From The Australian:
Climate change to mean fewer cyclones and smaller waves, says CSIRO research
CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast.
The surprise findings, which appear to contradict some common predictions about the impact of climate change, are contained in scientific papers on “Projecting Future Climate and its Extremes”, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by The Australian Online.
One paper, by CSIRO researcher Debbie Abbs, found rising temperatures could halve the frequency of tropical cyclones.
“Climate change projections using this modelling system show a strong tendency for a decrease in TC numbers in the Australian region, especially in the region of current preferred occurrence,” Dr Abbs said.
“On average for the period 2051-2090 relative to 1971-2000, the simulations show an approximately 50 per cent decrease in occurrence for the Australian region, a small decrease (0.3 days) in the duration of a given TC and a southward movement of 100km in the genesis and decay regions.”
…
The CSIRO has meanwhile today called for a carbon price to be a key part of the nation’s overall climate action.
CSIRO chief Dr Megan Clark will today join 600 of Australia’s top climate change scientists at a meeting in Cairns to update the latest observations.
Full story: here h/t to WUWT reader Scarlet Pumpernickel
================================================================
While CSIRO hasn’t seen fit to add this new work to their climate change page yet, Dr. Ryan Maue’s work supports the new CSIRO premise:
Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Energy (ACE) remain at decades-low levels. With the fantastic dearth of November and December global hurricane activity, it is also observed that the frequency of global hurricanes has continued an inexorable plunge into a double-dip recession status. With 2010 being a globally “hot” year, we saw the fewest number of global tropical cyclones observed since at least 1970.
Figure: Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums through March 31, 2011. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE. Data for the graph: File
Won’t somebody think of the cyclones! CAGW threatens cyclones with extinction!
Projected changes… Potential impacts…
They’re guessing folks.
About the CSIRO I put the following comment at Jo Nova’s site (one has to wonder):
“I almost forgot why I went to the CSIRO web site LOL … I was looking for said disclaimer (and they have lots), but I think the best is probably the general one hanging off the main site home page:
Link: http://www.csiro.au/org/LegalNoticeAndDisclaimer.html
Source: Legal {Notice and Disclaimer} at foot of page
In a nutshell they are not responsible for anything they write.
(Start CSIRO quote)
Always check the information
Information at this site:
* is general information provided as part of CSIRO’s statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
* is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
* is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
* may not be accurate, current or complete
* is subject to change without notice
* should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something
(/end CSIRO quote)
But wait there’s more:
(Start CSIRO quote)
DISCLAIMER
You accept all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this site and any information or material available from it.
To the maximum permitted by law, CSIRO excludes all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from using this site and any information or material available from it.
(/end CSIRO quote)
I ask one simple question … if this advice on the CSIRO web site is potentially inaccurate, unscientific, unprofessional and subject to change without notice, why, oh why, are we basing a $10 billion a year Federal taxation policy on it?”
It seemed relevant to this article.
I am confused as to what and who Dr Megan Clark really represents.
Make up your own mind:
http://www.the-funneled-web.com/N%26V_2008%20%28Jan-Dec%29/N%26V_0809/news__views_item_sep_2008-080903.htm
I do know that there are troubles at mill of the CSIRO with Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett recently resigning, apparently by being ignored by Prime Minister Gillard on the decision of a national carbon tax. And in the past allegations of censorship over CSIRO scientific papers stating that global warming was overstated.
Clark, who now has to run the show, is obviously treading a fine line between pleasing her political sponsors guaranteeing future funding for the CSIRO and obtaining talented scientists without a political agenda.
One thing that make me optimistic- she welcomes debate on climate change. If it is fair and balanced I say – bring it on! Two years ago there was no chance we could have one.
As Andrew Bolt, find in the sidebar, reports apart from this they have also had to admit it has been extremely cold and wet down under recently.
Kindest Regards
Also Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, sidebar, has an interesting post on the recent big wet in Oz, nice to see a real scientist being both open and cautious.
Kindest Regards
Fewer cyclones and smaller waves would appear to be a significant benefit of climate change. If there is going to be less natural disasters of this type, then the economic consequences involved in not mitigating CO2 emissions should be correspondingly lower thereby making it somewhat less attractive to expend money on mitigating rising CO2 emissions.
This resaerch therefore strengthens the case that adapation is a better policy to that of mitigation, and that adaption is the more cost effective policy.
There has been no warming since 1998 and ocean surface temperatures have fallen, albeit by a small amount but this is a tremendous amount of heat, so I would expect this. Lower temperatures should lead to a lower frequency of storms. So this lower frequency is a good corollary for lower temperatures.
Mind you I am working with alarmist theories, or at least a part of one, about heat and storms.
Interesting that it was only forthcoming after a Freedom of Information request.
This will be a long, hard road.
I can see why models would predict this. The models predict that the upper atmosphere in the tropics will warm more than other parts of the atmosphere. If this were to happen it would diminish the temperature differences between the upper and lower atmosphere that drive tropical cyclones. However as the equatorial upper atmosphere `hot spot’ has conspicuously failed to eventuate, very little weight should be placed on this prediction of lowered cyclone activity.
What is interesting here is not so much the result, but the way in which predictions like this one which are not catastrophic or alarming tend to be sidelined, downplayed, and wherever possible ignored.
A number of posters to the Australian have noted that even if there are fewer cyclones they will be more severe due to climate change. What these commentators don’t say is that the cyclone situation in early 2011 when Queensland was battered by severe tropical cyclone Yasi was slightly less severe than in 1918 when Queensland was battered by two severe cyclones (Mackay and Innisfall). As 1918 has not, as yet, been classified as being a year affected by AGW the situation in 2011 can hardly be described as uniquely caused by AGW.
We have had global cooling (the last ~10-15 years), of course it is down. Before that, it was up, due to warming (70s, 80s, 90s).
The cooling will likely deepen in the next few decades (solar).
Sea level will also start dropping (already is) and likely even CO2 content, despite anthropogenic emissions, which are easily overwhelmed by natural cycles.
Lower energy in the Earth climate system will always lead to lower storm levels. The Earth does not need to fight so hard to maintain equilibrium. This would suggest a cooling Earth and not a warming one. With old Sol asleep and the heat bleeding from the oceans, the fight against the alarmists will not be won by debate for it is a religion coupled to politics. The Earth will beat them, for nothing they have said has proved to be in the slightest true. The next few decades will add a lot of egg to a lot of faces.
I would love to see those who pushed the ice age commeth, then pushed the global warming barrow, live long enough to see the folly of their nonsense.
They are predicting bigger swells but smaller waves. Waves are caused mainly by wind, So in effect they are saying there will be less wind. So how do windfarms work with less wind.
Further, they are saying, that with a smaller temperature gradient, there will be less cyclones. In other words they are still pushing the disproven computer models of the warmist prediction.
They still want a carbon tax.
As global warming theory predicts greater warming at the poles and as the strength of storms is driven by energy differentials and this warming would tend to make them contract rather than increase, I was always surprised that global warming hysterics were predicting a rise in cyclone activity and severity when my understanding of the physics underlying cyclones suggested the opposite.
So the question for me is do the observational facts of decreased storm severity and frequency actually tend to confirm global warming theory, at least on the question of where the world is warming the most?
How can governments ever prepare for the future in our ‘warming world’? Climate change research has indeed become a self parody.
This contradicts Gore and “many others”?
I believe that Gore said the incidence of *severe* cyclones would increase, not the incidence of cyclones generally, which the IPCC said was indeterminate from the modeling they reviewed. Perhaps Anthony could produce the quotes of the “many” in context, given his assertion and Condemnation.
But more interesting, why is it the skeptics are so keen to put their faith in modeling so suddenly?
Well, aside from the humor of AGW causing more cyclones and less cyclones, thanks to the AGW camp needing the results to fit what is happening. The truth is warming would cause less cyclones and less severe cyclones/hurricanes whatever. It’s a matter of it takes Warm+Cold to make storms, if you have Warm+Warm you don’t get much.
It’s all about sunspot activity.
It’s all about Sunspot Activity. And the two, ACE and Sunspot Activity correlate most nicely.
Can you imagine if the CSIRO study showed an opposite increase in the frequency of tropical cyclones around Australia and the paper was subsequently obtained under Freedom of Information laws. There would be furore! There would be investigations. People would get fired. This is why AGW is a scam.
Less hurricanes.
Decceleration of sea level rise.
No upper atmosphere red spot. (or wherever it was supposed to appear)
Kilimanjaro glaciers growing.
Antarctica ice covered surface in historic maxima.
Global temperatures stagnat at best.
.
.
.
What else has to happen to falsify CAGW????
I though ONE empirical set of data that does not fit with the theory would suffice to falsify a theory.
Is it just me, or does this sound like this study is trying to fit reality? Let’s see, we want Climate Change to be true, but the hurricane predictions have not worked out. So, let’s have a new study showing fewer hurricanes means global warming is true.
The next headlines will read, “Global Warming is a fact. New study links fewer hurricanes to man made global warming.” I guess the debate is now over.
As I understand it, tropical cyclones depend rather critically on sea surface temperature. One of the conditions for the storms developing and maintaining themselves is a Sea Surface Temperature above about 80F(26.5C). Warmer planet = higher SSTs over more area = greater chance of cyclonic development and less chance of the storm weakening or breaking up if it wanders into colder waters. So more tropical cyclone activity on average seems a reasonable prediction for even modest planetary warming.
As Ryan Maue’s site shows, it’s not happening. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Compared to some of the other predictions about AGW, this one seems quite reasonable. The question would seem to be why, if the planet is warming dramatically, this apparently quite reasonable prediction isn’t working out.
The CSIRO has meanwhile today called for a carbon price to be a key part of the nation’s overall climate action.
CSIRO chief Dr Megan Clark will today join 600 of Australia’s top climate change scientists at a meeting in Cairns to update the latest observations.
It actually says climate change scientists, that explains why they’re going to Cairns rather than some place west of the divide that has flies in its climate.