By Mike Smith of Meteorological Musings
This story from London’s Daily Mail is so bad, the reporter won’t even put his or her name on it.
In the story, we learn the Joplin tornado was caused by global warming. We learn that Katrina was caused by global warming. We learn that droughts are caused by global warming. Floods are caused by global warming. Apparently, every storm or unusual weather phenomena is caused by global warming.
So, lets play ‘climate scientist’ (why not, apparently you don’t have to have any credentials to be one) and take a look at the arguments made in the article.
We’ll start with Hurricane Katrina. Remember how, in the wake of Katrina, we were told that hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more intense? Take, for example, this claim:
The work of hurricane expert Dr. Kerry Emanuel indicates that Global Warming provided the extra margin of energy that gave Hurricane Katrina enough power to break the levees in New Orleans. This is the conclusion of scientists, Global Warming observers along the Gulf Coast and others.
Hurricanes get their strength directly from the heat in the oceans they travel over, so it has long been expected that Global Warming would have an effect on the frequency and/or the intensity of tropical cyclones, which are called hurricanes in the United States. Observations have confirmed a sharp increase in intensity. The result is that the number of dangerous Category 3, 4, and 5 storms has increased. Dr. Emanuel’s innovation, the “power dissipation index,” helps track this intensification over time.
So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers! The proof is right here (scroll down from top). The pro-GW crowd got it exactly wrong, again. One would think they would learn some humility, but that never seems to occur.
Second, here is their list of weather events tied to global warming (click to enlarge):
Considering the list encompasses the entire world for 11 years, there isn’t very much here. Nearly half of the years (2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008) don’t have a single occurrence. Considering the warmest year was 1998 (see below) and that temperatures have cooled some since then the list proves nothing. As I have stated before, if tornadoes were tied to global temperatures there would have been record tornadoes in 1998. They did not occur.
 |
| World temperatures from the UK’s Hadley Center. |
Here is a graph of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (parts per million) since 1997. It continues to rise.
 |
| CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory |
But, temperatures do not rise with it. If, as the IPCC contends, CO2 is the dominant force driving atmospheric temperatures, then temperatures would have (more or less) risen along with CO2. That simply hasn’t occurred either in the atmosphere or in ocean heat content (the more important metric).
Blaming the Joplin tornado on global warming smacks of desperation. They are losing the scientific argument so they call people names and make ridiculous claims like blaming an individual tornado on global warming. They get away with it because most of the media prints this nonsense generally without question.
=============================================================
From Anthony:
I’m taking most of the weekend off to recover from my trip to ICCC6 and be with family on this holiday weekend, posting will be light until Tuesday, but I wanted to take a moment to give Mike Smith’s Meteorological Musings website and book a well deserved plug.
Mike is a weather and climate realist. In his world of practical forecasting, which I see much like like that of an engineer, you base your work on reality and hard facts, because if you don’t, there are tangible losses, and people may die from botched forecasts. He doesn’t have the luxury of making a forecast without responsibility or consequences if he is wrong like some climate scientists tend to do.
So bookmark his website, and may I recommend his book Warnings: The true story of how science tamed the weather.
I’ve read it, and I’ve lived and experienced much of what he’s written about in the quest to make forecasting, especially severe weather forecasting, more accurate, timely, and specific. For those of us that prefer practical approaches over the rampant speculation on mere wisps of connections to climate (such as the Daily Mail piece), this book is for you.
Thanks to the idiots in the California legislature and Gov. (Moonbeam) Brown, that have pissed off Amazon.com so bad that they’ve canceled all affiliates account holders in California, I won’t get that few cents if somebody buys the book via the link anymore.
But, I don’t care, the book is well written, factual, and engaging, and I’m happy to recommend it on that basis but also for the fact that if you buy it through Amazon now, you’ll spite those morons in Sacramento by depriving them of tax revenue that California affiliates.
Hell, I may buy another copy myself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you replace the word “scientist” with “the usual suspects”, the article in the Daily Mail makes sense. The DM is, by the way, the most entertaining UK newspaper, and should be compared to the New York Post. Articles about the UK health system are often and rightfully used by James Taranto. The real paper of nonsense is the Gruaniad.
Just a quick question regarding the ‘Joburg golfers’, is there some physical phenomena that is preventing the golfers from consuming cold beverages?
los cientificos no se ponen deacuerdo
algunos dicen que el calentamiento global provocara menos huracanes
ahora sale otro diciendo q el calentamiento global provocara huracanes mas frecuentes
“Global Warming observers along the Gulf Coast ”
Are these the same folks that are ‘observing’ climate pollution?
How exactly do you go about ‘observing’ Global Warming along the Gulf Coast (or anywhere else for that matter)? are there Global Warming Observers everywhere or just along the Gulf? How does one get to be a ‘Global Warming Observer’?
Dan, your facts cover only the (northern) Atlantic Ocean. Unless you want to argue that “global warming” affects only the North Atlantic Ocean, then you should expand your facts to global statistics (which the post is addresses).
The second deadliest tornado in Canada recorded took place July 31, 1987 in Edmonton in which 27 people died. The deadliest in 1912, with 28 killed. There are an average of 80 tornados each year in Canada, so Tornado Alley isn’t the only place tornados happen. The peak season in Canada is in the summer months when clashing air masses move north.
This is the same Prof Lockwood who said there was nothing unusual about the current solar cycle when every other blog was saying it was unusual. I suppose they are bound to right once in a while. He is also a supporter of AGW I believe.
Here is a history of bad weather events before the insane co2 scare. Many events are reported from the press which shows we have always had bad weather events.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/bad-weather/
The reason they are turning to weather is to try to scare people with reality since their projections are fantasy. Their problem is that their knowledge of processes leading to weather is poor and academic while the weather evolution shows anything but global warming setting in.
Read Leroux and debunk the AGW!
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/meteorology+%26+climatology/book/978-3-642-04679-7
Next to the BBC, the Guardian, the Globe and Mail (Canada), or the New York Times the Daily Mail is a GIANT. I’ve read many Daily Mail stories making fun of AGW and their ilk. More than in any other newspaper on the planet. I’ve read more about the sun entering possible global cooling in the Daily Mail than in any other newspaper on the planet. Moreover, I’ve read in the Daily Mail more stories of the idiotic Brit Green strategy, their failing windmills, the very high cost of energy due to stealth taxes to fund the Brit Green Plan, Brit families suffering from energy companies that constantly jack up their energy prices leaving too many Brit families struggling. All for the Brit green pie in the sky that didn’t work during this past harsh Brit winter – the Daily Mail ridiculed the green schemes. Just as the Daily Mail ridiculed Brussels and the Eurocrats taxing Brits against the will of 80% of Brit citizens. Telling the Brits the keep foreign criminals in Britain and refusing to allow the Brits to deport them.
Tell me, what other newspapers on this planet does that?
Apparently we never had weather until we had AGW. And we didn’t have AGW until we had Warmists. So….
I guess this is GLOBAL WARMING at its worst!
“After Late Snow Hits West, Skiers Hit Slopes in Shorts, Bikinis
Published July 03, 2011
Ski resorts from California to Colorado opened for the weekend to take advantage of an unusual combination of dense lingering snow from late-season storms in the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies and a high-pressure system ushering in warm air from the east.
California’s Alpine Meadows, which has offered Independence Day skiing just one other time in its 50-year history
At Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort in Utah, 783 inches of snow this season smashed the old record of 688 inches set in the winter of 1983-84. By the time the resort closes for the season after Monday’s holiday, it will have been open a record 202 days.
Many people from the (Central) Valley have been stopping at the ranger station with the expectation they can go backpacking to their favorite destinations … They are under snow,”…..’
And This:
“snowfall quantities | Squaw Valley USA – Lake Tahoe Ski Resort
Thank you Mother Nature! Squaw Valley broke the 800″ mark for the first time on record. We hope you enjoyed the snow this season!”
Where is Al Gore when you really need him?
My takeaway from this is that the people you cannot trust to provide the truth about climate, past and future, are climate scientists, government agencies, government funded agencies, and the press.
Tattoo them all.
It seems that no matter how much evidence of AGW not being the cause of most everything, from bleaching coral to melting Kilimanjaro, the press goes on and on with the never ending parade of “….caused by global warming” headlines and announcements.
Did they take their lead from Baghdad Bob? No matter how the army is getting pounded, you keep denying, and keep telling the public that everything is just fine.
In this case, it is clear who the deniers really are!
Keep telling the public your story long enough, and it will be true? And with their science crumbling on an almost daily basis, now the focus isn’t on the science, but the delivery of the message.
Ref. Dan says:
July 3, 2011 at 3:59 am
Interesting,
As according to Mr Watts comment “Mike” bases his work on “reality and hard facts”
I say interesting because “Mike” makes this statement not far into his comment.
“So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers!”
“Mike” seems to have missed this in that striving for facts and reality.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081126_hurricaneseason.html
Now I don’t claim to be a meteorologist or a mathematician but even I think 2008 might fall right in the middle of the “record low” Mike is talking about.
Now I’m sure I’ll get the usual hostile responses but will there be any that actually use “facts”
________________
Dan: Look at the graphs at NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hurricane-climatology.html, and you will see no significant trend in major hurricanes. One year does not a trend make. And that is a fact. I recommend a less condescending, dismissive and derogatory tone if you really want to get into a serious discussion, esp. when discussing a topic outside your area of expertise.
I’ve been too lazy to look into it even superficially, but I wonder what we’d find if we took the opposite approach. What years had the fewest tornados? What were their “average global temperatures”? Fewest hurricanes (Atlantic or global)? Fewest floods? Fewest droughts? Any overlap? Any pattern? Can we find the “ideal climate”? I doubt it, but I haven’t looked.
Best,
Frank
The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid but only a fool or a Guardian reader (the two categories are not mutually exclusive) would compare it to the National Enquirer. For all its faults the Daily Mail often reflects the views of the ordinary people of Britain. That is why it is looked down on by smug, self-important types who think that only the views that count are those of people like themselves.
Roy
The warm dark side becomes desperate and hyperactive.
Same day, when Monbiot said that all sceptic scientists must be paid by Big Oil & Koch, the same phrase showed up in a German newspaper blog (zeit.de). Even worse, sceptics are responsible for famine everywhere and are therefore enemies of the state.
(sceptics have probably been the inventors of biofuel)
It wasn’t some crazy guy, but one who carefully copied a lot of “research”, linked to realclimatecom and other “popular” blogs … no not WUWT, but he knew at least that this is not a trustworthy source.
Many years ago, when I was assisting in saving the world from Communism, I was a faithful reader of the Daily Mail. One day a week there was a gentleman who wrote a column in the Mail that bore a close resemblance to some of the briefings I got on base. I always wondered where he got his info.
The Mail was at that time the most readable conservative newspaper down the news agents. It stood me in good stead during three tours of the wilds of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Not so much fun anymore.
‘northing’?
“that Mrs Spelman twice discussed the issue of ‘tree health’ with him [Prince Charles] while he held a one-to-one meeting with Climate Change Minister Greg Barker about global warming”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/8613943/Prince-Charles-held-nine-private-meetings-with-cabinet-ministers.html
I have no idea about the specifics of this conversation but I am confident, given these particular “Global Warming observers,” that it would rank among the stupidest.
Jimbo says:
July 3, 2011 at 6:42 am
“The reason they are turning to weather events… almost all their poster children have turned corners… Polar bear numbers”
In this case, nothing turned. This whole doomsday story was a Big Lie based on junk models from day one. It has a special place for me because I first started looking closer at the whole AGW story because they started telling this lie. You know, if the science is so settled, why do they need to lie to sell the story?
Frank: your
I’ve been too lazy to look into it even superficially, but I wonder what we’d find if we took the opposite approach. What years had the fewest tornados? What were their “average global temperatures”? Fewest hurricanes (Atlantic or global)? Fewest floods? Fewest droughts? Any overlap? Any pattern? Can we find the “ideal climate”? I doubt it, but I haven’t looked.
There are some patterns, but not obvious ones.
For tornadoes, according to the NOAA, outbreaks from the 30s to 70s did not occur in la Nina. Since then, all outbreaks have occurred in la Nina or la Nada. But, severe tornadoes are decreasing.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html#history
Cyclones, globally, are at near 30 year lows in the satellite record. Pre-satellite is not thought to be a reliable record. (see Ryan Maue’s excellent site for this data)
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL035946.shtml
Generally, in the Atlantic, there are fewer hurricanes in el Nino, as there is more upper wind shear, which prevents hurricanes from forming. Some studies link sun spots with hurricanes. Using Landeas’s data, shows a small increase per century. Using the NOAA data shows a small decrease in US land falling storms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417182843.htm
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090811_tropical.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/new-paper-tropical-cyclone-response-to-solar-uv/
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt
Floods and droughts show no trends currently, but much evidence points to cooling periods causing more drought and more floods, depending on the locale. Severe storms in Europe, based on sediment study, apparently favor colder periods. Most severe events were in the past, especially droughts. Again, some studies show a link to solar activity. In the US, flood damage as a function of GDP is going DOWN. Even the Australian floods this year were not exceptional in the 150 year record, and may have been due to management afraid of DROUGHT. But, for the most part, there is no global trend in floods.
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n41c2.htm
http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/droughtnortham.htm
http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/droughtnortham.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/us-flood-damage-1929-2003-4446
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/
To answer part of your question: The most optimal climate of the last Millenia or more, may have been the 20th century, and that might be over.
Afraid?
From Huffpo, an endless source of stupid stories, comes this ‘head-in-the-sand-denial’ coverage about the ‘diminishing’ skeptical community.
“President of the Pacific Institute Peter Gleick, a scientist who supports the findings behind man-induced climate change, said he wouldn’t consider attending.
“I go to many meetings as it is, and the interesting science is being done elsewhere,” he said on a “pre-buttal” conference call hosted by the Center For American Progress. “This is not a science conference, it’s a political conference. It’s a way for a small community — and I would argue a diminishing community — to get together in a self-support kind of way. There is no science that’s going to be discussed there that’s new or that’s interesting … it’s just not worth a real scientist’s time.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/climate-change-skeptics-unite-heartland-conference_n_889008.html
The article about the coming “Little Ice Age” in todays DM is written in similar style (“Prof. So and So says this and that”). But if you want to know about the newspaper itself, read the comments. This is a paper that is gaining a lot of followers in the US. I buy it whenever I am somewhere it is aviable, be it the UK or Spain. Otherwise I do not read any newspaper on paper.