Via Tom Nelson: Dr. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, responds to last week’s attacks from Dr. Richard Muller.
On the Green Front – Dr. Joseph Romm and Dr. Michael Mann – 08/15/12 at On the Green Front
Mann at the 40:40 mark, bold mine:
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
Umm. Mike, seen this?
Since Katrina, accumulated cyclone energy is (a measure of intensity) is down in the Atlantic and globally. Power dissipation is also down globally. Some trend there, huh Mike?
Graphs from Dr. Ryan Maue, source: http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Or, has Mike seen this?
On December 5th, 2011, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. offered this graph of days between Cat3-5 hurricanes striking the USA:
Now, we are up to 2487 days since a major Hurricane made landfall on the USA. The graph looks like this now:
Where’s the trend toward more destructive storms Mike? Or are you reporting data from another planet?
UPDATE: For context, Mann is responding to a very critical interview with Richard Muller at the GREEN room. Full transcript of the Muller interview in the url below and write up at WUWT
They just make up any BS they want and the media, who basically make a living by running scare stories, eats garbage like this up and spreads it everywhere. If humans didn’t have a penchant for scare stories and didn’t have a media which makes a living by spreading scare stories about, we’d be 100’s of years ahead of where we are, climate change would be universally understood to be a natural phenomenon present through all universal history, CO2 would be universally understood to be a beneficial trace gas and we’d be geoengineering the planet to make it more habitable for life and humans by purposefully increasing the CO2 content, and building continent-scale water projects like NAWAPA to turn the deserts green.
The mind… it boggles.
It is not getting any easier for Michael with the 2012 season. There have been 7 named storms so for in the North Atlantic region, but the latest, Gordon, has only just started, so it has no ACE value. The ACE value for the other 6 storms is 17. For the three years when there was a total of 6 named storms, the ACE values were 25, 29 and 36. So, the early indications from the 2012 NA season is that there is still no trend to more intensive hurricanes.
There may be “…a trend towards more destructive storms”.
However, not because of more storms or more powerful storms but because of more and more silly humans erecting buildings in zones where the buildings are capable of being destroyed by hurricanes. If you got more buidings to be destroyed, you got “more destructive storms” when the buildings are destroyed.
Ipso facto.
You don’t suppose he is using Al Gore’s “satellite” picture as his proxy????
Actually, it is worst than we thought. First AGW is killing Polar Bears and now major Hurricanes are endangered! How I will miss the Hurricane parties!
Maybe it’s an opportunity for a new resource; a specific database of their claims, with date, time, and context listed, and the refutations. For example: Climate Liar # 324, Head of whatever, CBS Interview on 10/10/10, etc., then their direct quote and the actual data. Would make for wonderfully funny reading at the very least.
You know.Maybe the “the aliens are here” meme might just have some merit? Something has taken over Mr.Mann’s brain cells,and it is definitly anti-human.
It’s been 6.81 YEARS since a major storm hit,and that’s an increasing trend? But then,math is HARD!
Scare stories have two benefits: 1) they keep the kiddies in check for a while, 2) they eventually teach the kiddies to be skeptical of everything they hear. But there also are drawbacks: 1) the kiddies get addicted to scare stories and clamor for more, 2) some kiddies – when they grow up – learn there’s money to be made with scare stories and so abuse them. Mikey has this all figured out.
Robust goes bust. One of Mann’s favourite words is losing its meaning.
My pedestrian research shows a curious correlation to the Arctic atmospheric pressure some 15 years earlier.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AHA.htm
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased…”
I am not sure that even George Orwell took 1984 that far.
Hey, he did not say it was a “robust prediction”, but that it was “one of the more robust predictions”, meaning he thinks most of his other predictions were weaker than this one.
And as this particular prediction failed miserably, it is just a rather convoluted and circumspect way to acknowledge he could hardly predict anything.
Nonetheless it is an important moment in his spiritual development. He just needs to resolve the cognitive dissonance he is submerged in and presto! we’ll have a fellow skeptic to welcome in our ranks. Is not science wonderful?
I keep thinking “Let them keep making these claims. They are just setting themselves up for a fail.”
But then I remember to never under estimate the power of stupidity.
The problem is that there are plenty of people in positions of power who will believe what Romm and Mann say without taking the time to review the criticisms or understand that their statements are pure foam. The CAGW proponents know this and keep on forwarding the deception. Just last week Babs Boxer used the “97-98% of climate scientists agree with global warming” reference, and this was in the face of one of the most eminent climate scientists who questions CAGW. We have city council members around here who vote for Climate Action Plans citing the “consensus,” despite our efforts to encourage them to look at the data and think for themselves.
He’s probably looking at a model. That trumps reality anyday. /s
I find Mann’s CAGW extremism predictable and boring…wake me up when he says something coherent…
Not to mention :
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
and
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hurricane-climatology.html
One has to ask if his mummy knows he’s escaped from kindergarten…
This isn’t a problem created by scientists such as Hansen and Mann. They are simply a product of the system that the voters have allowed to develop. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Scientists need funding to survive. So, of course the scientists that want to survive are going to cherry pick and say there is a problem. Otherwise they are out of work as scientists. Why would a politician pay money to solve something that is not a problem?
Over time this process will weed out the responsible scientists and replace then with scientists that are willing to exaggerate problems in order to survive. Mann and Hansen didn’t create the problem. The problem created them.
Michael Mann is a typical libtard. Facts are not relevant, only their goal is and it has nothing to do with science. Thanks to Anthony and Dr. Maue for bringing the fact hammer.
The best response to Mann’s idiotic pronouncements is to present the facts contradicting his assertions and ridicule him for his stupidity and ignorance.
Jay Davis
nuclearcannoli
You write “Would make for wonderfully funny reading at the very least.“
Unfortunately, as I have seen only too often on Judith Curry`s Climate Etc., the warmaholics invent all sorts of wonderful reasons why the predictions did not say what they actually said, and so the predictions are absolutely correct.
Mann is not stupid or ignorant. He knows EXACTLY what he is doing. The graphs and facts have not escaped his attention. He misrepresents the facts knowing full well that opposing views rarely get an airing in the media so he can get away with it. Thank God for the Internet. Or should that be Al Bore?
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘U.S. midwestern drought has decreased in past 50+ years? That is not skepticism, that’s IPCC’
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/235809535271510017
H/t Climate Depot
OFF TOPIC: another note on the intermittency of fossil fuel powered electricity supplies, or why conventional power and nuclear power need solar and wind backup:
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Drought_hits_US_power_supply_999.html
I exaggerate, but as costs of wind and solar continue to decline (does anyone bet that the costs will not continue to decline), the liabilities of fossil fuel will attract more attention.
Michael Mann lives on his own planet, with his own set of rules, governed by his own laws, making up his own “science”, and wishing everybody else didn’t exist. In a way he’s a scientific hermit (but much more hermit than scientist).
I think that pretty much covers the question: “What planet does Michael Mann live on?”.
I once had the pleasure of presenting Ryan Maue’s ACE graph to a literary group, led by a cloud modeler, which was discussing Chris Mooney’s ‘Storm World’. Rarely have I had so much fun.
==========================
Could someone please explain to me why the bar graph on top looks different from graphs 2 and 3, in both shape and x-axis units?
Of the five graphs presented here, only one, the first, depicts the “Atlantic” intensity (2 and 3 are global/NH – too big, 4 and 5 are USA – too small) that Mann was ommenting on. Look at the left hand side of graph 1, prior to 91 or 92, then look at the right hand side. It’s clearly higher on the right, the increase is there for all to see. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the trend and significance from that graph.
Here is a great twitter sequence from 3 days ago. He has difficulty understanding the meaning of 0, so two scientists explain it to him.
350 dot org @350
Here’s how close we are to having all arctic sea ice disappear: http://bit.ly/ONEjj3
13 Aug Richard Betts @richardabetts
. @350 Also, why do you not place the x-axis at y=0 ? That would be the normal scientific thing to do, in order to avoid misinterpretation.
13 Aug Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
@richardabetts @350 Don’t understand your point Richard. We typically use anomalies (relative scale) in our field, where “y=0” means nothing
13 Aug Richard Betts @richardabetts
@MichaelEMann @350 It unnecessarily gives the impression of being fiddled! And doesn’t the y-axis shows absolute ice volume, not anomaly?
13 Aug Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
@richardabetts @350 Richard, you are missing my point. We almost always show anomalies anyway, where absolute y values are irrelevant anyway
13 Aug John Kennedy @micefearboggis
@MichaelEMann @richardabetts @350 In this case zero does mean something. Something interesting. Showing zero would barely change the axes.
Pieter, good point. AGW does not equal CAGW. A lot of scientists accept that its warming and that human activity is likely a contributor to that warming, yet don’t buy the CAGW bible. CAGWism is a religion… we are all sinners at the hands of an angry Goracle. We must repent at the pulpit of the Goracle and redistribute money in the form of cap and trade or we will all suffer through fire and brimstone courtesy of the Big Oil devil. We must renounce our electricity and modern amenities and revert to the hippie commune lifestyle, gathering ’round the fire (carbon-free, of course) singing Kumbaya and celebrating the coming Ice Age.
All predictions of AGW effects have to be catastrophic. More tornadoes, more violent hurricanes and so forth because that is the meme used to demand more political power to the elite. Yet, polar warming would reduce the heat differential between the polar region and the equator which hypothetically should reduce the number and power of hurricanes. Of course, that can’t be mentioned because it would be a positive result of AGW.
The trend of concern is the continued building in hurricane prone areas, too near the coast.
Since it hasn’t been warming, technically the claim can be made it’s still valid, right?
/sarc
Barry, only
bad“catastrophic” effects of global warming may be reporting. To suggest that global warming may have good effects is an apostasy in the laws of the Church of CAGWism. If you dare suggest it’s not that bad or that natural variation is playing a role, you have committed a mortal sin according to the Book of Gore and must immediately seek penitence by planting trees, retrofitting your home with solar panels, and trading your used automobile for a Hybrid.In the book “Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow” the author, Nobel Prize winning Daniel Kahneman, describes how the mind works. I’ve only read a few chapters, but the author tells us the mind is essentially made up of 2 parts – System 1 & System 2.
System 2 uses a lot of brain power and is the part that stops and thinks about a problem before giving an answer. Thinking slow.
system 1 is the part that jumps to conclusions, especially when it thinks it knows the answer…
Mann appears to be a System 1 thinker
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
–H. L. Mencken
I see a trend here…
nuclearcannoli says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:09 am
No doubt there is such a database in the hands of Mike’s lawyers. They probably show it to him daily as they explain that he should stop giving interviews.
Ah, good old Katrina. Gets blamed for everything, really. It’s so funny, I mean, using Mann’s logic I could say that the size of the Tohoku tsunami was also related to climate change. It’s the same thing, really. I mean, New Orleans sits in an area that is hurricane prone and is below sea level, but when a hurricane finally floods the city, it’s climate change’s fault. Ok, then the tsunami was exactly like that as well.
The only thing really noteworthy, when you compare those two catastrophes, is the reaction of local people and governments. The Japanese were ready (yes, there were issues with S&R and supplies, simply because of the scale of the disaster, but they got it under control), New Orleans wasn’t. Wide spread looting and even murder in New Orleans, a nation growing together in case of the Tohoku tsunami.
You know, the “Team” don’t even try and make the lies believable anymore. They are confident the MSM will never call them on anything, and if they ever do it will be so far below the fold no one will notice So they feel they can say anything, no matter how off the wall, and it will have the desired effect to panic the masses. Except the only m…asses that are listening are politicians who will latch on to anything that offers them an excuse to increase the amount of power and control they have over the people.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Ayn Rand, Eric Hoffer, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, and even Murphey were raging optimists.
I suppose my mother in law who lives on the gulf coast of Texas should thank Dr. Mann for his contribution to the “gore effect”
JohnB,
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
You cannot interpret Mikey as referring to the graph. Notice that he says “a trend towards more destructive storms.” Destructive of what? Seaweed? It has been over 2232 days since a major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is more than six years. That is a huge fact that Mikey conveniently overlooks. He can compete among Olympic class cherry pickers.
The one problem here is that, despite the graphs, one decent sized hurricane and the media will go with the climate change=>hurricane story. (And with the rapid cooling we’re seeing in the US this August, as Joe Basteri points out, there is an increased chance of just such a storm this year.)
With the media lazy and in the tank, Mann can keep being wrong until a weather event proves him “right”. Then he goes to town.
Once you stop doing science – which Mann and Hansen have long since – you start doing rhetoric and spin. The rules (if there are any at all) are completely different.
When they believe their own fiction… Wasn’t that a criteria for whether someone should be committed? When they couldn’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy?
Oh, c’mon folks, those hurricanes are just being sneaky and Michael Mann knows it. He knows they’re somewhere, hiding out. Perhaps hiding in the same place with that mysterious, missing heat. Maybe deep in the ocean. Maybe they’re just trying to lull us into complacency. But, probably they don’t want to be shackled to a bunch of wind turbines and put to work. But they can’t hide forever and when they come out we can avoid those rolling blackouts, brownouts, and ‘skyrocketing’ energy bills that the exalted one has in store for us in 2015. Oh, wait a minute, those turbines can’t tolerate wind speeds in excess of . . . never mind.
“You write “Would make for wonderfully funny reading at the very least.“
Unfortunately, as I have seen only too often on Judith Curry`s Climate Etc., the warmaholics invent all sorts of wonderful reasons why the predictions did not say what they actually said, and so the predictions are absolutely correct.” – Jim Cripwell
I can’t be the only one who finds that kind of logical pretzelism amusing. Plus, when you get a whole database of their BS together indexed by topic, it’d be digestible too. And no belittling sites like this, I just think a quick layman’s jab at this kind of idiocy would be even more helpful. Not everyone wants to go into detailed dissections of studies, and a quick “This is what they said, and this is what actually happened…” kind of thing is more accessible.
As Johnb has pointed out upthread the first bar-chart of N Atlantic cyclone energy is the only graph that relates to Mann’s quote and that shows unequivocally that he is right.
Each decade has a higher cumulative cyclone intensity than the preceding decade. Mann was correct, the prediction that warming would increase hurricane intensity (not total numbers) is confirmed by the observations.
I like how he seems to make his prediction in past tense….
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
Maybe Dr Mann lives on the same planet as Professor Kerry Emanuel, who prefers power dissipation as a measure of intensity over ACE, The power dissipation index shows a distinct upward trend, correlating well with SST, as noted in Emanuel 2005
Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html
See also ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Haurwitz_2008.pdf and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full
Jus sayin’
REPLY: Potential destructiveness? Gosh, why not “potential” deaths too? “Potential” isn’t fact, but is a symptom of modeling madness – Anthony
Perhaps we need to add the words “robust”, “increase[d]” and/or “trend” to those that have been … uh … “redefined” … along with “trick”, “decline” etc.
Worked as contractor in a NOAA office for 10 years. There is a little deliberate language trickery in Mann’s statement. Where we ‘hear’ him saying that stronger and more frequent storms are the cause of more destruction (and that’s what he means us to ‘hear), he can fall back on the fact that US striking hurricanes are more destructive, absolutely. But, not for the reasons we ‘hear’ him say. They are more destructive because we humans continue to build more and nicer stuff in the places hurricanes strike. Ergo, hurricanes are ‘more’ destructive. I heard and read this exact little double step many times…. part of why I don’t work in a NOAA office anymore. ‘
Typical Green Church tactics. Church stuff is tricky, though. As a wise friend sometimes reminds, you don’t have to leave much out of ‘eschatology’ before you have ‘scatology.’ 😉
izen says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:27 am
“As Johnb has pointed out upthread the first bar-chart of N Atlantic cyclone energy is the only graph that relates to Mann’s quote and that shows unequivocally that he is right.
Each decade has a higher cumulative cyclone intensity than the preceding decade.”
Go to the quotation and find what he really said. It is not what you write. Pay special attention to the word ‘destructive’. Then ask yourself: Destructive of what?
M Mann is responding to a very critical interview with Richard Muller at the GREEN room. Full transcript of the Muller interview in the url below and write up at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/
Perhaps add this link to the main article for context?
More hiding declines perhaps…
“Potential” isn’t fact, but is a symptom of modeling madness – Anthony
PDI is just an alternative algorithm for measuring storm intensity to ACE, so the word ‘potential’ would apply to both; the point is that Mann has support from the literature and an acknowledged expert for his statement.
Mann seems to depend on mixing a special brand of manure into his statements. He coats his work with this special sort of manure that flavors his work so that only gullible and ignorant people accept it.
“REPLY: Potential destructiveness? Gosh, why not “potential” deaths too? “Potential” isn’t fact, but is a symptom of modeling madness – Anthony”
Yeah, I wonder if Mann has a trend line for potentially destructive hurricanes extending to 1850 or so? If he published it on the internet then the media would probably run with it.
He could also publish trend lines for potentially destructive tornadoes, potentially halcyon days, and potentially chaste starlets.
Jeff Wood wrote:
“I am not sure that even George Orwell took 1984 that far.”
…mmmmm
George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’
Appendix
THE PRINCIPLES OF
NEWSPEAKWARMINGSPEAK*** with some updates 🙂 ***
http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
NewspeakWarmingspeak was the official language ofOceaniathe famous “97% of climate scientists” and had been devised to meet the ideological needs ofIngsocthe IPCC…[…]
The purpose of
NewspeakWarmingspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees ofIngsocthe IPCC, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that whenNewspeakWarmingspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles ofIngsocthe IPCC — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.[…]
This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in
NewspeakWarmingspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as‘This dog is free from lice’“The Arctic Ocean is free from ice” or‘This field is free from weeds’“The UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet”. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.[…]
All words grouping themselves round the concepts of liberty and equality, for instance, were contained in the single word crimethink, while all words grouping themselves round the concepts of objectivity and rationalism were contained in the single word oldthink.
[…]
For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a
Party memberIPCC lead author called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets. His training fitted him to do this, the language gave him an almost foolproof instrument, and the texture of the words [e.g. denier, shill, reactionary] with their harsh sound and a certain wilful ugliness which was in accord with the spirit ofIngsocthe IPCC, assisted the process still further.[…]
From the foregoing account it will be seen that in
NewspeakWarmingspeak the expression of unorthodox opinions, above a very low level, was well-nigh impossible. It was of course possible to utter heresies of a very crude kind, a species of blasphemy. It would have been possible, for example, to sayBig Brother is ungoodthe polar bears are fine.[…]
When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with the past would have been severed. History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the
pastMedieval Warm Period survived here and there, imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained one’s knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them.[…]
Phil Clarke says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:49 am
2005? Scroll back up to the top of this article, take a magic marker and draw vertical lines for 2005 on the graphs. 2005 was a good year for making alarming comments about tropical storm activity. Subsequent years make them look rather silly.
Keep in mind the Atlantic tropical storms are still in the enhanced-by-the-AMO phase we entered in 1995, we’ll get back to the 1960s-1995 levels sooner or later.
Heck, Mann is even credited coining the term “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,” you’d think he could at least acknowledge some of its effects.
“Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s.”
Does Emanuel have an index for actual destructiveness of hurricanes for the same time and places? How do the two indices (indexes) compare? What can we learn from that comparison about the idea of potential destructiveness? Just how robust are Emanuel’s standards for potential destructiveness?
Do we need to learn that a so-called scientist who writes about the potential destructiveness of hurricanes but does not address the actual destructiveness of those hurricanes does not have a clue as to what the point of his research is?
David Ross says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:44 am
Nicely done. Maybe we can survive the communist mind set as Orwell did.
Michael Mann is a complete climate charlatan. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’. He hides out from all fair, moderated debates because he would get slaughtered – as he has been in every past debate. He does not have the courage of his convictions. He ignores the scientific method, and its requirement for transparency. He is only in it for the money, the status, and the endless taxpayer-paid trips to holiday vacation spots.
Can one of Mann’s apologists prove me wrong? Get him to agree to a debate. Betcha can’t.
Phil Clarke says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:29 am
“PDI is just an alternative algorithm for measuring storm intensity to ACE, so the word ‘potential’ would apply to both; the point is that Mann has support from the literature and an acknowledged expert for his statement.”
Warmists are fact phobic. The fact that no hurricane has come ashore in the USA for 2232 days is totally ignored while they talk about potential destructiveness. Did it ever occur to them that high PDI might prevent hurricanes from coming ashore? Did they even consider the possibility? If they are to make sense of PDI, they must address actual hurricane destructiveness and use it as a constraint on their PDI theory.
Probability of a major hurricane hitting the USA in the next 10 days, to the nearest whole number. Zero.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
nuclearcannoli says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:09 am
Maybe it’s an opportunity for a new resource; a specific database of their claims, with date, time, and context listed, and the refutations. For example: Climate Liar # 324….
__________________________________
Excellent Idea!
Actually it should be Climate Lie # 324. Then when you go to rebut the lies in the MSM all you have to do is list the lie and a link.
For example the Bloomberg article:Carbon Taxes Cut Debt, Cool Planet
Oh what fun it would be to rip these fact-free scare pieces to shreds.
Ric Werme:
At August 16, 2012 at 11:47 am you rightly say in reponse to Phil Clarke:
but your correct comment has no meaning for warmists.
There has been no discernible trend in global temperature for 15 years but they still assert that global warming is accelerating.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the warmist concept that recent years should only be considered if they support a warmist mantra.
Richard
Lil’ Mickey did AMO reconstruction
I attempted to do the same.
To compare two I used N.W. Scotland’s rainfall records (closely follows the N. Atlantic SST) as a reference.
Here is the result:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-2R.htm
I am not claiming that my reconstruction is better than Lil’ Mickey’s, although it appears to be closer to the reference, but I wonder why is he paid fortune for his, when I can do it for free.
Notice the hokey stick’s appearance around 1920.
One too many hits with a hockey stick. Now he sees them everywhere!
He lives on the Earth where post modern science has taken over and science objectivity has been taken over by agendas which want scientists to play along with what politicians and pundits want. What is needed is a new intellectual WWIII where science is taken back from the activists. This is a war.
Mann lives on Planet Narcissus. These delightful voodoo scientists introduced the word “potential” into their arguments when the facts left them high and dry.
There ain’t no cure for STUPID.
David Ross says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:44 am
David, you collected my pass and ran with it brilliantly.
Frightening, how little you had to edit the history of IngSoc to bring it up to date.
The world is big enough and the weather varied enough for the now global media to find new alarms indefinitely – some even genuine, as there are always good and bad ‘trends’ so all the alarmists need cherry pick bad and ones, and because more people live longer thanks to fossil fuel industry, there are more people vulnerable to bad weather. So it shouldn’t be necessary for Mann to manufacture pseudo ‘trends’ as well – but hey, his following still believe his hockey stick.
The irony is that much of the US would’ve benefitted from more tropical storms and hurricanes making landfall in recent years. They are part of the water balance, and a good chunk of the US has missed the rainfall associated with those storms once they are inland.
Couple of things, folks:
1) Tropical cyclone activity could triple or even quadruple and yet the United States could still avoid a strike, so the fact that we haven’t had a landfalling major here in X number of years is a meaningless statistic in the context of this blog post.
2) Climatologists have been saying that as the planet warms, there’d be fewer storms overall, while the ones that did develop would tend to be more intense. Given some of the monstrous cyclones of the past few years, that may be happening.
3) Climatological trends aren’t defined by periods of just a handful of years; it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It’s obvious from just eyeballing Maue’s graphs that global ACE has been on an overall multi-decadal upward trend; a few downward years don’t come close to erasing that trend.
Jim Pettit,
It doesn’t look to me like hurricane/cyclone activity is increasing:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
As always: show us your data, Mike. Perhaps he’s of the ilk “you might find something wrong with it”. That’s how science works: you allow others to find fault; anyone who uses that excuse isn’t a scientist.
Jim Pettit says:
August 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
So, are you working up to addressing Mann’s claim that “it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“ If not, what are you doing?
You write:
“1) Tropical cyclone activity could triple or even quadruple and yet the United States could still avoid a strike, so the fact that we haven’t had a landfalling major here in X number of years is a meaningless statistic in the context of this blog post.”
If none make landfall in the USA but turn out to sea and dissipate then how do we measure their destructiveness?
You seemed to have missed Mann’s claim of increasing destructiveness. Do you get it now? The topic is increasing destructiveness.
“Given some of the monstrous cyclones of the past few years, that may be happening.”
Making landfall in the USA where and when?
“…a few downward years don’t come close to erasing that trend.”
We haven’t experienced a few downward years. We have experienced a fall from a cliff – no landfalls in what will soon be 7 years. Are you, too, going to try to ignore that huge fact? Do you have nothing to say about that fall from a cliff? What if it extends to 15 years?
The say it, in print or on tv/radio and it instantly becomes fact. Then they say it again and again and nobody cares or challenges them. Happens all the time in this silly climate science world. I am currently inquiring about a statement made by Climate Scientist ‘Mark Seeley’ from the UM (Minnesota) about a statement he made in the Star Tribune this June after heavy flooding in DLH. He stated that ‘climate scientists agree that the trend towards more of these types of extreme events are increasing in MN’. I took a look at the data on his own Climate Working Group page for MN and found no trend in ‘extreme events’ for the past 41yrs. I’ve contacted him 3 times with no reply…
I love watching Warmists torturing their own narrative.
We were promised hurri-geddon…Cardinal Gore prophesied it on the cover of the sacred ‘inconvenient truth’…remember the multiple hurricanes tracking towards the USA?
Now that hurri-geddon has not materialised the likes of Phil and Jim (see above) have shifted the goal posts. It’s the ‘power’ of hurricanes we should be worried about instead.
Honestly, arguing with Warmists is like trying to nail jelly to a wall!
Is it not time for these doom-mongers to be brought before a court to explain their panic-inducing, catastrophic predictions (scenarios, possibilities, maybes, etc)?
Inducing Panic Law & Legal Definition
Inducing panic is when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
Laws governing inducing panic vary from state to state. Inducing panic is usually defined as a misdemenaor, but local laws should be consulted for specific requirements.
@ Charles Gerard Nelson
More like trying to nail real jelly to an imaginary wall.
Now that hurri-geddon has not materialised the likes of Phil and Jim (see above) have shifted the goal posts. It’s the ‘power’ of hurricanes we should be worried about instead.
Charles – what do you think ACE measures?
Jim Pettit says:
August 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Couple of things, folks:
1) Tropical cyclone activity could triple or even quadruple and yet the United States could still avoid a strike, so the fact that we haven’t had a landfalling major here in X number of years is a meaningless statistic in the context of this blog post.
=======================================================================
Me: They “predicted” what would scare people the most. It didn’t happen. Lot’s of things “could” happen. What they predicted didn’t. Not even if you include those that didn’t make land fall. They were WRONG.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim: 2) Climatologists have been saying that as the planet warms, there’d be fewer storms overall, while the ones that did develop would tend to be more intense. Given some of the monstrous cyclones of the past few years, that may be happening.
=================================================================
Me: There will be weather disasters. There always have been. Nothing new about that. Sounds like they are just waiting for one to claim credit for….er….claim it validates their predictions. (Kinda like the gun control nuts jump on some different kind of nut shooting people. (The more the better for their PR teams.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim: 3) Climatological trends aren’t defined by periods of just a handful of years; it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It’s obvious from just eyeballing Maue’s graphs that global ACE has been on an overall multi-decadal upward trend; a few downward years don’t come close to erasing that trend.
======================================================================
Me: Sounds nice. The cause? CO2? The Sun? Natural variability? Man? Ma Gaia haveing a temper tantrum?
It was warmer before the Little Ice Age than during it. It was warmer during The Medieval Warm Period than it is now. (Unless you are a practitioner of “Epoxology” and are still stuck to that tree in Yamal.) “Man-made GHG” were limited to campfires back then. Maybe a few cows on farms. No factory farms. Why would the cause then be any different than the cause now?
Mann is [snip]
REPLY: probably, but in the spirit of REP, let’s leave that one on the cutting room floor – Anthony
Phil Clarke says:
August 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Let’s stay on topic. Mann claimed a trend of increasingly destructive hurricanes. How do you measure destructiveness of seven years of hurricanes that did not make landfall?
RE: “JohnB says:
August 16, 2012 at 9:11 am
“…… It’s clearly higher on the right, the increase is there for all to see. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the trend and significance from that graph.”
John, please note that graph starts in 1970. Therefore it leaves out a period when New England was hit by some mighty big storms. The “Long Island Express” in 1938, the “Great Atlantic Hurricane” of 1944, Carol, Edna and Hazel in 1954, the super-floods of Connie and Dianne in 1955, and Donna in 1960. Also don’t forget that when 2005 broke the record for most storms, it broke the old record of 20 set in 1933.
If the graph started in 1930 it would give a different impression.
For hints of an even earlier active cycle, check out 1893, when there were four active hurricanes at once, (with a fifth nearly making the team,) and amazing surf for two weeks in New England.
Can you imagine the hysteria Alarmists would generate, if 1893 happened this year?
I actually am puzzled by the record-setting period of hurricane-free days, for I’ve been expecting a new active period to begin ever since 1995. Blame the “quiet sun?”
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased
One my pet peeves in the abuse of accepted terminology and semantics by climate science and scientists. ‘Robust’ refers to findings that can be easily replicated.
‘Robust predictions’ means nothing. Its only function is make the statement sound more impressive to those not familiar with science.
Philip Bradley says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm
‘Robust’ refers to findings that can be easily replicated.
=========================================================
I always thought “Robust” was what came out when I tried to type “Robert”. 😎
Let’s stay on topic. Mann claimed a trend of increasingly destructive hurricanes. How do you measure destructiveness of seven years of hurricanes that did not make landfall?
If ‘destructiveness’ is the issue then why was ACE used to support the offensive headline? It does not measure destructiveness either.
And if destructiveness is the issue, then I recommend Emannuel 2012… http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/node/3
REPLY: Phil, show the destruction with real data, or shut up. Its just that simple. No hurricanes, no destruction – you can’t create either hurricanes or destruction where there isn’t any. Modeling a non-reality is a non result. ACE demonstrates the power to make destruction has diminished. All you’ve demonstrated is bloviation without data. But then, that is what you are paid to do here. – Anthony
David Ross says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:44 am
Double-plus unwarm.
Humans love to alternate positive and negative feedbacks.
When the frequency and severity of landfall storms etc. increases, we assume that will always be so and rush to “take advantage” of the shorefront now safe to build on. Until Then the coin flips go the other way, and massive smashup happens. Oops! Then we avoid and overprice oceanfront storm risks, depressing values and economies. Until. Things ease up for a while . Then …
@- Theo Goodwin says:
“Go to the quotation and find what he really said. It is not what you write. Pay special attention to the word ‘destructive’. Then ask yourself: Destructive of what?”
The quote is –
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
So you presumably acknowledge that Mann is right that the predictions that Atlantic hurricane intensities would increase over the last few decades is correct. The graph at the top of the thread shows that clearly.
But you seek to justify the characterisation of Mann as so wrong he is on another planet because the increased intensity of the storms has not resulted in more destruction due to the sheer luck of none having made landfall in the US.
The massive destruction in the Caribbean islands, Mexico and the other Gulf nations presumably dosn’t count ?
Izen says:
“…Mann is right that the predictions that Atlantic hurricane intensities would increase over the last few decades is correct.”
Nope. As usual, Mann is wrong.
Just read an article today where Michael Mann claims U.S. CO2 levels are the lowest in 20 years due to the switch from coal-burning power plants to natural-gas burning plants. I think I see what’s happening. The global temperature record has undeniably been flat to declining since 2000 and the alarmists need a way to explain it. They can now point to lower CO2 levels that allowed this decline and push for further “green” solutions to prevent the earth’s temperatures from accelerating once again.
@- Smokey
You have posted a link to hurricane FREQUENCY, not intensity which was the subject of the quote.
Want to try again ?
izen,
Hurricane energy. Note the decline.
Want to try again?
@- Smokey
That graph is GLOBAL tropical cyclone energy NOT N Atlantic intensity.
One more try ?
izen,
The ENTIRE debate is about GLOBAL warming. You just don’t get it, do you?
@- Midwest Mark says:
“… The global temperature record has undeniably been flat to declining since 2000 and the alarmists need a way to explain it. They can now point to lower CO2 levels that allowed this decline and push for further “green” solutions to prevent the earth’s temperatures from accelerating once again.”
Nonsense.
Whether global temperatures have been flat since 2000 is open to dispute….
But the Keeling curve continues its climb because the GLOBAL emissions have continued to rise even though the US economic collapse has reduced its contribution
@- Smokey says:
“The ENTIRE debate is about GLOBAL warming. You just don’t get it, do you?”
The ENTIRE debate is about global warming, but this thread is about calling Mann wrong when he is right about N Atlantic intensity.
I get you have changed the subject having failed to win this argument. Better luck next time.
izen says:
“Whether global temperatures have been flat since 2000 is open to dispute”
Wrong. There is no dispute. Temperatures have been flat since 2000, as shown in every metric.
izen loses each and every argument, but his cognitive dissonance forces him to keep digging…
@Izen: Nonsense. The global temperature record is real data and shows that temperatures have in fact been flat to declining since 2000 (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2012-0-09-deg-c/). Further, after a warmer than normal July for the United States, August is cooling quickly, which will negate any notions of 2012 being “the hottest summer on record.” All of this is even more significant if you believe the Keeling curve, showing a steady increase in CO2. It would seem the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is tenuous, wouldn’t you say?
izen says:
August 17, 2012 at 7:08 am
Whether global temperatures have been flat since 2000 is open to dispute….
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March) By the way, one has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
@Izen–“The ENTIRE debate is about global warming, but this thread is about calling Mann wrong when he is right about N Atlantic intensity.” So, if Mann is correct about North Atlantic tropical storm intensity, and he may well be, what is the ultimate conclusion? Is he saying this is proof of global warming? Globally, storm intensity is down. Atlantic storms make up only 15% of tropical storm activity. If Mann is trying to draw a correlation between CO2 and Atlantic storm intensity, then he has his work cut out for him, as would anyone who seriously entertains such a theory.
Smokey There is no dispute. Temperatures have been flat since 2000, as shown in every metric.
To ‘prove’ his point Smokey plots a spaghetti graph of selected metrics from WoodForTrees. A strange mix of global and land-only datasets, he gives us the GISTEMP dtS land-only dataset, rather than the global Land-Ocean, the Northern Hemisphere CRUTEM 4, the global HadCRUT 3, but not the updated v4, etc. etc.
Here are some of the metrics Smokey doesn’t like. I am sure he has his reasons … http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/trend
Midwest Mark – eyeballing curves can play tricks – the same site allows you to calculate the least squares linear fit to the ‘real data’, for Dr Spencer’s UAH since 2000 it comes out at +0.11C / decade.
Phil Clarke,
Hadcrut3 was accurate, based on raw temperatures. Then it was ‘updated’ to a newly “adjusted” version 4 which – surprise – shows warming. So you’re just cherrypicking.
Don’t be so gullible. Here is the Hadcrut3 global mean. Notice that there is no warming trend; that only happened after the new “adjustment”.
Philip Bradley says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm
‘Robust’ refers to findings that can be easily replicated.
=========================================================
Gunga Din says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:09 pm
I always thought “Robust” was what came out when I tried to type “Robert”. 😎
========================================================
I hate the word “Robust” when applied to science. It reminds me of a Snake-oil salesman trying to make a sale.
Duh. Typo: “When the frequency and severity of landfall storms etc.
increasesdecreases…”,