Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
Open science: Got Excel? Debunk this
By Andrew Orlowski The Register
Above: Hurricane ACE data from Ryan Maue. Note where 2009 is in the scheme of things. More here.
More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.
Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.
Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.
Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.
“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.
Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.
The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.
Read the rest of the story at the Regsiter here
Status? Presented, submitted, published?
As an aside, the notion that work questioning the IPCC’s conclusions is an “x-gate,” i.e., a scandal, is ridiculous. It’s irresponsible and indicative of ignorance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry to imply that work questioning your conclusions is a stain or your integrity or even a big deal.
Good. Some real science. Well done.
Very interesting. Now I wonder why it cannot be published:
“Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as “unpublishable”.”
Is that the peer-review system and journals that won’t publish anything that goes against the “consensus”.
G
For any over there who are puzzled about ‘A-level’, it is the required examination (Advanced) level for entry to university, in other words, a pretty good standard of mathematics required, but not PhD level.
How many more wheels are there on the bus to fall off?
I remember reading this statement in AR4 saying “there is no statistical increase of hurricanes” but “it is likely they will increase”.
Will any not skewed fundamental IPCC claim stand up?
I’d better submit my grant for Obamamoney soon before the fear is killed.
I was thinking of painting the moon black – that’d cool things off right? I imagine it’ll be at least as effective as cap n’ trade.
Two hurricanes (cyclones) now in the southern hemisphere
http://www.sailwx.info/hurricanes/hurricanes.phtml
“Yes, but the underlying science is undisputed. Besides that, all the measures we take like the introduction of wind, solar and bio fuels are necessary because we will run out of oil anyway”.
Response Environmental Minister Cramer in the Netherlands, answering the question what’s wrong with the IPCC AR-4 report.
This is the standard world wide response of the entire political warmists gang, pushing the scare and their policies despite ClimateGate, IPCC AR-4 Gates, conflicting scientific reports, or (criminal) investigations into the practices of the scientists.
Record snowfall and below average winters have been caused by AGW as well.
The public attending the televised interview were applauding the wisdom of this Minister who was a scientist before she started her political career.
And how did she respond to the Jones interview where the statement was made about the lack of Global warming since 1995?
Well, the newspaper was wrong! Jones never said that!
Another applause, the Minister leaves and the moderator wishes her well with her most difficult task.
It will take a huge effort to change the public opinion about AGW in the Netherlands.
Let alone change the Government policies.
Another lie, when will they stop?
I am constantly gratified to find one (online) newspaper that makes it a habit to publish articles that tweak the nose of the establishment. Hats off to that iconoclastic rag, The Register, Biting the hand that feeds IT.
It was the register that first gave me facts to support my growing suspicion that AGW was BS. I am fairly sure The Register led me to WUWT, also.
cheers,
gary
Audit the IPCC!
No surprise. The IPCC has sadly tried to hype the possible results of global warming in some kind of whirlwind through every place on earth from the trials of the lesser spotted green tree lizard of Upper Volta through too many storms in Karachi. And every politician in every town, city and state has jumped on the opportunity.
The result – everyone not originally in the choir has become an outright skeptic. And now the IPCC, and their cheerleaders, are wondering why no one is listening to them.
The Ghosts of Climates Past demonstrate huge changes in climate with no human interference, and that in itself should have made the IPCC cautious about attributing every change to humans.
Well, they got the short-term gain from hyping. Now the long-term pain..
I seem to recall a good Dr.? threaten to sue IPCC to have his name removed over the hurricane issue.
This is not surprising as Craig Loehle published something similar last year which was taken up by Joe Bastardi at Accuweather. Others (Judith Curry I think) have claimed that although the total energy has not increased the number of severe storms has.
IPCC/TERI chief Pachauri denies the existence of additional IPCC errors.
http://climategate2009.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/climategate-pachauri-denies-ipcc-errors/
I read saw this phrase recently and thought it pretty apt (wish I had penned it!!)
“now that ‘Climate Change’ can be restored to its orignal name of ‘Seasons’……”
from
http://www.northstarnational.com/2010/02/16/childhood-obesity-hunger-left%E2%80%99s-global-warming/
(Please delete prior message with wrong video)
IPCC/TERI chief Pachauri denies the existence of additional IPCC errors
Les Hatton’s analysis is able to test three and only three of the IPCC statements on hurricanes:
1. There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North At-
lantic since the 1970s.
2. There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes.
3. Other regions appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity
as well.
Statistically, to confirm 1 both an increase in intensity should be seen and the null hypothesis should be rejected at a significant level. To confirm 2 the null hypothesis of a clear trend, whether positive or negative, should not be rejected. Finally, to confirm 3, an increase in intensity should be seen, but it need not be significant – the inclusion of “appear to” is obviously weakening this statement considerably.
Here are the results with Hatton’s calculated t-statistics and significance:
1. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t =1.81; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, rejected at the 5% level, t = 1.68
2. Confirmed: there has been an increase, but at t = 1.21 this is not significant.
3. Confirmed: null hypothesis of no increase in major hurricanes, t =0.57, an increase but not significant; null hypothesis of no change in the proportion of hurricanes maturing into major hurricanes, t = 0.24, an increase but not significant.
The remainder of Hatton’s conclusions regarding the IPCC statements on hurricanes rest on his views of climate modelling (he’s not a fan), but he doesn’t consider any of the models’ results.
Hatton confirm’s the IPCC statements on hurricanes where he can, and snarls at the rest. Does trouble loom for the IPCC? Not on the basis of Hatton’s analysis.
“I was thinking of painting the moon black – that’d cool things off right? I imagine it’ll be at least as effective as cap n’ trade”
and cheaper, probably.
Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia had this to say at the BBC Radio Live.
“I do think actually the IPCC is probably past its sell by date.”
The full Radio 5 segment with Mike Hulme, Richard North and Roger Harrabin the BBC Environment Analyst is at this link)
http://climategate2009.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/climategate-science-under-the-microscope/
@ur momisugly Robert
> As an aside, the notion that work questioning the IPCC’s conclusions is an “x-gate,” i.e., a scandal, is ridiculous. It’s irresponsible and indicative of ignorance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry to imply that work questioning your conclusions is a stain or your integrity or even a big deal.
It shouldn’t be…
but until quite recently anybody who dared to criticise, or was even slightly skeptical of, any part of the consensus/IPCC conclusion was
(a) labelled a denier, and/or compared to a holocaust denier, even a Nazi
(b) told they were unscientific and anti-science
(c) told their work/ideas/criticisms were irrelevant because of the mountain of peer-review articles on the consensus/IPCC side.
Actually, strike that… well the bit about “until quite recently”… in fact, it’s still happening. Gordon Brown, Bill Nye, and realclimate, and quite a few others, are still arguing the above.
When the public discussion is largely conducted in the mode of politics (forming a consensus) rather than science (welcome skepticism as offering potential tests of a theory)… then it’s hardly surprising that the criticisms also follow the mode of politics (X-gate)
thegoodlocust (01:14:29) :
What your need is a jumbo can of asteroid black somewhat darker than the Mare on the Moon. Perhaps a powderized asteroid or two sent in the general direction would do the trick? Chondrite is too bright and Iron-Nickel is too shiny. No need to do a Sherman Willams on it, one side will suffice.
And less than 1 hour after posting, Rene gets downgraded to ‘tropical storm’
status…
If there’s supposed to be a ‘gate here, I wish these posts would actually quote the statement from the IPCC that is supposed to be wrong, and show how it has been disproved. That’s not done in this post, not in Orlowski’s article. If you track down to Hatton’s pdf via his website, then you do, as Tom P says, find some formal statements. But as Tom also says, it’s most unclear that Hatton has actually disproved them.
Tom P, see Ryan Maue’s graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, which is at a 30 year low.
================================