Reality is Absent from Michael Mann’s Activist Article on Typhoon Haiyan

UPDATE: I’ve corrected a few typos that carried over into two of the graphs and, at the end, I’ve added a model-data comparison of the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Ocean subset.

# # #

A week after typhoon Haiyan stormed through the Philippines, the website EcoWatch ran an article by Michael Mann. The blog post was titled Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action. Michael Mann began with a commendable request for Philippine Red Cross Donations. But after that, once again, we have an activist celebrity—one who masquerades as a climate scientist—using the misfortunes of others in efforts to advance a political agenda. And to make the effort even more futile on Mann’s part, much of the evidence he presented has no basis in reality.

Mann writes:

For now, super storms are still rare. However, models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world. A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.

Unfortunately, deadly tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) have existed in the past and they will exist in the future. Steve Goddard has had numerous blog posts recently at RealScience about tropical cyclones, including a few with a link to the WeatherUnderground webpage that lists the 35 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in History. Also, Paul Homewood of NotALotOf PeopleKnowThat plotted the number of tropical cyclones listed on the Wikipedia webpage here, with the same intensity as typhoon Haiyan (based on barometric pressure). See my Figure 1, which is from Paul’s post Most Intense Typhoons On The Decline.

Figure 1

Figure 1

The peer-reviewed paper linked by Mann was Emanuel (2013) Downscaling CMIP5 climate models shows increased tropical cyclone activity over the 21st century. It’s obviously a climate model-based study. Sea surface temperatures are one of the primary ingredients of the tropical cyclone recipe, and we’ve illustrated and discussed in numerous posts that climate models show no skill at being able to simulate sea surface temperatures, so there’s no reason to believe their prognostications. Additionally, using a table prepared by Australia’s BOM (Bureau of Meteorology), NOAA indicates on their Weather Impacts of ENSO webpage that the number of tropical cyclones in the northwest tropical Pacific is influenced by El Niño and La Niña events. But climate models cannot simulate the basic processes of El Niño or La Niña events (see Guilyardi et al (2009) and Bellenger et al (2013)), so the study by Kerry Emanuel has little to no merit. For those new to this discussion, let me once again quote a key sentence from Guilyardi et al (2009). Note: ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) in the following is a commonly used acronym for El Niño and La Niña:

Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).

Michael Mann may believe that “A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation”, but the IPCC (the political body that helped make him an eco-celebrity) contradicts the “number of scientists”. The IPCC states very clearly on page 7 of 165 of Chapter 2 of their 5th Assessment Report (their boldface):

Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.

Additionally, the IPCC continues on page 62:

Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010).

Moving on, Michael Mann writes:

Although exact measurements are hard to come by (there were no flights in the Western Pacific to provide direct measurements) satellite images along with readings of ocean heat seem to suggest that Haiyan was an unnaturally powerful storm. The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming.

Unnaturally? Oy vey. Mann’s link in that paragraph is to a blog post by Greg Laden Why Was Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda So Powerful, and is this a trend? In the following blog posts, we’ve addressed many of the points Greg Laden attempted to make:

Greg Laden included a graph here reported to be from Kerry Emanuel’s 2005 paper Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. I found that graph quite curious. If we look at sea surface temperature trend map of the Indian and Pacific Oceans from 1994 to 2012, Figure 2, we can see little warming in the northwest equatorial Pacific. Two decades is a reasonable amount of time. The sea surface temperature dataset, HADISST, is the same date presented in that paper. Emanuel’s graph included the much-smoothed sea surface temperature anomalies for the region bordered by the coordinates of 5N-15N, 130E-180. I’ve highlighted that region on the map. An ENSO-related spatial pattern (what some would call a Pacific Decadal Oscillation-related pattern) is visible in the map.

Figure 2

Figure 2

As shown, there is no warming illustrated in the region used by Kerry Emanuel in his 2005 paper for the period of 1994 to 2012, the last 19 years. Why start the data in 1994? If we extend the trend map into years earlier than 1994, then the trends are being influenced by the residual cooling effects of the aerosols spewed into the stratosphere by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Figure 3 illustrates the sea surface temperature anomalies for that region in the northwest tropical Pacific for the period of January 1994 to August 2013. As shown, the warming rate is a minuscule 13 one-thousandths of a deg C per decade. Or better said, the sea surface temperatures show little to no warming in that region for the past 20 years.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Let’s extend the HADISST-based sea surface temperature data out to the entire region shown in Figure 2. That is, we’ll look at the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans, from pole to pole, for the period of January 1994 to August 2013. The warming rate is even lower, at 6 one-thousandths of a deg C per decade.

Figure 4

Figure 4

It’s tough to claim, as Michael Mann did, that “The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming,” when the data indicate the sea surface temperatures for the Indian or Pacific Oceans have not warmed in 2 decades. Maybe Michael Mann should check data before he makes claims that aren’t supported by data. That way he wouldn’t look so foolish when someone, like me, calls his bluff.

Note: Figure 4 uses the same coordinates and sea surface temperature dataset as the model-data comparison here, which was included in the post A Blog Memo to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR. According to the climate models used by the IPCC for their 4th Assessment Report, the sea surface temperatures of the Indian and Pacific Oceans should have warmed 0.31 deg C over that time period…if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. I would have liked to update that model-data comparison for this post, using the models prepared for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report. Unfortunately, there is a temporary glitch at the KNMI Climate Explorer, and the multi-model mean of the CMIP5 simulations of sea surface temperatures are presently not available. Rest assured, though, that there would not have been an improvement with the CMIP5 models. See the update at the end of the post.

Michael Mann continues on that tack with:

The unusually deep, unusually warm pool of water that provided the initial fuel is unlikely to have existed in a world without warming.

The not “unusually deep,” not “unusually warm pool of water” is a product of the trade winds that blow across the tropical Pacific. The warm water “piles up” against the land masses in the western tropical Pacific. As a result, warm water accumulates there to depths of about 300 meters. The region is known by a number of names, including the West Pacific Warm Pool and the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. See Mehta and Mehta Natural decadal-multidecadal variability of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and its impacts on global climate. That warm water, created by sunlight, is occasionally released from below the surface of the western tropical Pacific by El Niño events. There is nothing unusual about the processes that drive El Niño and La Niña events.

Additionally, to counter Michael Mann’s claims of “unusually deep, unusually warm pool of water” we have the recent 2013 paleoclimatological paper Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years by Rosenthal et al. It indicates that ocean heat in the Pacific was warmer in centuries past than it is today.

That paper made the rounds through the blogosphere. Michael Mann even commented on it in his post at EcoWatch titled Pacific Ocean Warming at Fastest Rate in 10,000 Years so he understands that there are reconstructions that counter his claims. Refer also to Steve McIntyre’s post here. To put things in perspective, Steve spliced NODC data onto the end of one of the graphs by Rosenthal et al (2013). See my Figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Steve’s caption reads:

Figure 1. Annotation of Rosenthal Figure 3B. Original caption: “Compiled IWT anomalies based on Indonesian records spanning the ~500- to 900-m water depth (for individual records, see fig. S7). The shaded band represents +-1 SD. Red- OHC Pacific 0-700m heat content converted to temperature using the 0-700m Pacific mass shown in the Rosenthal SI. The values are consistent with 0-700m temperature anomaly values at NOAA http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index3.html.

In my annotation of their Figure 3B shown above, I’ve shown two trend lines, each of which more or less corresponds to the trends reported on lines 2 and 3 of Table S3: a trend of -0.15 deg C/century from 1100-1700 and a trend of 0.09 deg C/century from 1600-1950.

Steve also writes about that illustration:

On the far right, I’ve plotted Pacific ocean heat content, converted to deg C anomaly (red), together with its trend line. The two solid yellow lines show trend lines for 1100-1700 AD and 1600-1950 AD, two of the three periods considered in Rosenthal Table S4. It is true that the rate of change over the past 55 years is somewhat higher than the trend over 1600-1950, but it is not “15 times higher”. While I don’t think that one can safely reify the fluctuations in Rosenthal’s IWT reconstructions, on the other hand, these fluctuations appear to me to preclude any strong conclusions that the relatively modest increase is unprecedented.

But the best counter to the claims that the recent warming is the “fastest in 10,000 years” comes from one of the authors interviewed by Andy Revkin. See the NewYorkTimes blog here and the YouTube video here. Andy Revkin asks the authors if they could rule out whether there were rapid changes in the past. Co-author Brad Linsley replies in part at about the 4-minute mark.

You could say that we probably have century-scale resolution at best. It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.

Let’s put that in perspective. The NODC’s ocean heat content data for the depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters only extends back in time to 1955, or a little less than 60 years, but the resolution of the Rosenthal et al is “century scale”. Thus Brad Linsley’s statement, “It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.” There’s little chance they’d even notice a warming rate that was similar to the one presented by the NODC data for 60 years.

In his post Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action, Mann gives a short spiel about global warming:

But herein lies the crux—we no longer live in a world without warming. Given that 1985 was the last year with temperatures below the 20th century average, and 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record, it has become impossible to say for certain that any given storm is free from the influence of our warmed world.

We’ve illustrated and discussed in numerous blog posts for almost 5 years that ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicate the warming of the global oceans occurred via natural processes, not from increased emissions of manmade greenhouse gases. There’s no reason to repeat that discussion again here. If this subject is new to you, see the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB).

Mann goes on to talk about sea level rise:

While contrarians may dislike it when activists or actors like George Clooney point out the linkage between climate change and extreme weather, the bottom line is this: climate change makes tropical storms more damaging. Not only through increased wind speed and rainfall, but most notably through rising sea levels. This means greater damage and loss of property and life.

As I noted in my recent book Climate Models Fail:

Sea levels have climbed 100 to 120 meters (about 330 to 390 feet) since the end of the last ice age, and they were also 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher during the Eemian (the last interglacial period) than they are today. (Refer to the press release for the 2013 paper by Dahl-Jensen, et al. “Eemian Interglacial Reconstructed From a Greenland Folded Ice Core”.) Whether or not we curtail greenhouse gas emissions (assuming they significantly affect climate at all), if surface temperatures remain where they are (or even if they resume warming, or if surface temperatures were to cool a little in upcoming decades), sea levels will likely continue to rise. Refer to Roger Pielke, Jr.’s post “How Much Sea Level Rise Would be Avoided by Aggressive CO2 Reductions?” It’s very possible, before the end of the Holocene (the current interglacial), that sea levels could reach the heights seen during the Eemian. Some readers might believe it’s not a matter of if sea levels will reach that height; it’s a matter of when.

After quoting the delegate from the Philippines at this year’s United Nations Climate Talks in Poland, Michael Mann then calls for action:

Let that call echo, and be heard in response to those who would insist on waiting for the next storm to take action.

But, of course, Michael Man offers no course of action. If Michael Mann is suggesting that reductions in emissions of manmade greenhouse gases will stop cyclones like Haiyan from reoccurring and also end the rise in global sea levels, then–how can I put this nicely?–he’s delusional. If Michael Mann is suggesting the people of the Philippines create a typhoon warning system and an enforced plan that relocates residents from low-lying areas and that provides adequate shelter from the impacts of the storm, then, I believe, all would agree. Unfortunately, I believe Michael Mann has greenhouse gases in mind.

UPDATE: KNMI has fixed the bug in the Climate Explorer. (Thanks, Camiel.) Figure 6 is a model-data comparison of the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Ocean since 1994. The coordinates used are 90S-90N, 20E-80W. That region represents about 70% of the surface of the global oceans. The graph includes the multi-model ensemble mean of the CMIP5-archived models, which were used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report. They simulated a virtual warming rate for that colossal region of 0.186 deg C/decade, or a total warming of more than 0.35 deg C since 1994. But the satellite-enhanced, HADISST-based sea surface temperatures of the real Indian and Pacific Oceans have shown little to no warming for almost 2 decades.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Maybe the climate scientists who believe manmade greenhouse gas-induced warming contribute to typhoons are looking at model outputs and not observations-based data.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 18, 2013 9:15 am

e·col·o·gy (-kl-j)
n. pl. e·col·o·gies
1. The study by Mann and other Green scum of the pond life beneath the surface of climate change alarmism…

November 18, 2013 9:17 am

The blog post was titled Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action[my emphasis]

Isn’t “Immediate Climate Action” an oxymoron?

November 18, 2013 9:43 am

Anyone wanting to say “David Cameron says” should definitely read this UN report to see the conomic, social, and political transformation he and other politicians are using CAGW as an excuse for. http://www.post2015hlp.org/the-report/ He was a member of the report’s panel.

rogerknights
November 18, 2013 9:44 am

Bruce Cobb says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:21 am
Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:47 am
Piltdown Mann is a ‘distinguised’ Quackademic…
Love that word, “quackademic”. Perfect description of him. Reminds me of a recently-coined here hilarity (don’t remember by whom); “he ducks like a quack”.

That was me, FWIW.

Jim Ryan
November 18, 2013 9:53 am

The models have correctly predicted that there will be more frequent superstorms over the next few years. The models have been robustly confirmed by the size of the grants supporting them.

john robertson
November 18, 2013 10:09 am

Excellent post Bob Tisdale.
Not to belabour a point but Michael Mann is a gift that just keeps on giving.
I used to think I had an active imagination, but I could not have invented this guy.
I am beginning to suspect that “The Mann” is Pointmans,” Agent Deep Woolabra Wonga”,
Seriously, if we who question the divine wisdom of CAGW, had needed a character to point to, who embodies all that is odious about this anti-humanist belief, could we have created a better example?

david eisenstadt
November 18, 2013 10:13 am

Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:47 am
sorry…
its penn state, not u.penn. u penn doesnt have a horse in this race. its penn state.

Bill Marsh
Editor
November 18, 2013 10:35 am

I pretty much tune out any ‘reputable’ scientist when they couch their statements with qualifiers – suspect, could, maybe, might, hint, etc.
An example:
“The science is hinting that this storm may not have been so catastrophic in a world without warming.” ‘Dr’ Mann, Science doesn’t ‘hint’, it either affirms or denies.

DirkH
November 18, 2013 10:36 am

Canman says:
November 18, 2013 at 9:17 am
“Isn’t “Immediate Climate Action” an oxymoron?”
We could start with Immediate Weather Action and continue for 30 years.

DirkH
November 18, 2013 10:43 am

Grant A. Brown says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:18 am
“I thought Michael Mann was a tree-ring guy. When did he become a credentialed expert in oceanography, tropical storms, and the recent weather history of Asia? (Or is it only the “deniers” who speak outside their area of expertise we should ignore?)”
In fact, he is an oceanographer by education AFAIK; not a dendro guy. His tree ring reconstruction, the original hockey stick, was something that the real dendros would never have dared to put out.

Elliott M. Althouse
November 18, 2013 10:50 am

The two greatest hurricanes to strike Southeastern Virginia occurred in 1667 and 1749 during the middle of the little ice age.

Martin Hertzberg
November 18, 2013 10:58 am

Particularly obnoxious is the use of the tragic suffering in the Phillipines to push ones favorite fraud of human-caused “climate change”. Provide the help they need rather than profit from their suffering.

November 18, 2013 11:01 am

David-U-Penn though is heavily involved with the associated Regional Equity/Metropolitanism push that is intimately linked to Agenda 21. Also the idea of distributive justice as a normative political theory.
Plus it is where Martin Seligman is a prof and he is involved with both the Positive Psychology push tied to the educational components of Agenda 21 as well as the World Happiness Report the UN issued in 2012.
Mann is not at UPenn but UPenn is actually deeply involved in the Agenda 21/Sustainability vision once it is properly understood as about economic, political, and social transformation. The UN redefined Sustainability at it 2005 Summit. Our invitations got lost I suppose.

Jimbo
November 18, 2013 11:02 am

For now, super storms are still rare. However, models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world. A number of scientists suspect that certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.

Is suspecting something science? I need to see the published, peer reviewed evidence showing that “certain recent storms like Sandy and Haiyan exhibited characteristics outside the range of natural variation.”

Ian L. McQueen
November 18, 2013 11:15 am

Another excellent posting.
A minor spelling error: “miniscule” should be “minuscule”. I might not have mentioned it but the word appears in a couple of graph titles.
IanM

Scarface
November 18, 2013 11:25 am

DirkH says: November 18, 2013 at 7:26 am
“Mann writes: For now, super storms are still rare. However, models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world. ”
He has models that show that more warmth means more tropical storms? Gee, who is that guy, a genius? Bet he has a Nobel price like Obama.
@DirkH That’s exactly the problem: he acts as a trustworthy scientist because people associate him with a Nobel Price (a self-created image of him btw), but first of all he didn’t win it and second it was a Peace Price, so no science involved there. The man is a con-artist of the worst kind. But I think he is starting to look over his schoulder, because deep down he must know the jig is up. Hence the recent screaming.

Richard D
November 18, 2013 11:38 am

Dr. Mann, One Hit Wonder ……http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

November 18, 2013 11:45 am

The Mann is no scientist and has never been one.

Steve Garcia
November 18, 2013 11:58 am

Mann: “…and Need for Immediate Climate Action.”
Has anyone here ever even really paid close attention to how often THIS is the thing they are always pushing?
“If we don’t do it NOW…”
This is their message. Since the late 1980s. WHY ‘immediate”? Why not something less? Like “need to definitely vet this thoroughly”?
Because since the beginning they knew – like a side show barker or a used car salesman – that once we walk away there is little chance we will fork over the moolah.
And once one of US walks away, what do they say to the next sucker that comes down the Midway? “…and Need for Immediate Climate Action.”
“If you don’t buy it now, IT WILL BE TOO LATE!”
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. “Get the sucker’s money – and never give up! There is another sucker walking down the Midway – RIGHT NOW! – and HE might fall for it! You can’t let defeat get you down! The next one might be THE one!” (And – without Climategate – they would have had it! They were THIS close!)
The more time that goes by, the more we will learn, and then the chances are about 50-50 that their claims will be shown to be false. They know that if we all wait we might find that their claims are bull. They are selling a bridge in Brooklyn, and if the mark (us) walks away, they will lose the sale.
So, the deal has to be closed. The 1950s door-to-door salesmen knew that they had to close it the first time (because wifey might talk to hubby, who has ten times more sales resistance than the little woman…) So every sentnce is designed to get the money NOW.
So, in this scheme of things, skeptics are like the 1950s husband coming home and sadly shaking his head, thinking his wife is really gullible, as he looks at what she has bought (into)…

Grant A. Brown
November 18, 2013 12:15 pm

DirkH says:
November 18, 2013 at 10:43 am
…In fact, [Mann] is an oceanographer by education AFAIK; not a dendro guy. His tree ring reconstruction, the original hockey stick, was something that the real dendros would never have dared to put out.
______________
HAHAHAHA! That’s funnier yet. You mean the work that made Mann famous wasn’t even in his area of expertise? You mean all this time the alarmists have been relying on the opinion of a non-specialist for one of the main planks in their CAGW conjecture? -all the while dismissing a few skeptics for not being specialists in climate science? Now that’s funny.

Louis Hooffstetter
November 18, 2013 12:17 pm

“…models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world.”
Climastrologists have been repeating this BS ad-nauseam for the past 25 years. Meanwhile, in the real world, the number of cylcones, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and wildfires continue to decrease as CO2 levels continue to increase. I personally don’t believe there is much correlation between CO2 and climate, but the empirical data seem to indicate that increasing levels of CO2 make the climate milder.
phillipbratby nails it:
“The Mann is no scientist and has never been one” – Exactly!

eo
November 18, 2013 12:21 pm

There seems to be another divergence on Mann’s analysis. If the global temperature for the last 17 years have been constant or even slightly negative ( fig 2 after 1997 which was very high) does this mean global cooling results to destructive cyclones? Or does computer simulation of global warming as predicted by the IPCC ( forget about actual data) results to more destructive cyclones?

thingadonta
November 18, 2013 12:27 pm

Just a note that the Philippines recently achieved the distinction of being ranked the worst country in SE Asia in terms of the disparity in wealth between the elite and the rest of the population. It’s also ranked amongst the worst in SE Asia and the world in terms of various corruption indices. It’s in the interest of the Philippines government and local wealthy elite to exploit climate change internationally; they certainly know how to exploit and politicise opportunities locally for personal gain.

KNR
November 18, 2013 1:01 pm

In the interest of saving the planet the author could have just written
‘Reality is Absent from Michael Mann ‘
and still be fully correct , whilst saving all the energy spent writing the rest of this article, will someone think of the children.

Robert Landreth
November 18, 2013 1:07 pm

The main reason for the tremendous damage in Tacloben area of the Philippines was storm surge. Tacloben is in a funnel shaped bay which focused the storms energy and surge at the critical point. In addition the area just to the east of the Philippines is very conducive to opposing winds which set up a natural spin in the atmosphere (Weather channel coverage).
This same area resulted in a typhoon which struck Admiral Halsey’s 3rd Fleet TF 58 on December 18, 1944, causing major damage to many vessels, sinking three US destroyers and killing 792 American sailors. Task Force 58 contained the bulk of our aircraft carriers and support vessels which were to be used in the invasion of the Philippines.