Jump to content

Stormy Weather? Not so much.


Recommended Posts

A major part of the AGW doctrine is that the influence of rising CO2 levels will bring about increasing incidence and severity of extreme weather events, most recently loudly trumpeted regarding Hurricane Sandy. So what does the historical record tell us?

 

A completely different story, that's what. Instead of rains of blood and frogs, plagues of locusts and acne, we find relatively docile storm seasons around the globe as CO2 levels relentlessly creep upward. Don't take my word for it look for yourselves. If CO2 levels are the DOMINANT factor in climate why not give credit where credit is due?

 

Because only nasty weather has anything to do with global warming according to said doctrine, res ipsa loquitor.

Edited by Harold Squared
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does the historical record tell us?

 

!

Moderator Note

This is where you provide supporting evidence, if you are interested in having a science discussion. Our rule against soapboxing requires it.

 

Do not respond to this modnote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A completely different story, that's what. Instead of rains of blood and frogs, plagues of locusts and acne

 

Can you provide a reference where those things were predicted.

 

we find relatively docile storm seasons around the globe as CO2 levels relentlessly creep upward. Don't take my word for it

 

I won't. I will look at the evidence you provide.

 

Because only nasty weather has anything to do with global warming according to said doctrine

 

Not really. It is likely that where I live will continue to have more mild winters than in the past and, possibly, drier summers. Which is nice. (For me, anyway; it causes some problems for wildlife and agriculture.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A major part of the AGW doctrine is that the influence of rising CO2 levels will bring about increasing incidence and severity of extreme weather events, most recently loudly trumpeted regarding Hurricane Sandy. So what does the historical record tell us?

 

A completely different story, that's what. Instead of rains of blood and frogs, plagues of locusts and acne, we find relatively docile storm seasons around the globe as CO2 levels relentlessly creep upward. Don't take my word for it look for yourselves. If CO2 levels are the DOMINANT factor in climate why not give credit where credit is due?

 

Because only nasty weather has anything to do with global warming according to said doctrine, res ipsa loquitor.

 

I think you have a point, but this forum does demand evidence when it is contrary to the consensus.

 

Maybe this will help:

 

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336s2/lectures/sec2/hurricanes3_updated_fall13_old.html

 

north_atlantic_ace_1950_2010.png

 

Now it appears to me that a curve can be drawn through the graph going high, to low, and high again bottoming out in the early 80's. The TSI peaked in 1958 with a value of 1359.9801 W/m^2 according to the SORCE site. The next peak was lower in 1970 at 1359.9785 W/m^2. Each peak since has been higher than the 1970 peak until this most recent one. The data stops at 2013, and it is lower than 1970.

 

Anyway, I agree the tropical storms do not seem to track with CO2, and I believe they track better with solar changes. However, better evidence needs to be provided to these people. I cannot provide that evidence now, but maybe what I provided can help you find better information to use.

 

SORCE data:

 

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

 

tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

60 years isn't that long in climate timescales.

 

I'd suggest looking at something like this:

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

 

It's not a graph but I'm sure one could be found or u can plot one from this. Might be easier to compare to your solar cycle data then.

 

But to be clear, I think that more energy in the atmosphere (warmer) = more energetic weather = worse storms on average.

Link to post
Share on other sites

60 years isn't that long in climate timescales.

 

I'd suggest looking at something like this:

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

 

It's not a graph but I'm sure one could be found or u can plot one from this. Might be easier to compare to your solar cycle data then.

 

But to be clear, I think that more energy in the atmosphere (warmer) = more energetic weather = worse storms on average.

 

I will suggest it is hard to base anything accurate with older records. It'sn't it hard to accurately count these events before the use of satellites? More modern events include storms that never make it to population centers.

 

Am I wrong about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is certainly something to be wary of. A good data set will explain how they've tried to account for such biasing. In geophysics, with earthquakes, this is done by putting an artificial limit on the sensitivity of the modern instruments (by say ignoring all of the events before a certain magnitude from a given distance) to maintain a well defined data set. This isn't arbitrary but requires some quite careful analysis of the data sources.

Reviewing the web page I'd start with the papers they reference when talking about this bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the OP struggles to read or remember responses to his posts and answers to his questions. This exact question was answered for him just yesterday before creating this thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87181-what-can-be-learnt-from-previous-storms-and-minimal-future-damage/?p=849602

Repeating it here:

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.

 

However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.

And adding: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

 

Projections show that future precipitation and storm changes will vary by season and region. Some regions may have less precipitation, some may have more precipitation, and some may have little or no change. The amount of rain falling in heavy precipitation events is likely to increase in most regions, while storm tracks are projected to shift poleward. [4] Climate models project the following precipitation and storm changes.

 

Two shaded global maps that show the projected changes in precipitation for the end of the century under A1B scenario for December, January and February in one map; and June, July, and August in the second. For the December, January, and February map, the map shows increases in precipitation at the equator and both higher and lower latitudes, separated by borad regions of decreases in precipitation. In the June, July, and August map, the decreases in precipitation are more widespread across the world, with increases in precipitation limited to the northern and southern most latitudes.

 

Key Global Projections

 

Global average annual precipitation through the end of the century is expected to increase, although changes in the amount and intensity of precipitation will vary by region. [4]

The intensity of precipitation events will likely increase on average. This will be particularly pronounced in tropical and high-latitude regions, which are also expected to experience overall increases in precipitation. [4]

 

The strength of the winds associated with tropical storms is likely to increase. The amount of precipitation falling in tropical storms is also likely to increase. [5]

Annual average precipitation is projected to increase in some areas and decrease in others. The figure to the right shows projected regional differences in precipitation for summer and winter. [6]

Link to post
Share on other sites

iNow...

 

Too bad the Farmers Almanac accurately points out 2013 was a quiet one. What you cite is another failed prediction I think.

 

The 2013 Hurricane Season Summary

Reference Source: Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).

Last year's hurricane season ended up being one of the quietest on record, even though all major hurricane forecasters expected a very busy, above-average season. Typically, strong waves come up from the south off the coast of Africa, bringing the rich moist air that generates hurricanes; this year, however, there was unusually dry air from the Sahara plus the winds came down from the north (also dry), so hurricane conditions just did not exist.

The 2014 Hurricane Season Forecast

For the 2014 season, experts predict a below-average number of hurricanes and below-average landfall. This is based on two key factors: a cooler tropical Atlantic and a developing El Niño. If the oceans warm and the tradition to the El Niño slows, the season could heat up.

 

 

http://www.almanac.com/content/hurricane-forecasts-and-common-questions

 

Don't you ever validate years old links before posting them? That Nature link is from 2010 and you should have verified it's accuracy. Unverified old predictions, innacurate graphs from agenda driven blogs, what else is up your sleeve?

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my post, information was shared that "models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 211% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 634%. "

 

In my post, it was also shared that "Global average annual precipitation through the end of the century is expected to increase, although changes in the amount and intensity of precipitation will vary by region. "

 

And in response, you state that 2013 was somewhat quiet and that my link is not from this year and the journal Nature and the EPA are "agenda driven blogs." You also commented about a graph being inaccurate, despite the fact that I've shared no graphs in this thread.

 

Not even wrong...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Models...

 

And in response, you state that 2013 was somewhat quiet and that my link is not from this year and the journal Nature and the EPA are "agenda driven blogs." You also commented about a graph being inaccurate, despite the fact that I've shared no graphs in this thread.

Not even wrong...

 

I said no such thing about Nature and the EPA. I'm speaking of the graph you presented in the polar bear thread. It is innacurate and from an agenda driven site, along with three of the four links in the later post.

 

I highly suggest you research your graphs and links for accuracy before you post them when obtaining them from activist sites, because they most certainly show you in a poor light...

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm speaking of the graph you presented in the polar bear thread.

 

!

Moderator Note

In case it missed your notice, this is not the Polar Bear thread. Stay on topic, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks to those who have presented evidence so far in this thread. This of course specifically EXCLUDES posts citing forecasts for the end of the current century based on models of questionable merit. Not pointing any fingers here, of course. It takes little imagination or work to realize that the current conditions will in fact change and that by 2100 relatively few of us will be alive to continue the debate. It is safe to assume that the usual suspects will react to any adverse event in their traditional manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thanks to those who have presented evidence so far in this thread. This of course specifically EXCLUDES posts citing forecasts for the end of the current century based on models of questionable meri

You were the first to make a prediction based on a questionable model, when you said " we find relatively docile storm seasons around the globe as CO2 levels relentlessly creep upward".

So, you opened the thread with a post that's so bad even you can't offer thanks for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your OP comments seem to describe the type of folks that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. was referring to, when he testified about,

some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better….”

 

Of them, Pielke says that their, “…false claims undermine the credibility of arguments for action on climate change….”

 

And “…that these false claims confuse those that are making decisions related to extreme events…”

 

[edited for focus]

"A major part of the AGW doctrine is that the influence of rising CO2 levels will bring about increasing incidence and severity of extreme weather events,

…[because] only nasty weather has anything to do with global warming according to said doctrine.”

 

“So what does the historical record tell us?”

 

As Dr. Pielke testified, back in the summer of 2013, to the US Senate:

 

"First, it is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, flood, or drought,

have increased on climate time scales, either in the United States or globally."

 

[because]

 

“…it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human caused climate change

can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes …floods, tornadoes and droughts….”

 

Dr. Pielke emphasizes:

“The inability to detect [the signal] and attribute changes in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and droughts

does not mean human caused climate change is not real or of concern….”

===

 

If , imho, we want to see a signal of change sooner...

We might need to start keeping records of "new weather" phenomena and patterns; so as any new climate develops, we can track the new trends,

while our historical weather trends decline and some climate metrics lose relevance.

 

Thunder Snow, Bombogenesis, Derechos, and Extra-Tropical Cyclones all seem to be new trends on the rise.

===

 

But whatever happens, one of Dr. Pielke’s opening lines seems the most clarifying:

 

"First, humans do influence the climate system in profound ways; including through the emissions of carbon dioxide...."

~

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

[because]

 

“…it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human caused climate change

can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes …floods, tornadoes and droughts….”

 

 

On the "many decades." Isn't it equally likely that the signal from solar changes may also take several decases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On the "many decades." Isn't it equally likely that the signal from solar changes may also take several decases?
Which signal, from which changes? In the case of weather patterns such as hurricanes, and long term alterations in solar output, sure.

 

So?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has this strange idea that changes from solar output take something like 30 years to manifest as changes in our climate and he calls it latency. Even if it were true (which it's not), it still cannot account for the changes we're currently experiencing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2100 again, know? Must be your lucky number. Or more likely the almighty IPCC's. No matter.

 

Thanks to all participants for your patience, I'll health and technical difficulties are preventing me from putting up more evidence or from participating at all as much as I would prefer.

 

With luck this will not last much longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

!

Moderator Note

 

Everybody - enough with the procedural carping on both sides. Discuss the substantive question or don't bother posting.

 

Wild Cobra - would it not be better to have this in a new thread? I can split off new topic if you concur.

 

I think some explanation of your terms, labelling of axes etc. is also in order. Some members will be reluctant (or may even be barred by work security protocols) from opening docs and spreadsheets

 


!

Moderator Note

Branch and reply on Total Solar Irradiance Split off to new topic. This thread has a topic - stick to it please

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of responding to a moderator thread, I would be glad to have a proper thread to disuss this topic, without the fear of suspension.

 

By all means Imatfaal. I welcome a proper thread.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

You can't take single years if you want to talk about climate, the atmosphere is too variable.

Yet it is not uncommon for the Faithful to cite not just single years, but single EVENTS, e.g. Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, recent events in South Asia, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, as evidence of the Truth of the AGW.

 

There is plenty of documentation for this, but of increased hurricane frequency and severity? Not so much.

 

In fact, as hurricane season rolls around, it is comforting for me personally to notice that landfalls of category 3 or greater storms in the United States have been declining since 1900 according to NOAA weather data.

 

Also according to the National Weather Center, accumulated cyclone energy in the Atlantic area in 2014 was "only about 63℅ of the 1981-2010 average."

 

Indeed, "There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012." (wunderground.com)

 

BUT HOW CAN THIS BE?

 

According to the Faithful, as CO2 levels soar, we should reap the proverbial and quite literal whirlwind!!!

 

And the only explanation I can think of is that the Flock have been misled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet it is not uncommon for the Faithful to cite not just single years, but single EVENTS, e.g. Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, recent events in South Asia, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, as evidence of the Truth of the AGW.

 

Citation needed: please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed paper or papers that do this.

 

Or perhaps you could stop inventing things that people don't do.

 

 

There is plenty of documentation for this, but of increased hurricane frequency and severity? Not so much.

 

There is some evidence for this, for example: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/nature07234.pdf

 

But like much in science (natural science, in particular) it is not (yet) conclusive.

 

(As you provide no source for your claims, I won't comment on them.)

 

 

And the only explanation I can think of is that the Flock have been misled.

 

Or you have created yet another strawman argument.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.