.
David, put aside your frantic & unreasonable concern regarding the Arctic wasteland for a moment and ponder what the laboratory, commercial agricultural and empirical data indicate are the optimal ppm levels of atmospheric CO2 for flora & fauna on this planet where the rest of us live. Then I would like you to consider how bizarre your comments as a brief visitor to our Earth seem to the rest of us.
There’s no such thing as an optimal ppm level of CO2. With all other things being equal in a climate, an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures. This is a fact.
The climate system is very complex and simple minded assertions like that belie your ignorance.
MissMarple
It is not a fact that increases in CO2 will cause increase in temperature. You do not know what you are talking about. There still is not clear evidence that this is true. You are either lying or just don’t know what you are doing. You talk of it as if it is a scientific law.
It is not. And you are wrong.
Steven,
Increasing CO2 is responsible for the earth’s positive energy imbalance. The net addition of energy to the earth’s climate system can only lead to warming. That the oceans, surface, and atmosphere are warming simultaneously indicates that heat isn’t solely being transferred, but that there is a net addition of heat underway.
Notice also that Miss Marple provided the disclaimer “with all other things being equal.” That’s important. With all things being equal e.g., the natural forcings don’t change, increasing CO2 will create a positive energy imbalance and that imbalance will lead to an increase in temperatures. So, yes, that is fact given the constraints of physics.
Nonsense. Ice cores show no such thing. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/vostok-cores-show-zero-climate-sensitivity-2/
“It is not a fact that increases in CO2 will cause increase in temperature.”
Yes it is. It’s called the greenhouse effect. CO2 has a positive effect on temperatures. This is solid physics and can be demonstrated repeatedly in the lab.
Your simple minded thought process is absurd.
Small changes in cloud cover have a much larger impact on temperature. Read up on chaos and the Butterfly Effect.
You can’t reduce a system with hundreds of degrees of freedom down to a single variable. In any other field of science people would be laughed out of the room for making such a simple-minded claim.
Miss
I think I know of these “lab” experiments that you speak of. These have been shown to not apply in the real world since real world conditions cannot be reproduced in a lab. They cannot account for how water vapor acts in the real world.
MissMarple
There is no troposphere “hot spot” that is supposed to be there according to these co2 hypothesis’. Therefore the hypothesis that co2 causes warming is wrong.
“I think I know of these “lab” experiments that you speak of. These have been shown to not apply in the real world since real world conditions cannot be reproduced in a lab. They cannot account for how water vapor acts in the real world.”
So wait, if water freezes at 32F in the lab, it cannot freeze at that temperature in the real world?
So you’re saying the greenhouse effect is real, exists, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but as soon as the gas ‘knows’ it’s not in a lab anymore it stops behaving that way? Does water have a memory, too?
Read up on chaotic systems. They can’t be reduced to a single variable.
“There is no troposphere “hot spot” that is supposed to be there according to these co2 hypothesis’. Therefore the hypothesis that co2 causes warming is wrong.”
I wasn’t sure what you were talking about so I googled it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
Google doesn’t seem to be your friend.
Skeptical science is a well funded blatantly alarmist site, and constantly posts misinformation. For example ….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/john-cooks-record-hot-year/
Steven,
You say it’s “nonsense.” Do you have links to scientific literature that disproves the greenhouse effect? Do you have links to scientific literature that can account for the positive energy imbalance, even as the natural forcings haven’t changed sufficiently to account for that imbalance? Do you have scientific literature that suggests that a positive energy imbalance can’t lead to additional heating?
Why can the recent climate record only be explained with the addition of anthropogenic forcings?
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Steven,
I take it from your non-germane response about my reading comprehension that you lack the scientific corroboration necessary to dispute the point Miss Marple made, namely that all things being equal, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperatures. And that’s what’s happening. Rising atmospheric CO2 has led to a persistent and large energy imbalance. That imbalance is translating into rising temperatures.
Nobody said there is no greenhouse effect, and your comment indicated that everything is going right over your head
It’s becoming clear that Don and Miss are clones of the very limited information they have availed themselves to.
This is always the case for their ilk. They are a boring lot. These arguments are so tedious. This happens every time. This is why I rarely even debate them anymore. They are all shallow and really, small minded, non-thinking, and biased by some personal agenda. They hoard together in boring little packs, giving each other meaningless pats on the back.
There is no tropospheric hot spot.
You linked to a propaganda web site that manipulates information.
Satellite data does not show the warming that the computer models for global warming say should he there.
MissMarple says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm
“So you’re saying the greenhouse effect is real, exists, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but as soon as the gas ‘knows’ it’s not in a lab anymore it stops behaving that way? Does water have a memory, too?”
There is no data that shows co2 controls climate as you claim. Studies in the real world do no support what you claim is found in these lab experiments. There still is not data that has been collected in the real world that will show you co2 controls climate. You may feel that an experiment conducted in a laboratory that did not include all factors in the atmosphere (in the real world) is a valid way to determine how the atmosphere will behave from what the results of that experiment show. But that would be wrong to do that.
Your understanding of how the real world works is wanting.
Don Sutherland
What are the studies that prove you claim of great energy imbalance? It looks like you read something on an alarmists web site and never took the time to verify for yourself if it was true or not.
Don Sutherland says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Rising atmospheric CO2 has led to a persistent and large energy imbalance. That imbalance is translating into rising temperatures.
Since there is no scientific evidence that this is true in the real world what you are doing is repeating propaganda that you have heard.
MissMarple
Do you post comments on the internet under other names? Or is MissMarple the only name you have ever used to post comments?
Not only that, please show me the total biosphere production, efflux and influx of CO2 for every year as far back as we have data. Also show me the boundary layer CO2 content, efflux and influx as well. What I do know is that CO2 is a variable gas just like water vapor and for all we know CO2 is just as variable as water is in the lower troposphere. Don’t give the the tripe about ‘background’ CO2. That is meaningless for what actually happens in the biosphere. While you are at it, get me the insolation at the surface too. 🙂
Erm read give me the tripe about ‘background’ CO2… sorry
Increasing co2 may actually cause cooling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFShSlv8eA
One thing that is quite clear is that co2 has never controlled climate before. Co2 does not control climate. All and any people that claim it does do not know what they are talking about.
Zbigniew Jaworowski – Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
“One thing that is quite clear is that co2 has never controlled climate before. Co2 does not control climate. All and any people that claim it does do not know what they are talking about.”
If all other things are equal then it can control climate. If all other things are not equal, then something else might be a stronger forcing mechanism.
The real answer to whether CO2 can control climate is “It depends”
Ice cores show regular 12C swings in temperature, but no doubt the current 0.47 anomaly is due to man made CO2.
That doesn’t prove that CO2 can’t lead to a dramatic warming. Key language from Miss Marple:
“If all other things are equal then it can control climate. If all other things are not equal, then something else might be a stronger forcing mechanism.”
You can’t hold anything “equal” in a chaotic system. The concept is simple-minded and absurd.
“You can’t hold anything “equal” in a chaotic system. The concept is simple-minded and absurd.”
So what else can account for the rapid warming we are seeing lately? Yes, the ice ages had larger changes in temperatures, but they were not as rapid as the warming we see today since those temperature swings took many thousands of years, and we’re seeing right now on average 5C every thousand years or less instead of 10,000.
So what natural mechanism is causing that?
MissMarple
There is no “rapid” recent warming. You are wrong again.
There has been no warming for 17 years. That is a very long time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Miss
The troposphere “hot spot” is not there. Your idea is wrong.
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project’s reconstruction of global temperatures was in close agreement with the NASA (GISS), NCDC, and Hadley data sets. All three data sets provide a reasonable assessment of the global temperature record.
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper.pdf
Richard Muller is a fraud. Even hard core alarmists agree about that.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/08/physicist-mullers-big-time-conversion-was-it-news-or-just-slick-p-r/
Don Sutherland
“In close agreement?” Why are you so sloppy with your science? Manmade global warming alarmism is based in tenths of a degree. These tenths of a degree are barely perceptible when comparing graphs that show global warming alarmism and no global warming alarmism. NASA data shows those tenths of a degree of warming that other data sets do not. But from the naked eye they all look “in close agreement”.
You are wrong again Don. These arguments over the data sets always go in these SAME directions every time. Your argument is nothing new. And it is just as wrong as it as always been every time someone brings it up. One global warming believer is just as shallow and uninformed as the next.
“There has been no warming for 17 years. That is a very long time.”
GISS disagrees with you:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg
I’m going to side with NASA over some blog that anybody could have written.
GISS is run by James Hansen, a man who has devoted his life to spreading climate alarmism. Even NOAA doesn’t take him seriously.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/noaas-martin-hoerling-comments-on-james-hansen/
He has devoted the last ten years to altering the temperature record
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
Miss
Certainly you’d go with NASA. That’s where James Hansen works. James Hansen is a paid activist.
NASA data has odd things happening with it. It shows warming that other well known data sets do not show.
This video shows that James Hansen data has diverged from other well known data sets and the divergence is toward more warming. So of course some one wishing to prove their global warming ideas will select his data to try to prove it.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9U2T3PNfVw
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVeY0mG03mg
MissMarple
Thank you for bringing up NASA data. It gave everyone an opportunity to see how that data set shows more warming than other data sets. Now everyone is aware of the odd situation at NASA.
MissMarple
You’re either being willfully ignorant or ignorantly willful.
That graph does not go past 2008, it’s 2012 now. And even then it doesn’t show warming from 1998 to 2008, and if all the data was there it would be flat from 1998 to 2012.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2012
[Comments from Australian scientist Ian Plimer re: CO2 volume]
“Someone whom I was delighted to meet again in Australia was Professor Ian Plimer, a prominent “climate sceptic”, who is one of Abbott’s advisers. In his latest entertaining book, How To Get Expelled From School (by asking the teachers 101 awkward scientific questions about their belief in global warming), Plimer cites a vivid illustration of how great is the threat posed to the planet by man-made CO2.”
“If one imagines a length of the Earth’s atmosphere one kilometre long, 780 metres of this are made up of nitrogen, 210 are oxygen and 10 metres are water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas). Just 0.38 of a metre is carbon dioxide, to which human emissions contribute one millimetre.”
***
“The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
Miss
here’s some of your warming: Urban Heat Island:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar_beY5rI5Y&feature=plcp
The homogenization takes care of that issue:
From the abstract of Menne (2010): “Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures
are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure
characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring.”
The complete paper can be found below:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
The fact that a paid climate alarmist says something does not make it true.
Don
UHI as never been correctly accounted for. You are choosing to look only at a limited group of claims. This may be showing a bias on your part.
Amino Acids in Meteorology,
I’m open to new literature that is published on the topic. If the result is an improved means of homogenization, all the better. The more accurate the climate record, the better understanding of the climate can become. Right now, the literature suggests that the issue is largely (albeit not perfectly) addressed.
Yes, I know that the “literature” you chose to read may be saying that. I already pointed that out.
But UHI has no where near been accounted for correctly. Anthony Watts just came out with his work showing how abjectly poor the temperature record is.
And these “homogenizing” methods you incessantly bring up, have never been shown to be sound work. They do not account for UHI well enough. But you want to insist they do just like you insist “manmade” global warming is a settled science. You are biased.
Don Sutherland says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Amino Acids in Meteorology
=============================================================
The name calling is unnecessary. Learn from your own preaching:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/joe-bastardi-analyzes-michael-manns-hurricane-claim/#comment-117796
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
Apologies for my inadvertently typing “meteorology” instead “meteorites.”
I see. It’s a small mistake then. No problem.
These same arguments go in these same circles every time. One would think that since “manmade” global warming is nothing short of a scientific law (according to MissMarple) there would be absolutely no room to find questions with it. But not only are questions found with it but but data from the real world shows it is wrong.
Again, there is no troposphere “hot spot”. So these “manmde” global warming ideas are wrong.
MissMarple is one of those global warming commenters who show up, post a bunch of comments, then disappears forever.
Hilarious, CO2 causes warming….. except when it doesn’t. Then GISS is referenced? Bwhahahahaha!!! So, what’s the amplification factor for this?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
GISS is falsified.
suyts
Don says they appear basically the same. So he says they are the same. Don is sloppy.
One data set shows slight cooling. The other shows bloody murder global warming. But they are “in close agreement”, as someone here said.
Obviously the naked eye can be fooled.
I see we have had an attack of the trolls here. Before they object, flooding a thread with a bunch of irrelevant comments is specifically designed to waste everybody else’s time and distract from the thread.
If you want to make a constructive contribution, please stick to the topic. If not go back to John Cook.
They don’t think they are trolls, especially Don.
Don really does think he has searched everything out and is not biased. He does not see that he is biased. But his bias has effected him to the point that he now look like a troll.
The other thing I forgot to say is that they make claims and then expect others to waste time proving them wrong, by which time they have moved onto a new topic.
They do not seem to realise that some of us have lives! Perhaps they should get one too.
I don’t think it looks like that to them. They may feel they are being sincere. They may feel that the information the have is correct.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
My suggestion as it has been. As I keep trying to appeal to people of good will on both sides A DEBATE NATIONALLY TELEVISED… AGW ALL STARS ( MANN MULLER MCKIBBEN CULLEN ETC YOU CAN NAME THEM) VS OUR SIDE and BTW in no way do I think I am one of them, but would love to be involved. That being said, just watching this and the thrashing they would take, and then end of this silliness is enough for me.
I called Dr Mann out here because all I ever wanted from him was to defend his reconstruction of the past against others, just as learned as him and from far away places like China for instance, or from England.. who can find no hockey stick. Because of the fact that national policy that I think is crashing our nations economy, and by the way, will mean less money for future research we may need since that money doesnt grow on trees, but from the tax base, is being set based on what many of us believe is an unfounded fear in global warming, I wanted to see that defended. I could care less about emails or the other stuff. I wanted to know why others can not find we he finds, who appeared to have no dog in this fight.
But I have been pushed and the recent admission by NOAA of something I had been touting since the PDO went cold, that we would go into drought like the 50s, without any acknowledgement from Dessler, North, Hayhoe,or the president who went into Texas last year and blamed global warming for the drought when in the time of actual warming during the warm PDO, Texas was wet, made me make darn sure they are not going to try to pull this nonsense with hurricanes. Last year, the without fact statements on Irene, oblivious to actual hurricane history got me started. Well this was waving a red flag in front of me.
There are a group of us, that simply have loved the weather since first memory. We are not weather voyeurs, looking in when it suits our needs or to grab headlines. Anyone that has followed me, right or wrong, like me or not, knows that with the exception of the month between my only 2 jobs in the weather, you cant find a day where I was not working at what God made me to do. Even on “vacation” in the Bahamas, I worked 8 hour days each day for my energy clients and blogged for the sites I was responsible for. So what I do is very different. Its every day. Its not one thing, based on a reconstruction of the past. Its an every day fight, with every day risks, and the chance that something will go wrong. When wrong in the privates sector you are fired. There is a big bottom line and a huge difference between what I do and what people stepping into what I do, and passing it off as because of something that has nothing to do with it. The fact is that the flip of the pdo to cold while the amo is warm sets up a pattern where the US is dry and hurricanes are more likely to hit the east coast. The question Dr Mann should be asking is why has there been a down trend. I discussed that in IPCC7. I doubt if any of my critics listened.
But when you fight every day, you are going to get scarred. I dont criticize any other private forecast in the business, despite seeing things about me that are not flattering from many. I even said that NOAAs winter forecast if correct will probably be one of the top 5 great seasonal forecasts ever, given cold PDO, el nino, warm Alaska and US! That is wild and would really impress the daylights out of me. Wasnt being critical, was saying if I am going to think forecasting Ivan to come around is a big deal like in 2004, well that certainly will be. But its being nice, and saying look at this, someone is trying to nail an unheard of event, whether I agree or not. I stayed out of the arctic ice debate. Why? cause my words get twisted and as long as the AMO is warm, the arctic is in no hurry to come back, So why go there. when the AMO turns cold, the ice will increase in the areas its getting shredded now ( its starting back in the west, but there is far less exposure to the colder Pacific.) The fact is the increase in the southern hemisphere shows whats going on since its surrounded by water, but none of my critics say boo about that. In hurricanes I went to an ace scoring system to avoid the whole crazy number game because against history, its a new day with detection and analysis. The real measure is landfall intensity.
But what is setting me off here and the reason I went after this is they are stealing the drought issue which one can plainly see is being caused by similar events to the situation in the 50s and now was admitted by NOAA, though no one seems to care.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/08/wait-what-washington-post-on-us-drought.html
They are not getting the hurricane issue. That was foretold quite a while ago, by people far greater than I ( ex: Bill Gray) and Dr Manns comments needed to be questioned and scrutinized given that data. What is so hard to see about what those facts say. Its not like it did not happen.
The true answer is a true debate so we can see who knows what the weather is doing and its cause, not this use of a given event. So lets get your heroes out there, the AGW all stars. should be easy to clean know nothing neanderthals like me out quickly. What could guy like me possibly bring up to threaten your command of the facts?
So troll on. Real Science is happy. You are getting them alot of hits.
Freedom, debate, the unleashing of the American economy based on facts. rather than shackling. Isnt that what is at stake here, not some silly argument that is meant to distract from the real agenda.. the control of people
For those who are interested in learning more about the point Joe Bastardi made about the PDO and drought, a great paper on that topic is: http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/McCabe_ea.pdf
I, for one, am not suggesting in any way that AGW caused this drought. My view on the issue is that the natural oceanic cycles and their consequences (drought in this case) are playing out in the context of a warming world. The added warmth should, in theory, amplify the drought. Early indications are that it has. A 1950s-type drought in terms of magnitude and expanse has seen Dust Bowl era type temperatures in a number of states, not to mention resulted in the warmest July average temperature on record in the U.S.
The earth always warms and cools Don. You are making it sound like it is warming for the first time ever. But seeing all of your comments here I can see you don’t know science too well. It’s good that your ilk talks a lot in comments. It makes it much easier to see you don’t really know what you’re doing.
In order for it really be global warming it has to really be warmer than in the 30’s and it has to be global.
Why do you just point out a part of the globe and not the global temperature?
Don
Why is it that your ilk has such a shallow, and really, non-existent case, for what you are saying but act like it is rock solid?
Don’t you get any pang of conscience about that at all?
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
I’m not suggesting that this is the first warming event. What makes this different from past warming events is that it is not being driven by the natural forcings (solar,volcanoes, orbital cycles), alone. Excerpts from Lean and Rind’s paper on natural and anthropogenic influences on the climate:
“Natural changes cannot account for the significant long-term warming in the historical global surface temperature anomalies… Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies… Solar-induced warming…contributes 10%…of surface warming in the past 100 years and, if anything, a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years…”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how+natural+and+anthropogenic+influences+alter+global+and+regional+surface+temperatures+1889+to+2006&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.167.2337%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=o0UtUOHDAoqu6AH2hYDABA&usg=AFQjCNHBSNp-kuptUPTjxzG-EChLZAQ-Dg
If one rejects the anthropogenic role, one needs to identify a natural alternative. So far, no such substitute has appeared in the scientific literature.
You have not read much literature then. You seem so smug when talking about “the literature”.
If one accept anthropogenic it would need to be because they had evidence—that is if one wishes to be scientific about it. There is no evidence that man has been the cause of warming in the last 150 years. Yet you have accepted it.
When you say natural you include the sun?
10% from the sun? Really? WHAT POOR WORK!!!!
Don,
You are ignoring a sizable amount of data to say just 10% is the sun. I am astonished that you think that is rock solid information to believe.
I’m sorry to say this Don, and I’m not trying to be insulting to you in saying it, but after long experience in this global warming thing I am finding these debates tedious. I keep seeing these same arguments that have been answered years ago. All these things you and Miss brought up today are hackneyed monologue. But you all keep bringing them up fresh, over and over, as if no problems had ever been found with them. It’s like they were put through a washing machine to wash all the dirt and stains of the flaws that had been found with them and they are presented shiny and new again, as if they weren’t hackneyed and innocuous, only to be dirtied and stained all over again.
This is my last comment in this thread.
Amino Acids in Meteorites,
Five points:
1. I referenced one of Joe Bastardi’s comments on the U.S. drought and the PDO and posted a link to a paper on that topic.
2. The warming is global, though there are regional variations (Southern Hemisphere warming slowest, Northern Hemisphere land areas much faster, and the Arctic region the fastest in recent years. Globally, the world is far warmer than it was in the 1930s.
3. The Lean and Rind paper discusses the sun based on rigorous research. If one doubts how relatively stable solar irradiance is, the data can be found at: ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/ext_composite_d41_62_1204.dat
4. I recognize that there are some uncertainties in the understanding of climate change e.g., those related to feedbacks, but the overall level of understanding is sufficient to conclude that anthropogenic forcing is playing a leading role in driving recent climatic change.
5. All the studies, including the Lean and Rind study recognize a degree of uncertainty. The 10% figure is an approximation. It could be modestly lower or modestly higher. That information is contained in the study.
My beef with Don & some of the other cronies that post on the American weather forums all the time is that nothing can be questioned. When scientists are baffled by a peer reviewed study to learn that the earth’s land & oceans are still absorbing over 50% of the C02 & then turn around & make the dogmatic statement in the same paper that “IT WILL NOT CONTINUE TO DO SO” then I have a lot of questions. Like…WHY NOT? You admit total surprise that the oceans & land are still absorbing that much, then what makes you think you won’t be surprised again. My point is this is just one example of how much we all really do not know about our planet…including scientists. We know more than we did 100yrs ago but we are still like little children playing in a sandbox. We need to be humble when approaching creation lest we be revealed to be fools by later studies. That has happened before in science you know. Dialog is needed but dogmatism & 100% faith in science is not.
I’d be more convinced of catastrophic global warming theory if there was some actual warming in the last decade or two, and not the introduction of yet another fad in the last 12 months (“extreme weather”).
I like the David Appell defence of any claim: “do you really think tens of thousands of scientists [could be wrong] ?”. What precisely is the claim being made? Who exactly is agreeing with it? It doesn’t matter what statement you make, however stupid, you can always just type on your keyboard that tens of thousands of scientists agree with you, and apparently that impresses his circle of friends. Outside his circle though, it’s an embarrassingly stupid thing to write.
31,000 scientist signed the Oregon Petition that said there are doubts about co2 warming. Does David Appell “really think tens of thousands of scientists [could be wrong] ?”
Good point. But if I recall correctly the doubt is not over whether CO2 causes some measurable warming but whether there is actually a plausible problem arising from this. But it doesn’t matter to David what 31,000+ individuals with science degrees think. He will just pretend this information doesn’t exist or hand wave it away in some implausible fashion.
Global warmers have sufficiently demonized Frederick Seitz so that David Appell will likely ride off the petition as tobacco industry propaganda.
It’s also worth mentioning the list of 450 skeptical scientists that S. H. Schneider was kind enough to prepare. Not to mention the Inhofe list (at 1000 in its latest version as I recall), the Bali petition, the petition of Canadian scientists to their Prime Minister (and others).
The National Hurricane Centre have a useful table here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/katherine-still-cant-get-it-right/
Put simply, it shows the ups and downs of hurricane cycles correlated with AMO.
As they say
earlier work had linked these cycles of busy and quiet hurricane periods in the 20th Century to natural changes in Atlantic Ocean temperatures.
Meanwhile ‘Man made Global Warming’ in parts of Europe like the Netherlands.
“The Netherlands gears up for the year’s warmest weekend
According to weather bureau Weeronline, this weekend will be the warmest since July 1994, when the temperature averaged 32.4 Celsius. It is THE FIRST TIME THIS SUMMER temperatures will have risen above 30 Celsius in the Netherlands.”
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/08/the_netherlands_gears_up_for_t.php
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/12783963/__Morgen_38_graden__record_nabij___.html
Warmest weekend since 1994. This is what they are down to citing?
google this article, it is an investigation of the planting of the medieval greenland settlers
a paleoethnobotanical investigation of garden under sandet
Without political advocacy this would simply be described as a failed theory:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig2.2-summer-fixed.gif
Nice graph. 🙂
It’s always funny to watch warmologists try to talk their way out of the missing hot spot by linking to John Cook.
ROFL
You would think they could cite the tens of thousands of scientists that David keeps insisting agree with him, rather than always present the same link from an amateur blog.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-mini.gif
Miss Marple in reply to your link to John Cooks dishonest blog.
“I wasn’t sure what you were talking about so I googled it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
Google doesn’t seem to be your friend.”
John Cook was strongly answered by Jo Nova and he backed off after that because what he spewed was stupid and many laughed at him for his dumb pretzel quality explanations:
How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
I am sure you tried hard to Google this one….. LOL!
And here Google seemed to be her (his?) friend too! Google can be your Judas too. 😉
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
“Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”
sunsettommy,
A common argument explaining away the missing hot spot is that it can warm from other sources, which is very true. It shouldn’t take 2 seconds to dismantle that silliness.
I made a simple “hot spot” presentation for the lay public that prominently quotes from the IPCC report on this very question:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1158.html
It is clear they were looking for it and blaming the nearly not at all there CO2 molecules.But darn it the satellite temperature data will not cooperate!!!
For those who don’t know, Ross McKitrick was a reviewer of Berkely’s twice rejected paper.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html
“I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the “BEST” team’s decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here.”
Don Sutherland posted here http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/joe-bastardi-analyzes-michael-manns-hurricane-claim/#comment-117901 that indicate he is not paying attention to the fact that the warming trend over the decades is small and slow and that it is artificially inflated.
An ‘inconvenient result’ – July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/
Excerpt:
“I decided to do myself something that so far NOAA has refused to do: give a CONUS average temperature for the United States from the new ‘state of the art’ United States Climate Reference
Network (USCRN). After spending millions of dollars to put in this new network from 2002 to 2008, they are still giving us data from the old one when they report a U.S. national average temperature. As readers may recall, I have demonstrated that old COOP/USHCN network used to monitor U.S. climate is a mishmash of urban, semi-urban, rural, airport and non-airport stations, some of which are sited precariously in observers backyards, parking lots, near air conditioner vents, airport tarmac, and in urban heat islands. This is backed up by the 2011 GAO report spurred by my work.”
It shows that using the NEW state of the art network it was TWO degrees cooler than the old one that has been exposed as being a mess.
The question is why are they still hanging onto the old data when their much better “state of the art” USCRN database is more accurate could it be because it is much cooler than the old one?
Sunsettommy,
What was the mean temperature from those stations for July 1936? That question can’t be answered, as the new network was not in place at that time. For that reason, one really can’t use the new network for addressing the issue as to whether July 2012 was hotter than July 1936. Going forward, from the time USCRN was deployed, one will be able to better measure temperature trends by utilizing this network. USCRN is a great addition and will aid U.S. climate analyses.
You are playing the misdirection game because you have nothing to answer me with and I am not going to play your dishonest game.
Anthony was talking about THIS FREAKING YEAR and you right on Que proved that you completely missed the point I made and that you did not read the link I posted.
You are exposed!
LOL
Sunsettommy,
NOAA ranks the months for the entire 1895-present timeframe. If it were to rely solely on USCRN, the period of comparison would be much shorter. Although you may believe my explanation was “misdirection,” climatology is concerned with the long-term. USCRN has not been in place for a sufficient period of time to leverage it for climatic purposes. That’s an important distinction. Finally, if one references the USCRN’s annual reports, one can find a lot of information concerning these sites and how they compare with the existing larger network of sites. Those annual reports can be found at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html
Again Don, UHI is not adequately accounted for in any data set.
Don idiotically exposed his ignorance of the subject with this statement:
“If one rejects the anthropogenic role, one needs to identify a natural alternative. So far, no such substitute has appeared in the scientific literature.”
It is plain that you are just another shallow warmist we have to put up with because there are many studies showing other possible causes and even gasp pointed them out on skeptical blogs and forums.
The “identify a natural alternative” claim is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. Every time I see someone trump out that statement I wince. It’s not a statement based on science, it’s a statement based on stupidity.
Yup and he ignores the many other possibilities because he is a one note moron who thinks it is CO2 and nothing else.
Here is the basic one as you mentioned before. The Null Hypothesis so I guess the opposite of that is the Alarmist theory because they pal reviewed each other’s work and self confirmed or tried to bypassed the hypothesis stage.
“Finally, if one references the USCRN’s annual reports, one can find a lot of information concerning these sites and how they compare with the existing larger network of sites. Those annual reports can be found at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html”
Don you are so painfully unaware of a few things because it was Anthony Watts who exposed the shoddy NOAA siting quality in the first place and showed it on his blog for the last 5 years!
Now he has a paper pending for publication to explain what is wrong with them
Two points:
1) The events that led to the development of USCRN extend back in time prior to Watts’s siting study.
2) His latest study has had issues raised on account of its failure to account for time of observation bias (TOBS). Whether or how much its conclusions will change once TOBS is accounted for remains to be seen.
1) They are still using the OLD temperature series dummy therefore Anthony has a valid reason to be upset with the NOAA for keeping the improved data series from the public.
Anthony is also the one who made it a public expose of a long standing siting problem that had been going on for decades by showing them on his blog for nearly 5 years.
2) No it was NOT a failure because Anthony wanted his readers to point out weaknesses and shortcomings of his developing paper.He has stated that TOBS is being considered in the development of his paper.
3) You are still babbling with no redeeming point to awe us with as you spew more evasive bullshit warmists are famous for as you continue to ignore the null hypothesis in your crazed pursuit to demonize a trace gas with a very small IR absorption window that is mostly outside the main energy outflow:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3757.html#pid3757
4) You have not once been on topic about Hurricane landfalling frequency once because you are busy peddling your evasive crap to create confusion because YOU ARE YOURSELF CONFUSED!
As CO2 increases in the atmosphere Hurricane strikes on American soil decreases:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-10712.html#pid10712
Just a reminder that AGW theory as endorsed by the IPCC must show a stronger trend in the mid troposphere versus the surface. Even if the surface trend was 100% correct, it would still mean trouble for GCM’s. It would mean something else is going on that is not correctly captured by climate models, and it would be something quite fundamental too. This is the current situation we find ourselves in. One possible explanation (among many) is that the surface temperature trend has been exaggerated which has masked the ability to observe the ‘hot spot’. If that turned out to be true, that would imply that GCM’s are more likely to be correct, but perhaps exaggerate the degree of expected warming.
Lol, Steve, I must say the the AGWers are out in full force today, and has made this is one of the best blog discussions in a while, almost 200 comments?!! Wow.
I’ve noted before that Steve should see this as a complement. His site is now on the “AGW movement” radar. He will receive a lot of trolling now. However, this is valuable. It demonstrates their usual tactics such as misdirection, citing the interpretations of amateur blogs in preference to scientific sources, cherry picking, hand waving, and their appeals to logical fallacies; arguments from ignorance and arguments from (supposed) authority, being their main ones. If they had a strong position they would express it. There would be no need for rhetorical game play.
I agree with you 100%, just keep the AGW trolls coming!!
I wish Joe Bastardi would post more often, he always seems to create chaos with the AGW trolls, lol, great job Steve and Joe!!
Joe writes,
“When wrong in the [private] sector you are fired.”
That is the crux of the debate, right there, IMO. Lies are being told to discredit some of us who believe that government should not be the only employer of scientists. As long as they allow that political position (whether government should be the only employer of scientists) to stand unchallenged, they cannot have the Leninist system that they want.
Thank you, Joe, for shining a spotlight on that issue again and again. In my opinion, the issue is a central fulcrum in the debate over the Great Climate Hoax (GCH), which has long been politicized by our opponents.
When (if) the alarmists and the socialist warmists ever stop attacking the credibility and legitimacy of private-sector professional Earth scientists who are climate realists, the realist side of the debate will be able to know that they have gained a significant victory.
Until then … the debate rages on!
RTF
Well Well Well check this out.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/19/dr-stan-goldenberg-no-trend-anywhere-that-hurricanes-will-increase-with-higher-temperatures/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Dr Stanley Goldenberg works with NOAA I believe
LOLOLOL!!!
I just posted there telling Pierre about YOUR post here.
Keep up the good work Joe!
Nice one, Joe.
Here is what the NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER says about Hurricane frequency and global warming:
Dr. Stan Goldenberg: “No Trend Anywhere That Hurricanes Will Increase With Higher Temperatures”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/19/dr-stan-goldenberg-no-trend-anywhere-that-hurricanes-will-increase-with-higher-temperatures/
Just another climate scientist telling us that CO2 is not a climate driver.
LOL!! priceless, even the NHC thinks that AGW doesn’t effect hurricanes, wow.
I commend the NOAA scientists for their skeptical positions. But I don’t consider that this materially changes my argument about government or the state of play. They are not attacking private enterprise, but to my knowledge they are not really defending it either. So they are being left to their own devices by the warmists. There will be plenty of time to adjust their data after they leave the agency, will there not?
RTF
Interestingly, we are almost 2500 days since a major hurricane hit the US mainland. We haven’t had any hurricanes since Ike in 2008. How do the Warmists in any way call that a trend?
We had Irene last year, although it could be argued Irene wasn’t a hurricane because no hurricane force sustained winds were reported, however that may have been due to the fact that Irene was so large and broad that it was very difficult for the system to focus an area of strong winds, but the rainfall and gale force winds were enough to cause significant damage. The media and alarmists thought it was the worst ever, but they fail to recognize how much worse hurricanes were on the east coast in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
William,
It all starts with training people, including primarly children, to accept scientific “truths” based only on the alleged “authority” of the purveyor. “Authority” to be judged based on support for liberal political parties or positions.
Once people are sufficiently trained in this mental habit, you could have a three-meter-thick ice floe drift into Biscayne Bay, fresh from Arctic waters, and call that a trend of CAGW and evidence of an increasing hurricane trend, and people will believe you.
What matters in this debate is less what scientists say, than what people will believe. If we want to win this, we’ve got to have a good grasp of the psychology as well as the atmospheric science.
RTF
William,
It all starts with training people, including primarly children, to accept scientific “truths” based only on the alleged “authority” of the purveyor. “Authority” to be judged based on support for liberal political parties or positions.
==========================================================
Euphemistic for brainwashing?
A euphemism makes something bad seem better. I was aiming, through detail, to make it seem as bad as it is. I would say, “longhand” … for brainwashing, for propagandizing, for programming, for reprogramming, for illusionism, for delusion, for soft-selling, for mind-gaming.
But more importantly, to what end? To the end of convincing people that Leninism is good for them, or at least that it is good for the majority. That private work in the higher professions is contrary to the public interest and to the health of the state. And thus, that a believer in such is an enemy of the people, whether he means to be or not. That is their end-game. That is the reason for their absurd and repetitive arguments about climate.
RTF
As acrid as it may seem ObamaCare allocates funding for a civilian military force that is controlled solely by the President:
Some details in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGW136RLhSM
Provisions in the pages of ObamaCare for a private constabulary military force for the President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErKALZnlntY
According to Chris Landsea
the increase (in the number of hurricanes) arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques, which have allowed National Hurricane Center forecasters to better monitor and detect initial TC formation, and thus incorporate increasing numbers of very short-lived systems into the TC database”
and
contrary to many expectations that globally tropical cyclones may be becoming more frequent and/or more intense due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, regionally the Atlantic basin has in recent decades seen a significant trend of fewer intense hurricanes and weaker cyclones overall. In addition, the maximum intensity reached in each year has shown no appreciable change.
While a paper by Villarini says
Therefore, we interpret the long-term secular increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms as likely to be substantially inflated by observing system changes over time.
Even NOAA say
As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.
But apparently someone else, whose only claim to fame is knowing which tree rings to cherry pick, knows better.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/why-do-the-epa-mislead-kids/
Attn. MissMarple Your quote: “hurricanes are in just one ocean basin. What about the Pacific or Indian ocean?”
cyclone: In the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Northeast Pacific Ocean they’re called hurricanes. In the Northwest Pacific are called typhoons. In the Southeastern Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans they’re called severe tropical cyclones. In the North Indian Ocean, they’re called severe cyclonic storms, while in the Southwest Indian Ocean, they simply keep the name tropical cyclone.
http://www.livescience.com/22177-hurricanes-typhoons-cyclones.html
Further: …conditions for a hurricane to form, including:
• Water that is at least 80 degrees F (26.6 C)
• Relatively moist air
• Very warm surface temperatures
• A continuous evaporation and condensation cycle
• Wind patterns of varying directions that collide (converging winds)
• A difference in air pressure between the surface and high altitude
http://www.livescience.com/22177-hurricanes-typhoons-cyclones.html
As for agriculture in Greenland:
Greenland produces potatoes, turnips, broccoli, and a few other vegetables. A thousand years ago (1000 CE to 1250+/- CE) Greenland produced a wide range of crops including grains, fruit, etc.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_crops_in_Greenland
Even… after a general global cooling had altered Greenland’s climate for the worse, Ivar Bardson wrote that “On the mountains and lower down grow the best of fruits, as big as apples and good to eat. There also grows the best wheat that exists.” http://www.holloworbs.com/Greenland_vikings.htm
FYI wheat is a warm weather crop. Later they switched to barley, a cold weather crop.
How can I take anything you spout seriously when your ignorance of the basics shines so bright?
As to your appeal to authority… experts say… well experts say Ted Kandinsky had some good points.
Don, Marple, Dave Appell; Owned!
The big problem with the “scientific community” is that its academic machiavellism is incompatible with the scientific method. Please check out Pure science Wiki. That is an Internet platform for the real scientific method.