The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) issued a stunning statement in a recent report. Roger Pielke Jr. has the details on his blog.
Just to remind folks that we’ve been saying much the same thing for months on WUWT:
Global Warming = more hurricanes | Still not happening
=======================
A team of researchers under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization has published a new review paper in Nature Geoscience (PDF) updating consensus perspectives published in 1998 and 2006. The author team includes prominent scientists from either side of the “hurricane wars” of 2005-2006: Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava and Masato Sugi.
The paper reaches a number of interesting (but for those paying attention, ultimately unsurprising) conclusions. On North Atlantic hurricanes the paper states (emphasis added):
Hurricane counts (with no adjustments for possible missing cases) show a significant increase from the late 1800s to present, but do not have a significant trend from the 1850s or 1860s to present3. Other studies23 infer a substantial low-bias in early Atlantic tropical cyclone intensities (1851–1920), which, if corrected, would further reduce or possibly eliminate long-term increasing trends in basin-wide hurricane counts. Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase (Fig. 2, orange series)20. Basin-wide major hurricane counts show a significant rising trend, but we judge these basin-wide data as unreliable for climate-trend estimation before aircraft reconnaissance in 1944.
The paper’s conclusions about global trends might raise a few eyebrows.
In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded25 that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia26 during the past 60 years, and those in the Philippines27 during the past century, also do not show significant trends.
The paper acknowledges that the detection of a change in tropical cyclone frequency has yet to be achieved:
Thus, considering available observational studies, and after accounting for potential errors arising from past changes in observing capabilities, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone frequency have exceeded the variability expected through natural causes.
The paper states that projections of future activity favor a reduction in storm frequency coupled with and increase in average storm intensity, with large uncertainties:
These include our assessment that tropical cyclone frequency is likely to either decrease or remain essentially the same. Despite this lack of an increase in total storm count, we project that a future increase in the globally averaged frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones is more likely than not — a higher confidence level than possible at our previous assessment6.
Does the science allow detection of such expected changes in tropical cyclone intensity based on historical trends? The authors say no:
The short time period of the data does not allow any definitive statements regarding separation of anthropogenic changes from natural decadal variability or the existence of longer-term trends and possible links to greenhouse warming. Furthermore, intensity changes may result from a systematic change in storm duration, which is another route by which the storm environment can affect intensity that has not been studied extensively.
The intensity changes projected by various modelling studies of the effects of greenhouse-gas-induced warming (Supplementary Table S2) are small in the sense that detection of an intensity change of a magnitude consistent with model projections should be very unlikely at this time37,38, given data limitations and the large interannual variability relative to the projected changes. Uncertain relationships between tropical cyclones and internal climate variability, including factors related to the SST distribution, such as vertical wind shear, also reduce our ability to confidently attribute observed intensity changes to greenhouse warming. The most significant cyclone intensity increases are found for the Atlantic Ocean basin43, but the relative contributions to this increase from multidecadal variability44 (whether internal or aerosol forced) versus greenhouse-forced warming cannot yet be confidently determined.
What about more intense rainfall?
. . . a detectable change in tropical-cyclone-related rainfall has not been established by existing studies.
What about changes in location of storm formation, storm motion, lifetime and surge?
There is no conclusive evidence that any observed changes in tropical cyclone genesis, tracks, duration and surge flooding exceed the variability expected from natural causes.
Bottom line (emphasis added)?
. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.
The latest WMO statement should indicate definitively (and once again) that it is scientifically untenable to associate trends (i.e., in the past) in hurricane activity or damage to anthropogenic causes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That was one of Judiths claims. Greater frequency and intensity.
How disappointing.
I am not disappointed in the lack of storms. I am dissappointed in the lack of high paid scientists using cheap models.
I would hope that readers here would take time to send the links to stories like this to the PBS Ombudsman and ask why the PBS NewsHour ignores such stories while trumpeting IPCC propaganda [e.g. in the run-up to Copenhagen, the NewsHour proclaimed that “this huge team of scientists from all over the globe issued these unanimous warnings about the really extreme danger to the planet.”
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
We have to be more than information junkies.
We need to ask why our taxpayer and donations funded PBS has such slanted coverage on this issue.
I wonder if Al Gore will go correct his blog post from yesterday afternoon?
Finally a little common sense in a world of conflicting evidence and mis-information along with seemingly criminal behavior. Al Gore must really be proud of himself.
Us folks on the Gulf coast feel much better knowing the truth.
From a Nature paper
“There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes,” says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Robust!!!
That may all well and good, but what does Al Gore think?
The Truth Is Out There.
(so is the snickering)
Because of course if they could detect a change then naturally it would be a valid assumption to attribute that to anthropogenic factors. Gotta love inductivists.
Yeh, I figured this would be one of the first myths dispelled. Quantity of hurricanes are too easy to track, as is rainfall. Of course, if/when the quantity goes back up to 89-90 levels, I’m sure we’ll see them attributed to anthropological something or another. Perhaps CO2 will still be around to kick, maybe our water use.
“Just to remind folks that we’ve been saying much the same thing for months on WUWT:”…….yes you have. Perhaps you can pass on the experience to our AGW advocate scientists. They seem to be a bit shaken because of their lack of credibility with the masses. In terms of credibility, there is no substitute for being correct. WTG!!
Not really surprising. It’s been fuzzy whether we’ve already started seeing effects, or not. This paper reviews the field and gives a consensus view.
But if you’re going to show plots, it’s PDI you want. The expectation is for a lower frequency, but a higher PDI.
What propaganda,
“Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100.”
Empirical evidence shows no trend but virtual reality says otherwise? The amount of computer illiteracy in the scientific fields is amazing.
Henry chance (15:12:14) :
From a Nature paper
“There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes,” says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
lol, I find myself trying to work the word in sarcastic conversations I have. Sadly, I end up snickering at the word, ruining the delivery of the sarcasm. Oh well, practice makes perfect.
Well you now have a quote of the week…
. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.
I just had an email from Les Hatton whose paper on Hurricanes was published on this very blog
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/register-ipcc-hurricane-data-question
that came to appromately the same conclusion
Les tells me that this paper is the second most downloaded paper he has ever written, and “nobody is interested in my proper stuff”
Les, I think we are very interested in your “proper stuff”. You should feel very vindicated now.
Australian ABC ran a story on this a few days ago, omitting much of the discussion about uncertainty. We felt the story could have been more informative so we put 13 questions to one of the authors, John McBride and got the response outlined here…
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/abc-cyclone-report-leaves-questions.html
I’m disappointed that all the hot air emanating from Al Gore hasn’t resulted in a statistically significant upward trend over the last few years.
I have a question. It may seem tendentious but I genuinely would like to understand something.
When someone like Thomas Knutson presents research that says concentrations of CO2 will lead to more powerful hurricanes, you dismiss it. Yet in this case, you embrace it.
What changed? If you’re not just cherry-picking the research that suits your beliefs – which is something I assume most here would find offensive if I were to suggest it – than on what criteria do you find this paper of greater value than, say, Knutson and Tuleya’s paper in 2004?
It’s a genuine question.
REPLY: I suggest you ask the question of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. He’s the expert on hurricane frequency/damages etc. -A
Call it a hunch, but I bet Tamino can find a statistically significant correlation there even if he has to torture that data all night
In the second plot [SST vs time] it is not really a good idea to compute a regression line and plot it based on running means. It would be much better to keep the running mean but base the trend on a fit to the annual data [not the running mean].
REPLY: I could put any graph of any data on WUWT and there would be a critic of it. -A
While I suspect that the study is correct, the scientific process does not assume that that is the case. Those who feel it is wrong should now have the opportunity to point out any mistakes they feel have been made in the study, and if they are unable to do so, the study stands. If they can, the study falls, or needs amendment.
This is a step towards showing that AGW has not produced more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes. It’s not conclusive proof of such.
The more shocking revelation from Dr. Pielke is that is peer-reviewed paper was not include in the IPCC report,
“Not surprisingly the IPCC chapter that Trenberth led for the IPCC made no mention of our article, despite it being peer reviewed and being the most recently published review of this topic prior to the IPCC publication deadline.”
Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2005)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch
This sort of censorship by the IPCC is outrageous and all the more reason to dismiss it’s conclusions as manufactured propaganda.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
For a look at the SST and SST anomalies of the Atlantic Hurricane Breeding Grounds, refer to my post from last July:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/hurricane-breeding-grounds-sst.html
Hurricanes are caused by differences in energy between the tropics and the poles. They are nature’s way of blowing off steam from the tropics and transferring it to the poles. It is not coincidental that the 2007 record Arctic melt came after two very active hurricane seasons.
When the North Atlantic is warm, there is going to be less hurricane formation. Global warming should produce fewer hurricanes.
Today I sent an e-mail to Neal Cavuto about the ongoing Congressional investigation into Toyota’s recall issues. I asked him what will happen after the Congressional B B & –ends? (B B & BS = Bashing Bluster and ——snip). Ironically, Toyota’s problems seem to be software related, but HTSB of US DOT dose not have any electrical or software engineers on its payroll.
B B & BS seems to be a common trait of all governments. That stuff is being spewed by HAD, CRU, EAU, the UK Parliament, Congress, EPA, GISS, NASA, and NOAA et al. What comes next? How do you stop the -snip- flow?
[WARNING: We don’t accept even abbreviated swearing here. Don’t do it again. – The Night Watch]