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.
I am amazed, there are people who love the Mail and it’s leader writers AND read WUWT
According to the Daily Mail readers, (an oxymoron surely?), in other comments posted above, who are praising the Mail and casting me as a left wing. Guardian reading, global warming fanatic. This point of view is interesting as it is typical of the way Daily Mail readers make assumptions and comments about they read.in the paper, i.e. with no facts.
May I reassure you, I am a retired avionics / computer engineer. I have always voted to the right, I do not believe in AGW, despite my age I can still think for myself.
The British main stream media over the last twenty years have changed radically. They no longer employ investigative reporters who write articles that are thoughtful, accurate and incisive.
Instead they are mainly “cut and paste” merchants, faithfully regurgitating the press releases that pour from the PR people in the various factions and government offices
The only places that gives one an accurate source of information nowadays are Internet blogs such as this one. but there are many others who also shine amongst the dross.
You must have noticed that the circulation figures for the MSM print editions have fallen sharply. There are several Fleet st names in troubled waters at the moment. As their circulation drops the fatuous content increases in inverse proportion as they desperately try to sell more ink.
The other day WUWT posted an article about accuracy and sig diigts and someone commented that he had the ability to guestimate the size of the result of a calculation to know whether or not the calculation was about right or wildly out. I believe the same applies to the printed word. When you read an article you should be able to think about what was written and employ your BS detector. If you don’t do that when reading the MSM then you are in a very deep hole!
cheers Patrick
ps Sorry about any misspellings and typos, I had a trabeculectomy operation on my left eye this week and my vision is somewhat blurred at this time of day.
VICTOR says:
July 3, 2011 at 8:34 am
Claro que energia accumulada de huracanes del mundo esta bajando, casi lo mismo que 1977. Puede leer mas aqui:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Alexej Buergin says:
July 3, 2011 at 7:51 am
“The real paper of nonsense is the Gruaniad”
Actually its Grauniad – http://www.grauniad.co.uk/
I noticed the weather list left off the fish kills in Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil due to record cold. Dead penquins too.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835656/cold-kills-millions-of-fish-in-bolivia/
Wil says:
July 3, 2011 at 10:14 am
Next to the BBC, the Guardian, the Globe and Mail (Canada), or the New York Times the Daily Mail is a GIANT
I’m right there with you Wil. I do the Mail every day. It usually gets the weather forecast completely wrong so when it says ‘blizzards to sweep UK’ ‘ expect a couple of snow flurries. But its heart’s in the right place…
plus it does way the best cute animal pictures!
From Patrick Keane on July 3, 2011 at 4:17 am:
The National Enquirer is a weekly celebrity gossip rag, found prominently displayed at supermarket checkouts with other potential impulse buys like candy bars and breath mints, apparently targeted at bored possibly-unemployed women (not that long ago I would have just said “housewives”).
Using American understandings of the terms, the National Enquirer is definitely not a right-wing conservative newspaper. Heck, such a comparison is a slur against right-wing conservative newspapers. If you could miraculously find one hiding somewhere in the United States, you’ll find it’s likely offended!
@ur momisugly Patrick Keane says:
“According to the Daily Mail readers, (an oxymoron surely?), in other comments posted above, who are praising the Mail and casting me as a left wing. Guardian reading, global warming fanatic. This point of view is interesting as it is typical of the way Daily Mail readers make assumptions and comments about they read.in the paper, i.e. with no facts.”
You are the one making ridiculous generalisations as well as insulting comments about “the great unwashed.” To take one example it was the Daily Mail, not the Guardian, that led the campaign for justice for the murdered black teenager, Stephen Lawrence. Do you think the Mail’s articles on that subject had no facts?
On many subjects such as “health and safety” bureaucracy, lax immigration controls, unpopular EU directives, the Daily Mail has a better record than the Guardian and the BBC which both like to pretend that a fact is not a fact unless they acknowledge it.
The Guardian, and the BBC, are usually far better than the Daily Mail in their coverage of science and technology, but when it comes to the subject of climate change the Daily Mail does not have a strong editorial line and tends to publish articles written from a sceptical viewpoint as well as those reflecting alarmist views.
Roy
Les Johnson says:
July 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Afraid?”
Absolutely! I’m afraid I’ll never figure it out! Thanks for the links, Les – I’ll take a look.
Best,
Frank
Kev-in-Uk @ur momisugly July 3, 2011 at 3:34 am
Some hold that ignorance is bliss, I don’t.
Some who are ignorant are proud of it, which is stupid.
For those of us who wish to learn, ignorance is cured by education.
But how to cure stupidity? That’s the real question.
This may come as a shock to Dr. Emanuel: It isn’t strong hurricanes that destroy levees, its high water levels! The energy of a hurricane and the ability of a levee to resit it are mutually exclusive. Katrina wasn’t a wind event; it was a flood event.
BTW: Would Dr. Emanual explain why the world accumulated cyclonic energy is it a 40 year low, even while CO2 keeps increasing?
Worst this, worst that in 50 years…. hmm so things are almost as bad as that of 50 yrs ago, huh? And they came to these conclusions after 20 years of reluctance to attribute it to climate change. To me this means climate is changing back to that of 50 years ago – which is what sceptics have been trying to get across the past decade or so. This is even crazier than I thought. Even journalists used to have higher standards in reporting (and in logic).
….the inconvenient truth!! Keep it up, Anthony, & Happy Independence Day!!
Actually, the Daily Mail reported this story pretty accurately. It offered no opinion, and simply said, “scientists claim,” etc. If there is to be a gripe, in that you disagree with the notion that the human fingerprint of climate change is starting to be found in extreme weather events, you should take it up with Trenberth, et. al., but your swipe at the Daily Mail is misplaced. Maybe you should have joined the thousands of scientists (including Trenberth) meeting in Australia this week to discuss this very issue.
That’s pretty safe postion from which to cause alarm. “Scientists claim” from an unamed reporter. The Daily Mail readers comments are telling, by and large they don’t buy it. People can now see through the propaganda and even the average Joe can pick holes in such claims.
Games up! Just waiting for the next one – which looks like it will be based on imaginary food shortages supposedly caused by ecosystem disrutpion.
Dan,
You’ve already received the information you needed concerning the Atlantic hurricanes vs global. I’d like to caution you about the report you linked and the need to read these reports more carefully. The headline says
Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records
“…a season that produced a record number of consecutive storms to strike the United States and ranks as one of the more active seasons in the 64 years since comprehensive records began.”
You might ask exactly what they meant by “…one of the more active seasons…{of 64 years}”. Was 2008 # 25 in terms of named storms or was it #6? Each would be more active that #32 or #33 if activity is defined as named storms. Also, I’m not sure of the significance of “consecutive storms to strike the United States” versus total storms. To me, this is trivia. I would find 12 non-consecutive storms hitting US land more significant than 6 consecutive hits. But, it is a “record”, I suppose.
Speaking of activity, I have some doubts about defining it by named storms. We detect far more storms and estimate their wind speeds than we did even 30 years ago. It makes more sense to me to rate the season by ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy). This is calculated by the power and duration of a storm. To get a sense of the measurement, there was a hurricane in 1899 that had an ACE of over 70. The storm lasted 28 days! Imagine that! I made a list of the ACE for the last 11 seasons:
2000-115.6………..2006-78.5
2001-105.6………..2007-71.7
2002-65.15………..2008-144.4
2003-167.0………..2009-52.6
2004-225.0………..2010-165.0
2005-248.1
The “normal” range calculated for 1973-2002 is 32-136 and 1993-2002 as 47-181. They might define the range more clearly. Anyway, I think it’s a far better method of rating activity than named storms, deaths, landfall or property damage since factors other than the actual storms are included. Even the named storm quantities mean less if there are 5 major hurricanes and 2 tropical storms as compared to 12 tropical storms, 2 catagory 1 hurricanes and 1 catagory 2. Do we want to count the 15 storms as more activity than the 7 storm year? What do you think?
I hope nothing in my comment made you feel attacked in any way. Many of us are learning and the policies driven by projected climate change will effect everyone. We can’t learn too much or provide too much input, in my opinion.
Emanuel is a warmist, but the article’s claim that he attributed Katrina to AGW is a serious misrepresentation of his research and opinion. While he does believe that hurricanes will get stronger with AGW, he unequivocally rejects the idea that one can blame Katrina on AGW. I can’t find the reference for this at the moment still looking…
Found it:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm
“Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina
disaster to global warming?
A: Yes, it would be absurd.”
Thanks Anthony and Mike for a great response to a tabloid trash piece of journalism.
As someone with family in that area of the US where the deadly tornadoes touched down recently, I simply pose the incompetant journalist at the Daily Mail this:
The area and surrounding states where the most recent tornadoes were have a nickname.
” Tornado Alley,” because that area suffers the most tornadoes in the US, starting up North, then working their way down, hence the ” alley” reference.
Ever thought of that, Daily Mail? Of course you didnt.
J. Felton,
You just don’t understand! It hasn’t been this bad since the last time it was this bad!
Well for some non computer generated Climate predictions. 🙂
Have any of you guys seen this? Remote viewing Climate Change 2012. I didn’t bother watching the video.
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Demo2008/RV_Demo_2008_Page1.html
Check out this headline:
Weather experts: California mega-quake could be at the door
http://www.naturalnews.com/032878_California_earthquakes.html
John Q,
What idiots. They swiped the news from TWC so they thought it was Weather experts reporting. Of course it was geologists at Scripps. It may interest you to know that Scripps has 210 active awards from NSF for many millions to research some pretty goofy stuff. A bunch were just awarded 7/1/2011. Take a look at the list at http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ All you need to enter is Scripps on the organization field. No other fields need information so you don’t need to know the PI or award number. Check out the study on wave bubbles. Obvious why we need to cut Social Security. Very important research going on here.
Tornados raze and plunder
Over Bengal Bay way.
==========
First Minister Alex Salmond has vowed to create “the green energy powerhouse of the continent”, while the Scottish Government has pledged to aim to secure all of Scotland’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, when, it says, it will produce three gigawatts of energy, enough to power three million households
That would equate to 1kw per household. Which is rather low. Especially considering that plug in appliances rated at 3kw are easily available and “hardwired” appliances such as electric showers can go up to 9kw.
Maybe someone needs to check the Scottish Government’s sums…
In the UK April was pretty warm, but it certainly wasn’t a heatwave. June was quite chilly and I was routinely wearing a sweater and even had the heating on. We’ve also had a lot of rain in recent weeks. Ironically the rains started on the day an official drought was announced.
The trend in the UK over the last 5 to 10 years has been to cooler summers and much harsher winters with increasing amounts of snow.
I don’t like cold weather and in a way I wish the global warmers were right! But they’re not. I’m afraid our children face the prospect of living much of their lives in a world that is significantly colder. My generation are incredibly fortunate to have lived during a period of global warming.
The list also includes rainfall and flooding in England and Wales in 2000. This was covered in WUWT quite recently. An incredibly complex procedure using – you guessed it – multiple climate models was claimed to establish a link between the heavy rainfall and global warming. But, as pointed out by Willis, if you simply looked at the rainfall graph it becomes perfectly obvious that there is no trend. It was simply Nature doing what Nature has been doing for millions of years. The graph also showed a slightly larger rainfall event that occurred around 1930.
I believe the Independent also ran this rubbish last week on the front page.
Unfortunately, rather like zombies, this nonsense just keeps on coming….
Chris