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.
Leif,
Do you say that ‘climate’ is the type of weather to be expected at a given location, by reference to a >30year window of meteorological measurements? If so, then even one day’s weather records represents an incremental slice of the climate of that location.
If so, it seems to me that it would be relatively easy to track climate changes, as there must be many locations for which continuous daily records >30 years, of the measurements of wind-vector, precipitation, barometric pressure, temperature, insolation, humidity, cloud-cover, all of which go to define the local weather, and thus the local climate
If such recordings actually exist, and the establishment of climate-change is the object of the exercise, it ought to be a straightforward matter for the meteorologists to tell us, by looking at their records.
In the light of this unoriginal speculation, then I can’t see the reason for trying to construct a single global figure for temperature, as if this was a proxy for the so-called global climate. And also, I cannot see why anyone bothers with tree-rings as proxies for temperature, in turn as a proxy for global climate, when real and direct measurements of the climate are taken on a daily basis across the globe!
Steve Goddard (10:12:01) :
So you don’t believe that the Maunder Minimum was cold?
The even deeper Spoerer solar minimum [1460-1550] was warm. See f.ex. the Figures in http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf
Possibly warmer than today. Just like with the snow cover, you believe that one swallow makes a summer.
You don’t believe that clouds, volcanoes or pollution affect the climate?
Clouds and volcanoes [unless extreme, Yellowstone blowing up] have short term effects.
Pollution, soot, aerosols, etc are taken into account. You too would benefit from studying Mark Jacobsen’s “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling” (2nd Edition). [I have it right here in front of me].
NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and the Met Office both use climate models to make forecasts from 3 months to a year.
No, they don’t. Check it out, and prove that they use the same models that Climatologists use for the 100-yr ‘prediction’.
supercritical (10:32:10) :
If so, it seems to me that it would be relatively easy to track climate changes, as there must be many locations for which continuous daily records >30 years, of the measurements of wind-vector, precipitation, barometric pressure, temperature, insolation, humidity, cloud-cover, all of which go to define the local weather, and thus the local climate
It should be, except that the records more reflect the ‘micro climate’ close to where people live [cities, airports, etc] and overestimate what happens on a global scale. It is not trivial to correct for this effect, and such corrections in the past may not be accurate [or even honest].
Leif,
So you define climate as being 30+ years. The Dust Bowl lasted less than ten years. Apparently you don’t believe that was a climatic event?
In 2003 Europe had a heat wave for several weeks, and it was made a poster child of global warming. I was at the beach in Bournemouth the weekend before the heat wave hit, and it was miserably cold.
Steve Goddard (10:51:43) :
The Dust Bowl lasted less than ten years. […]
I was at the beach in Bournemouth the weekend before the heat wave hit, and it was miserably cold.
Neither of these were climate events in themselves. To get a feeling for climate look at the first Figure of this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/
The ‘bump’ in temperatures [blue curve] during 1915-1965 was a true climate event. The extreme heat during the Spoerer solar minimum was a climate event.
BTW what is NNNN?
The Met Office Explains the difference between climate and seasonal forecasting here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/in-depth/seasonalvclimate.html
1. Different starting point fed into the models
2. Climate forecasting averages the results
How many models do you think there are? There are only a small handful of weather and climate models in widespread use.
Steve Goddard (11:07:40) :
The Met Office Explains the difference between climate and seasonal forecasting here
So, you concede my point. Good!
How many models do you think there are?
The IPCC AR4 has a list, if memory serves.
I believe that you are incapable of answering a simple question with a Yes or No.
I can’t say you Lie, because you never answer the question directly, just change or redirect the subject.
I believe You enjoy being obtuse and “running intillectual rings” around us ordinary folk instead of actually adding something worthwhile to the actual topic.
I believe you “think” you are being very clever.
You obviously do it to misdirect from the topic of the Post, as you have done in this case.
Perhaps you care to contradict the WMO on this topic instead, or at least comment on the topic.
Leif,
Nice try. Same computer models – different usage. Climate models are accurate at modeling the past, because they use empirically derived constants based on the past. Unfortunately they aren’t much use at predicting the future.
Averaging two wrongs does not make a right.
Steve Goddard (12:16:01) :
Nice try. Same computer models – different usage. Climate models are accurate at modeling the past, because they use empirically derived constants based on the past.
Not the same models. You may not have read your link carefully. Here is what it says:
“Climate forecasts are started up to 150 years in the past and run on to about 100 years in the future. From this, we know that, in the years leading up to the present day, the output from the model accurately generates our climate history.”
Unfortunately they aren’t much use at predicting the future.
That we won’t know until after the fact.
Study the book I referred you to before you dig your hole any deeper. Do you know what the time-step in a typical climate model is? One year? one month? one week? one day? one hour? one minute? …
What is the NNNN.
A C Osborn (11:56:00) :
Perhaps you care to contradict the WMO on this topic instead, or at least comment on the topic.
The WMO is very likely correct that “we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data”. But that we sort of knew already, so what is the use to comment further.
Leif,
It is the same models, and you obviously didn’t read my last post.
Of course they model the past accurately – they have tens of thousands of empirically derived constants based on past behaviour.
Leif,
You do understand what the difference is between a computer model and the input parameters? The two most fundamental concepts in computer hardware and software are code and data. The model is code, and the input/output are data.
You can run a climate model using any input data you want (different years, etc.) but it is still the same model – i.e. code.
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:43) :
“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.”
We cannot have 11 different sums of all climate knowledge. The fact is each incorporates their creators own theoretical exercises for what is not known. If it is not known, it cannot be modeled correctly and the results meaningless exercises. You cannot run an experiment in an imperfect laboratory in relation to the laws of nature.
Leif,
Can a computer be programmed to get whatever results you want?
Leif you have confirmed my fears that the whole situation with computer modeling is worse than I thought. The scientists using them don’t have any remote understanding of the limitations of computer systems. You actually believe you can run experiments on computers.
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. 470-479, March 2008)
– Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey
Steve Goddard (15:26:59) :
It is the same models, and you obviously didn’t read my last post.
Your last post was void of information. Speaking about people who do not care reading other people’s stuff: what is #NNNN?
Of course they model the past accurately – they have tens of thousands of empirically derived constants based on past behaviour.
No they do not. Educate yourself about this before shooting your mouth of.
Poptech (15:42:20) :
We cannot have 11 different sums of all climate knowledge.
Of course we can. What I know is different from what you know. and people disagree as what is knowledge and what is supposition.
Poptech (15:46:59) :
Can a computer be programmed to get whatever results you want?
No.
Poptech (15:52:38) :
You actually believe you can run experiments on computers.
Absolutely, it is done all the time.
People, people, please.
OK this has gone on long enough. Let’s leave it that we disagree on several points.
Leif points out that “What I know is different from what you know. and people disagree as what is knowledge and what is supposition.”
So lets disagree and move on. –
Anthony
Steve Goddard (15:36:23) said:
Trying to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs, eh?
I think that Leif knows a thing or two about computers, their programming and models.
Leif Svalgaard (17:29:07) :
“Of course we can. What I know is different from what you know. and people disagree as what is knowledge and what is supposition.”
So there is clearly no sum of all climate knowledge if everyone disagrees.
“Can a computer be programmed to get whatever results you want?
No.”
Are you serious? ROFLMAO!!!???? Please never use a computer again if you believe this! No offense Leif but your answer to this question shows you have no remote understanding of computers.
UNBELIEVABLE!
Anthony Watts
What Leif point out is that he will keep believing in what he believe, and thats that.
One can never reason with faith.
@S.G. ‘Climate models are accurate at modeling the past, because they use empirically derived constants based on the past.’
As far as I know no model have been able to recreate the past, especially not in any empirical fashion what so ever.. christ that’s been one of the biggest problem all along, not being able to recreate the past
1DandyTroll (18:21:53) :
As far as I know no model have been able to recreate the past
Then let Steve Goddard (15:26:59) tell you otherwise:
“Of course they model the past accurately”
During the Pliocene era, North and South America connected up, essentially plugging up the Easterly versus Westerly trade wind influence on oceanic oscillations, as well as oceanic circulations (the only circular global oceanic stream we have left is the Antarctic Circulation). Land bridges that have come and gone, and come back again, have potentially major influences on oceanic and trade wind oscillation forcings on weather pattern variations. The fact that the Pliocene had both warm and cool stages indicates that a complex system of oceanic influences were at play, in a play ground peppered with continental land-bridge influences on equatorial conditions. So which played a more important part in both warming and cooling during this era, greenhouse gases building to a tipping point but then mysteriously going away, continental drift, or land bridges?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/164679/earths_pliocene_epoch.html?cat=58
Dandy,
Here are some comparisons of backcasted climate model predictions for the recent past. They are fairly accurate.
http://www.applet-magic.com/IGCC01s.gif
http://www.applet-magic.com/IGCC02s.gif
http://www.applet-magic.com/IGCC03s.gif
http://www.applet-magic.com/IGCC06s.gif
Where they fail is with clouds. Even with empirically derived parameters they can not reproduce past cloudiness.
http://www.applet-magic.com/IGCC05s.gif