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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
c’mon faded, can you please respond to me? Send me the link that joins increasing coal CO2 in the atmosphere with increasing temperatures at harmful levels..
I also have a problem finding a study linking increased coal CO2 in the atmosphere causing ocean acidification.
If ibcreased coal CO2 causes increased temperatures; while increased temperatures of the atmosphere also causes increased temperatures of the ocean surface; and increased coal CO2 in the ocean causes acids to form, lowering the ph; why is it that when water warms, it releases CO2 that was heretofore captured in the water?
I would think that increased water temperatures would cause the water chemistry ph to rise, not fall. But, this was back in high school…..I may have it backward.
lol
I’m rather glad I missed this “Conversation”.
@Jeffrey Eric Grant: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Very few people dispute this, neither sceptics or AGW believers. The argument isn’t about whether increasing CO2 can warm the planet, but about the extent of that warming, and whether other forcings (positive and negative) accentuate or reduce the effect. There are plenty of studies covering this topic, but this might be the one you seek: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Note: I am sceptical about the magnitude of warming claimed in Hansen el al 2005, mainly based upon the apparent levelling off of global temperature for the past 13 years at a time when CO2 is still increasing, but I have no training in this area so my opinion really doesn’t count.
@faded: the word was probably “denier”. It’s not only offensive, it also happens to be inaccurate.
Jeff, I’m not a scientists and I don’t research climate change anymore. I don’t pretend to be a climatologist. I was just pointing out that your opinion is the opposite of the experts. When it comes to a very complex science such as the climate and man’s impact on the climate I refer you to someone specialized in the subject and defer you away from trying to figure it out all by yourself. 🙂
This has been my point the entire conversation, all of my points have said this. I wonder if you guys even read my posts sometimes. I personally don’t read through all of yours as I am one person arguing against about 5 people. You are 1 person, of 5, arguing against 1. At least you can give me the respect to at least read through my argument and argue against that. Instead it seems you are content with just ignoring my posts and making your own points about your own ideological argument. That’s fine, I don’t intend on trying to beat down a straw man that someone much smarter than me has already beaten down.
Sorry, Derek. The scientific community that I trust has already come to a concuslion. The IPCC is the foremost authority on climate change and they have come to their conclusion. I actually have read their report.(forgive my prior statement about not knowing the science). I sort of understand the science and it comes down to trust. I actually do trust the IPCC, sorry I know that will be unpopular. Their report is pretty conclusive and this issue isn’t even an issue in any other country except the United States. My real concern is why the American public is the only one that denies the science. That is why I say [******], we stand as an outlier. I could point to the huge oil lobby in this country and unfettered access to politicians. The billions of dollars spent on comercials that do nothing except talk about how great oil companies can be. I wonder why they would spend so much money doing PR for something that has no effect on the environment. I wonder.
IF YOU REPLY TO ME PLEASE READ MY POST 1st! OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE IGNORED! THANKS!
[Please watch your language. Robt]
fadedvision, I presume there is no hope of altering your outlook as your mind has been made-up by the consensus proffered by the IPCC and that is fine. That is the position of many religious fanatics and you just have faith in their wisdom. You seem to think that contrary views are simply manifested by the influence of “big oil”, and that shows unfortunately how little you really have investigated into this whole proposition. I guess you secretly have some grudge against corporations, their influence, their impact and their basic presence you fear. That reveals something of your core philosophy and I now recognize that is not likely to be altered by any rational argument. You have convinced yourself that the so called “wisdom” offered by the current crop of scientists engaged in studying “climate change” always trump any science to the contrary.
Since you have taken the position: “The scientific community that I trust has already come to a concuslion.” You leave little “wiggle room” to perhaps for listening to any arguments listed here in this blog, and are resorted to save and defend your position by poking everyone with sharp pointed sticks to keep them away since you can’t offer any other rationale. You will find you will be quite busy doing that because there are a number of noted scientists posting here. Trust should be earned by history and examining the actions of the whole community of climate scientists. Their record is abysmal.
My position has always been to get you to listen a while, observe some of the really well written arguments here in this Blog against the “warmists” , hold your conclusions for a while, and resist the need to defend what eventually will be proven as a giant error in science. Can’t convince you that in the history of science, it has been terribly wrong before in some notable incidents. The problem today is that government policy is too much entwined in the science and any action taken will result in a substantial change in your lifestyle for the worse, that you can’t see or envision. So I hope you wander off happy in your bliss. I caution others to not resort to name calling or other demeaning tactics to perhaps alter fadedvision’s views since it is not going to happen and we should not attack personalities but only bad ideas.Name calling just shows you have lost the argument. I was hoping that fadedvision would perhaps see (well demonstrated here) that there is not the “solid front” of science supporting his position and the IPCC.
While I’m not engaged in climate science, I do have enough credentials I feel that allow me to judge the credibility of both sides of the argument and find the so called “minority” position more acceptable because I managed to separate myself from the religious nature of the thrust, and examine the atrocious behavior by the current crop of climate scientists. It does not bother me to call me names, as I am very comfortable with being skeptical of the so-called current science of global warming. The catastrophic scenarios you and folks like Al Gore subscribe to just don’t hold any truth when closely examined. I do not deny any of the science offered by the climate scientists and celebrate any new reports. But they must adhere to the standards of past scientific principles and that fadedvision, is where you need to be more critical. It’s just not so that a lot of the conclusions by the current crop of scientists and their findings will withstand the scrutiny of history. Trust me on that.
Just remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far is it missing. It is the job of the climate scientists to provide that proof and all they can do is offer their computer models which are not any proof in any scientific field. Unfortunately you fall for that level of proof and the acceptance of consensus as demonstrating same..
faded, Derek: Sorry, I am left to figure this out for myself! This is not ideological for me, since I have a technical degree and have worked for maany years as an Environmental Engineer, I do have some familiarity with the issue — I remember when they started this in the 60’s; only problem then was they were talking about the coming ice age! .I have asked for the “proof” for a while now. I am fully aware of the theory of AGW — I dream about it at night. I have asked at the very top of the food chain — Gavin and Mike Mann would not help, and they should have been able to. I was offered help from Roy Spencer — but, of course, although he has a government grant for his work on satellite measurements, he is not part of the AGW clique. What I believe is happening doesn’t matter….I am looking for some measurement that supports the AGW conclusion that the increased temperatures we see are “caused” by the rising CO2, which we measure in Hawaii. Until I get it, I will hold onto the current theory.
And, BTW, the IPCC is not an “authority” on the subject as they are a political (absolutely non-swcientific) entity. They were given the mission to compile research about AGW. So, I think they are a reference source for this side of ther discussion. For the other side I use the NIPCC’s data and references.
The US is not the “only” country that questions the science — read a little about how China and Russia regard the AGW “science”! I also follow The Guardian (England) and find that they have now rejected Kyoto; they are the only country that tried to adhere to their Kyoto commitment. Right now Australia is having a huge revolt because of the carbon tax increases just proposed.
I wish we could discuss adaption measures for the increasing temps. At leat then we would be doing something constructive (afer all I am an Engineer). This AGW political stuff is starting to get real old.
Derek, I too think CO2 has a limited role in the temperature rise. Actual theory limits it to about a 2 degree rise by the end of this century. Other “positive reinforcements” add all the rest of the increase. However, very little is known about the role of water in the system. They need to fully investigate this. Thanks for the link. I will follow it later this week when I have some time.
BillyV – thanks for your post! I do with the AGW crowd would debate the science. oh, BTW, Algore has now moved on — he is touting limited populations world-wide. I wolder how he will achieve his goal?
I’m confused Billy. You do or don’t believe man is adding to a change in temperature? You do or don’t believe that this is good or bad? You do or don’t believe the top scientists specialized in this subject?(and they are the top climatologist in the world)
BillyV:fadedvision, “I presume there is no hope of altering your outlook as your mind has been made-up by the consensus proffered by the IPCC and that is fine. That is the position of many religious fanatics and you just have faith in their wisdom.”
It is nothing like religious fanatics, as religious fanatics have faith based upon lack of evidence. I have faith based upon evidence in this case. It’s actually the opposite of fanataics in every single way. 🙂
BillV: “You seem to think that contrary views are simply manifested by the influence of “big oil”, and that shows unfortunately how little you really have investigated into this whole proposition. I guess you secretly have some grudge against corporations, their influence, their impact and their basic presence you fear.”
I do fear corporate influence because I know history. Perhaps a history lesson about WW2 might jog your memory and bring you some fear of corporations also. Facism is fueled by large corporations, Mussolini 1st named facism “corporatism”(translated). Essentially this country was founded whenever the Boston Tea Party started by attacking the East India Trade company which was trying to gain a monopoly on the tea sales in the colonies. This company was owned by the King of England, (worth mentioning). If you aren’t scared of large multinational corporations then you need to be, they have altered public opinion throughout our history and they certainly have the money to do so now. It’s ok if you are not as paranoid as me about them but please grant me that they seek to gain profit. That is their main goal, changing public opinion is part of that money making scheme, I am sure that they have no motive outside revenue. IE-they are not evil.
Might I ask why you think that you should be able to know more than the collective acuman of the IPCC? Why should I trust your opinion? Are you a high level biologist or something along those lines?
I would also say that I did not curse in that last post. I have no idea what they bleeped out or why they said that. I was very careful not to curse. My posts go through moderation before posting. Because I used the “D” word which I still haven’t been notified what exactly the “d” word is [Note: Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.] and don’t remember exactly what I say after my rant is over. I am saving every post from now on so that I might go back and look at exactly what has been taken out. I’m fairly sure that I am unfairly being targeted as the only person on this entire blog who actually believes climate change on this blog. Moderator, if you are so confident in your censorship then allow me to know which words you have altered.
On a side note, everyone on this page is absolutely nuts. You guys seriously pat yourselves on the back for the basis of your remarks and arguments but in the end. You are all wrong and your drinking kool-aide from the same source. Literally the North Pole could completely be gone and you blind demigogues will simply say “Thats just the natural cycle” or some other high minded and obscured view.
Jeffrey Grant, you just providede a perfect example of why I can’t figure you people out at all! You say China doesn’t believe in climate change? Where on earth did you come up w/ that information? China doesn’t debate this issue as they are communist and have no freedom of speech. They simply listen to their scientists who(obviously) know what the rest of the world already knows. The science is not debatable at this point. How many articles would you like me to post about China talking about climate change? Here is one, I hope that’s enough.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8268077.stm
Russia happens to have the largest oil reserve in the world sitting underneath of Siberia. It happens to be too cold to drill there now. I wonder why, if at all, Russia would have a vested interest in Siberia thawing out from a rise in temperature. Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
Jeffrey, Kyoto Protocol was pretty stupid. I admit that much. Because Kyoto was unfairly drafted does not mean that climate change isn’t real. It was a poorly constructed attempt to do something smart. It didn’t work for good reason. People did not sign on to it because it climate change isn’t real. They didn’t sign up for it because it was constructed to harm heavily industrialized nations among many other major drawbacks. I am not pro Kyoto Protocol.
I will remind you that Philjordan called me a traitor to my country and someone who tries to destroy a his country from the inside earlier in this thread and there was nothing done about this. I have to assume that I am ok to call people traitors and this would fit the standard of not name calling or cursing. Although worse than cursing imo.
I mean, it says a lot that I come on here as someone w/ a different opinion than you people. That’s ok, people have different opinions. It speaks volumes that I could come on here and start up a healthy debate. Then the moderator starts previewing all my posts before they make it to the board? He starts editing out parts of them because of my cursing? That he has not told me what words I used. The truth is I haven’t cursed. If I have, I don’t recall it and he hasn’t told me what words were used. I think it tells a lot about this site that the only voice of descent on this whole thread is watched over like a secret police. In case I say something that might shatter your science denying minds. Give me my posting rights back and please disclose, at least to me through email, what words I said that deserve to have WHOLE POSTS edited out. I have had 3 posts edited now. If you can’t do that, I’ll let you guys go back to your own undignified 3rd grade Al Gore bashing and sciece denying. I’ll even leave you w/ a couple packets of kool-aide and we can talk about how we didn’t land on the moon or how dinosaurs never really existed next. Nice sheltered house you guys live in, moderator had to come in and stop me from pounding on you. That tells me a lot about how well your arguments were going.
Last point Jeffrey, about the IPCC being some political body. Want to know what the IPCC really is? From IPCC website –
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 194 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
Please, don’t let me interupt your Rush Limbaugh in the evening.
faded, wow.
Thanks for the post.
We will never agree, mainly because we are talking about different things….
It was due to China that the Coperhagen agreement fell apart. China is commissioning one new coal-fired electric generating plant each week; this while the US is starting to dismantle theirs.
If the Russians can’t drill through permafrost, then they should not be in the oil business. They do export a lot of natural gas, though.
The USA is sitting on the largest cache of energy in the world. This does not count “renewables”. However, we are not exploiting this energy reserve fast enough because of uncertainty in the science. It seems our government would rather continue to spemd $Billions every year importing the energy we need.
However, I would rather understand the science. I am stuck on just how increased CO2 actually increases atmospheric temperatures beyond their “greenhouse” amount (approx 2 degrees C over the next 100 years). Ideally, I would observe an actual debate of the scientific issues that was conducted on-line or on a stage somewhere. But, alas, no debate. So, I must raise my questions directly to the scientists, or on a group on-line, like this one. This is slow, tedious work, so I’ll be at it for quite a while.
I use the IPCC’s reports as the leader to the science upon which the reports are based. There are plenty of references to the AGW side of the debate; while very little reference to a contrarian study. Why is that? I prefer to think that it is a matter of funding — governments’ funding is lopsided. Fully 10 times as much government research grants are going to the AGW side than with contrarian redearch. Even during this terrible economy. plenty of research money went to the AGW scientists – both inside the US as well as outside the US.
So, since AGW theory has been with us since the late 60’s, I am starting to look at their forecasts to get a sense of how robust and accurate they are. Sorry to say, I am not impressed. So now, I am looking into why that is. Why me? Because I cannot do the research and I am getting very little help with my best question: “why?”
Troubling, huh? I don’t have the faith, so I need the ‘proof’. Don’t forget, we are discussing why there has been a surge in Atlantic hurricanes.
oh, BTW, every one of my posts goes through the same critique yours go through before being posted
I want to wish you the best of luck in your inquery into the CO2 emmissions. I really hope you find out what you are looking for.
Can someone explain what AGW is an acronym for? W/o belittling me, thanks!
Anthropogenic Global Warming
To add to Jeffery’s comments. (I had to look it up my first encounter so don’t feel badly)
Anthropogenic means- man caused or induced by humans. A more specific acronym is CAGW which means Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or CAGW for short. The CAGW is basically what most of us here that have been poking you about. It’s the Chicken Little’s story about what is supposed to happen if we don’t act right now!!; as a Catastrophe will surely happen and soon too!!. You see both used widely, but CAGW usually is the reference term by skeptics.
Remember faded, it is the job of all new theories (AGW) to provide proof (of man induced warming component) is happening and so far the proof is just too weak to convince a lot of scientists. We, the skeptics, don’t have to prove anything because we are not proposing a theory except to say the so-called climate scientists are doing bad science. We don’t deny the science provided at all, but are very skeptical of the many wild claims of some of the scientists and ask for better science and more convincing proof must be provided before policy decisions (Government laws) are made.
Keep in mind we are still gradually warming from natural causes because if you look at history, there was an ice age um, 11,000 years ago and no one denies it is getting warmer. The whole simplified issue boils down to: how fast- and what component is Anthropogenic (man caused) influencing things?
In this Blog, you will find a lot of contrary evidence that the CAGW science is terribly flawed and just not believable, Pay attention to what is written here and you just might see some bad science exposed that you might agree with.
[snip]
[reply] calm down and try again. TB-mod
BillyV – thanks. Actually, I like CAGW better, because it is the C part that I rile against.
I just had another thought — since we are talking about increased hurricane activity….hurricane strength is supposed to increase with increased sea temperatures. The sea temperature is increasing (and sea level rising) due to AGW. AGW is causing this through the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
So, why is global hurricane activity decreasing for the past six years? “activity” by any measure — total number of named storms, number of storms that reached hurricane strength, or “major” hurricanes.