Global Warming is Not a Crisis

michel123456 · November 2, 2011

From the introduction of your book:

(pdf summary downloaded from here)

The importance of these questions to science and to society prompted
the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Chevron

Corporation to commission the National Research Council to describe the

existing understanding of Earth’s past climates, and to identify focused

research initiatives to better understand the insights that the deep-time

record offers into the response of Earth systems to projected future climate

change.

Why is the Chevron Corporation involved in this research?

**swansont** · November 2, 2011

Why is the Chevron Corporation involved in this research?

Just a guess, but…

For all the posturing that the oil companies do to downplay global warming, they are deeply affected by it. The oil industry has a vested interest in what happens to ports which are, not surprisingly, at sea level, and so are refinery facilities. Further, the opening of the arctic for months at a time open the possibility of oil extraction (along with the opening of shipping lanes from the Pacific to the Atlantic, bypassing the Panama canal). The disruption also affects natural gas terminals and ports facilities for loading and unloading coal. So really, the whole of the fossil fuel industry is affected.

More severe weather can also increase the risk of damage to exposed infrastructure, like pipelines and drilling rigs.

JohnB · November 4, 2011

For all the posturing that the oil companies do to downplay global warming, they are deeply affected by it.

Or maybe the "well funded denialist oil machine" is a fantasy and they simply fund research. BP has been funding the CRU for years, so has Shell. Acknowledgements section of the CRU history page.

The oil industry has a vested interest in what happens to ports which are, not surprisingly, at sea level, and so are refinery facilities. Further, the opening of the arctic for months at a time open the possibility of oil extraction (along with the opening of shipping lanes from the Pacific to the Atlantic, bypassing the Panama canal). The disruption also affects natural gas terminals and ports facilities for loading and unloading coal. So really, the whole of the fossil fuel industry is affected.

I fully agree. For the first time in history change rather than stasis is regarded as the norm and companies are thinking about how to work in a changing world. Previously they didn't, they just assumed that things would trundle along and the operating environment would remain the same.

More severe weather can also increase the risk of damage to exposed infrastructure, like pipelines and drilling rigs.

But the weather isn't getting more severe, is it? The incidence of extreme events has been dropping as the planet warms.

iNow · November 4, 2011

Or maybe the "well funded denialist oil machine" is a fantasy and they simply fund research.

False dichotomy. They're not mutually exclusive, and it's very likely both.

But the weather isn't getting more severe, is it? The incidence of extreme events has been dropping as the planet warms.

No, the incidence is increasing, and weather events have been getting more extreme and severe. I'm unsure of how a claim such as that can be made given the evidence before us.

JohnB · November 4, 2011

No, the incidence is increasing, and weather events have been getting more extreme and severe. I'm unsure of how a claim such as that can be made given the evidence before us.

Would you care to cite that evidence? I know a lot of people have that impression, but that doesn't make it a fact.

From the abstract of a recent paper "A Trend Analysis of Normalized Insured Damage from Natural Disasters";

We analyze trends at the global level over the period 1990 to 2008, over the period 1980 to 2008 for West Germany and 1973 to 2008 for the United States. We find no significant trends at the global level, but we detect statistically significant upward trends in normalized insured losses from all non-geophysical disasters as well as from certain specific disaster types in the United States and West Germany.

Speaking personally I would classify cyclones as "Weather Events" and the incidence has been going down for the last 30 years in the Australasian region. ( I do wonder if this means that some other poor sod is getting more since the ACE seems to be very flat.)

You might also check out "Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006".

Are you seriously trying to argue that there are more "Weather Events" when normalised damage shows no trend and the trends for loss of life from all forms of natural disaster are falling?

I'd also like to draw attention to Table 2 in the second link. Average deaths worldwide each year due to extreme weather events 19,868, average annual deaths due to Infectious and Parasitic Diseases 10,904,000. Even assuming that there is an increase, all the policies to avert or mitigate warming, for the absolute trillions they will cost will help prevent less than 20,000 deaths. For 1/10th of that money we could save millions from disease and poverty. How about a sense of perspective?

Edited November 4, 2011 by JohnB

michel123456 · November 4, 2011

Would you care to cite that evidence? I know a lot of people have that impression, but that doesn't make it a fact.

From the abstract of a recent paper "A Trend Analysis of Normalized Insured Damage from Natural Disasters";

Speaking personally I would classify cyclones as "Weather Events" and the incidence has been going down for the last 30 years in the Australasian region. ( I do wonder if this means that some other poor sod is getting more since the ACE seems to be very flat.)

You might also check out "Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006".

Are you seriously trying to argue that there are more "Weather Events" when normalised damage shows no trend and the trends for loss of life from all forms of natural disaster are falling?

I'd also like to draw attention to Table 2 in the second link. Average deaths worldwide each year due to extreme weather events 19,868, average annual deaths due to Infectious and Parasitic Diseases 10,904,000. Even assuming that there is an increase, all the policies to avert or mitigate warming, for the absolute trillions they will cost will help prevent less than 20,000 deaths. For 1/10th of that money we could save millions from disease and poverty. How about a sense of perspective?

Very very interesting. I have to admit that my impression was about the same with iNow's. It shows the importance of information sources. For example, contrasting with CRU founders, which are a mix governmental organizations, private consortiums, WWF and others, the presentation of CSCCC page states (your link):

International Policy Network
International Policy Network (IPN) is a charity based in

the UK, and a non-profit (501c3) organisation in the US.

It is a non-governmental, educational and non-partisan

organization which relies on charitable donations from

individuals, foundations and businesses to carry out its

work. It accepts no money from government.

emphasis mine.

and further

About the Civil Society Coalition on
Climate Change

The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change seeks to

educate the public about the science and economics of

climate change in an impartial manner. It was

established as a response to the many biased and

alarmist claims about human-induced climate change,

which are being used to justify calls for intervention and

regulation.

The Coalition comprises over forty independent civil

society organisations who share a commitment to

improving public understanding about a range of public

policy issues. All are non-profit organizations that are

independent of political parties and government.

It is more important than the result of the query. Science is not free from external influences.

**swansont** · November 4, 2011

Would you care to cite that evidence? I know a lot of people have that impression, but that doesn't make it a fact.

From the abstract of a recent paper "A Trend Analysis of Normalized Insured Damage from Natural Disasters";

Speaking personally I would classify cyclones as "Weather Events" and the incidence has been going down for the last 30 years in the Australasian region. ( I do wonder if this means that some other poor sod is getting more since the ACE seems to be very flat.)

You might also check out "Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006".

Are you seriously trying to argue that there are more "Weather Events" when normalised damage shows no trend and the trends for loss of life from all forms of natural disaster are falling?

I'd also like to draw attention to Table 2 in the second link. Average deaths worldwide each year due to extreme weather events 19,868, average annual deaths due to Infectious and Parasitic Diseases 10,904,000. Even assuming that there is an increase, all the policies to avert or mitigate warming, for the absolute trillions they will cost will help prevent less than 20,000 deaths. For 1/10th of that money we could save millions from disease and poverty. How about a sense of perspective?

Doesn't look like "no upward trend" to me.

There is also a positive trend in insured damage from US flooding events, which includes both flash floods and general floods (Figure 8c). The same is true for events caused by temperature highs (Figure 8d). There is however, no significant trend for events caused by temperature lows (Figure 8e). If we look at winter storms (Figure 8f), which also include snow storms and blizzards, we find a significant upward trend. The same is true for the category all storms except tropical cyclones, which besides winter storms include convective storms (hail storm, tempest storms, tornado, and lightning), sand storms and storm surges (figure 8g). Focusing on hurricanes, an upward trend in insured losses is found, which is statistically significant at the 10 percent level (Figure 8h).

The problem with looking at normalized insurance losses and death rates is it does not correct for improvements in safety (as mentioned in the second link). If you build a better house it can withstand damage that would level an older house. Look at the devastating earthquake in Japan earlier this year, and compare it to similar quakes in less well-developed areas. We also have advanced warning of many severe weather events, which allow people to take actions which mitigate property damage and loss of life. Since these would introduce a downward bias, if they are not accounted for in the analysis they will mask an upward trend.

edit: or look at the death totals from the Galveston hurricane and Katrina a century later

JohnB · November 4, 2011

Doesn't look like "no upward trend" to me.

This proves what? Heck, in the part I quoted it said there was a trend in the US. But at a global level, zilch. Or do only US and not global trends count?

The claim was in respect to planetary climate that;

the incidence is increasing, and weather events have been getting more extreme and severe.

What happens in one tiny corner of the world is not indicitive of the entire planet. I provided two links to show that there is in fact no increase in incidence or severity of extreme weather events worldwide. Can you provide opposing data?

The problem with looking at normalized insurance losses and death rates is it does not correct for improvements in safety (as mentioned in the second link). If you build a better house it can withstand damage that would level an older house. Look at the devastating earthquake in Japan earlier this year, and compare it to similar quakes in less well-developed areas. We also have advanced warning of many severe weather events, which allow people to take actions which mitigate property damage and loss of life. Since these would introduce a downward bias, if they are not accounted for in the analysis they will mask an upward trend.

Very true. We also have quite a few more people now than then and they are living in more and more vulnerable areas, if they are not accounted for in the analysis they will mask a downward trend. If Yasi had struck Queensland 100 years ago most of the towns it flattened wouldn't have been there. Similarly I doubt that the poor in Bangladesh (or anywhere else in the third world) have much access to those improved building codes and early warning systems, yet the worldwide death toll is still down by more than 90%.

The point here is that many people are under the impression that there has been an increase in extreme events when there has not. As michel123456 has pointed out, the second link might be biased. (The use of the word "alarmist" in the second quote leads me to think it is.)

So how about "Estimating Annual Numbers of Atlantic Hurricanes Missing from the HURDAT Database (1878–1965) Using Ship Track Density" which fills in the period before the satellite data? Published in Journal of Climate and from the NOAA server. Granted it does only apply to the Atlantic, but Americans are told that numbers and severity are increasing.

After adjusting for the estimate of missed hurricanes in the basin, the long-term (1878–2008) trend in hurricane counts changes from significantly positive to no significant change (with a nominally negative trend). The adjusted hurricane count record is more strongly connected to the difference between main development region (MDR) sea surface temperature (SST) and tropical-mean SST than with MDR SST. These results do not support the hypothesis that the warming of the tropical North Atlantic due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has caused Atlantic hurricane frequency to increase.

How about "Is the recorded increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?" Another NOAA paper from JGL. From the conclusions section;

it is unlikely that a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical storm counts would contain a statistically significant positive trend since the late 1800s

It is also worth noting who they reference as writing papers contaminated by "shorties" to show an increase in storm occurrance.

World Climate Report references 4 more papers that can't find increases in China, Hawaii and southern Germany.

I've shown elsewhere that the number of cyclones in the Australasian region has been falling, but just to help try here for the BoM graph of "Mean Central Pressure" of cyclones in the region since 1950. Good luck in finding a trend.

So there are another 7 references more showing that there is no increase. (And there are plenty more)

iNow said (and presumably others agree) that there was "evidence before us" of an increase, would somebody care to actually show some?

iNow · November 4, 2011

My apologies, John. In my mind, it's as if you just asked me to demonstrate that yellow and blue make green. I presumed it was obvious and accepted, but forgot the topic, where that which is obvious is often ignored.

It's also possible that my perspective is biased due to what I'm seeing throughout the US, where we just had the worst blizzard on record for October across the Atlantic seaboard and another in Kansas last weekend, all while Texas is experiencing the worst drought on record and record breaking warm temperatures are recurring practically every month.

You are correct that I made my statement assuming it was obvious, and I'm sorry for that. I also should clarify that all predictions suggest these extremes will continue to increase, and I was slightly conflating that with my comment above stating that it's already happening.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special-reports/2011-spring-extremes/index.php

http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/extreme-weather-frequency.html

From the wiki on Extreme weather:

http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_climate_change_hazards.pdf

JohnB · November 5, 2011

It's also possible that my perspective is biased due to what I'm seeing throughout the US, where we just had the worst blizzard on record for October across the Atlantic seaboard and another in Kansas last weekend, all while Texas is experiencing the worst drought on record and record breaking warm temperatures are recurring practically every month.

Mate, I honestly find it incredible that you can say that. How many times have we both jumped on people with the "It's cold, so the globe isn't warming". Weather is not Climate. But you have illustrated my point that many people have the impression of an increase.

But let's take your 4 "proofs" in order.

1. The NOAA page. Spring brought some severe events to the Unites States. I'm sorry for your losses, but we have had floods and cyclones too. While there is some comparison to previous events there is nothing there about the long term trends for the globe. Evidence null.

2. The EPA page. Firstly the quoted passage from AR4 is simply wrong;

Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s.

I've already provided proof that there is no increase in intensity or duration. (I suppose that's what you get whn you exclude the hurricane experts from the section on hurricanes.)

Secondly the table is about predictions. Again there is no proof at all of an observed increase in extreme events. Evidence null.

3. A green activist site. I'm sure that they are impartial and scientific. But anyway, from the site;

Extreme Weather Frequency. Impacts due to altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, climate, and sea level events are very likely to change.

Since the IPCC Third Assessment (TAR), confidence has increased that some weather events and extremes will become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense during the 21st century.

"Likely to change"? "will become"? I asked for observed evidence of increases, not scary fairy stories. Evidence null.

4. The Wiki graph taken from the 4th link. My first question would be Is "The Environment and Poverty Times" a peer reviewed publication? Nope, it's just an "inhouse" publication for the UNEP. But it is a UN publication, so let's have a closer look.

The report uses the data supplied by CRED known as EM-DAT. As the UNEP article says, CRED deals in reported events and has some discussion as to how much improvements in technology would increase reporting even in the face of no actual increase. An important factor here is "What do CRED classify as a disaster?"

CRED supply the definition in each of their annual reports, the 2010 one is here, section 1.2;

1.2 Database definitions, criteria and content

CRED defines a disaster as a situation or event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a

request to a national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden

event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering. Table 1 shows the definitions of

natural disaster subgroups and their main types. More disaster definitions can be found in Annex 1.

For a disaster to be entered into the database, at least one of the following criteria must be

fulfilled:

10 or more people reported killed;

100 or more people reported affected;

declaration of a state of emergency;

call for international assistance.

Note the first point. 20 years ago a mudslide in backwater Peru would have barely made the Peruvian National News, now it's on youtube within minutes.

The question is not whether reporting has gone up, but has the actual observed incidence gone up? We detect more earthquakes because there are more seismographs than ever before. Americans see more tornadoes because with the spread of population there are people to see them where previously there wasn't. We count more hurricanes and cyclones through satellites (especially the "Shorties") than when we had to rely on ships and aircraft to spot them.

I'm reminded of medicine in this. Do increasing detected cases of a disease mean that it's on the rise, or simply that our screening methods detect more of them?

Evidence inconclusive.

The amusing thing here is that I'm supposed to be the "denier" and "anti science" and "unscientific" yet I'm the one supplying peer reviewed literature to back my argument and the opposing evidence so far consists of 2 articles that don't apply to the question at hand, 1 activist website talking predictions and 1 article that can't even prove or verify its own data.

iNow mentioned the drought in Texas. Honestly mate, as an Aussie I really do understand the meaning of that word and I sincerely hope that you guys get some rain. With floods etc you can more the livestock but in a drought there is nothing to do but watch them die. Drought is a truly heartbreaking thing for any area with a large livestock economy. (And I hear that Texas cattle make great steaks) But the bottom line is that there isn't much to the drought trends in the US. Figure 4 in this paper shows that severity trends have increased in the South West but decreased in the North East.

I also should clarify that all predictions suggest these extremes will continue to increase

This is exactly my point. For them to "continue" to increase then they must be increasing already, so where is the observed evidence? I've been running Google Scolar pretty hot and can find plenty of papers with model predictions that extreme events will increase, but the ones that deal with direct observations show no increasing trend. It doesn't matter if I'm looking for fire, flood or hurricanes, all the predictions are for an increase but the obs just don't show it. (I'll add I do find it a bit concerning that the number of observational papers is quite low compared to the model ones.)

The models say there should be an increase and the impression people have is that there has been an increase, but the data doesn't support either.

Another point to consider is that there can be many ways to look at the data. In my home State Queensland for example some areas have recorded a drop in precipitation of 100mm/decade for the last 25-30 years. Just looking at that figure is enough to make people go "Holy Sh*t, that's a lot" and worry about drought or similar. But when you consider the figure in line with cyclonic activity there is little to worry about. Those regions are still getting their normal rainfall, the decrease is simply because they aren't getting smashed by 2 or 3 cyclones every year. So a drop in rainfall can be viewed as both good and bad, bad because there's less rain but good because there are less extreme events to flatten the towns.

It's things like this that make me look twice at any set of figures and try to burrow down as far as I can to try and get the full picture.

I presumed it was obvious and accepted, but forgot the topic, where that which is obvious is often ignored.

There are people out there to whom it is obvious that God created the Universe. I have no interest in what people think is "obvious" I only care about what can be proven.

Edited November 5, 2011 by JohnB

michel123456 · November 5, 2011

(...)The question is not whether reporting has gone up, but has the actual observed incidence gone up? We detect more earthquakes because there are more seismographs than ever before. Americans see more tornadoes because with the spread of population there are people to see them where previously there wasn't. We count more hurricanes and cyclones through satellites (especially the "Shorties") than when we had to rely on ships and aircraft to spot them.

I'm reminded of medicine in this. Do increasing detected cases of a disease mean that it's on the rise, or simply that our screening methods detect more of them?

(...)

Yes. You are right on this.

And more than ever I worry about information source. I can never be sure than any provided paper is reliable. My own analysis concludes that no source at all is reliable. No one goes into investigation on this subject without an agenda: all researches are funded by the one or the other in order to prove something preestablished. We readers are the victims.

**swansont** · November 5, 2011

This proves what? Heck, in the part I quoted it said there was a trend in the US. But at a global level, zilch. Or do only US and not global trends count?

The claim was in respect to planetary climate that;

In regards to the context, it matters to a company who has facilities here if there are more extreme weather events in the US, even if they are balanced by fewer somewhere else. It has to be included in the risk assessment. The question was why Chevron funded research. Regardless of the conclusion, it behooves them to know if they are at additional risk, which is why you would fund a study.

What happens in one tiny corner of the world is not indicitive of the entire planet. I provided two links to show that there is in fact no increase in incidence or severity of extreme weather events worldwide. Can you provide opposing data?

No, you provided links which showed that there is no increase in normalized insurance claims and deaths. I pointed out biases that did not seem to be accounted for which would mask such an increase. As you have noted.

Very true. We also have quite a few more people now than then and they are living in more and more vulnerable areas, if they are not accounted for in the analysis they will mask a downward trend. If Yasi had struck Queensland 100 years ago most of the towns it flattened wouldn't have been there. Similarly I doubt that the poor in Bangladesh (or anywhere else in the third world) have much access to those improved building codes and early warning systems, yet the worldwide death toll is still down by more than 90%.

Technology allows us to move away from vulnerable areas. You'll note that the primary cause of death is from droughts and flooding. Building dams helps alleviate both. Even Bangladesh is not so poor that they cannot build a dam.

iNow said (and presumably others agree) that there was "evidence before us" of an increase, would somebody care to actually show some?

Yes, iNow made the claim. Not me. I pointed out that your sources are not actually evidence to the contrary.

michel123456 · November 5, 2011

_Flood is not a decisive factor on which one can make a comment about weather or climate. Flood is most often the result of bad human use of soil. Unregulated urbanization, closing of natural ways with buildings or roads, deforestation, even simple paving may provoque floods without any increase of precipitations.

_Earthquakes are related in what way with Climate Change?

_Cyclones: yes. This may be related with Climate change. But not really the amount of cyclones (because as John pointed out, statistics are getting worse as much we look in the past). The place where cyclones occur is a much more decisive factor IMHO.

**swansont** · November 5, 2011

_Flood is not a decisive factor on which one can make a comment about weather or climate. Flood is most often the result of bad human use of soil. Unregulated urbanization, closing of natural ways with buildings or roads, deforestation, even simple paving may provoque floods without any increase of precipitations.

Yes, it can. But it can also be the result of intense rain. The question is whether one can determine what the cause is. In the context of what we've discussed, though, there has been a drop in flood deaths despite the causes you cite, because we have also taken actions to mitigate floods.

_Earthquakes are related in what way with Climate Change?

Who has claimed this?

michel123456 · November 5, 2011

_Earthquakes are related in what way with Climate Change?

Who has claimed this?

Nobody actually, but they are mentioned in Inow post#109, from this article where the author states:

As it seems less likely for tectonic hazards (such as earthquakes, volcanoes) to be influenced by climate trends we

may take them as a benchmark.

Which I don't understand either. What is the connection between earthquakes and climate change that allows to put earthquakes as a benchmark? It is like saying "something is happening in the Earth that provoques earthquakes and that same thing has a relation with climate change". I am not aware of anything like that. Or maybe I am misinterpretating the whole thing.

Edited November 5, 2011 by michel123456

iNow · November 5, 2011

From my second link above:

Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions. Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding have increased, but not everywhere. Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s.In the extratropics, variations in tracks and intensity of storms reflect variations in major features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation.

Another here:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/default.php

I've really lost any semblance of patience with people on this topic. If you wish to dismiss the evidence, or the way I present it, then so be it. I really don't care anymore to go into the weeds with the deniers. The trend is upward, not flat or down. My point has been supported.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and inten- sity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

These climate-related changes are expected to continue while new ones develop. Likely future changes for the United States and surrounding coastal waters include more intense hurricanes with related increases in wind, rain, and storm surges (but not necessarily an increase in the number of these storms that make landfall), as well as drier conditions in the Southwest and Caribbean. These changes will affect human health, water supply, agriculture, coastal areas, and many other aspects of society and the natural environment.

This report synthesizes information from a wide variety of scientific assessments (see page 7) and recently published research to summarize what is known about the observed and projected consequences of climate change

Edited November 5, 2011 by iNow

**swansont** · November 5, 2011

Nobody actually, but they are mentioned in Inow post#109, from this article where the author states:

Which I don't understand either. What is the connection between earthquakes and climate change that allows to put earthquakes as a benchmark? It is like saying "something is happening in the Earth that provoques earthquakes and that same thing has a relation with climate change". I am not aware of anything like that. Or maybe I am misinterpretating the whole thing.

It's a benchmark because there probably is no connection — earthquakes can reasonably be assumed to be independent of the climate. I think that's for normalizing the effect of increased reporting/awareness vs an actual increase in events.

————

I should add to my earlier post that melting of permafrost where you had or were thinking of building a pipeline would be another concern for an oil/gas company.

kitkat · November 5, 2011

From my second link above:

Another here:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/default.php

I've really lost any semblance of patience with people on this topic. If you wish to dismiss the evidence, or the way I present it, then so be it. I really don't care anymore to go into the weeds with the deniers. The trend is upward, not flat or down. My point has been supported.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report

I live in Arizona and when I came here over 20 years ago, we had monsoons, longer cooler months, and now we don't have hardly any monsoon storms, temperature is hotter, shorter cooler months. Its stupid to believe that our actions do not effect the environment when in reality all activities from living entities, globally, effect the environment.

JohnB · November 8, 2011

From my second link above:

Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions. Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding have increased, but not everywhere. Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s.In the extratropics, variations in tracks and intensity of storms reflect variations in major features of the atmospheric circulation, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation.

Okay, so AR4 hurricanes section says so.

This link

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/default.php

After checking through to find the report and the relevent section (found here) has some interesting and contradictory things to say.

The first paragraph says;

Long-term upward trends in the frequency of unusually warm nights, extreme precipitation episodes, and the length of the frost-free season, along with pronounced recent increases in the frequency of North Atlantic tropical cyclones (hurricanes), the length of the frost-free season, and extreme wave heights along the West Coast are notable changes in the North American climate record.

(Emphasis mine).

Yet further down we find;

Even taking these factors into account, it is likely that the annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes in the North Atlantic have increased over the past 100 years, a time in which Atlantic sea surface temperatures also increased.

(Emphasis mine)

So it's not "observed", but "likely". There is a rather large difference between the two.

The next paragraph says;

The evidence is less compelling for significant trends beginning in the late 1800s. The existing data for hurricane counts and one adjusted record of tropical storm counts both indicate no significant linear trends beginning from the mid- to late 1800s through 2005. In general, there is increasing uncertainty in the data as one proceeds back in time.

Hmmmm.

The report goes on to say;

There is no evidence for a long-term increase in North American mainland land-falling hurricanes.

It would be rather odd if the number of hurricanes went up but the number of landfalling ones didn't, wouldn't you say? The most logical conclusion is that there is no increase.

Unfortunately the report isn't internally referenced and so you can't find out what data or papers led them to particular conclusions. Nor do I see why I should have to read large reports to see if they back up your conclusions. If there is an increase in occurrence and severity, then simply link to the peer reviewed literature. That's all I ask, show me the data.

The second link in the last post

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report

relies on reference 28, the hurricanes section of AR4 for it's conclusions that the number has actually increased.

That particular section was one of interest even before AR4 came out. The lead author, one Kevin Trenberth had never published a single paper on hurricanes and so (quite reasonably) approached hurricane expert Dr. Chris Landsea to write the section. Dr Landsea agreed. Shortle after this Dr Trenberth participated in a press conference at MIT where he effectively announced the findings of his section (on hurricanes) before it had been written. This led to Dr Landsea withdrawing his support and participation on January 17th 2005 in an open letter to the Climate community.

I quote the relevent sections, emphasis will be mine;

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

So who do you believe? The guys with no experience in hurricanes or the fellow that studies them for a career?

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

This obviously led to a kerfuffle and rather public spat leading to MITs Dr Kerry Emanuel (yet another hurricane expert) to comment;

"I think it's extremely difficult to pin the last season on global warming. That does not preclude that there may be a global warming signal buried in there somewhere, but nobody in my field thinks that we've seen it."

A follow up article by Dr Roger Pielke Jn says it all;

It seems that Trenberth could easily respond to Landsea by producing a single peer-reviewed study supporting his claims. While one such study would not automatically overturn the many studies on hurricanes and climate change (see RealClimate on this general point), it would provide a scientific basis for Trenberth's statements, which Landsea characterized as "far outside of current scientific understanding." For his part, Trenberth had earlier acknowledged that his views on this subject are controversial. Absent at least one peer reviewed study to support Trenberth's claims, it would seem that he is, at best, a bit forward on his skis.

How strange it is that the relevent section of AR4 agrees with Dr Trenberths ideas and not those of the people who actually publish in the area. I add that this is one of the reasons that Dr Judith Curry, another hurricane expert is extremely disappointed with the IPCC. The findings on hurricanes do not agree with what is available in the peer reviewed literature.

There wasn't any peer reviewed literature then to say that there was an increase and if it exists now nobody can seem to find it. So that disposes of two of the three links discussed above, since they were simply parroting the wrong conclusions and statements of the relevent section of AR4. The third link is saying that while it is likely that incidence has occurred, they can't find any evidence that is has in fact happened. (It is also concentrated on the American region.)

So we see that still there has been no evidence put forward that extreme weather events are increasing in occurrence or intensity, despite a rise in temperature of around .8{sup]0[/sup].

The first rule of climate is that it changes, all the time. In the entire record of this planet there has never been a time when the average temps weren't going up or down. Consequently "change" by itself is no proof of human influence and nor are the effects of that change. Whether the world warms from natural causes or human influence the rainfall patterns will change, the arctic ice will advance and retreat, plants will retreat from some areas and colonise others, all these things will happen regardless of why the climate changes. They are evidence of a warming world and not an anthropogenic cause of that warming.

To sum up.

There is no evidence of an increased strength or frequency in hurricanes (which have to classify as extreme events).

I have yet to see evidence of an increase in the frequency of floods or droughts globally. It does strike me as quite probable that in a changing climate the patterns would change, so frequency would increase in some places and decrease in others. This would lead to some "cancelling out" as it were with a possible remainder as the trend. But there doesn't seem to be an increase, they just seem to be moving around.

Temperature extremes are a slightly different matter. In a warming world most of the increase in average comes from warmer nights and winters rather than from hotter summers. So we would expect a slight increase in extreme "hot" events but a large decrease in extreme "cold" events so in general a decrease in extreme temperature events is likely.

If somebody can point me to some peer reviewed literature that demonstrates an observed increase in extreme weather events, I'll read it, I could be wrong after all.

However, if there is no evidence of an observed increase in extreme weather events after an increase in temperature of roughly .8⁰, then the projections of models of increases in these events due to temperature increase would have to be viewed as "dubious" at best.

And mate, this isn't "the weeds", this is the nitty gritty of going down into the published literature and reading it, rather than relying on what somebody else says. We "deniers" are a nasty bunch, we ask for proof.

iNow · November 8, 2011

After checking through to find the report and the relevent section (found here) has some interesting and contradictory things to say.

The first paragraph says;

(Emphasis mine).

Yet further down we find;

(Emphasis mine)

So it's not "observed", but "likely". There is a rather large difference between the two.

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm#freq

in the North Atlantic there has been a clear increase in the frequency of tropical storms and major hurricanes. From 1850-1990, the long-term average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. For the period of 1998-2007, the average is about 15 tropical storms per year, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase in frequency correlates strongly with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and recent peer-reviewed scientific studies link this temperature increase to global warming.

<...>

Several peer-reviewed studies show a clear global trend toward increased intensity of the strongest hurricanes over the past two or three decades. The strongest trends are in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg - whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.

Additional reading and useful information on the question here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/

And for a good animation that covers the basics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4588149.stm

The most logical conclusion is that there is no increase.

Sorry, but no. That's not the "most logical conclusion, " especially given the additional information I've just presented.

We "deniers" are a nasty bunch, we ask for proof and then ignore the vast majority of it while cherry picking minor aspects that reinforce our preconceptions. We then consistently ignore the validity of the whole, despite each of our criticisms being adequately and accurately addressed and debunked.

Corrected.

Like I said... Agree with me or what I share and how I share it... Disagree with me and my presentation and content. I don't care anymore. This science has been largely settled for 40 years. It's only the minor points that are still being discussed and debated, not the central theme or overarching theory.

Edited November 8, 2011 by iNow

JohnB · November 9, 2011

Oh goody, a think tank. Does that mean I can start using the Heartland Institute as an authoratative source now?

Nice selective quoting BTW, did you miss this bit?

Globally (not just in the North Atlantic), there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), globally "[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."

(Emphasis mine)

Strange as it may seem to some, North America and the North Atlantic isn't the whole world.

Several peer-reviewed studies show a clear global trend toward increased intensity of the strongest hurricanes over the past two or three decades. The strongest trends are in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s. In the future, “it is likely [better than 2 to 1 odds] that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical [sea surface temperatures].”

What you appear to be objecting to is my holding your statements to the same standard as is usual on these forums. If anybody said "Several peer reviewed studies showed...." then the very first response would be "Then name some" and that is all I've been asking.

But what do the studies actually show?

"Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment" Webster et al 2005 find;

We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade.

Basically they find an increase in the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide, but a decrease in the number of cyclones and cyclone days. So, less cyclones but more of the intense ones.

However "Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years" (Klotzbach 2006) makes an interesting point.

These findings are contradictory to the conclusions drawn by Emanuel [2005] and Webster et al. [2005]. They do not support the argument that global TC frequency, intensity and longevity have undergone increases in recent years. Utilizing global ‘‘best track’’ data, there has been no significant increasing trend in ACE and only a small increase (10%) in Category 4–5 hurricanes over the past twenty years, despite an increase in the trend of warming sea surface temperatures during this time period.

<->

This study indicates that, based on data over the last twenty years, no significant increasing trend is evident in global ACE or in Category 4–5 hurricanes.

I must admit to having a problem with the last bit. I would call a 10% increase "significant".

Similarly Kossin 2007, "A globally consistent reanalysis of hurricane variability and trends" finds that;

Using a homogeneous record, we were not able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane intensity over the past two decades in any basin other than the Atlantic. Since the Atlantic basin accounts for less than 15% of global hurricane activity, this result poses a challenge to hypotheses that directly relate globally increasing tropical SST to increases in long-term mean global hurricane intensity.

And before anybody starts calling Cr Kossin a "denier" or other names I will point out that he is a coauthor of Elsner 2008 from which the SkS diagram for wind speed is drawn.

As to the diagram for storm numbers itself, I can only repeat "The North Atlantic is not the entire world". A point that is noted in a couple of the referenced papers is that for reasons unknown the North Atlantic especially is behaving unusually compared to all other basins worldwide. While this is an interesting question it does point to the fact that stats for the NA shouldn't be relied on when considering global trends. Pointing to the NA and saying "Look! Storms are up!" is just as meaningless in the climate debate as someone saying "It's cold here, global warming isn't happening." One little region doesn't tell the global story.

Globally the situation is this; (from Maue 2011)

From this we can see the large upward swing in the incidence of tropical storms and hurricanes........Oh, wait. We can see a slight downward trend in tropical storms and hurricanes.

Oh well, a warming world means more energy in the system so the overall strength (ACE) should be up then.

Oops again.

As a side note I found that many papers when discussing the frequency of storms etc don't add in the effects of El Nino or La Nina which is a bit curious. Consider this graph of SSTs from 1850 - 2000. (Just the top graph)

So SSTs have gone up a degree or so in that time. This is quite small compared to the change in SSTs associated with an El Nino or La Nina. (Although those effects are more regional) So if hurricane intensity correlates with SSTs then one would expect some correlation with El Nino events. Now look again at the graph of tropical storm frequency above. Am I the only one that sees peaks about every 4 years in that data?

JohnB, on 8 November 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

We "deniers" are a nasty bunch, we ask for proof and then ignore the vast majority of it while cherry picking minor aspects that reinforce our preconceptions. We then consistently ignore the validity of the whole, despite each of our criticisms being adequately and accurately addressed and debunked.

Corrected.

Like I said... Agree with me or what I share and how I share it... Disagree with me and my presentation and content. I don't care anymore. This science has been largely settled for 40 years. It's only the minor points that are still being discussed and debated, not the central theme or overarching theory.

Bulldust. I'm the one out there reading the bloody literature and finding that it isn't as cut and dried as either of us would like. You're sitting back quoting bloody think tanks or websites run cartoonist and advertising companies while chucking around gratuitous insults. In all of this I've been providing references to peer reviewed literature while you just offer up predigested pap that reinforces your preconceptions. I'll allow "adequately addressed" after you quote some actual literature and not a moment before.

You made the claim that extreme events were more common now than before and you have yet to offer a single paper that backs that claim up. Citing a website where someone says that papers exist to back the claim doesn't cut it. It wouldn't cut it in the physics forum and it wouldn't cut it in the speculations forum, why expect a free pass here?

And minor points my arse. We are constantly told that warming should be kept below 2 degrees from preindustrial due to climate disruptions, extreme events, what have you. The fact is that we are almost at half that figure so there should be a clear and discernable signal in the data already. So where is it? Except for the NA there is no increase in hurricanes, there doesn't seem to be an increase in floods or droughts (like I said they seem to be moving around, but the total isn't changing), there are more extreme hot events but far less extreme cold events leading to a decrease overall, heck even the sea level rise seems to have stopped. So where is the increase you say exists and is soooo dangerous?

Or is the great goddess Gaia simply being patient for the moment, "But wait and you'll see. She'll get angry soon and all hell will break loose."?

The point being of course that if these extreme events haven't come to pass then it is less likely that they will in the future and "climate change" becomes a non problem.

As to "not caring", well you should. We all should. Climate change might be a problem in the future, but climate policies are effecting the lives and livelihoods of millions right now.

I think Matt Ridley said it very well;

Does it matter? Suppose I am right that much of what passes for mainstream climate science is now infested with pseudoscience, buttressed by a bad case of confirmation bias, reliant on wishful thinking, given a free pass by biased reporting and dogmatically intolerant of dissent. So what?

After all there’s pseudoscience and confirmation bias among the climate heretics too.

Well here’s why it matters. The alarmists have been handed power over our lives; the heretics have not. Remember Britain’s unilateral climate act is officially expected to cost the hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion a year for the next 39 years and achieve an unmeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.

At least* sceptics do not cover the hills of Scotland with useless, expensive, duke-subsidising wind turbines whose manufacture causes pollution in Inner Mongolia and which kill rare raptors such as this griffon vulture.

At least crop circle believers cannot almost double your electricity bills and increase fuel poverty while driving jobs to Asia, to support their fetish.

At least creationists have not persuaded the BBC that balanced reporting is no longer necessary.

At least homeopaths have not made expensive condensing boilers, which shut down in cold weather, compulsory, as John Prescott did in 2005.

At least astrologers have not driven millions of people into real hunger, perhaps killing 192,000 last year according to one conservative estimate, by diverting 5% of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel*.

That’s why it matters. We’ve been asked to take some very painful cures. So we need to be sure the patient has a brain tumour rather than a nosebleed.

**swansont** · November 9, 2011

Basically they find an increase in the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide, but a decrease in the number of cyclones and cyclone days. So, less cyclones but more of the intense ones.

Which supports the "more extreme weather" view.

I must admit to having a problem with the last bit. I would call a 10% increase "significant".

As would I, though they may have meant "statistically significant"

And minor points my arse. We are constantly told that warming should be kept below 2 degrees from preindustrial due to climate disruptions, extreme events, what have you. The fact is that we are almost at half that figure so there should be a clear and discernable signal in the data already. So where is it? Except for the NA there is no increase in hurricanes, there doesn't seem to be an increase in floods or droughts (like I said they seem to be moving around, but the total isn't changing), there are more extreme hot events but far less extreme cold events leading to a decrease overall, heck even the sea level rise seems to have stopped. So where is the increase you say exists and is soooo dangerous?

Nonlinear effects should not be expected to show linear behavior. Sea-level rise has stopped? http://www.enn.com/climate/article/42833

Moving around of floods and droughts is significant if it brings those events to areas that aren't prepared for them.

Essay · November 9, 2011

Oh goody, a think tank. Does that mean I can start using the Heartland Institute as an authoratative source now?

...You're sitting back quoting bloody think tanks or websites run cartoonist and advertising companies while chucking around gratuitous insults.

CSCCC?

I think Matt Ridley said it very well....

...who?

JonB, What "think tank" are you talking about? The only one I saw was your reference to the CSCCC, which is so proud of its "non-governmental" (i.e. private) funding....

...as the Cato institute funds "like minded think tanks". Here are, according to SourceWatch, some of the domestic think tanks:

Groups the benefited from Cato's generosity were Agencia Americana($30,000 "to help fund study on S.A. corruption"); the Philanthropy Roundtable ($5,000); the Manhattan Institute ($5,000); the American Enterprise Institute ($5,000); the Fund for American Studies ($10,000); the Bluegrass Institute ($50,000); the Cascade Policy Institute ($25,000); the Ethan Allen Institute ($50,000); the Evergreen Freedom Foundation($100,000); the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii ($40,000); the Illinois Policy Institute ($50,000); the James Madison Institute ($100,000); the John Locke Foundation ($20,000); the Maine Heritage Policy Center ($50,000); the Maryland Public Policy Institute ($40,000); the Nevada Policy Research Institute ($50,000); the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs ($50,000); the Rio Grande Foundation ($50,000); the Show-Me Institute ($50,000); the South Carolina Policy Council ($90,000); the Sutherland Institute($40,000); the Tennessee Center for Policy Research ($50,000); the Texas Public Policy Foundation ($100,000); the Virginia Institute for Public Policy ($25,000); the Yankee Institute ($68,000); and the Independent Institute ($60,000).

At least three of these were on the list of CSCCC Member Organizations...

About

The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change seeks to educate the public about the science and economics of climate change in an impartial manner. The Coalition comprises 59 independent civil society organisations from 40 countries who share a commitment to improving public understanding about a range of public policy issues. All are non-profit organizations that are independent of political parties and government.

http://en.wikipedia...._Climate_Change

It calls itself "a free-market alternative to mainstream environmentalism."[2] An Indian news media report states that it was founded by the International Policy Network, a London-based organization that receives support from Exxon Mobil.[3]

The group publishes background papers and opinion editorials on the science and economics of climate change and maintains a blog. Its Civil Society Report on Climate Change was published in 2007, shortly before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Bali.[4] CSCCC experts make media appearances, such as Julian Morris's 2007 feature on Larry King Live and his televised debate in 2008 with IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.

This IPN in the UK has Julian Morris as Executive Director. It is actually a part of the Atlas Group/Network (aka Atlas Economic Research Institute) which was founded by UK factory-chicken king, Sir Antony Fisher (one of PM Margaret Thatcher's economic gurus) and American Loctite millionaire Richard Krieble. They had funding support from Krieble, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Philip Morris. [1] Fisher is reputed to have had a primary hand in establishing up to 150 libertarian think-tanks around the world.

Fisher's daughter, Linda Whetstone, now works for the (Fisher-founded) Adam Smith Institute. She is also the chairperson of the International Policy Network, and is on the Boards of Directors of the Mont Pelerin Society, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Atlas Group in the USA. [2] Coalitions and networks of this kind a common with Atlas Group think-tanks, and many of their key staff and directors serve on many different organisations. This faux-multiplicity amplifies the apparent strength of the public attacks on climate-change science. See also the Stockholm Network.

...however, that's just wikipinion....

===

Neither do I think Matt Ridley speaks for several millennia of future generations of humanity....

===

But to get back onto topic....

AGW affects the poles more than the tropics, where hurricanes form. Also....

Hurricanes are one of Nature's Best heat engines, which transport a lot of heat poleward, but they may not be "linear" indicators of extra heating globally.

http://www.ibp.ethz....v_termpaper.pdf

...[Equation] (3): where T_s is the ocean temperature, T_t the ambient temperature of the tropopause, s^*₀ the saturation entropy of the ocean surface and s_a the entropy of the normal tropical atmosphere near the sea level (Emanuel, 1991). The model is driven by the difference between the temperatures of the ocean and the tropopause and the entropy difference between the sea surface and the overlaying air. This formula describes the thermodynamic disequilibrium. As depicted in formula one and three an increasing sea surface temperature leads to an enhanced disequilibrium and thus theoretically to more intense TCs.

A TC potential intensity can be appropriately modeled by the Carnot cycle. The energy is supplied by the temperature difference between the sea surface and the lower stratosphere and the latent heat input from ocean to atmosphere (Emanuel, 1987). The minimum central pressure can be calculated with the assumption of three conserved properties: angular momentum per unit mass, total entropy and total water (liquid plus vapor). The results are similar to the observed minimum central pressure. The central pressure can be seen as a measure for the TC strength. But with the given constraints the Carnot cycle could [sustain positive feedbacks, which] means hypercanes (major TC in the supercritical regimes) could exist and they can have very big radii. The preconditions are 6 to 10°C warmer SST than today (Emanuel, 1988).

[my edit/clarification]

This seems accurate, and highlights the importance of the Temp. Differential between SST's and lower Stratosphere/Tropopause temps.

Mainly, it points out the lack of a direct relationship between hurricanes and SST's. So greenhouse heating could change these terms or parameters differently, driving the temperature differential to either favor or supress hurricanes.

But either way, hurricanes are still weather; and the Greenhouse Theory (or AGW/Climate Change) is not based on models of the weather or the temperatures. Neither is it based on historical trends or current observations of weather or temperatures.

Greenhouse theory is about basic physics, and the changing chemistry of our atmosphere; and the consequent changes to oceanic pH and long-term changes to the climate system's overall heat distribution; not weather.

===

Having said that, I recently heard that these days: "record lows" are outnumbered two-to-one by "record highs,"

...plus....

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

October 4, 2011

Summer 2011: Arctic sea ice near record lows

"The summer sea ice melt season has ended in the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent reached its low for the year, the second lowest in the satellite record, on September 9. The minimum extent was only slightly above 2007, the record low year, even though weather conditions this year were not as conducive to ice loss as in 2007. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September.

Arctic sea ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."

That is 34% below "normal," the recent average.

"As in recent years, northern shipping routes opened up this summer. The Northern Sea Route opened by mid August and still appeared to be open as of the end of September. The southern "Amundsen Route" of the Northwest Passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, opened for the fifth year in a row."

"....Fifth year in a row!" I didn't know that!

~

===

But who cares about the weather or the temperatures this season or decade or century? We are pushing our atmosphere back to conditions prevailing 30 million years ago, within just several more generations! Hello?! Does anyone see a problem with surviving those conditions, for the next several millennia?

Eocene soils would not support agriculture enough to feed our population, or support Earth's present biodiversity, to say the least! I think that neither the Arctic, nor the four seasons, nor higher primates, had evolved at that point!

===

But that is several generations away....

~ :mellow:

JohnB · November 10, 2011

Swansont, I think I would call 10% "statistically significant" too, at least as a first approximation. The point being that the two papers came to opposite conclusions. Both papers had support from other papers as well and were part of the "Hurricane Wars" from 2004-2006. In the original version of that post I said "So it isn't as clear cut as either of us would like" and I think that that is the situation. AFAIK the HUrricane Wars were ended with the two sides getting together (as they should) and finished up resolving "We don't know. We need longer timelines and more data to be sure".

Papers can be quoted to support both sides of the argument, so the situation is not cut and dried. However I think that it can be definitively said that the North Atlantic is definitely showing an increase which will tend to give Americans the impression that there is an overall increase. Since American disasters are widely shown on World news this might also give others the same impression.

I'm not expecting linear effects from the system due to it being strongly non-linear but there should be something. We've gone halfway to the 2 degrees that is talked about and we still can't find an effect? How "non-linear" is the system supposed to be? Again, the argument is that we "have to do something" or else things will get very bad due to warming. So, given the .8 degrees already experienced then things should have started to get bad already in a measurable way. So, where is it?

Sea-level rise has stopped?

For either the last year or the last 9 depending on which satellite you are using.

Envisat hasn't shown an increase since it went up in 2002 while Jason 1 & 2 show a decline in the last year. It's unsurprising the two Jasons agree as Jason 2 is calibrated to Jason 1. Envisat is French and is a different system.

Re your link. Where would people be without the redoubtable Dr Mann? Able to glean temps from tree rings that the NSA said shouldn't be used, and from varves that the data collector said shouldn't be used (he used them upside down so I guess that makes it okay ), a student of the spread of malaria and also a sea level expert. Such genius.

But seriously. The paper referred to got all it's data from two cores roughly 120 km apart on the North Carolina beaches, an area notorious for its rapid changes and is specifically a NC reconstruction. If you want to extrapolate the planet from a bit of NC beach go ahead, but I would call the number of data points "insufficient" at best. The full paper is here. Care to guess what shape they found the sea level rise to have?

Sea level rose at the end of the last Ice Age due to a lot of ice melting. 1850 was arguably the coldest this planet has been in the last 10,000 years, an era known as the "Little Ice Age". Why would anybody not expect sea levels to rise as we warm out of that period?

Beaumaris Castle in Wales was built in 1295 and contained a Sea Dock on it's southern wall for resupply by sea by ships of 40 tons cargo weight. That dock is now 160 metres from the waters edge. 100 years at 3mm per year won't be enough to bring the water back to Beaumaris. English salt mines during the Roman period were abandoned due to rising sea levels and were later reoccupied when they fell. If you look on Google Earth at the mouth of the Tiber in Italy you'll see a hexagonal shape about 3 km from the water. That was the Roman port of "Trajan", now so far above sea level that it's used as a reservior. Some Roman ports were rebuilt 2 or 3 times due to sea level changes in a relatively short period (say 300 years). If History and Archaeology teach us anything it is that sea levels always change and at a far faster rate than has been measuered in the 20th Century. Sea level change has been with us since before the dawn of man and we will have to do as they did, deal with it.

Moving around of floods and droughts will in general be significant. However the only way for this not to happen is for the climate not to change. When has this ever been the situation?

Essay.

I was referring to the "Pew Centre". They are possibly a very reputable group, I don't know. The point here is that if someone is claiming that the literature supports their position then they should quote the literature, not someone else who says that the literature supports them. I distrust think tanks from either side due to the high probability of hidden connections and causes. I note for example that the Pew Centre Board consistes of a former UNEP head and a swathe of bankers who would stand to make a great deal of money from carbon trading. Similarly I dislike RealClimate due to its being owned by EMS and the George Soros Foundation, EMS having a history of setting up "scientific" websites to further the aims of advertisers.

Hence my comment about the Heartland Centre. I think it is acceptable to quote a paper referenced by a think tank, but not to quote the think tank itself as they are almost certainly biased.

Mainly, it points out the lack of a direct relationship between hurricanes and SST's. So greenhouse heating could change these terms or parameters differently, driving the temperature differential to either favor or supress hurricanes.

Which would make it hard to claim that the incidence is increasing with warming, wouldn't you agree?

Having said that, I recently heard that these days: "record lows" are outnumbered two-to-one by "record highs,"

Almost certainly true and totally expected in a warming world. But I'd like to keep the goalposts in one place if you don't mind. The point was about an increase in extreme events. The warming is in the GAT and most of that comes from warmer nights and winters. The cooler end is becoming warmer faster then the hotter end is getting hotter. So we would expect a slight increase in extreme hot events but a large decrease in extreme cold events. This leads to less overall extreme temperature events and since cold events kill a lot more people than hot ones do a lowering of the death toll from extreme temperature events in general.

Fuel or energy poverty is a very real problem in some developed nations as well as the undeveloped ones and this makes cold a big killer. Hot is bad but there are things you can do but cold can't be fought without fuel. This makes extreme cold events far more dangerous than extreme hot ones. In the Update on Fuel Poverty and Health we find this;

Approximately 12% of deaths of people aged 65 in Northern Ireland were associated with low
temperatures in the years 2000-2006, and in the Republic of Ireland 16% more deaths occurred in

the winter months of the years 2000-2005, compared to the other months of the year.

Granted this is only Ireland, but it can't be classed as undeveloped or third world. However a lessening of extreme cold events will result in less people dying.

The question here is whether there has been an increase in extreme temperature events. It is claimed that they will increase according to the models but has such an increase been observed? I have yet to see any proof of such an observation.

Summer 2011: Arctic sea ice near record lows
"The summer sea ice melt season has ended in the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent reached its low for the year, the second lowest in the satellite record, on September 9. The minimum extent was only slightly above 2007, the record low year, even though weather conditions this year were not as conducive to ice loss as in 2007. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September.

Arctic sea ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."

That is 34% below "normal," the recent average.

Congratulations, you've provided proof the Earth is warming. The average is of course the 31 year baseline of satellite observations. How do the current polar trends compare with those from the beginnings of the Roman, Minoan or Medieval warm periods? In short, exactly what is unusual here?

But who cares about the weather or the temperatures this season or decade or century? We are pushing our atmosphere back to conditions prevailing 30 million years ago, within just several more generations! Hello?! Does anyone see a problem with surviving those conditions, for the next several millennia?

Eocene soils would not support agriculture enough to feed our population, or support Earth's present biodiversity, to say the least! I think that neither the Arctic, nor the four seasons, nor higher primates, had evolved at that point!

I'd like to see some cites about the Eocene soils not being able to support current life. (Not being picky, I'd really like to read them.) Given the changes in Continental layout I think it would be very hard to make too strong a comparison with that time (Sea currents would be wildly different for a start) but let's have a look.

I hope you don't mind Wiki as a reference here.

Plants. Plenty of trees and grasses.

Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. The preserved remains are not fossils, but actual pieces preserved in oxygen-poor water in the swampy forests of the time and then buried before they had the chance to decompose. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.

Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.

Looks like they were everywhere in fact.

Fauna.

The oldest known fossils of most of the modern mammal orders appear within a brief period during the early Eocene. At the beginning of the Eocene, several new mammal groups arrived in North America. These modern mammals, like artiodactyls, perissodactyls and primates, had features like long, thin legs, feet and hands capable of grasping, as well as differentiated teeth adapted for chewing. Dwarf forms reigned. All the members of the new mammal orders were small, under 10 kg; based on comparisons of tooth size, Eocene mammals were only 60% of the size of the primitive Palaeocene mammals that preceded them. They were also smaller than the mammals that followed them. It is assumed that the hot Eocene temperatures favored smaller animals that were better able to manage the heat.

Both groups of modern ungulates (hoofed animals) became prevalent because of a major radiation between Europe and North America, along with carnivorous ungulates like Mesonyx. Early forms of many other modern mammalian orders appeared, including bats, proboscidians (elephants), primates, rodents and marsupials. Older primitive forms of mammals declined in variety and importance. Important Eocene land fauna fossil remains have been found in western North America, Europe, Patagonia, Egypt and southeast Asia. Marine fauna are best known from South Asia and the southeast United States.

Reptile fossils from this time, such as fossils of pythons and turtles, are abundant. The remains of a giant snake of the length of a school bus has recently been discovered;[8] such a massive snake would have not survived were the tropics as warm as today, contradicting previous conclusions drawn from other proxies for temperature.[citation needed]

During the Eocene, plants and marine faunas became quite modern. Many modern bird orders first appeared in the Eocene.

Several rich fossil insect faunas are known from the Eocene, notably the Baltic amber found mainly along the south coast of the Baltic Sea, amber from the Paris Basin, France and the Bembridge Marls from the Isle of Wight, England. Insects found in Eocene deposits are mostly assignable to modern genera, though frequently these genera do not occur in the area at present. For instance the bibionid genus Plecia is common in fossil faunas from presently temperate areas, but only lives in the tropics and subtropics today.

Evolution of mammals, modern birds appearing, plenty of reptiles, and insects. Life must have been very difficult.

The Oceans.

The Eocene oceans were warm and teeming with fish and other sea life. The first Carcharinid sharks appeared, as did early marine mammals, including Basilosaurus, an early species of whale that is thought to be descended from land animals that existed earlier in the Eocene, the hoofed predators called mesonychids, of which Mesonyx was a member. The first sirenians, relatives of the elephants, also appeared at this time.

So, lots of plants, grasses and trees. Lots of animal life and the seas "teeming" with fish. What exactly are you concerned about?

In a way this strikes me as similar to the comment I sometimes hear that "Manmade Global Warming has prevented the next Ice Age" or similar. I'm still trying to work out exactly why it is bad that Europe and the northern United States won't be covered by a mile or two of ice in 30,000 years. Can anybody tell me why this is considered a problem?

iNow · November 10, 2011

Basically they find an increase in the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide' date=' but a decrease in the number of cyclones and cyclone days. So, less cyclones but more of the intense ones.[/quote']
Which supports the "more extreme weather" view.

That's pretty much where I was coming from when making the original comment.

Sign In

Global Warming is Not a Crisis

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

swansont

matty

John Cuthber

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information