Just when you think it couldn’t get any more bizarre in Mann-world, out comes a new paper in Nature hawking hurricane frequency by proxy analysis. I guess Dr. Mann missed seeing the work of National Hurricane Center’s lead scientist, Chris Landsea which we highlighted a couple of days ago on WUWT: NOAA: More tropical storms counted due to better observational tools, wider reporting. Greenhouse warming not involved.
Mann is using “overwash” silt and sand as his new proxy. Chris Landsea disagrees in the Houston Chronicle interview saying: “The paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques,”
From the BBC and the Houston Chronicle, some excerpts are below.
…
From the BBC, full story here
Study leader Michael Mann from Penn State University believes that while not providing a definitive answer, this work does add a useful piece to the puzzle.
 |
 The levels we’re seeing at the moment are within the bounds of uncertainty.  Julian Heming, UK Met Office
|
“It’s been hotly debated, and various teams using different computer models have come up with different answers,” he told BBC News.
“I would argue that this study presents some useful palaeoclimatic data points.”
…
From the Houston Chronicle, full story here
One tack is based on the observation that the powerful storm surge of large hurricanes deposits distinct layers of sediment in coastal lakes and marshes. By taking cores of sediments at the bottom of these lakes, which span centuries, scientists believe they can tell when large hurricanes made landfall at a particular location.
The second method used a computer model to simulate storm counts based upon historical Atlantic sea surface temperatures, El Niños and other climate factors.
…
The two independent estimates of historical storm activity were consistent, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, the paper’s lead author. Both, for example, pinpointed a period of high activity between 900 and 1100.
“This tells us these reconstructions are very likely meaningful,” he [Mann] said.
UPDATE:
What is funny is that with that quote above, Mann is referring to the Medieval Warm Period, something he tried to smooth out in his tree ring study and previous hockey stick graph.
Now he uses the MWP to his advantage to bolster his current proxy.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit writes about “check kiting” related to this study:
The Supplementary Information sheds no light on the methodology or the proxies.
The Supplementary Information contained no data sets. The proxies used for the Mann et al submission are not even listed.
The edifice is built on the SST and Nino3 reconstructions, both of which are references to the enigmatic reference 17, which turns out to be an unpublished submission of Mann et al.
17. Mann, M. E. et al. Global signatures of the Little Ice Age and the medieval climate anomaly and plausible dynamical origins. Science (submitted).
At the time that Nature published this article, there was precisely NO information available on what proxies were used in the reconstruction of Atlantic SST or El Nino or how these reconstructions were done. Did any of the Nature reviewers ask to see the other Mann submission? I doubt it. I wonder if it uses Graybill bristlecone pines.
Excellent article, Roger Carr, thank you again.
RACookPE1978 (03:04:47) :
A little odd, but if it moved into an area with low shear redevelopment
happens frequently.
The year we got into the greek letters for storm names had several
storms redevelop after falling back down to tropical wave status. Pretty
much anything seemed destined to become a storm that year!
It’s still not very healthy:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT2+shtml/151455.shtml
MORNING SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWS THAT THE CENTER OF ANA HAS BECOME
EXPOSED TO THE WEST OF THE CENTRAL CONVECTIVE AREA…SUGGESTING
SOME WESTERLY VERTICAL WIND SHEAR HAS DEVELOPED. SATELLITE
INTENSITY ESTIMATES FROM TAFB AND SAB REMAIN 35 KT…AND THAT
REMAINS THE INITIAL INTENSITY.
…
THE CURRENT SHEAR WAS NOT WELL FORECAST BY THE LARGE-SCALE
MODELS…AND IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER THIS IS A TEMPORARY TREND OR A
SIGN OF LONG-TERM TROUBLE FOR ANA.
I’ve always been a bit nervous about how unprepared New Englanders appear to be for a major hurricane. In 1968 I visited Bass River on Cape Cod, and an old timer was shaking his head and muttering that the entire development had been build on a stretch of sand that was salt marsh before a certain hurricane (the Great Atlantic Hurricane?) As those old timers passed away fewer and fewer people seemed aware their houses were at risk.
Besides summer houses at beaches, the two areas at risk seem to be neighborhoods with many trees, (the 1938 hurricane took down half of New England’s trees,) and houses placed high up on hills for the beautiful views. (For various reasons, the winds atop New England’s hills are much higher, and remain higher longer even in a decaying hurricane. Old timers in New Hampshire told me that Carol in 1954 “flattened every tree up on that hill.”
While poking into the past I came across studies from marshes, which indicate hurricanes and super-nor’easters can bash the entire protective structure of dunes inland over the marshes, from time to time. However there is a problem trying to use such sediments as proxies.
One problem is that storms that come at low tide don’t bash down the dunes, especially north of Cape Cod where tides can vary ten feet, (and even more, as you move up towards the Bay Of Funday.) As I recall, Belle hit at low tide, yet the tide was so high the mud flats in Maine were deep under water, however the storm surge was still well below the level of an ordinary high tide.
The second problem is that super-storms tend to bash only one or two holes through the dunes, and therefore there may be sections of salt marsh that escape being buried in shifted sand.
The conclusion I drew was that such proxies are good, if you want to warn people about what occurred in the past, but are unreliable, when it comes to recording every single storm.
And now we have another named storm: TS Bill.
Roger Carr (03:28:28) : Excellent article. Thanks. I think it should be repeated and posted and excerpts posted often.
Thanks for the CO2 info Mr Cook (from freerepublic my second favorite website!) The seasonal variation in CO2 is proof of the natural carbon cycle. Then there is the steady year to year rise from some other source. That carbon has to come from somewhere, natural or not. The warming of the deep ocean is the most likely source, but is there a matching steady rise in deep ocean temperature? Short answer, yes there is some warming, but not enough to account for the steady increase in CO2. See charts in ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/lindzen.pdf for example.
For Jones’ criticism of typical isotope analyses, my question is what is the source of the CO2 and how is it as old as fossil fuels? Essenhigh does not offer an explanation of the age because his hypothesis is that the CO2 comes from the oceans. But that CO2 would not be old. There’s not much about CO2 on his web page http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/people/robert-essenhigh
I repeat my previous assertion that CO2 is likely not a hockey stick and past fluctuations have occurred, some of those independent of temperature (e.g. major vegetation changes on land or in the oceans), and those will never be discovered slicing up heavily smoothed ice cores and measuring CO2 in each slice.
commonsense (16:51:28) :
“That shows that the Medieval Warm Period is well recognized in the Climate Scientific Community. Even Mann recognices it.
The MWP is NOT , and never was, a challenge for AGW theory. The MWP and the LIA are fenomena expected given the natural variability (solar radiation, ENSO and NAO cycles, etc). What is not natural is the warming of last decades. There are no solar radiation increase ,no radical shifts in ENSO (like the development of a permanent El Niño) and NAO is re-entering a cool fase in last few years.
How can you explain recent warming, specially in the polar areas, withouth greenhouse + aerosol dimming effects?”
I feel like I’m piling on now, but what drivel! This is some classic AGW illogic. Consider the summary of your argument.. “Global warming may have driven MWP & LIA in the past, but only greenhouse gases could have driven recent warming”.
Your challenge… How can you explain the recent cooling, especially in tropical areas with greenhouse gas increases?
The Medieval Warm Period the warmers agreed
Was dangerous as it interfered with their creed
So the warmers resolved
To get rid of it because
‘Evil humans’ is the cause that they need
Trying my hand at Limericks. Pardon me this will be my last:
If your theory goes against all the facts,
Simply amend the facts that detracts
From the theory in question
And maintain the obsession
With your theory against the facts that it lacks
Arn Riewe (19:05:29) : To pile on further:
“How can you explain the recent cooling, especially in tropical areas with greenhouse gas increases?”
I’ll take a whack at this! (the following is meant as a joke and is bad science-reader discretion is advised…)
Gore (2005) has raised the possibility that large scale Climate Crisis Change could lead to rapid melting of Greenland like has been seen in some parts of Greenland in some of the last few years (in 2005, Greenland lost a full .004% of it’s Ice Mass or something like that!). This would lead at some indeterminate time to 20 feet of sea level rise definitely if it will happen I feel probably, if we don’t change our ways, which will help the economy anyway because Smith (1776) was clearly just plain wrong that people follow their own self interest and what not leading to using solar and wind power when it makes sense-after all, it all ready makes sense, I can feel it is so and it is necessarily I know that I feel it, not just because of that but the Planet!!! Anyway, all that melted ice will make the ocean less salty, and people will start to drink more of it because it will be easier to desalinate, and they will need it because the Climate Crisis doesn’t just mean more rain but also more drought, too. This has already lead to a leveling of sea level rise, but when people start to die that will accelerate again I know it. Anyway, the ocean has salty currents that keep Europe warming and we are disrupting them by changing the climate and drinking the water and the pumps are redirecting those currents. So now the Climate Crisis is making everything colder and this trend will reinforce itself because all change is bad and the system is highly unstable. I know it.
“Paleotempestology”. Oh yeah? I am learned in metaphysicotheologocosmoloonigology. Lady Cunegonde would be proud Dr. Mann.
Richard (21:41:53) :
The ABCNews article I read actually referred to the MWP. It also came up with the bizzare scientific discipline (striaghtfaced, mind you) of “paleotempestology”. A word not yet accepted in Scrabble, but all the rage in climate studies.
The human image has progressed over time from being in no control over our destiny, it was all up to the gods of nature, to being in half control of our destiny, Catholic church and free will, to now being in total control of our destiny, despite the ugly fact that human kind is due to pass away regardless of the most valiant of efforts and due to the permanence of impermanence.
This is the sort of garbage our kids in the UK are being subjected to…….
http://campaigns2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/campaign-advertising.html
Data from modern thermometers vs. “tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records.” Oh boy! He forgot tea leaves. coin flips, and crystal balls. I think I will compare these oranges with that mystery box behind the curtain, formulate the hypothesis and the solution at the same time, and force public and monetary policies from my “study.” Oh, and make sure the vertical graph scale is designed to show maximum lift where you want it. Oh, and make sure the really bad part is in RED. Oh, and make sure 90% of the graph is normal and peaceful, and the last 10% is bad, red and evil. This is comparing real data to historical guesses. It is not science. It is BS.
Caleb (08:46:27) :
I’ve always been a bit nervous about how unprepared New Englanders appear to be for a major hurricane. In 1968 I visited Bass River on Cape Cod, and an old timer was shaking his head and muttering that the entire development had been build on a stretch of sand that was salt marsh before a certain hurricane (the Great Atlantic Hurricane?) As those old timers passed away fewer and fewer people seemed aware their houses were at risk.
Besides summer houses at beaches, the two areas at risk seem to be neighborhoods with many trees, (the 1938 hurricane took down half of New England’s trees,) and houses placed high up on hills for the beautiful views.
Sometime ago I used reference to the 1938 hurricane as an intro into a blog entry titled “Science – Ethic and Responsibility”. Here is an excerpt…
Born in the year of 1937 on the twelfth day of May, she was but 31 years old when a category 5 hurricane destroyed her home. The exact date; 21 September, 1938. The location; Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Her home suffered heavy damage during the storm and then was eventually washed over the edge of nearby cliffs. Fortunately for her, and us really, she was able to escape death. Approximately 750 others across the New England states were not so lucky.
In the pictures below, from the Connecticut Historical Society, we see our young lady salvaging personal items from her home, preparing to rebuild. We see her in moments of exhaustion and despair; then moving forward having found cause for hope, for strength; and then finally facing the challenge, with tenacity, with courage, with a smile.
Such was the nature of this young lady; Katherine Hepburn.
This story, however, is not about Katherine Hepburn. It is about storms, seas, and science. In 1938 the nation did not have the ability to track hurricanes or predict their landfalls. Hence the population in general, caught mostly by surprise, weathered major events the best they could and prayed to survive.
…… from there I went into discussion of ethics and responsibility of science mostly regarding climate change. The fact is, science should be advocating adaption to climate change (in either direction) rather than trying to claim that man can change the climate. Good science would acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge and also generate scientific results rather than politically ‘adjusted’ data and results.
*whistles* high sticking, two minutes!
Why does Mann think he still has credibility? His hockey stick was bad enough, now this? Oh please.
@Lee Kington: science isn’t claiming that man can change the climate. Look at everyone who’s claiming it. Governments, the media and scientists working for the governments.
Why?
Governments can tax us even more over this. They can get more control over our lives with this hoax.
The media sells more papers and gets more viewers (let’s face it, which headline will sell better: “Everything’s alright” or “The end of the world is near!”)
And the scientists working for the government get their funds from the government.
It’s all about money. The planet Earth is hardly fragile. That baby has experienced things far worse than humans. But it’s a trend. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Without any further research mankind was at fault. Today we know that the thickness of that layer, especially in the south, is very heavily influenced by the sun. That hole on the south pole could have been there for centuries.
But hey, who cares about science? All people need to know comes from Hollywood movies and yellow press!
Bleh!