Told ya so, here
From the American Geophysical Union weekly Journal Highlights:
A spate of research has indicated there may be a link between climate change and the prevalence of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Upon closer inspection, however, researchers have noted that the prominent upswing in tropical cyclone detections beginning in the mid twentieth century is attributable predominantly to the detection of “shorties,” tropical cyclones with durations of less than 2 days. That the apparent surge in cyclone activity could be attributable to changes in the quality and quantity of detections has gained ground as a potential alternative explanation.
Using a database of hurricane observations stretching back to 1878, Villarini et al. try to tease out any detectable climate signal from the records. The authors note that between 1878 and 1943 there were 0.58 shorty detections per year, and between 1944 and 2008 there were 2.58 shorty detections per year. This increase in shorties, which the authors propose may be related to the end of World War II and the dawn of air-based reconnaissance and weather tracking, was not mirrored by an increase in tropical cyclone activity for storms longer than 2 days.
The authors compare the rate of shorty detections against a variety of climate parameters, including North Atlantic sea surface temperature, mean tropical sea surface temperature, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Southern Oscillation Index. The authors find that North Atlantic sea surface temperatures were related to tropical cyclones of longer than 2 days’ duration but were not related to the rate of short detections. Additionally, for every decade after 1950s the occurrence of shorties seems to be related to a different climate parameter. Both of these findings are highly suggestive of data quality problems for the shorties record. The researchers note that their finding does not rule out the possibility of a climate-driven increase in shorties over the twentieth century. Rather, any existing trend will be imperceptible, as it is masked by data quality issues.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015493
Title: Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?
Authors:
Gabriele Villarini: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA; and Willis Research Network, London, UK;
James A. Smith: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA;
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Global warming causes more exoplanets to appear or is it down to better detection? ;O)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607002
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/522/1/512
http://www.spacedog.eu/astronomy/exoplanets/new-ways-to-search-for-exoplanets.html
“Shorties like a melody in my head that I can’t keep out. Got me singin like…”
Wish they would have used some other term…
Can anybody explain why it is the “denialist” web sites that seem to anticipate the science best? Well, *somebody* is in denial, anyway.
Stengel: “You can see a lot just by looking.”
Paul Westhaver, : “What is the conclusion? As soon as humanity devises technology to measure something, that something is bad and we are the cause. That is the science mind set. Scientists cannot be trusted.”
I disagree. It is the abandonment of science and using pseudo-scientific principles to promote a false anti-human argument which is wrong. Scientists who conduct pure science and allow empirical evidence to be their guides, wherever that leads, can be trusted. Those who cherry-pick and filter evidence selectively to support a political argument are advocates, not scientists.
The picture, above, says more than “a thousand words” about North Atlantic weather over the past century plus than most realize. Here is a larger view link –
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Atlantic_hurricane_tracks.jpg
During the period of entry into the Little Ice Age, and the period of exit from the Little Ice Age (of which the period reflected in the picture is the most recent part) the pattern was different. Hummmm… but of course that little piece of knowledge doesn’t fit well with the AGW Mob who are only interested in social and economic revolution for the good of ah.. well the stupid masses.. that’s it, The Stupid Poor Huddled Masses of Mankind! Gee, aren’t they such an open-hearted, generous, brilliant group of caring people? Who really cares if their “Psyence” is a little “Psycadellic” and “Perverted”? Their doing it all for U.S. and the NEW World Order. Gee willikers! Shaazammmm!
@Brian Hall
“Stengel: “You can see a lot just by looking.””
Actually, that paraphrase was from the OTHER famous philosopher of the Bronx Bombers – Yogi Berra. And, Yogi observed, rather than saw.
No harm, no foul.
heck, when i bought a Chevy HHR, I started seeing all those chevy HHRs on the road. I guess there were no chevy HHRs on the road,……. until i bought one
NoAstronomer
“What do you call cyclones that last less then 2 hours?”
Quickies.
Or on a hot day an afternoon delight ;>
RockyRoad says:
June 16, 2011 at 8:02 am
“Amazing how much weather one sees when your eyes are wide open (or you have the instruments to detect it)”
You can observe a lot by just watching. ~Yogi Berra
Per Paul W.
“Scientists cannot be trusted.”
Too broad of a statement. The problem is that over the centuries, bad science didn’t really matter too much (except in the case of Lysenko’s work in Russia) because if they were wrong, the implications were academic and mattered little in the short run, and in the long run things were eventually corrected.
Today with the ability of “news” to be rapidly disseminated, (falsely or otherwise) great damage can be wrought by bad science when in the hands of control freaks and biased Main Stream Media reporting with specific hidden agendas. It takes this combination today to upset the balance. When policy is unduly influenced by bad science and the political/social agendas that result, we now find that it is possible to drive this into rushed government mandated action, before the bad science is “outed”. Bad science is just that, and is of little long term consequence, but bad science coupled with activist agenda that is dangerous. We now are in the process of trying to “out” the bad science.
.
Take a look at the number and frequency of hurricanes for the year 2005! Now, that was a big year; neither before nor since has there been anything like it. Other than AGW, what was the reason for this? 1932 was second….
LK M;
Yeah, the original is ” You can observe a lot by just watching. ~Yogi Berra “, I guess.
_________
To the weirdly named tkjJEG above, why does the highest data point in a sample need to be explained? There always is one. And a lowest.
Here’s a much better forecast based on AGW: the warmer the world gets, the lower the contrast between tropics and poles, and the milder and calmer the climate will be.
Whoa, catch your breath there!
You haven’t been following along, have you. Do you know how long we’ve been REALLY looking for tropical storms with modern equipment? Do some research and get back to us.
tekguyjeffJeffrey Eric Grant says:
June 20, 2011 at 3:48 am
“Other than AGW, what was the reason for this?”
I find this kind of limited thinking incredible. His reply is either a troll or hopelessly naive poorly informed individual. Tekguy please just follow along for a while here (ask question if you wish) and you might find some other really good scientific reasons proposed that are more plausible than AGW, which we are finding has as much credibility as: It happened because the Moon was in Virgo, and the Sun was in Sagittarius.
I love how the planet could not POSSIBLY be changing. There is no way that a huge upsurge in population and addiction to dirty fuel can cause the planet to change. This isn’t even a complex idea. Yet, you hopelessly obsess about international organizations trying to what? Cap pollution? Seems harmless to all of us who don’t wear aluminum foil helmets.
I’d be suprised if a single climate scientist even comes on this site for information. You are just a bunch of science haters who like to speak as if your smart enough to be a scientist. No wonder the most uninformed and brainwashed people I’ve ever talked to always link me back to this site.
Oh dear,- another one pops up. Guess FWIW, I have to repeat again in response to fadedvision @12:35:
‘I find this kind of limited thinking incredible. His reply is either a troll or hopelessly naive poorly informed individual. …. and please just follow along for a while here (ask question if you wish) and you might find some other really good scientific reasons proposed that are more plausible than AGW,’
So with that said again, fadedvision in a way offers:
“I love how the planet could not POSSIBLY be changing.”
If you had been doing your homework by actually reading for a limited time, no one with any credibility ever said the planet is not changing. The argument is over the degree and the cause.
and:
“Yet, you hopelessly obsess about international organizations trying to what? “
If you are speaking about the IPCC, then I guess “we” are obsessed. Again, take some time to reflect what is going on there and again pay attention to what is said here and try very very hard to absorb some of the logic of the arguments of what may be some very serious failings of the IPCC. I keenly observe you are now conducting yourself modeled in the in the perfect role of “Truthers” you rail against. Pot & kettle routine going on here fadedv. To save possibly some time, let me repeat some of your prior Blog wisdom: “Actually, some truthers will not listen so it’s better to just save your breath.” I’m probably wasting my time but I am patient usually, so I’ll try anyway.
Wow, now for another wild assertion I can’t let pass:
“I’d be suprised if a single climate scientist even comes on this site for information.”
I can see that you are a new arrival, as there are a number of recognized climate scientists that actually post articles here frequently and are quite active in the discussions.
This partial quote says it all:
“You are just a bunch of science haters….”
Again, if you would bother to stay around a while to listen and read, you might just possibly see that real science is going on here and it is respected more than you think.
You really need to take heart in the previous saying: ” You can observe a lot by just watching.”
Sorry to say fadedvision, you have to overcome the really bad habit of: “Ready!,…Fire!,.. AIM!!!”
You start, posting people who do not believe in climate change(who are climatologist). Then I will do the opposite, whoever wins is declared winner of the arguement. Since neither of us are scientists then our opinion on the matter is irrelevent.
I’m not an expert on the climate but I do listen to people who are experts(unlike you). I’d be interested to see how many of your climatologist who deny climate change are on the payroll of oil companies also. This challenge I issue you will be the most telling bit of evidence you will ever see in your life. I’ll force you to acknowledge fact by littering your own stomping ground w/ evidence and I would be suprised if you can find 10 on your side. I am probably wasting my time too. I agree with you and I feel the same actually.
Actually, I found a pertinent article for you. Apparentely 97% of climatologist agree that humans are playing a role in climate change. That’s so far beyond the margine of error that it begs the question. Who are you listening to if not the experts in the field?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
fadedvision says: blah blah blah
Your vision has truly faded, if you ever had any.
Please provide one occasion where anyone here has seriously said climate doesn’t change.
Fine, that survey was taken in 2008 and if you took a survey in 1888, 97% of practicing doctors at that time would have told you that blood-letting was a fine treatment for many diseases. Your argument while seemingly powerful to you- is so incredibly weak as I don’t know how you could ever be convinced that consensus in science is not proof. History of science is replete with big errors occurring where consensus at one time was overwhelming. Einstein had a saying about his work and he did not care about consensus. He basically said: “it takes only one person to show I am wrong”. To be specific and rebut your classical thinking in depth would waste your and my time plus the moderators. I urge you to lurk here for a while and get the drift where everything is going. If you want contrary opinions and need to gravitate to authority, take a look at the Oregon petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/
The fundamental problem you will find out (providing you seek it) eventually is that with all the available records of temperatures the signal of AGW is so incredibly weak, meaning the actual signal produced by anthropogenic CO2 warming effects- can’t be distinguished from the background of natural climate changes occurring. Please read prior statement until you understand it. It is fundamental to the whole issue and unless you see this clearly, you can’t grasp what is being discussed here. Many climate scientists of great credentials claim to have found the signal, but I invite you to take a close look and suspend judgment until there is agreement and convergence of science on this issue. The scientists of the Oregon Petition and other skeptical scientists aka deniers, say: “not so fast”. That is basically what is going on here fadedvision. The scientists that habit this blog are doing that despite all the “noise” and distraction you read. If you continue to read and question you possibly might see the light, but I suspect you feel comfortable with your consensus mantra and “appeal to authority” zone. I hope your scientific history (mine does) includes the fact that we are still emerging from an ice age and it is and has been getting steadily warmer for several thousand years in natural jumps, dips and lurches. Hang on for the ride.
Your ad hominem references to those “on the payroll of oil companies” will get no rise and your appeals to authority are classic symptoms of hollow arguments. This type of argument can be tossed back to the climate scientists and gets us nowhere. The science is not settled and another quote is appropriate: “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” – Albert Einstein
Some of us are hoping the research will provide answers and there will be a convergence eventually of various points of view. It has happened before and eventually I’m sure it will happen again. The problem is that policy is being driven by what many believe is bad science and that is unacceptable until there is convincing science better than what has been presented so far.
You basically are still siding with the side of the outliers in this Oregon petition. I mean, 9K PHD’s which is important. I would imagine it is a very small minority of the scientists w/ PHD’s. Also, I’d rather see it specifically reduced to climatologist. More specialized in this field of study than for example geologist which is technically a scientist and one that makes his/her money on oil. I know that sounds hollow but it also sounds American. Making money however you can. It’s a reality in America and that’s undeniable.
Food for thought. I came here because I feel that you guys are winning the argument and with 3% of the climatologist on your side I wonder how that can be. Your very nice people and for the future I hope that you do not try to convince unsuspecting people into believing that you have more than 3% of people who know about the subject on your side.
I just want my truck back.
fadedvision,
You’re kidding nobody. The OISM has over 31,000 co-signers – several times more than the entire alarmist contingent has been able to assemble in all of its counter-petitions. That is numerical proof that the consensus is on the side of the skeptics.
BTW, science is NOT a contest of how many others agree with you. I have been looking for a long time for the proof that the rising temps are caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2, and have yet to find it. It is of interest that the models all point in one direction — could it be that the modelers get together in conferences somewhere and compare notes? One side is propelled by BIG OIL FUNDING and the other side is propelled by BIG GOVERNMENT GRANTS. I think NOT!
My comment about the 2005 hurricane activity was to point out that natural variation can sometimes be quite large (and still be statistically insignificanr). the year 2005 had twice as many Atlantic hurricanes than “normal”.
Fade – you really are new, right? Do you actually know where that 97% came from? Try 75 Scientists. That is right! Only 75. Your precious survey asked over 10k scientists, of which only about 3k actually responded. They then cooked the numbers until they could arrive at a figure of 75 of 77 scientists agreed (what happened to the other 10k scientists?).
Want a REAL link? Try this one: http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
And do some REAL research. Which means looking at the source, not just the fluff pieces in the MSM.