How Does The IPCC Explain the Severe Storms Of History?

Guest Opinion Dr. Tim Ball

Every day we hear that storms of greater intensity than ever before are occurring, and it will get worse because of global warming. These claims contradict the current and historic evidence and the mechanisms of formation for mid-latitude cyclonic storms and tornadoes. The misinformation is further evidence of the misdirection created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their examination of the historic record involved creating, altering or ignoring the evidence to fit and support their narrative. In doing so, they eliminated variability, which is major evidence of the underlying mechanisms that create extreme weather. The 70-year smoothing average of the Antarctic ice core data is a classic example.

There is no doubt the IPCC set climate research back almost 30 years. They became the central authority on climate change and directed all the focus of research to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This position started with the definition of climate change provided by their political directors at the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (UNFCCC). It continued with eliminating or rewriting the historic records of CO2 and temperature.

The Historic Record

Major architects of the IPCC worked at or with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. They were familiar with the major works of its founder, Hubert Lamb. Instead of working from his base that analyzed the historic frequency, intensity and pathways of mid-latitude North Atlantic storms they saw it and other reconstructions of past weather as major obstacles.

Lamb’s work was as threatening to the IPCC narrative as the Soon and Baliunas’ study of historic weather patterns, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years.” The infamous “hockey stick” designed to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) depicted in the famous 7c graph (Figure 1) of the 1990 IPCC Report, eliminated the varying temperature pattern. The transition from warm to cold periods alters the frequency and intensity of mid-latitude storms as Lamb’s work clearly showed. The latitude of the Circumpolar Vortex and amplitude of the Rossby Waves determines the outbreaks of cold Arctic air that increases the temperature difference potential for storms.


Figure 1


Marcel Leroux and his students did similar studies but called the Rossby Wave outbreaks of cold Polar air Mobile Polar Highs (MPH). In traditional Air Mass climatology, they were called outbreaks of continental Arctic (cA) air.


Figure 2

Source: Briggs, Smithson and Ball


The Basic Driving Mechanism

Figure 2 shows the basic division of the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere between the cold polar air and the warm subtropical air. Most severe weather occurs in the middle latitudes between approximately 30° and 65° of latitude where the temperature contrast is greatest over a short distance. A measure of this difference is called the Zonal Index (ZI). The ZI is most intense at the Polar Front and coincident with the Zone of Energy Balance (ZEB) (Figure 3).


Figure 3:

Source: After Fundamentals of Physical Geography Briggs, Smithson and Ball,

Cyclonic storms, blizzards, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are created where the warm and cold air meet and the ZI is high. The frequency and intensity of the storms is a function of the temperature difference between the Polar and Tropical air.

IPCC Claims Versus Reality

The IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis says the Polar air will warm more than the Tropical air resulting in increased storminess. In fact, this reduces the ZI and, therefore, the frequency and intensity of storms.



Figure 4

Figure 4 shows the frequency of strong US tornadoes from 1954 to 2014, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They claim,

“The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”

The graph clearly shows that severe tornadoes were higher in the period from 1954 to 1975 when global temperatures were going down. After 1980, the world warmed, but the number of severe tornadoes declined.

In a note prefacing an article titled “Captains’logs yield clues to past climates and hurricanes.” Anthony Watts wrote,

“What I find most interesting is the ‘Surge in the frequency’ of storms in cold periods.”

If the “hockey stick” is correct the surge of storms in cold periods could not occur. But, Lamb and Douglas showed varying temperatures, exemplified in Figure 7c, but also varying storm frequencies and intensities. The probability of massive storms is reduced if the temperature is essentially unchanging over the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). The problem is many storms occurred as one inventory identified.

In Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe (henceforth ‘Historic Storms’), Lamb and Frydendahl (1991) provide synoptic reconstructions alongside detailed descriptions of the major storms crossing the region since the year 1509. Storm events were selected for inclusion based on either the severity of the wind damage or historical significance, and were reconstructed by collating a variety of information.

As an example, there was the well-documented storm that destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. Lamb and Douglas produced daily weather maps for a three-month period of 1588 including isobars based on ships records, and observations in Western Europe, such as the journals kept by astronomer Tycho Brahe. The storm winds consistently blew in favour of the English fleet and against the Spanish. A favourite phrase after the Armada defeat said, “Jehovah blew with His winds, and they were scattered”, others called it a Divine Wind.

Another well-recorded storm began on November 26, 1703[1], and was also considered divine. The Church of England blamed God’s vengeance for a sinful nation. Social activist and author of Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe, said it was God’s retribution for the poor performance of the Protestant British Army against the Catholic Spanish Army. Defoe travelled around parts of England to see the effects of the storm. He also invited people to send him personal reports that he used as the basis for his book, The Storm, published in 1704 (Figure 4).


Figure 4


The IPCC make major claims about the impact of global warming to increase the threat and scare the public to advance their political agenda. None of it bears investigation, scientific or otherwise! Storminess is not currently increasing. Their theory of future increased storminess contradicts the physics of the formation mechanism. There are countless other storms in the period covered by the shaft of the “hockey stick”, many with greater intensity than those of 1588 and 1703. By creating the “hockey stick” and other devices to support their hypothesis that it is warmer now than ever, and weather more severe, and going to get worse, they had to eliminate or ignore all the historic evidence. As my Grandmother used to say, “Their sins will find them out.”

[1] Calendar corrections mean historical research requires knowledge of the changes to compare them to the current calendar. In this case you add 11 days so the storm occurred on 7 December in today’s calendar.


110 thoughts on “How Does The IPCC Explain the Severe Storms Of History?

  1. I see we have not one but two typhoons in Asia. One a cat 5. That doesn’t happen often (but yes it does happen).

    • “On a decadal timescale, the twenty-year interval from AD 1660 to 1680 is the most active period on record, with twenty-eight to thirty-seven typhoon landfalls per decade. The variability in typhoon landfalls in Guangdong mimics that observed in other paleoclimatic proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores) from China and the northern hemisphere. Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660–1680, 1850–1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.”

    • Neither is a Cat 5, try looking at them in real time, surface wind speeds are at around 130kph on one and 160kph on the other.

      • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said on Wednesday that Typhoon Atsani had reached winds of 160 mph, which makes it a super typhoon, according to the U.S. Joint Typhoon Warning Center. It’s the seventh such storm, equal to a Category 5 hurricane, seen this year,

      • ‘Neither is a Cat 5’. Perhaps they’re tweaking the speeds,in the same way that sunspot numbers are being adjusted. Of course there are folks on this forum who may have the inside track on kind of info, not that they would tell you about it…….

    • Two typhoons in Asia at the same time isn’t remarkable. In any given year it isn’t unusual to have two typhoons in Asia during the typhoon season.

  2. They can’t tax or control the dead. But they can the living. What happened in the past is forgotten (or adjusted).
    All they need to do is convince the living that what they do now is for their own good and they’ve got ’em.

    • I love those Rod / Stone / Fortnight units.
      Calories per square centimeter per minute.
      I used to tell students that calories were a quantity of food, and mark them wrong. Trying to instill metrication.
      I still use calories myself; works well for water.

      • Iirc, the speed of light is 1.81 X 10¹² furlongs per fortnight.
        I once specified a steam plant size in kilofirkins per fortnight instead of barrels per day.

      • Speed of light is ~1ft/nsec which is a really convenient rule of thumb when trying to synchronize the arrival of laser beams. 🙂

      • Metric: calorie – Heat to increase 1 cm^3 of water by 1 C°
        SI: Joule – 1 watt for one second
        Obs: BTU – Heat to increase 1 pound of water by 1 F°
        $ units
        2526 units, 72 prefixes, 56 nonlinear units
        You have: calorie
        You want: joule
        * 4.1868
        / 0.2388459

    • Gunga, You said,
      “They can’t tax or control the dead.”
      Careful now, you might give them the idea of imposing death taxes.
      Or an inheritance tax.

      • Ahhh.. you were writing while I was writing and caught that too, jones. You missed the compulsory voting, though. Quite common in Chicago, so I’ve heard.

    • Gunga Din

      They can’t tax or control the dead.

      Not strictly true, Din.
      After you’re 6-feet under and pushing up daisies, they take their final tax cut before the remainder, if any, is passed to the heirs. And they do compel quite a few of the dearly departed to continue voting.
      Anyhow, to Dr. Ball’s point, they certainly ignore or alter history and Noah would laugh his @$$ off at what the IPCC would call an unprecedented flood.

  3. I’m convinced that without cellphone video, CAGW would have died out long ago. But the media has so much more scary video to broadcast now, they can keep the idea going that it is all “extreme weather” every night.

      • And ‘extreme weather’ allowed Obama to be on all the TV networks for the last day of the election campaign, without having to give Romney equal time.
        Exit polls showed that half of all voters made up their minds on the day of the election. Even Chris Matthews admitted that the Hurricane Tropical Storm made the difference in the election outcome.

    • And every weather event is “unprecedented” because if it hasn’t happened in the media person’s lifetime it has never happened before.

    • In the old days it took many people killed in a storm to make the national news. Now if someone’s garage is blown down or the top of a grain silo is blown off, it makes national news.

      • We had a tornado here in Michigan earlier this summer. Took a few roofs off churches and a high school score board went flying. No one killed, not really anyone injured.
        It made the national news, and was reported in such a breathless, urgent fashion, you would have thought thousands of people were made homeless and scores killed.
        It’s silly, really.

  4. IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. IPCC is uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. IPCC is uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. IPCC is uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. IPCC is uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 18 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.
    Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should serve as the death certificate for AGW/CCC.

    • “I blame it on The Weather Channel”
      It’s the Climate Channel, try to find a weather forecast when you need one.

      • I prefer “The Storm Channel” but, as someone pointed recently, not even a major storm will interfere with a rerun of “Fat Ice Road Tow-truckers Prospecting in the Woods”.

  5. As the planet warms or cools, what you are calling the ZEB migrates away from or towards the equator. It’s not that cold that gets colder or hot that gets hotter, but that the average temperature of the surface area weighted amounts of hot and cold gets colder or hotter. This is how the IPCC’s premise that all polar temperatures rise (or fall) is wrong..

  6. As a non-american, why are you chosing US over global tornado count? Just curious .
    – left out European

      • @ J. Phillip. Thanks for that link! Record keeping is a large part of what is “history”. I am not sure why those records were kept in those days in western countries compared to , say Chinese , Indian, South American or African records for that matter. Looking at that Global map it seems to me it follows the expansion of European discoveries and colonialism. and by that time records were kept by those countries like England, Portugal, Spain and the Dutch (and among other reasons) for mostly economics and religious reasons. Thanks for the link, to me it is a really interesting “overlay” from that time period.( not sure if that makes sense but to me it stood out).

  7. At least Mr Ball has entitled his piece an “opinion” because he’s not very qualified in this area. If the opinion had any legs he’d do better to leave this confirmation bias knitting circle and get it peer reviewed, and I dont mean by the PSI.

    • the preceding public service “opinion” was brought to you by some dimwit that can’t even read Dr.

    • Lets say your doctor recommends you need brain surgery, are you not allowed to question your doctor or get other opinions on your symptoms from non brain surgeons, or perform independent research simply because you are not a brain surgeon?
      Your appeal to authority knitting circle is no better than confirmation bias. Both require a lack of responsibility, curiosity, and critical thinking. In this case Dr. Ball has expressed an argument, express your issues with his argument or go back to our appeal-to-authority knitting circle to continue your lackluster ad hominem arguments.

    • Frank: object to something specific in the presentation that you think is incorrect. If you are only going to object to Dr. Ball’s qualifications, be warned, no one cares at all what you think.

      • You all avoid my main point, the doctor cant get any decent publication to review his work as he’s talking outside his area of expertise. Appealling to relevant authority is not a logical fallacy, appeal to irrelevant authority is. If you want to rate Ball’s advice on brain surgery above that of a real brain surgeon then good luck to you on the operating table.

      • Frank says “Appealling to relevant authority is not a logical fallacy, appeal to irrelevant authority is.”
        I think the correct term for this statement is “trust us”.

    • It’s titled an “opinion” because it’s very much a commentary. It’s not a technical paper and therefore has no business getting “peer reviewed” as such. You don’t come across as having a clue.

      • Again, not addressing my point that he’s not taken seriously by the scientific community because he doesn’t know his stuff. Will he have a legal ‘opinion’ next ?

      • The fact that there has been a decrease in tornadoes, hurricanes, no increase in extreme weather, etc, is not an opinion, but observable fact. What CAGW proponents PREDICTED, failed to happen, period. This is already in the peer reviewed journals.
        The idea that T differences drive the strgength of many storms is already meterological established science.
        So you failed to notice Dr Ball is a scientist, and referenced multiple peer reviewed studies in his article/post.
        You also failed to give a hint of any objection to the post,

  8. Easy. They have a 1,000 pg report that doesn’t explain anything at all let alone the severe storms of history.

  9. I am confused about a calendar correction for a 1703 storm. The Gregorian calendar used today was introduced in 1582.

    • Curious George.
      The new calendar was a papal introduction so was used initially by catholic countries. It was only introduced into Britain in 1752 . It was not introdced into Greece Until less than a century ago

    • Although Pope Gregory XIII introduced the calendar named after him in 1582 its adoption took many years – many protestant countries regarded it as a catholic innovation. Britain and the British Empire (including the Eastern US as it is now) did not adopt the Calendar until 1752.

      • And why Unix’s “cal” program does:

        $ cal 9 1752
           September 1752
        Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
               1  2 14 15 16
        17 18 19 20 21 22 23
        24 25 26 27 28 29 30
        • Interesting. I understand at the time of the change many were angry about the decision to move from 2 September to 14 September because they thought that they had been robbed of two weeks of their lives!

  10. At some point the ‘conspiracy theories’ many are being accused of will converge and the deceit will be brought to light. How much damage to man and science will have taken place in the meantime? If it were not for the last twenty years’ decline in global temperature rise the environmental machine would already have claimed another victory. Are we doomed to wait for deliverance or should we become more active for truth? Vote while you still can make a difference.

  11. “The IPCC anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis says the Polar air will warm more than the Tropical air resulting in increased storminess. In fact, this reduces the ZI and, therefore, the frequency and intensity of storms.”
    I’m confused. Has AGW been validated by way of the ZI?

    • There is not a consistent theory of AGW. It also predicts a tropospheric hot spot which hasn’t appeared. All your observation about ZI means is that the proponents of CAGW spend their time trying to make the future sound C=Catastrophic. I’d be willing to bet in the future there will be an increase in ZI again. Climate is full of all sorts of cycles interacting chaotically.

  12. I’m realizing this week that the problem starts with the way they report temperature. It is actually fairly difficult to find a time series of absolute temperatures, which should be the obvious place to start when thinking about temperature trends and how they might affect severe weather. Reporting the “anomaly” is arbitrary and creates the possibility (as we have seen) than the current anomaly can get larger as the baseline period is cooled with “adjustments.”
    If they reported the average absolute temperature it would be harder to pretend the baseline had gotten colder and we could easily call BS when they do crazy things like claim record Great Lakes ice is consistent with near-average Great Lakes temperatures.

  13. Dr Tim Ball,
    Thanks for your excellent article,
    I especially appreciate you r summary at the end as these are useful to distribute the post to those who might not want wade through a comprehensive article. We need to reach the everyone to get the message across.
    There are lots of people being educated via good, short summaries along with clear graphs.

  14. Here I go again with my seeing what looks to be a pattern in the tornado record depicted in the post. Here is what has caught my attention. The start point is the years 1956/57 which is the first high points on the chart. This is right at and after the solar minimum, and a flood event in the Pacific Northwest. The next high points are at 1964/65. This is at the solar minimum, and there is a major flood event in the PNW. The next high points are 1973/74. This is prior to the solar minimum by 2 years. There is no flood event in the PNW, only some heavy rainfall. The next high points are !982/83/84. This is prior to the solar minimum by a year. There is some extra heavy rain events in the PNW. The next high points are 1990/91/92. This is at the peak of solar cycle 22, and rainfall is below average in California, not sure about further north. The next high point is a single year 1999. This year is close to solar maximum 23, and rainfall in California is below average. The next high point is also a single year in 2008. This is close to the last solar minimum. There are some heavy rains in the PNW. There is one last peak at 2011 which does not fit the pattern, but it does correspond to a heavy rainfall year in the PNW.
    If there is an actual pattern to this, then the next above average tornado season should be in 2017. This happens to coincide with my forecast for a PNW flood event in the winter of 2016/17, or at the latest 2017/18. This possible pattern may also shed some light on why the PNW flood pattern changes at times from a period of 9 years to a period which is close to 12 years in length. If there is a PNW flood as forecast, then this may also be indicative of the next solar minimum landing around 2018/19. This could then be an indicator that the PNW flood pattern will return to the 9 year period afterwards with the next flood occurring around 2026. The tornado cycle looks like it always follows a 9 year period, but only interacts with the flood cycle dependent on changes in the Sun,s cyclic patterns.

  15. The IPPC and the UN are the most corrupt organizations in the world followed, closely by North Korea and the twisted Obama administration. They all have one thing in common they take but never give!!!

  16. Ted G
    Can you please explain how the IPCC “takes.” Seems to me they do a whole lot of giving as in offering collated information. I guess they take it first…. but I’m thinking that’s not what you meant… is it?

    • IPCC takes our money, and then makes cooked, ideologically biased reports that support destructive policies that take more and more of our money. Scientists who support or tolerate liars, robbers and murderers (a.k.a. “progressive politicians” in euphemistic parlance) are accessories to their crimes.

      • The IPCC is a bureaucracy consumed by self interest to preserve its existence which is predicated on CAGW. Climate science has been horribly corrupted by the conflict of interest that arose when the IPCC positioned itself as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science.

        • co2isnotevil commented: “Climate science has been horribly corrupted by the conflict of interest that arose when the IPCC positioned itself as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science.”
          Yes. Also, if you read the founding principals of the IPCC you will find that their mission is to prove AGW. Without AGW there is no IPCC.

    • Markl. I doubt very much your statement “Also, if you read the founding principals of the IPCC you will find that their mission is to prove AGW” is accurate. But feel free to supply the quote from the founding principles that backs up what you are saying.

      • The IPCC aren’t studying the weather and they aren’t studying the climate. They exist only to assess climate change. What is that theory of climate change? Oh yeah, humans cause it.
        “The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). 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.”

        • Doonman,
          The IPCC summarizes climate science, but it gets to pick and choose what it wants to include in its summaries and it has many deluded ‘scientists’ to help it pick and choose. If you ask any warmist what authority they defer to when it comes to what defines climate science, they universally point to the IPCC. The IPCC is also tasked with identifying ‘solutions’ to this imaginary crisis, which from the start has been redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations from the developed world to the developing world.
          Do you really think that any organization interested in pursuing an agenda would positively assess any science that contradicts its reason to exist when it has absolute control over the assessment? Perhaps you are not that naive and are one of those who recklessly considers this conflict of interest a necessary means to an end.
          All you need to do is apply the laws of physics to the climate system and the many levels of obfuscation added by ‘consensus’ climate science for the wiggle room needed to support the impossible fade away and the truth emerges.

      • simon commented: “…feel free to supply the quote from the founding principles that backs up what you are saying.”
        From PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK: “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…” Notice how it specifies “human-induced”. Without AGW there would be no IPCC.

      • Markl. That is a huge jump from “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” to having to “prove AGW”. They are not and never have been the same thing. And given the possible negative outcomes if the mainstream science is right, frankly why wouldn’t you have an overarching authoritative group looking as scenarios from here. It would be utterly irresponsible not to do so. Imagine in 50 years from now a lot of what they had to say came true. Future generations would look back in amazement that we didn’t at least explore the options.

        • simon commented: “That is a huge jump from “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” to having to “prove AGW”.
          If human induced climate change is not anthropogenic global warming then nothing is. So they put together a special body to research, strike that, interpret data because they believed there is a chance we’re entering another LIA due to man’s intervention? Please, wordsmith it all you please but I don’t believe anyone is naive enough to believe the IPCC is anything more than a collection of subverted (for various reasons) academics and scientists out to prove something and learn nothing.

      • Markl. I’m not wordsmithing anything I’m telling it how it is. The IPCC is out to prove nothing. Human induced climate change is a non negotiable fact. If you are not happy with that why are you even here? Even the host of this site accepts some of the warming is coz of us.
        The IPCC has been set up to investigate and report. The scientists are unpaid so you can’t level the old “they are in it for the money” thing against them. They do no research, they merely report on current thinking. And if it’s not peer reviewed or backed with solid evidence, it is not used, which is why so much of the nonsense out there does not find it’s way into the reports. Sure they make the odd mistake (and we hear all about it) but who doesn’t. They are human.

        • Simon,
          The IPCC is a bureaucracy interested in preserving its own existence to support its charter to justify the pursuit of global redistributive economics via climate reparations. While most will agree that CO2 emissions have a finite effect on the climate, there’s nothing in its charter about establishing the size of this effect. The statistics claiming support for man induced climate change are completely bogus because there’s no distintinction made between believing that the effect from doubling CO2 is 3C +/- 1.5C or 0.8C +/- 0.3C, where the former may be catastrophic and the later clearly is not, The physics and data exclusively support the later while the science dictated by the IPCC reports lacks any shred of convincing evidence that the sensitivity is as high as claimed.
          The mythical 3C +/- 1.5C claimed by the IPCC has its origin as how big of an effect there must be before its large enough to scare people into action. Despite significant theory and data that disputes this magnitude, they have not changed their claim to align with the science because if they did, the effect would not be large enough to justify their existence. The stated magnitude has been canonized without proof and we are paying a steep price for the worst ‘science’ to come out of the scientific age with an even steeper price coming in the future. The fact that partisan politics got involved doesn’t help matters since objective science has only one right answer, while subjective politics can have many.

      • simon says:
        I’m telling it how it is. … Human induced climate change is a non negotiable fact.
        Then quantify it. Produce measurements showing how much global warming is due to human emissions. To one decimal point is sufficient. Or, as a fraction of total global warming. Make sure your numbers are testable and verifiable.
        See the problem? You’re convinced that AGW is significant enough to worry about. But you can’t even quantify it, because it is too minuscule. It just doesn’t matter.
        All you have is a belief. But that’s not good enough to alter national policy, is it?

      • DB
        Utterly ridiculous concept. Because I can’t give you a figure (because there is none that can be measured to that exact level) It must be all wrong. Same thinking can be used with smoking and cancer, but it is just as useless…… Unless you can tell me the exact risk I face because I smoke, I am going to assume there is no risk. As I have said and you have been told many times, utterly ridiculous. Keep living in your own world DB. It must be fun?

        • Simon,
          Equating climate change to smoking is silly. There’s lots of evidence that shows how smoking can cause cancer, emphysema and other maladies. A single piece of physical law based evidence that shows CO2 emissions are causing CATASTROPHIC change, rather than BENIGN change, would be sufficient to show your case, but even this is missing. The best they can do is claim the effect is finite and this is woefully insufficient when trillions of dollars and the fate of mankind is at stake.
          What about the preponderance of evidence and theory that shows the most noticeable effect from incremental CO2 is increasing global agricultural productivity to help feed the world. Why does climate science suppress this effect that the UN should be on board with? Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you otherwise, or is your position based on nothing but faith?
          Consider the simply physics described by the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship. Owing to the T^4 relationship between power and temperature, its undeniably true that incremental emissions from an incremental degree of temperature requires more input power than the average for all current emissions. Given that all 240 W/m^2 of solar input results in a surface temperature of 288K emitting 390 W/m^2 of based on SB, how can one incremental W/m^2 of forcing cause a 3C rise, increasing emissions by 4.3 W/m^2 when each of the prior W/m^2 of forcing generated an average of only 1.6 W/m^2 of emissions? Don’t you believe in Conservation of Energy and the required linearity in the power domain? What is the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 oif surface emissions above and beyond the W/m^2 of forcing that is supposed to cause it? The classic answer is nebulously defined positive feedback based on a broken application of feedback theory that assumes an infinite source of power distinct from the input power arriving to the system,
          This is but one of at least a half dozen ways I can apply physics and data to preclude what the IPCC claims. Why is physics so causally ignored by the climate science community? Could it be that there’s more interest in the agenda than in the science?

  17. Dr Ball, It might perhaps help if you distinguished more clearly between mid-latitude cyclonic storms and tropical cyclones. If I understand the situation correctly, the frequency and intensity of mid-latitude events may very well depend on the Zonal Index. Tropical events on the other hand operate by somewhat different mechanisms than mid-latitude events and might increase or decrease in intensity independent of the ZI?

  18. All organizations have an overriding priority to survive and expand. Curing heart disease or cancer would mean we have no more need for the American Heart Association or the American Cancer society. A cure for heart disease or cancer will never come out of a study funded by the AHA or the ACS, it will come from private industry studies. The AHA funds studies on risk factors to heart diseases, because studying risk factors will never result in a cure. Its all about survive and expand. Likewise funding and support for the IPCC will only continue as long as people think global warming is happening and man is responsible. Scientific integrity takes a back seat when the survival of an empire is at stake. The IPCC will never be part of studies that suggest there is no man made global warming because that means there is no need for the IPCC. The number one priority for the IPCC is making sure the belief in man made global warming continues, their jobs and careers depend on it. If man has negligible influence on the climate then the need for the IPCC goes away. If the world believes in man made global warming, IPCC managers are rock stars with a solid career, if the world doesn’t believe it, they are inconsequential and unemployed.

  19. Australia’s most violent tornado occurred on New Year’s Day 1970. Its most powerful cyclone and highest surge was in 1899. For storms and rain, the 1950s and 1970s stand out…and those were the decades when the world had its most powerful (sub 880 mb) known cyclones. Our most lethal flood was in 1852 (not far away and not long after the world’s biggest known fire in 1851). Our biggest documented flood was likely that of 1955, when an inland sea formed to the west of Sydney, size of England and Wales. It was, er, worse than we thought.
    But why let facts spoil the lobster sandwiches in Paris?

    • Never mind that, where did those mean onery flies come from. Those thing drove me crazy.
      [Most onery flies come from the fertilized eggs from twoery flies. .mod]

  20. Re: ““What I find most interesting is the ‘Surge in the frequency’ of storms in cold periods.”
    I can second that finding.
    What I have noticed during my extensive and entirely self-funded lifelong research project is that, in conclusion – the weather tends to be more shitty when its cold.
    I had formulated this theory and collected a significant quantity of empirical evidence by the time that I was about 7 years old. Possibly because I grew up in Manchester, England. Where cold shitty weather was supplied in ample quantities, thus presenting me with the ideal conditions for field-work.
    According to my observations, winter is typically colder than summer, and also wetter and stormier.
    I have also observed that snow and ice are more common in winter.
    I have a feeling that there may be some correlation of sorts that can be fished out of the statistical noise.
    Glad to be of service, with this helpful contribution to the development of science.

    • @ indefat, Now that was funny and thanks!! Growing up in Holland during the late 50’s and early 60’s I noticed the same thing . But I loved skating on canals and lakes ( although I did freeze my a.. off!).

  21. President Obama is heading to New Orleans next week for a Katrina memorial ceremony. I got $100 bucks that says in his speech he will blame Katrina and the NO flooding on climate change and tell everyone this is what more CO2 means unless Congress gives him carbon taxes to spend.
    Any takers?

  22. Reblogged this on Dave Alexander (formerly ukuleledave) and commented:
    Some people simply don’t consider the idea that this era is not some exceptional “special time” in which a hundred years of data can predict the future. The world is old, immense, and a few acorns does not mean the sky is falling. In short: Weather and climate have been changing since before we were here. Even our best history can only show so much.

  23. “Every day we hear that storms of greater intensity than ever before are occurring, and it will get worse because of global warming.”
    I probably haven’t been paying attention, but I haven’t heard that for quite a while. I hear and see news reports about storms, but the worse-than-ever-because-of-global-warming aspect seems to have been quietly dropped.

    • That’s probably because, while they’d predicted “worse than evers”, they haven’t happened. People have noticed.
      I think they’re holding the hype until after a natural disaster occurs.

  24. Several recent and peer reviewed studies show that there were more storms during cool periods like the Little Ice Age than in warm periods in Europe. See e.g. here:
    And since heavy rain is normally connected with stormy weather, this study from the swiss alps does bolster these findings quite well:
    A key sentence from the abstract says very distinctly:
    “We found that flood frequency was higher during cool periods, coinciding with lows in solar activity.”
    The latter result was confirmed by several similar papers from other alpine regions. See e.g. in this study:
    So – How on Earth can the IPCC and other alarmist groups claim that storms and floods will increase with a warmer climate???

Comments are closed.