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.
Leif Svalgaard (13:47:36) :
Let’s start with this “During the Pliocene, however, the team found that this cold water could not avoid being hit by one of the many tropical cyclones, which would churn up and mix warmer water into it. This warming at the Equator led to changes in the atmosphere that in turn created more tropical storms—and the cycle would repeat.”
The team FOUND, they weren’t there, they guessed that is what happened.
Steve Goddard (04:39:24) :
Weather models are extremely accurate these days up to about three days into the future. Climate models have demonstrated zero skill in any time period.
Try a three day climate model prediction…
A C Osborn (07:29:56) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:47:36) :
If they have no actual records it is all pure speculation, we have enough trouble when we do have actual records.
They tend to think that based on what we know that is what will happen. It is just like predicting a solar eclipse next year [Jun. 15th, 2011]. Since we have no actual records of it, it is all pure speculation, right?
We deduce things based on what we think we know. We are more or less successful depending on how well we know things. We can differ on the judgment of how well we think we know things. Improving our knowledge [or reducing the number of things we differ on] is called science.
Leif,
In the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” they had climate models which were able to forecast an ice age only a few days into the future.
Steve Goddard (11:55:19) :
In the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” they had climate models which were able to forecast an ice age only a few days into the future.
They seem to have as good with statistics as you are; you must feel happy to be in such good company.
Leif,
There are times when statistics are appropriate, and other times when people use them to obfuscate.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Some people have better observational skills than others.
Steve Goddard (13:04:35) :
Some people have better observational skills than others.
Some people are better at deluding themselves than others.
Steve Goddard (13:04:35) :
There are times when statistics are appropriate, and other times when people use them to obfuscate.
First that is an accusation, second you can only obfuscate an issue to people that do not know statistics. Even elementary knowledge is enough to see through the nonsense.
Leif,
Apparently there are lots of deluded people in the Northern Hemisphere with skis and snow shovels during the last few years. You probably don’t see much of that around Palo Alto, though I did see a foot of snow at the top of Page Mill Rd. in 1999 or 2000.
Yes, I think that someone is using statistics to obfuscate the snow trend. Don’t flatter yourself though.
“”” poptech (20:56:32) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:26:33) :
I am beginning to see more of the problem. It is a lack of computational understanding. Computers are only right and wrong. “””
Actually computers are only right. Excepting random extreme events; like a cosmetic ray resetting a bit, computers do exactly what they are told to do.
Sometimes that isn’t what the teller really intended to have the computer do; but it will do what it is told to do.
Well some people often can’t even write down in plain English; what it is they mean. So it is no surprise that they tell their computer to do the wrong thing and it does so.
Leif,
Why are all climate models not identical?
George E. Smith (15:41:27) :
Wrong in the sense that the results do not match reality not in the computational sense of doing what they are programmed to do.
“Excepting random extreme events; like a cosmetic ray resetting a bit, computers do exactly what they are told to do.”
Yes but that is what ECC RAM is for or you can run the computer deep underground. This brings up another point that not only should the code be available but the hardware the code was run on.
The statistical experts and climate modelers tell us that snowfall is declining. They must be correct.
“In New York City at Central Park, there was 20.9 inches reported with this amazing storm. This was the 4th largest snowstorm in their long history that goes all the way back to 1869.
In the month of February New York City has had 36.9 inches of snow, setting the all-time snowiest month on record.”
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/stormwatch/
Some of the attempts to sell articles and papers online get a bit unrealistic. If I understood correctly, they want $32. for the article. Perhaps that is an entire issue of the publication, i.e. they don’t split it up.
I think that the high pricing of pay walled stuff is gate keeping, as most of the “accepted researchers” belong to Universities who carry subscriptions.
It just rips off those of us commoners who are, “dangerously curious” of New established ideas. But I could be wrong and it is just plain ole greed.
Steve Goddard (14:19:48) :
Yes, I think that someone is using statistics to obfuscate the snow trend.
But they are not fooling anybody who knows even a little bit. The climatic trend is flat, and single years can go high or low at random as the data so clearly shows.
Poptech (16:03:17) :
Why are all climate models not identical?
Because they are probing different directions of our ignorance, trying to reduce it in different ways.
More evidence that climate models which predict declining snowfall (and the statisticians who back them up) are correct.
“Record Snowfall Blankets Moscow ”
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/record-snowfall-blankets-moscow/400246.html
Leif Svalgaard (21:14:08) :
“Because they are probing different directions of our ignorance, trying to reduce it in different ways.”
Then they clearly do not represent the sum knowledge of anything. They are nothing more then pointless theoretical exercises based on the subjective opinions of the scientists who created them and their results meaningless. Science cannot be determined from entering guesses into a computer. They are not probing anything except their own computer illiteracy.
Leif,
Do you have any actual experience working with climate models? Or are you just talking theoretically?
Are you ever curious how someone could forecast the climate without being able to forecast the behaviour of the sun?
Leif Svalgaard (11:25:07) :
A C Osborn (07:29:56) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:47:36) :
If they have no actual records it is all pure speculation, we have enough trouble when we do have actual records.
They tend to think that based on what we know that is what will happen. It is just like predicting a solar eclipse next year [Jun. 15th, 2011]. Since we have no actual records of it, it is all pure speculation, right?
We deduce things based on what we think we know.
OK, now I understand.
They deduce (guess/Predict/Extropolate) what happened 3 to 5 million years ago and then based on those deductions they fruther deduce (guess/Predict/Extropolate) in to the future.
Like deducing the last 15 years of ever increasing temperatures (Not satellite).
Like deducing the Dry lakes in Northern USA.
Like deducing Snow becoming an infrequent event.
Like deducing Coral dying of slightly higher temps when in fact this current cold spell has killed them.
Like deducing that 1000s of Species will become extinct.
Like deducing the ever rising Ocean Levels.
Like deducing the ever rising Ocean Temeratures.
Like deducing the North Pole being Ice Free by now.
Like deducing that the Himalayan Glaciers disappearing by 2035.
Of course I should believe them.
A C Osborn,
Mark Twain mocked scientists who make foolish extrapolations.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=In%20the%20space%20of%20one%20hundred%20and%20seventy-six%20years%20the%20Lower%20Mississippi%20has%20shortened%20itself%20two%20hundred%20and%20forty-two%20miles.&sig=kvwzDoclTtZ0HpUzXFg1gqe-U4Q&ei=mNeHS9umOoLYsgPzm9mGAw&ct=result&id=qiARAAAAYAAJ&ots=gfMQcFwGec&output=text
Steve Goddard (22:40:04) :
More evidence that climate models which predict declining snowfall (and the statisticians who back them up) are correct.
They also did not predict that it should rain last night, but it did, so they are clearly junk.
Poptech (22:50:02) :
“Because they are probing different directions of our ignorance, trying to reduce it in different ways.”
Then they clearly do not represent the sum knowledge of anything.
The models try to incorporate all we know, but the boundary between what is known and what is not yet known is fuzzy and we make progress by trying to see where we might get improvements. This is standard scientific protocol.
Science cannot be determined from entering guesses into a computer.
This is actually a very powerful and valid method which is used all the time. For example, if the luminosity of a star depends on its chemical composition [which it dos] we can plug in to our equations and models various guesses of that composition and see which one results in a luminosity that matches what is actually observed.
They are not probing anything except their own computer illiteracy.
Is just plain nonsense and may probe [successfully, I would say] your own science illiteracy.
Steve Goddard (22:54:08) :
Do you have any actual experience working with climate models?
I actually do, but must admit that it is a long time ago [1960s] and were then not called ‘climate models’ but ‘extended weather forecasts’. Our models back then were, of course, too crude and computers too feeble to make the efforts meaningful, but that is normally not a show stopper, as we learn by trying.
Are you ever curious how someone could forecast the climate without being able to forecast the behaviour of the sun?
Apart from not being apples and apples, we are making progress with the sun. We did predict a low cycle 24 and it may turn out to be a correct prediction, the recent upsurge not withstanding [some activity was predicted so we should not be surprised that some is seen]
A C Osborn (03:53:06) :
“We deduce things based on what we think we know.”
Of course I should believe them.
The less you know, the more you can believe [Al Gore(?): “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”], so based on what you know you can choose what to believe, and don’t be shy.
Leif,
The weather models did predict the rain in California last night – quite accurately. Climate models have shown little if any skill at forecasting any time period.
Whether or not you think you can forecast the sun’s behaviour, the climate models make no attempt to do so. They also can’t forecast volcanoes, asteroids, fires, pollution, soot dust, ENSO or even clouds with any accuracy. How could they possibly be an accurate representation of climate?????
Steve Goddard (09:20:51) :
The weather models did predict the rain in California last night
Weather is not climate.
Climate models have shown little if any skill at forecasting any time period.
Your word ‘any’ is misleading. It only makes sense to compare long periods, say 30 or more years [climate is not defined on a time scale less that 30 years]. You can substantiate your claim by showing a plot of the skill score as a function of time. If you cannot, then it is just hearsay or supposition. Of course, for many, supposition seems to be valid science, such is the level of science literacy theses days, so you are not alone. BTW, what is the NNNN on my plot?
Whether or not you think you can forecast the sun’s behaviour, the climate models make no attempt to do so.
Why should they? the sun has little to do with climate on a centennial scale or less.
Leif,
So you don’t believe that the Maunder Minimum was cold? You don’t believe that clouds, volcanoes or pollution affect the climate? People can’t even forecast clouds for a few hours, much less years.
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and the Met Office both use climate models to make forecasts from 3 months to a year. You better tell them that they can’t use them for less than 30 years.
As I have explained many times, climate models are iterative. Errors get compounded – they don’t correct. If you start driving the wrong direction and go faster and faster, you will not end up at the right location.