Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records

This NOAA press release just showed up in my inbox, it seems to be a completely different take on the Hurricane season than that of Florida State’s COAPS and Ryan Maue who says:

Record inactivity continues: Past 24-months of Northern Hemisphere TC activity (ACE) lowest in 30-years.


Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sum through October 31, 2008. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months.

This was discussed at length at Climate Audit here


noaa_pr

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Carmeyia Gillis

Nov. 26, 2008

301-763-8000, ext. 7163 (office)

240-882-9047 (cellular)

Dennis Feltgen

305-229-4404 (office)

305-433-1933 (cellular)

Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records

The 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season officially comes to a close on Sunday, marking the end of a season that produced a record number of consecutive storms to strike the United States and ranks as one of the more active seasons in the 64 years since comprehensive records began.

A total of 16 named storms formed this season, based on an operational estimate by NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. The storms included eight hurricanes, five of which were major hurricanes at Category 3 strength or higher. These numbers fall within the ranges predicted in NOAA’s pre- and mid-season outlooks issued in May and August. The August outlook called for 14 to 18 named storms, seven to 10 hurricanes and three to six major hurricanes. An average season has 11 named storms, six hurricanes and two major hurricanes.

“This year’s hurricane season continues the current active hurricane era and is the tenth season to produce above-normal activity in the past 14 years,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

Overall, the season is tied as the fourth most active in terms of named storms (16) and major hurricanes (five), and is tied as the fifth most active in terms of hurricanes (eight) since 1944, which was the first year aircraft missions flew into tropical storms and hurricanes.

For the first time on record, six consecutive tropical cyclones (Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike) made landfall on the U.S. mainland and a record three major hurricanes (Gustav, Ike and Paloma) struck Cuba. This is also the first Atlantic season to have a major hurricane (Category 3) form in five consecutive months (July: Bertha, August: Gustav, September: Ike, October: Omar, November: Paloma).

Bell attributes this year’s above-normal season to conditions that include:

  • An ongoing multi-decadal signal. This combination of ocean and atmospheric conditions has spawned increased hurricane activity since 1995.
  • Lingering La Niña effects. Although the La Niña that began in the Fall of 2007 ended in June, its influence of light wind shear lingered.
  • Warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures. On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.

NOAA’s National Hurricane Center is conducting comprehensive post-event assessments of each named storm of the season. Some of the early noteworthy findings include:

  • Bertha was a tropical cyclone for 17 days (July 3-20), making it the longest-lived July storm on record in the Atlantic Basin.
  • Fay is the only storm on record to make landfall four times in the state of Florida, and to prompt tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings for the state’s entire coastline (at various times during its August lifespan).
  • Paloma, reaching Category 4 status with top winds of 145 mph, is the second strongest November hurricane on record (behind Lenny in 1999 with top winds of 155 mph).

Much of the storm-specific information is based on operational estimates and some changes could be made during the review process that is underway.

“The information we’ll gain by assessing the events from the 2008 hurricane season will help us do an even better job in the future,” said Bill Read, director of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center. “With this season behind us, it’s time to prepare for the one that lies ahead.”

NOAA will issue its initial 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in May, prior to the official start of the season on June 1.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

A graphic track map of this season’s storms and satellite visualization of the entire season is available at http://www.noaa.gov.

On the Web:

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov

NOAA’s National Hurricane Center: http://www.hurricanes.gov

NHC 2008 Tropical Cyclone Reports: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2008atlan.shtml

###

99 thoughts on “Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records

  1. What a joke… now the number of consecutive storms to hit the US is news… perhaps they will try to claim that global warming causes storm tracks to bring storms to the US.

  2. MSNBC will probably use that report as proof that this was the “Worst huricane season since records began”.

    Well, NOAA needed to report something! Pats NOAA on the head… “That’s nice NOAA I’ll put it on the fridge”.

  3. There must be a mechanism that allows for NOAAs claim to be challenged, no?

    And don’t pat me on the head ;)

    JimB

  4. How many major hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher at landfall) hit the U.S. mainland in 2008? How about 2007? As of 2006, the count of major hurricane strikes for the current decade was seven. Does anyone know if it increased in 2007 or 2008?

    The record of ten was set in the 1940s and has yet to be surpassed. There is no higher high to see yet.

    There are only two years left in the current decade (2001 to 2010). If the total remains unchanged, this decade will only be slightly above the decadal average of 6.2 in terms of major strikes.

    One can’t help but wonder if some of the increase in activity is an artifact of the data collection process, which has changed quite a bit over the last century and a half. That would be my bet.

  5. “There must be a mechanism that allows for NOAAs claim to be challenged, no?”

    Seriously? You must be new here.

  6. As Mike C notes, the wording makes it seem more alarming than it may be:

    The “record” is “consecutive storms to strike the United States” which is kind of meaningless.

    And the real story is “and ranks as one of the more active seasons”, which we knew already.

    And no mention of ACE.

    So it is really a non-story with a meaningless headline puffed up possibly to generate alarm.

  7. I’m betting that meaningless headline ends up on front and center in some sensationalized report tying global warming to record setting hurricane activity. I’m just sayin…

  8. How is that a different take? Maue’s data is for the Northern Hemisphere, while the NOAA press release is about the Atlantic. It was the Pacific that was dead this year.

  9. The link between more frequent storms and their strength was debunked already. But it is clear that if warming does not cause more frequent and stronger storms than the reverse must hold truth. What they won’t tell you is that maybe there were more storms this year because the earth is cooling and because the sun radiates less energy. I can hear AlGorific saying to his followers: “Told you so! Now you must adore me!”

  10. Next week the world’s Climate Ministers and a (very) heavy IPCC delegation will meet at the EC Climate Change Conference in Poland.

    Be sure the recent NOAA report will be on the table to push for immediate measures to reduce carbon emissions.

    In Europe the media bombarded the public with “hoax” messages about AGW.

    The dying pine woods, the vanishing Ice Caps, the polar bears, the rising sea levels, the increased mortality due to heat waves, the raise in infectious disease and pandemics, the loss of coastal areas, the loss of Tivalu and the Maladives, even Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was broadcasted on public televsion, followed by a discussion program with WWF and Greenpeace representatives at the table.

    We were very lucky to have a cold spell in Europe with lots of snow.
    There is no better remedy against Global Warming.
    I think the majority of the people know they are being manipulated into an expensive hoax.

  11. I didn’t realize “consecutive storms to strike the US” was a metric that indicated AGW.

    Learn something new every day….

  12. Accumulated cyclone energy. I had no clue. Anthony, this is why a geek Systems Engineer like myself loves this site. I learn something new every day. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving to all!

  13. Very clearly, the ACE rose from 1980 through the massive El Nino in 1998. This has, time and time again, been trotted out as an indication of AGW (quite a leap).

    So if an increasing ACE indicates warming, what, pray tell, does a declining ACE indicate?

  14. I was waiting in the Dr.’s office today scanning a copy of “Audubon” magazine. I wish now I’d noticed the issue but it had to be from early in the year as one of the articles quoted an NOAA scientist’s prediction of a large increase in the number and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes for the coming season. I guess I’ll have to wait for next year’s pannual physical to find out what “Audubon” writes about the results of that prediction. But my guess is that the NOAA release above will be quoted and there’ll be no mention of ACE. I’m expecting a “See, we told ya so,” article with even scarier projections for 2009.

    From the other articles I had time to scan I found that “Audubon” magazine is quite the advocate for AGW and a fair proportion of the articles had an AGW tie-in. I wasn’t aware of their position until today, but somehow it didn’t come as a surprise to me.

    P.S. Has anyone accounted for the megatons of carbon sequestered in outdated magazines accumulating in healthcare providers’ offices? I thought not. ;0)

  15. MattN (11:43:33) (and pretty much everyone else that commented in this thread),

    Where does the article mention AGW?

    Fact is, the Atlantic was above normal this year, and had some interesting activity. Do you expect NOAA to release a statement on West Pacific typhoon activity? The NOAA bashing is completely uncalled for here.

  16. Some have scolded me for my repeat accusations over the years of count padding and fueling of AGW hysteria by the NHC. Well? Where are my critics today?

  17. MattN (11:43:33) :

    “I didn’t realize “consecutive storms to strike the US” was a metric that indicated AGW.

    Learn something new every day….”

    MatttN,
    Although we know better, the AGW bandwagon is linking ALL extreme weather events directly to Global Warming. Gore’s Inconvenient Truth in fact starts with images from Katrina.

  18. @ Fred (12:27:47) :

    You wrote in part, “MattN (11:43:33) (and pretty much everyone else that commented in this thread),

    Where does the article mention AGW?”…

    The “Audobon” article I read tied the forecast to AGW. As you have noted the article above does not. It just gives results for the season with just a smidge of hyperbole (“for the first time on record six…”). My post illustrated what others do with NOAA releases.

    My post script illustrates the strange places to where random thoughts about carbon might lead. I’ve read many an odder thought about carbon than mine from A-CO2-GW advocates. I’m a piker in that regard.

  19. Jim B Canada (10:58:30) :

    “There must be a mechanism that allows for NOAAs claim to be challenged, no?”

    Seriously? You must be new here”

    Well…yeah…but…but…but… ;*)

    JimB USA

  20. NOAA’s report pertains to the 2008 tropical cyclone season in the North Atlantic Basin. COAP’s report pertains to the 2008 tropical cyclone season in the NH.

    Ryan Maue’s data below shows activity was above normal in the North Atlantic Basin and below normal in the Pacific Basins.

    Recent Activity (Updated through Nov 24, 2008, 12:00)

    Basin 2008 ACE CLIM ACE % of NORM
    Western Pacific 158 298 53%
    Eastern Pacific 82.9 140.7 59%
    North Atlantic 141.7 101.8 139%
    North Indian 18.8 14.1 133%
    Northern Hemisphere 400 555 72%

  21. “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”:

    Its spelled H. U. B. R I. S.

  22. Fred:
    Seriously? Come on. You cannot possibly hold the position that alarmist such as Gore have not directly stated increased hurricane activity is an indication of CO2 induced warming.

    Ron:
    I know.

    Steve:
    I am in agreement that someone is padding the hurricane stats. They have assigned names to storms that I am POSITIVE 10-15 years ago would have never recieved a name. Maybe it’s simply a matter of we have significantly better technology to identify these storms now than we did 10-15 years ago. Does that mean we need a “correction” so we can compare to the 1980s and before? I think ACE is a better measuring stick in this regard.

  23. NOAA”s report pertains to the 2008 Tropical Cyclone season in the North Atlantic Basin. COAP’s pertains to the 2008 Tropical Cyclone season in the NH.

    Ryan Maue’s data below shows the activity in the North Atlantic Basin was much above normal and the activity in the Pacific Basins was below normal.

    Basin 2008 ACE CLIMO ACE % of NORM
    Western Pacific 158 298 53%
    Eastern Pacific 82.9 140.7 59%
    North Atlantic 141.7 101.8 139%
    North Indian 18.8 14.1 133%
    Northern Hemisphere 400 555 72%

  24. Hi,
    I recently posted on the TWC/FE/Dr. Cullen sacking thread the question:

    “What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?”

    I thought we had a pretty spirited discussion and a few folks came back with these questions:

    – Prove, without pre-programmed “models” that a doubling of CO2 results in a 2-5C increase in global temperature. It has already been long established that doubling of CO2 just by itself, in a laboratory experiment, resuslts in .6C. That is without any feedbacks. The IPCC contends that water vapor feedback will supply the rest of the warming, while ACTUAL OBXERVATIONS from the Aqua satellite show the increase in water vapor to be a NEGATIVE feedback, instead of positive like the models are programmed to show.

    – Prove to me WITH ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ATMOSPHERIC OBSERVATIONS that a doubling of CO2 leads to the positive feedback loop as indicated by the IPCC.

    1.) I would have to be shown that the CO2 feedback loop theory was correct. The Aqua Satellite observations clearly indicate it is not. The middle and upper atmosphere are not becoming more humid. High-level clouds are not on the increase. Low level humidity is not causing positive feedhback, but to the contrary is forming low-lying clouds which increase albedo and create negative (not positive) feedback, and push us towards homeostasis.

    But the final verdict is not yet in. CO2 as a significant factor all hangs on that one question. We need to know more about the saturation level of CO2.

    I promised to see if I could find counter-arguments/proofs to the above challenges.

    Here’s what I have.

    Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius”

    A new study in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), “Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008” analyzed recent variations in surface temperature and “the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations.” They concluded that the “water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive” and “similar to that simulated by climate models.” The analysis concludes:

    The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.

    A “warming of several degrees Celsius” = the end of life as we know it (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction“).

    While some denyers/delayers/inactivists, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating (except the one negative feedback that the deniers fiercely fight, discussed below).

    That was a key point of my post “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part 1“: In the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, desertification, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. For a more recent detailed discussion of accelerating climate impacts and what that portends for the future on our current emissions path, see the new WWF report “Climate Change: faster, stronger, sooner.”

    The major climate models are missing key amplifying feedbacks, some of which were discussed in “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part II.” These feedbacks include:

    The defrosting of the permafrost
    The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires).
    The destruction of the tropical wetlands
    Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
    Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
    The desertification-global warming feedback
    The saturation of the ocean carbon sink
    And this all supports the analysis that the climate is much more sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and other “forcings” than the IPCC models have been saying and that a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from preindustrial levels to 550 ppm will ultimately warm the planet far more than 3°C, as NASA’s James Hansen argues (see ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2).

    A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:

    Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.

    A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.

    The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.

    Yes, natural negative feedbacks exist that would “eventually” absorb any excess carbon dioxide, but as one of the authors of a 2008 Nature Geosciences article explained, “not for hundreds of thousands of years” (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks“).

    Truly only one negative feedback in the planet’s overall carbon cycle can act with sufficient speed and strength to avert catastrophic climate impacts: The dominant carbon-based life form on this planet will have to respond to the already painfully clear impacts of our carbon emissions by slashing those emissions sharply and eventually running the planet on carbon-negative power.

    The time for this negative feedback is now.
    ____
    The citations are in this link:

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/

    Also, see this:

    Let’s look at the evidence that scientists are seriously underestimating climate change.

    To do that, the fatal flaw with the IPCC’s over-reliance on the poorly named “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) must be understood. Recall that the ECS is the “equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration,” which the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report concluded was 2 to 4.5°C.

    You might think that the ECS tells you how much the planet’s temperature will rise if humans emit enough CO2 to double its atmospheric concentration. But it doesn’t. It is just a theoretical construct. It tells you only how much the planet’s temperature will rise if CO2 concentrations double and then are magically frozen.

    That’s because the ECS omits key carbon cycle feedbacks that a rise in the planet’s temperature will likely trigger. For instance, a doubling of CO2 to 550 ppm will lead to the melting of the permafrost and the release of huge amounts of carbon currently frozen it it. These amplifying (or positive) feedbacks are the main subject of this post.

    The ECS includes only “fast feedbacks” which NASA’s James Hansen defines as follows:

    For example, the air holds more water vapor as temperature rises, which is a positive feedback magnifying the climate response, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Other fast feedbacks include changes of clouds, snow cover, and sea ice. It is uncertain whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative, because clouds can increase or decrease in response to climate change. Snow and ice are positive feedbacks because, as they melt, the darker ocean and land absorb more sunlight.

    While some Denyers, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating. That was a key point of Part I of this post, that in the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, temperature, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. The models are missing key amplifying feedbacks.

    A number of major studies looking at paleoclimate data come to the same conclusion. Here are three:

    Scientists analyzed data from a major expedition to retrieve deep marine sediments beneath the Arctic to understand the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum, a brief period some 55 million years ago of “widespread, extreme climatic warming that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input.” This 2006 study, published in Nature (subs. req’d), found Artic temperatures almost beyond imagination–above 23°C (74°F)–temperatures more than 18°F warmer than current climate models had predicted when applied to this period. The three dozen authors conclude that existing climate models are missing crucial feedbacks that can significantly amplify polar warming.

    A second study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the Middle Ages. This 2006 study found that the effect of amplifying feedbacks in the climate system–where global warming boosts atmospheric CO2 levels–”will promote warming by an extra 15 percent to 78 percent on a century-scale” compared to typical estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study notes these results may even be “conservative” because they ignore other greenhouse gases such as methane, whose levels will likely be boosted as temperatures warm.

    The third study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d), looked at temperature and atmospheric changes during the past 400,000 years. This study found evidence for significant increases in both CO2 and methane (CH4) levels as temperatures rise. The conclusion: If our current climate models correctly accounted for such “missing feedbacks,” then “we would be predicting a significantly greater increase in global warming than is currently forecast over the next century and beyond”–as much as 1.5°C warmer this century alone.

    What are these “missing feedbacks” in the global carbon cycle? I devote a chapter in my book to this question (where you can find all the source material). They include four key carbon sinks:

    The oceans — which likely become less able to take up carbon dioxide as they heat up and become more acidic.
    The soil — which also takes up less CO2 and starts emitting CO2 as it heats up.
    The tundra — which contains more carbon than the atmosphere does (much of it in the form of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) and which is poised to release that carbon as we warm the planet.
    Tropical forests — which store carbon but in places like Brazil and Indonesia are being cut down. Deforestation coupled with warming-induced drought could lead to the complete collapse of the Amazon rain forest.
    Some combination of these carbon sinks saturating — or turning into carbon sources — probably help drive the amplifying feedbacks that the paleoclimate studies show make the planet’s true climate sensitivity far greater than the equilibrium climate sensitivity in the IPCC models.

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/

    Is that sufficient proof now that GW/AGW is a real phenomenon requiring immediate action?

    Please be gentle. I’m not a scientist.

    Will – Just a concerned citizen of Planet Earth.

  25. Yes, you are allowed to challnege the data quality and integrity that government agencies or it’s contractors put out. It is called the DQA of 2000 — The Data Quality Act, which has been anathema to environmental groups, which have seen it as a way to stymie regulation. So far, it has been primarily been invoked by corporations questioning studies that raise alarms about their products.

    The Data Quality Act is less than half a page in a public law of more seven hundred pages — Public Law 106-554 Sec. 515; Statutes at Large volume 114, pages 2763A-153 to 2763A-154, available online as plain text and as pdf.

    Here is a link to the pertinent DQA part of the larger law, from the NRC … …

    http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/info-quality/pl106-554.pdf

    Time to take to the lawyers. Everybody who has to pay exorborant insurance rates because of the nonsense data output should join in a class action to stop it.

  26. Steve, here’s what I’m talking about. Here’s what Bertha looked like when they named it: http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/98/bertha_444488.jpg

    Here’s the infrared: http://satimg.climatepatrol.com/disk1/e6/ey1iccmzut4eqolfe4wvjc54zkjpw3bx.jpg

    So when they say: “Bertha was a tropical cyclone for 17 days (July 3-20), making it the longest-lived July storm on record in the Atlantic Basin.”

    I say: No kidding! You named a 14mph clump of thunderstorms with ZERO defined eye much less circulation the instant it came off the African continent. When you do stuff like that, it’s not a surprise it’s the longest lived storm. Not saying it didn’t (eventually) deserve to be named, but come on! Naming that storm at that time was serious BS. Then declaring it the longest lived July storm ever when you pull a stunt like that is insulting to anyone who stops to think about what just happened.

  27. I believe that Will has demonstrated and the NOAA data confirms that we have passed the tipping point of Hansen, and only total catastrophe awaits us now. If you would please visit my website http://www.dieoff.org to see my authoritative proof of a massive impending loss of human life from carbon dioxide asphyxia. The modern human body, homo sapiens sapiens sapiens, is not equipped to breathe air with CO2 concentrations above 380 ppm.

    It may seem as if they are alive, walking, talking, breathing normally. But even as you observe them they are becoming carbon zombies, dead to reality and their inner selves. Eventually, the zombie bodies will carbonize completely, like Han Solo, and remain frozen in that state as a caution for the next life form to develop intelligence on this planet.

    Humans. They just didn’t listen.

  28. Didn’t they change the standards for hurricanes several years ago?
    It seams like every low pressure area in the tropics gets a name these days.

  29. Will Small (13:53:05) :

    You’ve just given a list of things of things that are predicted to happen, such as melting ice caps, but which are clearly not. That is not much of a proof. If you want to be really concerned then this is a more complete list of things ‘predicted’ to be caused by global warming.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  30. Dear Will,
    The climate is cooling and the AGW figures are being fitted to their increasingly desperate argument.

    There was 9% more sea ice in the Arctic at the end of the melting season in September and we now have 30% more ice now than a year ago,
    James Hansen is currently re-processing his figures to ensure that what he said in the past is now low enough to show temps still increasing.

    If that is not bad enough we are now informed that hurricanes are on the increase…when the Florida State people tell us what we all know.
    Hurricans are down!
    Even in England we can tell that…..there are few if any sitings of British journalists standing in the wind on a cliff top around Florida or the Eastern Seaboard telling us of a the coming storm.
    The warmers have an agenda…and when mother nature does the opposite they change the method and lie through their back teeth.

    Also in the UK the prime mover for AGW is “The Indpendent” newspaper who’s role in the general scheme of things is to warn us of impending climate disaster.
    From circa 2000 – 2005 they hed wall to wall front pages with photos of polar bears and icebergs…however as we have cooled we hardly see a front page polar bear anymore!!!!!!

    Will…get a life.
    AGW means…carbon trading and carbon taxes.
    In London the former mayor was going to levy a £35 per day congestion charge on cars.
    Which roughly translated means the workers can use public transport…whilst the rich and famous cough up their £35 loose change to drive the streets in peace.
    Nice trip to Knightsbridge…shop at Harrod’s and Harvey Nicholls.
    How pleasant….the streets are cleaar of cars.

    James,

    PS
    Al Gore lives in three houses and runs up power bills twenty times the average. He also uses jet aircraft to spread the message!

  31. @Will Small (13:53:05) :

    A gentle introduction.

    Will, you make a claim that “Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide”

    Please read the following info and link and provide a reply comment?

    The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite “ref” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/ measures photosynthesis and draws an interesting conclusion.

  32. Will Small,

    Quite a post. I would say that the only study that is really interesting is: “Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008″ This implies a significant positive water vapor feedback, but, once again, ignores the complexity of the atmosphere and some obvious problems with their conclusions. They state that between 2003-2008, the average, global tropospheric temperature changed by 0.6 degrees. It did not warm by that much. It actually had a net cooling! So here is the obvious question, since CO2 is increasing and the water vapor increases with increasing temperatures, how did the planet have a net cooling from 2003 to 2008?

    The whole theory pivots on the fact that CO2 causes warming and warming causes more water vapor which in turn cause much more warming! Yet the troposphere cooled! If the theory is correct…cooling is impossible. The theory does not recognize any factor (outside of a major volcanic eruption, which did not happen) that would generate the observed temperatures! CO2 increased. Watervapor increased with warming. The temperature cooled. Obviously the theory is wrong!

    The paleo studies you mention verify that warming releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but not that CO2 is the cause of the warming. High resolution paleo studies indicate that something causes the warming and the CO2 follows. The also show that concentrations of CO2 are at a relative maximum as global temperatures begin to cool, indicating that something besides CO2 drives global climate.

    In reality, each addition of CO2 has less of an effect on temperature than the addition before it, as the absorption bands become saturated. Here is an interesting article that indicates any additional CO2 over present levels will have almost no impact on temperatures due to saturation:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

    So even if the permafrost melts and all those other things were to happen (which they won’t) the greenhouse effect would be inconsequential. The absorbtion bands are saturating.

    You wrote:

    While some Denyers, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate — all of the evidence points to amplifying feedbacks dominating. That was a key point of Part I of this post, that in the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, temperature, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. The models are missing key amplifying feedbacks.”

    Sorry Will, but temperatures are actually near the bottom of the range predicted by the IPCC, and will soon drop out of that range. More importantly, oceanic heat content has been decreasing in recent years. Antarctic sea ice set a maximum record last year (satellite era), while Arctic sea ice set a record min. The net result is little significant change in sea ice. Sea level rise has been fairly steady for decades, but recently started slowing down! All of these facts indicate that the models are missing key negative impacts, are overestimating positive feedbacks and/or underestimating natural climate forcers.

    I am a concerned citizen of Planet Earth too, but I am more concerned about what governments do to people than what ‘climate change’ does to people. See the history of the 20th century as the primary example.

  33. Meanwhile…back at the ranch,

    The release from the National Hurricane Center is factual. It is also true that our ability to measure peak winds inside tropical cyclones has been increasing for 150 years, resulting in scewed data. The current count is not too high. The storms did happen, just like the release states, but the historical count is obviously too low. Any study ignoring this fact is wrong before it begins. All studies tying global warming to increasing hurricanes ignore this fact and are wrong.

    The fact that AGW promoters will use this release to bolster their claims is not the fault of the release! The Atlantic season was what it was and there is no sense in denying it. But the G in AGW stands for global, so what happened in the Atlantic is not nearly as important as what happened across the globe, which was a significant reduction in total cyclone energy! AGW promoters attempting to use the 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season to bolster their claims can easily be hoisted on their own batards!

  34. James G: “Will…get a life.”

    Hello? That’s exactly why I’m here. To learn from you so that we can all have a life.

    I think I’m having flashbacks from our previous thread. Before everyone starts throwing out their favorite theories about hurricanes and ice caps, let’s try and stick to the topic.

    Go back and read my challenge. Read the proofs that were requested by WUWT commenters, and the research that was brought forward. That was the agreement we had, remember? I’ve held up my side and now it’s your turn.

    Graeme has it right. He’s examined the response and provided a counter. Thank you Graeme. I’ll dig around and see if I can find something useful for our debate.

    With that said, does that mean that WUWT folks accept the presented proofs? I’m not saying slam dunk yet, but I’m feeling better than AGW is real and does need action.

    Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.

    It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.

    Will

  35. Will Small (13:53:05)
    “For example, the air holds more water vapor as temperature rises, which is a positive feedback magnifying the climate response, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. ”

    Only if the water vapor leads to more “Heat” trapping clouds (which is a major part of the CO2 induced global warming theory). But that is not happening in the real world. (think swamp cooler and the roll of water vapor or a misting system in yuma az).

    http://www.weatherguestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-globsl warming.htm

  36. Where did they get this “On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.”

    When I was dancing with Gustav, I suspected this. I saved the SST Anomaly map for “Aug 23rd”.

    At that time there was a good sized anomaly of over 2 degrees near and to the west of Bermuda. But the gulf, caribbean and Atlantic from 0 deg to 30 deg N showed only a small area in the bay of Campichi, and 3 small areas of the atlantic with a 1 deg anomaly. And one hot area off Africa at -10 and about +3.

    It’s hard to take these people seriously.

    Maybe they’ll look into their data and divine another storm so intense they missed it.

  37. Re “NOAA understands and predicts changes …” = Hubris
    Why didn’t they just say, “NOAA strives to understand and predict changes …”?

  38. I think both of these are useful reports. Maue’s is the more interesting to me, as I tend not to worry about tropical storms outside of the Atlantic and I wasn’t aware of the decreasing ACE of the NH & global storms.

    The NOAA report has some silly records, but no worse than what you hear on baseball and football telecasts here in the US. Some of those silly records help get people interested in hurricanes or drive home what fickle things they can be. (Fay’s four landfalls is pretty remarkable. While not as disruptive as mountains, Florida is land and Fay did a good job surviving over land.

    The next few years with a cool PDO, meaning propensity for La Ninas, meaning lowish wind shear in the Atlantic combined with the warm AMO et al in the Atlantic suggest we may have several more busy years before things settle down there.

    Oh – the Klotzbach/Gray season summary is out. Their forecasts and post-mortems are quite readable and educational. About Bertha’s early formation, they say “Bertha formed from a tropical wave in the eastern Atlantic on July 3. It reached tropical storm status later that day, becoming the farthest east that a storm has formed in July in the deep tropics.” Silly record, I suppose, but tropical storm status require 35 mph winds, so I don’t think Bertha is a good storm to complain about NHC jumping the gun. (There are several other cases over the last few years that leave K&G fuming.) The images MattN posted clearly show rotation, not just the usual tropical wave that comes through that part of the Atlantic.

    As usual, they have a section about Global Warming and is quite informative this year. When the section was first added it was clearly in response to the “Global Warming Means Stronger Hurricanes” claims and focused on the quality of the historical hurricane record. This year it focuses on variance of the Atlantic hurricane records vs. circulation patterns.

    Their first 2009 forecast comes out on December 10th.

    http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/

  39. It was the 8th worst hurricane season this millenium! How can you not be convinced that the end of the world is not only nigh, but right here, now!

  40. “Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.

    It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.

    Will”

    This statement astounds me every time I hear/see it. Small price?…according to whom?…the people starving to death in Africa because the corn market went through the roof? The people that were killed in the food riots?

    It is an ill-informed and niave belief system that would allow this statement to be made.

    I would also submit that it’s you who is being short-sighted when you think that carbon trading is in any way a solution to the things that you seem to believe are a problem. Did you read the article in the telegraph.uk about the government taking the money from the carbon credit auction and putting it in the general fund?…which has what to do with C02 emmissions?

    The reason this gets so much political support is that it’s another stream of revenue for governments at the national/state/local level.

    Jim

  41. No, Fred (12:27:47) , the NOAA bashing here is totally called for and justified. This bureaucracy is becoming delaminated from reality. They lie, cheat, exagerate, fiddle with the data and run into denial when they are caught out. NOAA is a bureaucracy and NOT a scientific organization. It’s purpose is political, not scientific.

  42. For the first time on record, six consecutive tropical cyclones (Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike) made landfall on the U.S. mainland and a record three major hurricanes (Gustav, Ike and Paloma) struck Cuba.

    So then, since it wasn’t mentioned, is it safe to assume that the record for the number of hurricanes in months with ‘u’ as the second letter remains unbroken by the 2008 season?

  43. @ Will Small (15:35:18) :

    You requested gentle – I gave you gentle. One point at a time.

    WRT your enthusiasm for “Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.

    It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.”

    Which is all predicated on the assumption that man-made emissions of CO2 will cause (or are causing) catastrophic warming of the climate.

    The above key/core assumption is highly contentious, and if you dig deep enough you will find that the evidence does not stand up.

    WRT Carbon Trading and Carbon Taxes (do you work for a merchant bank looking for a new market to exploit… :-)).

    Everyone will pay for increased energy costs under such a scheme at all points of the production of all goods and services. I can’t think of anything that does not involve the imput of energy in some way.

    The wealthy will not notice the additional costs, those who are poor, or are in the marginal groups who’s working income just meets their needs will be hit really hard.

    CO2 suppression via cap and trade is a direct attack on the poor of the world whether they are living in the developed or undeveloped countries. The principle winners are the banks and other financial institutions that will be able to exploit a new tradeable commodity (carbon) funded by a tax on energy (CO2) production.

    I would suggest that you take a good long hard look at the actual costs of the proposed solutions to AGW and try and identify who are the winners and who are the losers. look especially at where the money will flow, from whom and too whom.

    PS, life has existed on Earth with much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere then are present now.

  44. Will Small

    Just a short note for you. Despite all the solutions and mitigations you support, not a one of them will have any effect at all when compared to nature.

    Nature and the forces it harbors will squish you like a bug anytime it damn well pleases. There’s nothing anyone can do about it, so stop acting like you can control it.

    Cap and trade is a pipe dream on par with the investor shams that have corrupted our economy. If you support it, you must be a shyster on par with Gore’s favored Lehman Brothers outfit.

  45. Will Small (13:53:05) :

    Will, I am not going to bother replying to your screed point by point. You have truly drunk of the elixir of enviro-doom. You repeat all the usual stuff. Perhaps you work for “the team”.

    You set up straw men, such as “show me scientific proof that AGW is not real”. You know darn well that there are no positive “proofs” in science. At best, supporting evidence. Only the negative can be proved in science.

    If you are following this thread, then you will probably reply to me thusly: “Show me where I said “show me scientific proof that AGW is not real”“. At which I would have to show your pedantic highness the whole thing you wrote and ask you what the meaning was. And you will deny it’s meaning, maintaining the pedantic position.

    I could go on but it’s a waste of electrons.

  46. Me:
    “Absolutely yes on carbon trading and carbon taxes.

    It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.”
    JimB (16:26:30) :
    This statement astounds me every time I hear/see it. Small price?…according to whom?…the people starving to death in Africa because the corn market went through the roof? The people that were killed in the food riots?

    It is an ill-informed and niave belief system that would allow this statement to be made.

    Me:
    Jim – you mis-spelled naive. Exactly, short term sacrifice means that people have pain. Prices go up. Quality of life goes down. People die in riots. Precisely. That’s where this is heading with or w/o addressing carbon. Over 350ppm we’re in serious trouble.

    Let’s not get off track.

    But back to the core issue that no one but Jim Clarke has taken up. Thank you Jim for your response. It’s appreciated. Just as I promised Graeme, I’ll delve into your response to see if I can find counter-arguments.

    Glad to hear that you’re a concerned citizen of Planet Earth too. I’m intrigued by “I am more concerned about what governments do to people than what ‘climate change’ does to people.”

    Fascinating. Especially, how their seems to be a huge groundswell for the gov’t to help bailout banks, insurers, car companies, etc.

    Hmm.

    Maybe gov’t is the solution and the problem is stupid corporations and their short-sighted executives?

  47. @ Will Small (15:35:18) :

    Another point to understand is that so-called “Climate Science” is often very sloppy in it’s practices.

    If I was in the business of making large scale policy decisions affecting peoples lives I would want to know that the underlying science was being conducted in a highly professional, and verifiably professional way.

    This would include.
    1. Transparancy of Data, Programs, and Methods used in Climate Science.
    2. The clear use of Configuration and Data Management Practicies by the various AGW groups such as GISS, in accordance with typical industry best practice standards.
    3. Repeatability of results by independent teams.
    4. A theory of AGW that was cleary falsifiable and where the research actually tested for the falsification criteria. I.e. research designed to falsify the theory of AGW.

    Please check http://www.climateaudit.org for reading on the above issues.

    Here is another “courageous” test, proceed on the assumption that AGW is a false hypothesis, and see where that takes you.

    PS. Before I started looking I had the typical superficial MSM conditioned view of AGW as correct. It was the discovery that the data underlying AGW is so mishandled and obfuscated that sowed the initial seeds of my doubt.

    (I am a natural sceptic, but I hadn’t given AGW much thought until 2008).

    I find it very difficult to believe that a sloppy, incoherent process and data handling activities can produce useful results.

    If the process framework for the “science” is not credible, then neither will be the science, – and the scientists involved seem to resolutely refuse to clean up their act and adopt credible processes and data management techniques.

  48. Will,

    Here’s the comparison of James Hansen’s ‘scenario ‘A” (no significant action to reduce C02) temperature vs actual over the period 1988 – 2008. As you can see the actual temps are becoming ridiculously lower than HAnsen’s prediction (a prediction based on his understanding of climate sensitivity to COO2 and the IPCCs acceptance of his calculations). Pretty clearly Hansen is wrong and the climate is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 increase as he or the IPCC would have you believe.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GISSvs_Hansen.JPG (Hansen Scenario A in green)

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RSSvs_Hansen.JPG RSS is the Satellite derived Temps

  49. The figure of 16 storms is a stretch, at best. Several of them, as posted above, were barely more than a clump of thunderstorms; Nana, Laura, and Josephine come to mind and really make one wonder if NHC is padding the numbers to fit the AGW agenda and/or to help to verify their seasonal forecasts.

    In addition, I do not feel it is not meaningful to compare tropical storm/hurricane numbers before satellite observations were available since there could have been many pre-satellite storms that would not have been detected unless they went over inhabited areas or if a ship sailed into them. NHC uses statistical methods to account for satellite vs. pre-satellite figure but in view of the statistical methods of Mann, Hansen, etc., pardon me if I am cynical about the validity of these methods. Perhaps Steve McIntyre can analyze them with the same bulldog determination that he displays in debunking Mann et al.

  50. C Lampert,
    Don’t forget the first storm of the year, Arthur. It was a “tropical storm” for, perhaps, a few hours before landfall. I saw no defined rotation or eye, and the highest wind speed I saw at landfall was 23 mph.

    It was the equivalent of a sunspeck.

  51. Will Small and other unfortunate disillusioned unhappy individuals.

    I say unhappy, because you are so eager to crawl under a rock
    and stop living; run for cover Will, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

    Reality is,,,, the weather is the weather, and the weather changes, always has, always will,,, (no pun intended Will), so sit back Will, re-adjust your tin foil hat and just wait for a little while longer before begging them to accept more money for everything you depend upon in order to have the lifestyle that you and everyone deserves.

    The earth is cooling and soon even the likes of you will have no doubt as each year continues getting colder and colder and colder for who knows how long.

  52. The earth stopped cooling in January, when we had the ‘perfect storm’ combination of cooling factors – strong la nina, strong solar minimum and strongly negative PDO. This cooling pushed temperature right down to around the bottom end of the preditions of the IPCC.

    Since then tha la nina has faded (although showing recent signs of new life), and temperatures have been on the way back up again. Solar is still very low, and PDO is still quite negative. Where will temperatures be when we get to the next solar maximum?

  53. “Me:
    Jim – you mis-spelled naive. Exactly, short term sacrifice means that people have pain. Prices go up. Quality of life goes down. People die in riots. Precisely. That’s where this is heading with or w/o addressing carbon. Over 350ppm we’re in serious trouble.”

    Will…thank you for the valuable spelling lesson.

    My understanding is that we’re already over 350ppm. Prove that this puts us “in serious trouble”.

    I agree that we’re IN serious trouble, btw, but not for the reasons you promote.

    JimB

  54. They have assigned names to storms that I am POSITIVE 10-15 years ago would have never recieved a name.

    We call them “Tiny Tims”.

  55. Is that sufficient proof now that GW/AGW is a real phenomenon requiring immediate action?

    I compliment you for a straight and respectful argument. (Though I would ask that you lose the term “deniers”. It is evocative and derivative of the term “holocaust denier” and adds bad vibes to the discussion.)

    But, no, and especially no.

    The whole point of the Spencer study is that, yes, there is more water in the lower troposphere, but that it has not gone to ambient vapor (which would induce positive feedback) but instead has gone to low-level cloud cover which has increased albedo and created a negative feedback. I grant that the LT contains more water (though obviously not more heat). But the middle and upper troposphere appear to be a bit drier during this period, and that’s where the danger (supposedly) is. Anthony posted on this a few months ago.

    We still have to wait a few years to be sure, but I don’t see any positive feedback or warming, either, for that matter. I don’t guarantee that you are wrong. But I doubt you are right.

    Furthermore, during the time period covered by the study 2003 to 2008, temperatures are down, not up. Yes, that is only a five-year period, but with the PDO reversal and what looks like a nasty winter ahead, they won’t be headed back up for at least a while.

    As for “immediate action”, there is no evidence whatever that this is imperative, particularly in light of the PDO reversal and the very real possibility of a grand solar minimum in this or the next cycle. I think we have a few years to observe and evaluate.

    And I very much doubt that the type of action I would advocate (i.e., stoke up those energy plants – we need the wealth to create those pole-to-pole satellite reflectors) would satisfy you. But they would cost less than two year’s worth of Kyoto or Stern.

    The precautionary principle is not at issue. The appeal to Pascal does not apply. Pascal pertains only in the case of small or no sacrifice. But the loss of 1% or more of GWP per year is staggering – the rich will merely be inconvenienced, but the poorest of the world will suffer greatly and there will be many more deaths from poverty (the greatest killer of all) than in the normal course of events.

    Lomborg quotes a study that claims over four times as many would die from the effects of cold than the effects of heat by 2050 even if the IPCC estimates are correct.

    It’s a small price to pay to continue to sustain life on the planet as we know it. Don’t you think? Let’s think long term and not be short-sighted.

    If there were a.) better evidence of AGW, and b.) no alternative, then I would agree with you. But I doubt case “a” and doubt case “b” even more so, even if “a” turns out to be true. I see carbon caps as a death sentence for millions. I see far less cost in blood or treasure for the satellite alternative. In addition, given case “a” I doubt carbon caps would work worth a damn, and a satellite solution (or some other direct “non-green” fix) would be the only effective alternative – and many times more practical than carbon caps (append skull and crossbones thereto).

    P.S.: Let us PLEASE be respectful to Will. His arguments deserve reasonable answers. He is no fool even if he may not have considered every angle. I consider him a positive addition to our DIVERSE mix.

  56. @Ken
    Ease up on Will – he is justified (excused) in his point of view with the MSM information on the subject. He states himself that he is at this website to learn and actually produces valid questions based on scientific ‘theories’. I do hope you are rigth and with another decade of cooling trends we can leave some of this hysteria behind and move on to subjects around the globe that truly matters – and in our lifetime.

    @Will
    With regards to your comments on ‘small price to pay’ – you are right and you are wrong. If we stick to an IPCC view of AGW we are still lacking a reason for implementing Cap and Trade mecanisms. As an illustrative point we are more accustumed to evaluating political proposals on other issues were we might also agree with the aim, e.g. education, health, crime-fighting etc.. I would not expect you to agree with any and every political proposal aimed at these issues as you would probably consider their ‘real’ effect vs. their costs or vs. choosing a different approach where they are mutually exclusive. Please extent the same consideration to a cap and trade system before just jumping onboard based solely on agreeing with the stated aim. Fact is with Kyoto in Europe we are not seeing a lot of results in reality. Sure the Kyoto accounting standard for emmissions are declining but research from e.g. Stockholm Institute of Environment at York University find that in reality our emissions are increasing (carbon footprint). All we have managed is to close down parts of production in Europe and move them elsewhere, i.e. outside Kyoto-countries or to EC-members which was given increased emmission allowances (e.g. most of Eastern Europe). That is just plain stupid if we believe in the IPCC climate projections. All we have accomplished is to waste one of the key resources, namely time (and a sh.. load of cash besides that). In a globalized world with International trade flowing more freely than ever regionalised attempts to curtail emmissions will simply not work efficiently. Similarly you do no longer in the US (or other countries for that matter) see economists propose strong ‘trickle-down-effect’ on the economy, where what was ‘good’ for the rich would end up being good for the relatively poorer. In todays world extra money for the rich only marginally increases their domestic spending – the bulk goes for travel and international purchases. Apply the same principles to Cap and Trade on a regional scale which Kyoto is – and so far the Copenhagen agenda is – and you have a pretty good idea why it is not working as intended. Another point on regionalized proposals is how the IEA Energy Outlook 2008 report expects that 97% of the increase in emmisions are from non-OECD countries, i.e. the 2nd and 3rd world. They actually conclude that even if OECD completely stopped emissions completely (Zero CO2-equivalents) it would not be enough to attain the 450 ppm goal of the IPCC. The Kyoto logic behind only focusing on Annex1 countries was one of ‘guilt’/morals rather than efficiancy in obtaining the goal – or even a real effect. The moral argument alone decided the regional approach and while it indeed have some normative value it has none whatsoever in terms of logical thinking. Analogous you dont extend native-americans different rules and laws in society at large in the US (i.e. outside of ‘reservations’).

    With regards to the ‘trade’ part consider these comments from one of the worlds leading economists Jeffrey Sachs. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4988X020081009
    Just in case you dont know him, he is not some ‘obscure’ all out neo-liberal simply claiming no-state involvement as the solution to everything. He is one of the key architects behind dismantling the “Washington concensus” methodology of the IMF and partially World Bank and a key driver in changing the way we today approach development issues. Besides that especially his comments on not relying on experimenting with financial engineering deserves some consideration in these times.

    Please notice that all this critique was written under an assumption of IPCC projections being correct. However ‘agreeing’ with AGW theory should not be an excuse for blindly accepting any and all proposals to address the issue. And certainly not with general arguments about ‘small price’, long- vs. short time focus etc.. Not joining the Kyoto was probably the smartest thing the Bush Administration did. Consider how the aim for the US was to reduce emmisions to 7% less than 1990 level. Today you are 50 million people more in the US than in 90. It would have been virtually impossible and in general all you would have accomplished would be to outsource even more production to China, Asia in general, Mexico and even Canada. Your Kyoto accounted emissions would have dropped nicely as a result. However your actual emmissions based on consumption would have increased as production in those countries (except Canada) are a lot less energy efficient plus calls for increased transportation (shipping) with related increased emissions.
    Apologize for any bad spelling and grammar. I am posting this from Denmark and English is not my first language. Also sorry for not being strictly OT.

  57. Mikkel:

    Well spoken in any language.

    The only spot I disagree with you on is the wealth of the rich. The rich invest their money and it trickles down indirectly everywhere, both domestically and in the poorest countries where it saves countless lives. In the Old Days, the rich buried their gold in the courtyard (and maybe strangled the servant that did it for good measure). But these are no longer the old days and the rich do not pile their treasure in a heap and sleep on it for a bed. They create businesses, hire people, invest it, or bank it with someone who will. Look at the periods of history where the “gap between rich and poor” increased. We call those “good times”. And look at the periods of history where it decreased. We call those “hard times” – especially for the poor. (I speak as a poor person.)

  58. Will Small,

    Whats a “denyer”?

    You make quite a few wild assumptions about positive feedback ‘proofs’ and quoting Hanson isnt going to win you many converts here as he has shown himself to be an AGW/MMCC extremist with a rather plastic view on scientific reality.
    I note that the main planks of your arguments for positive feedback are at best hypothetical, a main supplier of atmospheric oxygen/consumer of atmospheric carbon is the northern forests that surround the arctic circle and these are showing an increase in carbon take up not a decline.
    The point about the ‘four key carbon sinks’ only apply IF AGW is real and warming is actually occurring which it clearly isnt at present, the northern permafrost ring isnt melting is it? The mature rain forests take up less CO2 than the new agricultural lands that surround them and per active intensively farmed hectare the farmed land produces roughly the same O2 as the mature rain forest, the argument for retaining tropical rain forests like the Amazon basin forests is a biodiversity argument NOT a carbon/oxygen cycle argument
    I understand your points are based on many ‘ifs’ and ‘coulds’ and ‘mays’, if the planets heats up to a critical point, could lead to a mass release of stored carbon, may result in positive feedback amplification are just a few of the assumptions you make, there is an old saying where I come from, ‘if ifs and ands were pots and pans there’d be no need for tinkers’, you make a great many assumptions based on events that have not occurred and quote sources that have a vested interest in AGW/MMCC theory.
    Your post rests on just one basic proposition and that is a continued and marked warming of the planet, everything you claim may happen in the future rests entirely on the assumption of continued global warming and continuous ramping up of global temperatures BUT the uncomfortable fact(for warmists)is that global temperatures are no following the AGW/MMCC preset political directives, they are in fact following a completely different path better fitting a long term natural cyclic variation based on solar activity and earths variable orbit.
    You see IF we were to strip away the ‘ifs’ and ‘mays’ and ‘coulds’ from the whole climate debate and stick to observable facts and reality,cold hard facts measured without bias then I feel we may be able to move the debate forward but untill we have this I fear the debate will not progress much beyond the current finger pointing.

    Disclaimer, I am not a scientist nor do I have any scientific qualification, some of my points made could well be mistaken and I would value any corrections offered.

  59. Mikkel, you English is better than many (most?) native speakers.

    From the wayback machine… I year (or two?) ago there was some hurricane whose name I don’t remember that was a Cat 5 for about 10? hours out in the middle of the Gulf. The weather droid even woke me up by saying that in the recent past they would have never called it a Cat 5 because the weather plane didn’t sample often enough to have caught that blip. Only with the advent of doppler radar did they catch this kind of data…

    One is left to wonder how much of the ‘most strong storms ever’ is due to doppler… and how many 10 hour hurricanes are now named…

    Cap & Trade: The problems here are legion. Chief among them are China and India. All C&T does is guarantee a fatter profit and greater growth rate for India and China (oh, and move a boat load of money out of the productive part of the economy and into taxes…)

    Deniers: This is a code word that is intended to slander skeptics. It is one of the best ways to spot someone with a koolaid addiction I know of.

    Greenhouses regularly run at 1000 ppm CO2 and plants love it. Workers in them don’t really notice anything at all. That idea that 3xx ppm is a problem is just broken.

    Puritans & Guilt: There is a fascinating social detail. The AGW fans have a significant percentage of guilt, fear, and loathing of humanity with a universally pessimistic tilt. The skeptics have a far higher number of positive folks who are assured about the future and comfortable with their place in it. Don’t know what it means, but I’m starting to agree with whoever posted that AGW was the new Puritanism… complete with the desire for witches to be burned… figuratively of course.

    A google of ‘November 2008 “record cold”‘ gave 28,500 hits. There has been record cold and unseasonable snow all over the place. Were now at 6 days of no sunspots; again. It’s cold and it’s going to get colder. This is not just some local weather thing. Australia, Canada, UK with 5″ snow, Swiss snow, Alaska, Florida, China. The list goes on.

    And finally, it’s well documented that raising the standard of living reduces births and enables folks to afford the luxury of preserving endangered species and wild lands. Its just as well proven that poverty brings environmental destruction. The problem with Kyoto and related agreements is that it brings poverty and THAT will lead to environment destruction.

  60. evanjones
    Overall agreeing with your point. My bad for missing to point out the domestic in my talk of reclining dynamic effects from trickle down. Just sticking purely to accepted models rather than opinion: As an economy become relatively more open and relatively smaller (to others) both will reduce the domestic trickle down dynamics. The same principle apply to the Kyoto approach to emissions where the exact same drivers of international trade will merely disperse emissions to other places. In a globalized world, regionalised (or domestic) approaches will simply not work as intended. All in (global) or no point in such programs.

  61. MattN said

    “I say: No kidding! You named a 14mph clump of thunderstorms with ZERO defined eye much less circulation the instant it came off the African continent. When you do stuff like that, it’s not a surprise it’s the longest lived storm. Not saying it didn’t (eventually) deserve to be named, but come on! Naming that storm at that time was serious BS. Then declaring it the longest lived July storm ever when you pull a stunt like that is insulting to anyone who stops to think about what just happened.”

    That’s incorrect though, it did have circulation even before it was named a stopical storm, see here

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=972&tstamp=

    Wind speeds were 35mph+ .

    Just because it doesn’t look like what you wish it to look like does not mean it is not what it is ! :) It was a tropical storm.

    Of course you could argue that without satellites you would’t have spotted it as early so it wouldn’t have been classified to have lasted so long, but that’s another argument.

    Regards

    Andy

  62. 2008 VRS 1969

    I thought it would be interesting to compare these two seasons. Assuming there are no additional storms this year. Raw data comes from Wiki.

    2008 had 16 systems (not counting depressions) of these 8 became hurricanes for 50%. There was an average max. wind speed for these 16 storms was 89mph. There was a total of 105 storm days. With an average of 6.5 days/storm.

    1969 Had 17 systems. 12 became hurricanes. For 70%. Two tropical storms were never named. (TS 11 and TS 16) Two hurricanes, were never named. (Hurricane 10, and 17) The average max. winds for these 17 storms was 94 mph. There was a total of 128 storm days. Or an average of 7.6 per storm.

    I also looked at the 1893 Hurricane season. There were only 9 systems listed. All Hurricanes. With an average of 105 mph per system.

    It’s hard to take these folks serious.

    Interesting trivia. Being NOAA wants to talk about records.

    On Feb 2, 1952 a tropical storm formed in the NW Caribbean. It eventually goes over Key West and up the eastern seaboard.

    March 6, 1908 A system was observed NE of the Lesser Antillies and becomes a cat 2 hurricane before dispating March 9th.

    NOAA may want to adjust the data some more.

    Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

  63. Will Small makes good arguments, so the kind of replies that artday types make “Empty pitchers make the most noise.” should be read as it reads: noise.

    Go on, mr. Small, I am enjoying the discussion.

  64. press release=public relations

    This isn’t about science. It’s about presenting the facts in such a way as to reflect favorably on the organization and the important work it does so that come funding time their requests will be looked upon with great favor.

    This release reminds me of a line from Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged when justifying another shoddy press release, “But what can you do when you deal with people?”

  65. How many of the ‘tropical storms’ named by NOAA were glorified mesoscale clusters that huffed and puffed up to 35 MPH in mid-Atlantic and blew themselves out before Advisory 2?

  66. Robert Wood (16:33:41)

    I would contend that this board/forum/blog comments section is far, far more political than NOAA. You do realize that naming of the storms is the duty of the NHC, and it has been pretty well established that the NHC is not on board with the AGW/hurricane link (Landsea is the SOO for cripes sake!!). So for all of the conspiracy theorists on here that think that NOAA has been fudging the figures, why would they be doing that?

  67. “Maybe gov’t is the solution and the problem is stupid corporations and their short-sighted executives?”

    Will, I suggest you put a little more effort into understanding the current global economic problems.

    OTOH, I agree that more considered input from AGW supporters can only help this site debate the issue. For myself, I can only assume that the lack of posts from supporters demostrates they have little to say or don’t want an OPEN debate. This has led me to lean towards the skeptical side.

  68. Mikkel: Yes, I at least partially agree. Though trickle-down does work domestically as well as internationally. Most domestic salaries ultimately trickle down from somewhere higher up. And in the US the great majority of government income/cap gains revenues derive from the rich, 40% from the richest 1%.

    But, yes, money, like water, finds its own level. If Kyoto affects the terrain, it will likewise affect where the money goes (with the attendant inefficiencies). The Stern article on the concrete makers (whose profits in Germany would be half wiped out by carbon caps) makes that point clearly.

    Will, you must remember that if a company is making a 10% profit, a 10% increase in costs wipes out 90% of its profit.

  69. Pierre Gosselin/Mr Artday,

    I think the English quote is “empty vessels make the most sound”.

    David Porter

  70. It’s simple really. If there weren’t enough very strong negative feedbacks, this planet long ago would have ended up like Venus. Long before man was even a gleam in mother nature’s eye.
    If water vapor is such a huge positive feedback as Will’s article suggests, then we are all screwed no matter what we do about CO2.

  71. Graeme Rodaughan (14:57:23) :
    Will, you make a claim that “Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide”

    I think what Will is refering to is this study http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626271.900-cosub2sub-dont-count-on-the-trees.html
    Tree growth was reduced by 50% after local temperature rises of 1 degree C. I think Will is referring to the result of extra CO2 rather than the effects of the extra gas itself.

    Extra CO2 can increase plant and crop growths as long as there is sufficient water and food to support this extra growth. The shortage of water would be the key to the extra CO2 being a plus or a negative result.

  72. danbo (15:58:30) :

    Where did they get this “On average, the tropical Atlantic was about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit above normal during the peak of the season.”

    When I was dancing with Gustav, I suspected this. I saved the SST Anomaly map for “Aug 23rd”.

    This is the SST map for the 25th August http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.25.2008.gif.
    They would have been correct if they had stated northern tropical Atlantic, the sea from the Cape Verde islands to the Caribbean was about 1 degree warmer. As this is the significant stretch of sea for hurricane formation this must have been that the referred to.
    You are right though that the tropical Atlantic was not warmer than average over the whole.

  73. The record number of hits on the U.S. coastline in one season occurred, I believe, in the mid 1890’s.

  74. GRL rejects 2 papers from Spencer: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

    “November 9, 2008:
    The two papers we had submitted to Geophysical Research Letters have both been rejected, with instructions to not resubmit either one. The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data.

    The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth’s radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century….including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980.

    Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book.”

  75. ‘How many major hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher at landfall) hit the U.S. mainland in 2008? ‘

    The inadequacies of the Saffir-Simpson scale for measuring the impact of landfalling storms were well-illustrated this season with Hurricane Ike. Barring post-season upgrading by the NHC (remember that Andrew was carried as a Cat 4 for ten years before it was upgraded), Ike was a solid Cat 2, but it still had the effects of a major hurricane on Galveston Island.

    Joe Bastardi at Accuweather has developed a metric for hurricane impact using criteria in addition to central pressure and wind speed. Two of the factors he includes are the angle of attack on the coast and whether the storm is intensifying at landfall (as Ike was) or diminishing (as, e.g. Rita was in 2005). For an intensifying storm, initial contact with land may actually tighten the eye up leading to a sudden drop in central pressure and a ramping up of wind speeds. Katrina hit south Florida as a solid Cat 1, defying the overlords at the NHC, who insisted that it would be no more than a strong tropical storm.

  76. Mary

    My error. I was looking at deg C. not deg F. He said F. I can buy 0.5 C.

    My map shows a slight warming. Just not that much.

  77. Thanks Mikkel for the kind words. It’s appreciated.

    You’re right. I’m here to learn.

    The truth shall set you free,
    Will

  78. Will,
    Apocalyptic cults always use very convincing arguments to justify why *this* apocalypse is the one that is actually going to happen.
    Since the AGW cult is censoring the studies that show that in fact H2O vapor is net negative in feedback, I suggest that you just enjoy the show. We are not going to die. We are not going to manage the climate.
    And the bizarre-o economics site you posted about is just that: bizarre-o.
    From the deluge stories of the ancient world to Malthus to the Millerite cults of the 19th century, apocalyptic stories enchant all humans.
    AGW is no different.
    Temperatures have not risen significantly. Storms globally have not increased in frequency or strength.
    The NOAA report discusses the Atlantic storm basin. The Florida report discusses the northern hemisphere.
    The facts seem to be that overall storm strength is down or unchanged, while regional storms may increase.
    And by the way- calling skeptics ‘denyers’ is not just bad spelling, it is intellectually compromised.

  79. No thread that concerns peaks and valleys in hurricane frequency should ignore paying obeisance to the pioneering work of Dr William Gray.

  80. MattN notes that Geophysical Research Letters has arbitrarily rejected two scholarly papers submitted by Dr. Spencer — and furthermore told Spencer that he may not re-submit the papers [normally re-submission is routinely accepted, after changes that a reviewer objects to are rewritten].

    Want to guess why Dr. Spencer is being censored?

    Here’s a hint:

    Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann is a “referee” for the journals Nature, Science, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, JRG-Oceans, JRG-Atmospheres, Paleo Oceanography, Eos, Climate Change, International Journal of Climatology, and the UN/IPCC, and an advisor to the grant programs of the NSF, NOAA, and DOE.
    Hmm-m-m…

    In the corrupted peer-review system of climate science [see the Wegman Report], the role of the anonymous referee confers the unilateral power to reject any papers that are deemed, in the personal opinion of the referee, not to meet vague scientific ‘standards’.

    This is the same Michael Mann who refuses to publicly archive his taxpayer funded data and methodology, claiming it is his own personal property.

    Mann is clearly — and unethically — using his position to silence his critics. He should be investigated for misappropriating taxpayer money.

    But don’t hold your breath.

  81. @Will Small (13:53:05) :

    WRT: ““What would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?””

    To be convincing – one must first be credible.

    Please demonstrate answers to these questions.

    1. Is the current practice of “Climate Science” as sanctioned by the IPCC in fact Science – as opposed to pseudoscience.

    1a. Are the Temperature data measurements credible, using calibrated instruments set to defined and commonly accepted industrial standards of operation.

    1b. Are the Temperature Data storage methods credible, using techniques in accordance with defined and commonly accepted industrial standards for Data and Configuration Managment.

    1c. Are the Temperature Data evaluation and interpretation methods and software, documented, transparent and freely available for the inspection of third parties.

    1d. Is the IPCC Peer Review process, objective and independent?

    1e. Are the results of the IPCC sanctioned climate science activities repeatable by independent scientific bodies?

    1f. What proportion of IPCC sanctioned climate science activities actually test the link between man-made emissions of CO2 and global warming.

    1g. What are the defined and published falsification criteria for the concept that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage.

    Successfully answering the above questions would give credibility to the idea that current climate science activities are in fact science.

    If you can do that, then I will specify in detail the next two sets of questions to determine if your position is credible enough to cast doubt on the sceptic position.

    I.e.

    2. If Climate Science is Science, is AGW (catastrophy – see 3. next) correct? and
    3. If Climate Science is Science, and it is correct that man-made emissions of CO2 cause global warming and that the warming will be of a magnitude as to cause catastrophic damage. Is Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes and other Carbon reduction schemes the best approach (Cost/Benefit Analysis for a Cost effective solution) to dealing with the problem of catastrophic damage.

    To recap – there is no single fact – first show me that we are dealing with science and not politics/pseudoscience.

  82. @Will Small (13:53:05) :

    If this were a baseball game, it’s the bottom of the 9th innings, currently your on first base and you need a home run to win…

    Can you demonstrate that IPCC Sanctioned Climate Science is indeed Science and get off first base?

  83. Hi Graeme,
    That’s quite a homework assignment! I’ll need to take this back over to my folks who are in a better position to answer this. We’ll be back!
    Thanks!
    Will

Comments are closed.