Via Tom Nelson: Dr. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, responds to last week’s attacks from Dr. Richard Muller.
On the Green Front – Dr. Joseph Romm and Dr. Michael Mann – 08/15/12 at On the Green Front
Mann at the 40:40 mark, bold mine:
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
Umm. Mike, seen this?
Since Katrina, accumulated cyclone energy is (a measure of intensity) is down in the Atlantic and globally. Power dissipation is also down globally. Some trend there, huh Mike?
Graphs from Dr. Ryan Maue, source: http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Or, has Mike seen this?
On December 5th, 2011, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. offered this graph of days between Cat3-5 hurricanes striking the USA:
Now, we are up to 2487 days since a major Hurricane made landfall on the USA. The graph looks like this now:
Where’s the trend toward more destructive storms Mike? Or are you reporting data from another planet?
UPDATE: For context, Mann is responding to a very critical interview with Richard Muller at the GREEN room. Full transcript of the Muller interview in the url below and write up at WUWT
Jim Pettit says:
August 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
So, are you working up to addressing Mann’s claim that “it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“ If not, what are you doing?
You write:
“1) Tropical cyclone activity could triple or even quadruple and yet the United States could still avoid a strike, so the fact that we haven’t had a landfalling major here in X number of years is a meaningless statistic in the context of this blog post.”
If none make landfall in the USA but turn out to sea and dissipate then how do we measure their destructiveness?
You seemed to have missed Mann’s claim of increasing destructiveness. Do you get it now? The topic is increasing destructiveness.
“Given some of the monstrous cyclones of the past few years, that may be happening.”
Making landfall in the USA where and when?
“…a few downward years don’t come close to erasing that trend.”
We haven’t experienced a few downward years. We have experienced a fall from a cliff – no landfalls in what will soon be 7 years. Are you, too, going to try to ignore that huge fact? Do you have nothing to say about that fall from a cliff? What if it extends to 15 years?
The say it, in print or on tv/radio and it instantly becomes fact. Then they say it again and again and nobody cares or challenges them. Happens all the time in this silly climate science world. I am currently inquiring about a statement made by Climate Scientist ‘Mark Seeley’ from the UM (Minnesota) about a statement he made in the Star Tribune this June after heavy flooding in DLH. He stated that ‘climate scientists agree that the trend towards more of these types of extreme events are increasing in MN’. I took a look at the data on his own Climate Working Group page for MN and found no trend in ‘extreme events’ for the past 41yrs. I’ve contacted him 3 times with no reply…
I love watching Warmists torturing their own narrative.
We were promised hurri-geddon…Cardinal Gore prophesied it on the cover of the sacred ‘inconvenient truth’…remember the multiple hurricanes tracking towards the USA?
Now that hurri-geddon has not materialised the likes of Phil and Jim (see above) have shifted the goal posts. It’s the ‘power’ of hurricanes we should be worried about instead.
Honestly, arguing with Warmists is like trying to nail jelly to a wall!
Is it not time for these doom-mongers to be brought before a court to explain their panic-inducing, catastrophic predictions (scenarios, possibilities, maybes, etc)?
Inducing Panic Law & Legal Definition
Inducing panic is when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
Laws governing inducing panic vary from state to state. Inducing panic is usually defined as a misdemenaor, but local laws should be consulted for specific requirements.
@ur momisugly Charles Gerard Nelson
More like trying to nail real jelly to an imaginary wall.
Now that hurri-geddon has not materialised the likes of Phil and Jim (see above) have shifted the goal posts. It’s the ‘power’ of hurricanes we should be worried about instead.
Charles – what do you think ACE measures?
Jim Pettit says:
August 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Couple of things, folks:
1) Tropical cyclone activity could triple or even quadruple and yet the United States could still avoid a strike, so the fact that we haven’t had a landfalling major here in X number of years is a meaningless statistic in the context of this blog post.
=======================================================================
Me: They “predicted” what would scare people the most. It didn’t happen. Lot’s of things “could” happen. What they predicted didn’t. Not even if you include those that didn’t make land fall. They were WRONG.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim: 2) Climatologists have been saying that as the planet warms, there’d be fewer storms overall, while the ones that did develop would tend to be more intense. Given some of the monstrous cyclones of the past few years, that may be happening.
=================================================================
Me: There will be weather disasters. There always have been. Nothing new about that. Sounds like they are just waiting for one to claim credit for….er….claim it validates their predictions. (Kinda like the gun control nuts jump on some different kind of nut shooting people. (The more the better for their PR teams.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim: 3) Climatological trends aren’t defined by periods of just a handful of years; it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It’s obvious from just eyeballing Maue’s graphs that global ACE has been on an overall multi-decadal upward trend; a few downward years don’t come close to erasing that trend.
======================================================================
Me: Sounds nice. The cause? CO2? The Sun? Natural variability? Man? Ma Gaia haveing a temper tantrum?
It was warmer before the Little Ice Age than during it. It was warmer during The Medieval Warm Period than it is now. (Unless you are a practitioner of “Epoxology” and are still stuck to that tree in Yamal.) “Man-made GHG” were limited to campfires back then. Maybe a few cows on farms. No factory farms. Why would the cause then be any different than the cause now?
Mann is [snip]
REPLY: probably, but in the spirit of REP, let’s leave that one on the cutting room floor – Anthony
Phil Clarke says:
August 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Let’s stay on topic. Mann claimed a trend of increasingly destructive hurricanes. How do you measure destructiveness of seven years of hurricanes that did not make landfall?
RE: “JohnB says:
August 16, 2012 at 9:11 am
“…… It’s clearly higher on the right, the increase is there for all to see. Perhaps someone would like to calculate the trend and significance from that graph.”
John, please note that graph starts in 1970. Therefore it leaves out a period when New England was hit by some mighty big storms. The “Long Island Express” in 1938, the “Great Atlantic Hurricane” of 1944, Carol, Edna and Hazel in 1954, the super-floods of Connie and Dianne in 1955, and Donna in 1960. Also don’t forget that when 2005 broke the record for most storms, it broke the old record of 20 set in 1933.
If the graph started in 1930 it would give a different impression.
For hints of an even earlier active cycle, check out 1893, when there were four active hurricanes at once, (with a fifth nearly making the team,) and amazing surf for two weeks in New England.
Can you imagine the hysteria Alarmists would generate, if 1893 happened this year?
I actually am puzzled by the record-setting period of hurricane-free days, for I’ve been expecting a new active period to begin ever since 1995. Blame the “quiet sun?”
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased
One my pet peeves in the abuse of accepted terminology and semantics by climate science and scientists. ‘Robust’ refers to findings that can be easily replicated.
‘Robust predictions’ means nothing. Its only function is make the statement sound more impressive to those not familiar with science.
Philip Bradley says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:06 pm
‘Robust’ refers to findings that can be easily replicated.
=========================================================
I always thought “Robust” was what came out when I tried to type “Robert”. 😎
Let’s stay on topic. Mann claimed a trend of increasingly destructive hurricanes. How do you measure destructiveness of seven years of hurricanes that did not make landfall?
If ‘destructiveness’ is the issue then why was ACE used to support the offensive headline? It does not measure destructiveness either.
And if destructiveness is the issue, then I recommend Emannuel 2012… http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/node/3
REPLY: Phil, show the destruction with real data, or shut up. Its just that simple. No hurricanes, no destruction – you can’t create either hurricanes or destruction where there isn’t any. Modeling a non-reality is a non result. ACE demonstrates the power to make destruction has diminished. All you’ve demonstrated is bloviation without data. But then, that is what you are paid to do here. – Anthony
David Ross says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:44 am
Double-plus unwarm.
Humans love to alternate positive and negative feedbacks.
When the frequency and severity of landfall storms etc. increases, we assume that will always be so and rush to “take advantage” of the shorefront now safe to build on. Until Then the coin flips go the other way, and massive smashup happens. Oops! Then we avoid and overprice oceanfront storm risks, depressing values and economies. Until. Things ease up for a while . Then …
@- Theo Goodwin says:
“Go to the quotation and find what he really said. It is not what you write. Pay special attention to the word ‘destructive’. Then ask yourself: Destructive of what?”
The quote is –
“One of the more robust predictions is that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have increased and they will likely continue to increase, and so, it’s part of a trend, Katrina, the record season of 2005 was part of a trend towards more destructive storms…“
So you presumably acknowledge that Mann is right that the predictions that Atlantic hurricane intensities would increase over the last few decades is correct. The graph at the top of the thread shows that clearly.
But you seek to justify the characterisation of Mann as so wrong he is on another planet because the increased intensity of the storms has not resulted in more destruction due to the sheer luck of none having made landfall in the US.
The massive destruction in the Caribbean islands, Mexico and the other Gulf nations presumably dosn’t count ?
Izen says:
“…Mann is right that the predictions that Atlantic hurricane intensities would increase over the last few decades is correct.”
Nope. As usual, Mann is wrong.
Just read an article today where Michael Mann claims U.S. CO2 levels are the lowest in 20 years due to the switch from coal-burning power plants to natural-gas burning plants. I think I see what’s happening. The global temperature record has undeniably been flat to declining since 2000 and the alarmists need a way to explain it. They can now point to lower CO2 levels that allowed this decline and push for further “green” solutions to prevent the earth’s temperatures from accelerating once again.
@- Smokey
You have posted a link to hurricane FREQUENCY, not intensity which was the subject of the quote.
Want to try again ?
izen,
Hurricane energy. Note the decline.
Want to try again?
@- Smokey
That graph is GLOBAL tropical cyclone energy NOT N Atlantic intensity.
One more try ?
izen,
The ENTIRE debate is about GLOBAL warming. You just don’t get it, do you?
@- Midwest Mark says:
“… The global temperature record has undeniably been flat to declining since 2000 and the alarmists need a way to explain it. They can now point to lower CO2 levels that allowed this decline and push for further “green” solutions to prevent the earth’s temperatures from accelerating once again.”
Nonsense.
Whether global temperatures have been flat since 2000 is open to dispute….
But the Keeling curve continues its climb because the GLOBAL emissions have continued to rise even though the US economic collapse has reduced its contribution
@- Smokey says:
“The ENTIRE debate is about GLOBAL warming. You just don’t get it, do you?”
The ENTIRE debate is about global warming, but this thread is about calling Mann wrong when he is right about N Atlantic intensity.
I get you have changed the subject having failed to win this argument. Better luck next time.
izen says:
“Whether global temperatures have been flat since 2000 is open to dispute”
Wrong. There is no dispute. Temperatures have been flat since 2000, as shown in every metric.
izen loses each and every argument, but his cognitive dissonance forces him to keep digging…