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
“You constantly denigrate commenters with education in the hard sciences, as if you had an equal education.”
People who mangle the science are going to hear about it, whatever level of education they claim to have. I find your argument from authority highly amusing, given your contempt for the findings of climate scientists.
“But your replies appear to simply be cut ‘n’ pasted from realclimate sources.”
I suggest you get over your fear and loathing of the peer-reviewed literature. It does tend to come up a lot when you are discussing science. You too could benefit from citing some sources to back up your assertions.
“What bothers me is the unfounded belief that tree ring width equates directly to past temperatures.”
All you have to do is measure the tree ring width for the 130 years of the instrument record. Then you have a correlation you can apply to years prior to the instrument record. I’m sure there are technical points in terms of getting it done (controlling for wetter years, soil conditions, etc), but the basic idea is extremely simple: you use the period in which you have both tree ring data and instrument records to establish the relationship between the conditions and the width.
Tom P says: “The critical difference is that your supposed quote from the IPCC omitted that it only referred to the North Atlantic. Hence you went on to disprove the claim in terms of global cyclone activity, a claim the IPCC never made.”
IPCC says: “Other regions [i.e. not the North Atlantic] appear to have experienced increased hurricane intensity as well…”
So what aren’t they claiming again?
Rich Horton (08:49:49) :
“So what aren’t they claiming again?”
Please reread the original paper and my much earlier comment on 16/2/09 on 02:16:26.
The three testable claims made by the IPCC are established in the paper. You blatantly rewrote the first, taking out the critical reference to the North Atlantic. Your best defence now is carelessness.
Rich Horton (08:49:49),
Don’t play the game of having to guess the location of what he’s referring to. I spent too much time yesterday looking in Mr Pike’s vague location for a chart that could have been simply pointed out.
When I finally found it buried deep in that thread, I had read a large part of the CA comments, which thoroughly deconstructed Tom’s assertions. So it wasn’t a complete waste of time.
Now he’s telling you to sift through the archives to find a particular post from a year ago – without providing the article it’s posted under, which would have made the search a lot easier. Don’t be trolled like I was. He’s only playing his game because you were right.