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
>>Ian H says: April 4, 2011 at 2:22 am
>>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.
Which brings us back to that thought experiment (WUWT some time ago) with a metal sphere around it. If there is no upper atmosphere hot spot, then the entire thesis of CO2 AGW crumbles, because this is the ‘greenhouse insulation layer’ (same as the metal sphere) that should be warming the earth.
No hotspot, no Co2 AGW.
.
DeanL says “But more interesting, why is it the skeptics are so keen to put their faith in modeling so suddenly?”
Dean I think you miss the skeptic point of view here.
Modeling confirms more intense cyclones.
Modeling confirms less cyclones.
With all these models confirming and refuting each other, how can the science be settled?
Someone may say “but the models don’t refute one another. We can expect fewer cyclones but with the occasional more intense one every so often.” to which I would reply “then why the panic?”.
Sorry, missed out a couple of words…
>>Ian H says: April 4, 2011 at 2:22 am
>>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.
Which brings us back to that thought experiment (WUWT some time ago) of the earth with a metal sphere around it. If there is no upper atmosphere hot spot, then the entire thesis of CO2 AGW crumbles, because this is the ‘greenhouse insulation layer’ (same as the metal sphere) that should be warming the earth.
No hotspot, no Co2 AGW.
Paul R says:
April 4, 2011 at 5:15 am
“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.”
Wow…there are 600 top climate change scientists in Australia alone?! They probably cost about $50 million dollars/year in government salaries/benefits. Climate ca$h in action!
Perhaps a “bait and switch”?
As temps appear to be falling (now or in the near future) they will declare that ___(?) is responsible and we must enact taxation NOW to fight its effect on climate.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
On the one hand, models are models. As skeptics we can’t get too excited about models that spit out something we like while blasting models that spit out what we don’t like.
On the other hand, SHAME on CSIRO and the Australian government having to be forced by FOIA to admit this study existed.
DeanL says:
April 4, 2011 at 3:40 am
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?
=====
ah Dean..
I dont think we are trusting modelling.
what Anthony and the Australian is showing
is that the CSIRO will not even allow a whisper of their own models that don’t toe the AGW fear and panic line to gain any airtime.
Having to Use FOI to get access to public funded research is wrong.
These storms come from a collision of too-warm and too-cold fronts, because it is the degree of temperature separation between colliding systems that is important. Apparently some AGW climate scientists think that cold will get warmer and warm will get warmer by the same degree, which would result in no overall trend or a small downward tick. Apparently other AGW climate scientists think cold will get colder and warm will get warmer, which would result in an obvious uptick. Still others think that cold will get warmer and warm will stay the same, resulting in a decided down-tick. This is called AGW consensus for those not familiar with that term’s new definition.
For those who post that sunspot activity lines up nicely with ACE, please post your graph, and remember to take into account our growing ability to detect storm activity across the globe. Please speak to correlation AND causation. Poorly done wriggle matching without serious thought on mechanism is not post normal or normal science, it is caveman science.
What a joke!
Now it has been shown that the number and intensity of tropical storms has been going down for 30 years, in contradiction IPCC claims. They now change tack.
I predict more of this before the next IPCC report which will then claim: “frequency and intensity of tropical storms has been decreasing over the last 50 years as is predicted by global warming. ”
My call: heads, it’s due to global warming, tails it’s because of global warming.
All climate change scientists are “top climate change scientists” (as long as they are not DENIERS).
Note the use of “climate change scientists” not just climate scientists.
I’ve become used to various advocacy groups making mutually-exclusive claims like this. By doing so, they guarantee that no matter what happens, it’s proof that something’s wrong, that they can then correct.
More hurricanes? Global warming.
Less hurricanes? Global warming.
Average hurricanes? Global warming.
Heavy rains? Global warming.
Drought? Global warming.
Average rainfall? Global warming.
Since there are only three possibilities in each case, and each of them is somehow proof of Global warming, everything that ever happens is proof of Global warming.
Here’s another example of the technique:
I vividly recall when The Cosby Show ended its wildly-successful run that some “advocates” for black folks condemned it for having “unrealistically” depicted “the black experience”, what with having a doctor married to a lawyer as the parents. But I also recall other “advocates” condemning Good Times for having reinforced negative stereotypes about “the black experience”, by depicting low-income residents of the Projects. I then realized that any depiction of blacks would either reinforce stereotypes or be “unrealistic”. And not depicting blacks is exclusionary, so every TV show is wrong according to one of the three theories.
Isn’t it convenient to be able to set things up so that everything proves your case?
And here in Germany, 2-3 days a week in a neverending, mantra-like prayermill they show on a political TV channel, that increasing temperatures also increase the risc of worldwide Hypercanes, destroying the planet.
Of course that are *scientifically modelled* flights of fancy, supported by the usual self made horror videos of simulated hypercanes.
Fear…brainwash…
ROFL
Oh boy, models, don’t you just love them.
It would be really nice to earn aliving playing with models, the more models I do, the more money I make.
I did not think that the Aussies went in for double talk, straight shooters, looks like they have the self serving model makers like we do in the UK.
Hard Luck!
P. Solar says:
>Note the use of “climate change scientists” not just climate scientists.
A climate change scientist is one who has been vetted as a supporter of CAGW. I am not sure if there is a CCS card to be carried in one’s wallet. A plain old climate scientist is one who studies the climate and reports what they find. Sorta boring….
I think people are beginning to realize what “climate change” has always been about.
A small group of doomsday scientists – many of whom predicted a coming ice age forty years ago – began touting global warming caused by man’s release of CO2 in to the atmosphere. Qt the same time governments realized they were about to be financially insolvent. It didn’t take much thought to realize that governments could maintain financially stability if they could heavily tax energy use. If it was ‘to save the earth’, who would dare object? At the same time, environmental extremists, luddites, and technophobes saw this as a way to stop the “scourge” of Man on this world (they would firmly believe ANY story that showed Man was plague on the Earth). An unholy, unspoken alliance was born.
I (we) have seen this before, at least in the USA. Back in the late 1980s, the gay community wanted unlimited research funds into curing AIDS. A very conservative Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop) at the time was very amenable to any idea that would reduce promiscuity. The two groups joined forces and promoted the idea that heterosexuals were at extreme risk.
The climate change cabal came very close to winning the debate and taking control of the world’s economy, and the future of Mankind. Unfortunately for them, the global economic meltdown began before they sealed the deal.
We may now be winning this battle for science, but the underlying problems and philosophies that generated this fight are still there. Be very skeptical of ALL proposed mass movements, for ANY reason. This war will continue on other fronts.
“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,”
Presumably this model predicts more frequent El Ninos (as seen in the positive phase of the PDO). From what I’ve read El Ninos bring drier conditions to Australia,
La Ninas bring wetter conditions (As seen earlier this year).
Perhaps the model doesn’t know about the changing PDO.
Further to my last
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
“Given the well-known relationship between the SOI and heavy rains in eastern Australia (eg., McBride and Nicholls, 1983) we can conclude that the fundamental cause of the heavy rains this past six months was indeed this record La Nina event.”
Looking at the graph, might it suggest that temperatures have cooled??
jtom says:
“(A)t the same time governments realized they were about to be financially insolvent.”
You don’t think you are giving them too much credit here?
How many of them saw the GFC coming?
Bulldust:
Aside from the fact that pretty much every organisation absolves themselves of any responsibility for climate data, if the Australian government was a corporation employee and they presented the carbon-tax proposal as they have, they’d be laughed out of the boardroom for basing it on such questionable data and having no real cost-benefits analysis.
It’s a shame that the Australian public have to wait up to 4 years to make executive decisions about such “employees”. I’m sure they would have been “sacked” by now.
Regardless of a model’s outcome, it still appears that the reader’s bias plays a large part in the interpretation. A commenter to the article in The Australian suggested that it supports orthodox CAGW theory in that it forecasts cyclones of greater severity ie. we told you so. What I see is a scenario with less cyclones, most of the loss being those in the lower categories, with only the more severe ones remaining. That is not the same thing. I suspect my plea for objectiveness on the warmists’ side falls on deaf ears.
Well his career is over – at the CSIRO.
Pamela Gray: There have been studies of the Earth when it was at 1000PPM CO2 in the atmosphere, it seems to have been a remarkably pleasant place to live, with the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator greatly reduced. You will note that the tropical zones stayed pretty much the same, so there were no excessive temperatures, and of course, the reduced temperature gradients could have only given us a balmy climate:
Stanley, Steven M. Earth System History. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1999. ISBN 0-7167-2882-6.
“The Eocene global climate was perhaps the most homogeneous of the Cenozoic; the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half that of today’s, and deep ocean currents were exceptionally warm. The polar regions were much warmer than today, perhaps as mild as the modern-day Pacific Northwest; temperate forests extended right to the poles, while rainy tropical climates extended as far north as 45°. The difference was greatest in the temperate latitudes; the climate in the tropics however, was probably similar to today’s.”