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 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
Summation
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.
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]
Trends in tropical cyclone activity in all five TC basins 1945-2014
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2630932
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.
(sarc)
@ur momisugly 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!).
Now the Netherlands has experienced some seriously extreme weather events. Notice that this event occurred in the winter months in 1953. 1836 victims in this storm alone.
hopefully Global Warming will reduce the incidence of such catastrophes – since we now realize the warm weather is, in general, less shitty.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1831/1271
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?
Probably. Why else would there be a Katrina Memorial?
He’ll mention all the fires, the western heat and drought, sea level rising, polar melt, etc. The usual stuff. Then he’ll play golf.
Some human stats on 2005 Hurrican Katrina:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2mczzh5.png
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.
“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.
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:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941100113X
And since heavy rain is normally connected with stormy weather, this study from the swiss alps does bolster these findings quite well:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003387
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:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589412000294
So – How on Earth can the IPCC and other alarmist groups claim that storms and floods will increase with a warmer climate???
Thanks for sharing the links. They are of interest to me.