Seems like just the other day the warmers were telling us to expect more and bigger hurricanes due to a warmer ocean. Yet another AGW prediction bites the dust. "Recall that shot of Gore from “An Inconvenient Truth” that showed Big Al standing in front of a satellite photo of Hurricane Katrina as the storm appeared ready to devour the gulf coast. He explained how, as ocean temperatures increase, hurricane activity would increase " "Gore stuck to this theme for quite a while and the mainstream media readily accepted the supposed link between greenhouse gases and extreme weather. Katrina was just the beginning, we were told. The weather would get worse. But, quite unnoticed by most, this chapter in the global warming narrative has faded into the background over the last couple of years. I can only find one instance of Gore directly mentioning hurricanes at his blog for over a year, and he quietly dropped a PowerPoint slide that deals with the issue from his standard presentation in 2009. The media doesn’t seem to talk about the global warming-hurricane connection much, if at all, any more. So what happened?" "The inconvenient, perhaps embarrassing, truth is that global hurricane activity has been steadily dropping since 2006. In fact, the years 2008 and 2009 represent a thirty year low in hurricane activity" .http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/the-inconvenient-truth-about-hurricanes/ More scary ass predictions. "Average annual temperatures in the region are projected to increase by 4 to 9°F by 2080. [3] Hurricane-related rainfall is projected to continue to increase. Precipitation in southern Florida will likely decrease. It is unclear how precipitation will change in the rest of the region. Climate models are currently inconclusive as to whether the net change will be an increase or decrease. Models do suggest that rainfall will arrive in heavier downpours with increased dry periods between storms. These changes would increase the risk of both flooding and drought. [3] The coasts will likely experience stronger hurricanes and sea level rise. Storm surge could present problems for coastal communities and ecosystems. [3] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html But but but> "In his new paper “Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity”, Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 – May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Comparisons between models and empirical data is not appreciated, nor required apparently, in the climate science world. Those who do it seem to have the word "denier" hurled in their direction. An amazing thing from a science perspective, because the thorough testing of one's hypothesis (including models) is standard scientific quality control. To not do such fundamentals is…surprising…if not downright disappointing.
I was referring to the work done by Spencer, and the way he was treated for DARING to do the same kind f due diligence required of scientists in other specialties. Those who deny the language of science to provide a frame of reference are deniers in every sense of the word, either because they are ignorant of the language involved, or the concept of uncertainty and why quantifying it matters. Well, that would depend if I was referring to yet more bad temperature modeling, that highlighted by Spencer for example, or the hysteria and breathless swarming that climate scientists induce in others by design. You see, ever since anti-population folks decided to use things like climate science as the arena to mold human behavior into a form they desired, they also took on the mantle of managing the hysteria to their own ends. You see it all the time, surely you aren't claiming that you can't be bothered to read the papers to see how successful they have been at this? It takes 10 seconds of googling to find exactly the sort of relationships designed to be the topic of conversation on this issue. http://www.weather.com/science/envi...climate-change-2013-weather-extremes-20140929 I don't pretend. But I am willing to admit that the rigorous quality control on the field of science I worked in doesn't exist within the climate science arena. And I most certainly know what I am talking about, having been subjected to those procedures, and having internalized how this work is done. To be honest, those of us who didn't do it would be fired. Climate "science", upon creating wholesale a desired profile, seems to promote their people. Interesting difference there, but then, when you link science with trying to sell an idea for the good of the human race (as opposed to allowing the science to seek out the answer rather than sell an advocacy position), this isn't an unexpected outcome? If your perspective on writing for peer reviewed science journals and such is different, by all means let us know. Certainly your postings, as are most other supporters of the desired angle, are amazingly free of the very language necessary to describe the problem, and I assume this is because you lack not just the training in the procedures of science itself, but the language, and the thinking that by necessity comes with that language.
>>>MOD EDIT Baiting Removed<<< Globally, ACE for the year is 92% of average. Big whoop. Beyond that, ACE is a measure of both intensity and frequency. If you want just frequency of the most intense storms, you have to count them. Globally, major hurricanes (lower line in the graph below) are increasing: Nice try, though.
So you admit that even globally there is no increase in hurricane intensity and in fact it is below average. Are you getting it now? Another AGW prediction bites the dust.
Nope. Not what I said. Next time, read for content. Models predict slightly fewer hurricanes overall, but more of the most intense ones. Data shows slightlty fewer hurricanes overall, but more of the most intense ones. >>>MOD EDIT Baiting Removed<<<
There has been no increase in severe hurricanes and the new models are SOP for AGW. They change as the old models fail. That's why they don't even call it global warming any more , it hasn't warmed in 15 years. The so called scientist are calling it a pause but in reality it is the entire hypotheses coming off the tracks and eventually you true believers are going to have to face the facts. I myself feel we are screwing up the planet big time with pollution and if I saw the AGW predictions holding water I would be on board but it just isn't happening. You guys worry about the lates craze while in reality the ocean and rivers are becoming toxic due to real pollution that gets ignored because everyone is worrying about the latest fad . A few years back the fad was logging and we were about to cut the last tree down, now that is all but forgoten and the in thing is AGW. Be scared or be square .
We have not had any hurricane activity on the west coast of Florida since 2004. That was the month that we had four hurricanes hit in as many weeks. I know, I had to evacuate my home four times in those weeks because I was living in a place that had an elevation of about two feet along Terra Ceia Bay in Palmetto, FL. Now that is ten years ago. Has it been that long already?
If climate science is not requiring the kind of statistical due diligence required in other fields, then apparently they have legitimized no one else being required to do it within their field either. Don't ask me why they choose to do this type of shoddy quality control, as I've said before, I would have been fired for doing that. I have a much more substantial bet for you. Find any ONE that properly encompasses the uncertainty contained within the data, instruments, discusses the correct methods of assembling correlations, lays out the aggregations in a way that we can evaluate. I haven't seen any such article yet, but certainly I don't spend my time within the climate science field, based on the quality demonstrated to date not sure I would want to.. If they actually do quantify their uncertainty properly, maybe they have done it. Once. Somewhere. Pick your favorite, on any climate topic you'd like, and we can discuss the uncertainty. Together hopefully, I would hate to discuss science in the appropriate and correct language all by myself, that would just be showing off. Just one Poor D. Just one. I promise to read it, if you promise to discuss it after I do, and then we can discuss science, in the appropriate language. Hell, I DARE you. Should be great fun. Consider yourself warned, after doing this for a living for 15 years, I did become quite good at it.
And that's why we call you guys "deniers". Because you can look at that graph, which does indeed show an increase in the most severe tropical cyclones, close your eyes, and claim it just isn't there. You're denying reality. Which is just barely this side of madness. And oddly enough, you can't cite even one of those "old models" that has allegedly failed. Your entire "case" is built upon hearsay and rumor. Here's a hint: the next time you want to win an argument, you might try having actual evidence for your position. Another lie. Spread by the websites of Denierstan and repeated by you. Believe it or not, when the temperature goes up, that means it's warmer. So the guy who has zero facts and zero evidence is telling everyone else to face facts? What a hoot. If it's not happening, how do you explain this? If it's not happening, how do you explain this? If it's not happening, how do you explain this? Yeah, it's the latest fad alright. Like Elvis. [video=youtube_share;T6YyvdYPrhY]http://youtu.be/T6YyvdYPrhY[/video]
The insane rant of a religious fanatic complete with charts and graphs. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic
You're still ducking the question, Mr. Science. Why haven't you fired Dr. Roy from your list of trusted sources? Since you now admit that Dr. Roy's QC is not up to your own standards? Which is apparently Denierspeak for: "I haven't got one shred of evidence that anything I say is true, so I'm going to change the subject." Gotcha. And that's your whole problem right there: you admit that you don't read the science, and then you assume that by golly, that science you haven't actually read has just gotta be bad science, because ... um, (mumble mumble) reasons. Do you even realize how foolish you're making yourself look? Morice, C. P., et al. "Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set." J. Geophys. Res 117 (2012): D08101. Stainforth, D. A., Aina, T., Christensen, C., Collins, M., Faull, N., Frame, D. J., ... & Allen, M. R. (2005). Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature, 433(7024), 403-406. Penner, J. E., Charlson, R. J., Schwartz, S. E., Hales, J. M., Laulainen, N. S., Travis, L., ... & Radke, L. F. (1994). Quantifying and minimizing uncertainty of climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 75(3), 375-400. Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M., Barnett, D. N., Jones, G. S., Webb, M. J., Collins, M., & Stainforth, D. A. (2004). Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 430(7001), 768-772. If you don't like any of these, I've got plenty more. Because believe it or not, you can't get published in a journal like Nature unless you quantify your uncertainties.
You really don't understand the language of science, do you? Just because you say "uncertainty" in the title, doesn't mean much. Amusing, and predictable, that an amateur would do this, but your final statement is more telling. Believe it or not, just because you publish in Nature and use the word "uncertainty", doesn't automatically mean you have handled all of the uncertainty, or the right uncertainty, aggregated properly, explained or even mentioned the correlations involved, or even QUANTIFIED the uncertainties. I'll pick a favorite that I can access online, and we'll see if you can do any better in the thinking department than just googling the word "uncertainty" and hoping that the paper actually does just that. We shall see.
Since Nature took a hardline stance against open science it is no longer considered to be a credible science journal.
So, having already decided, before actually reading the paper, that the paper is no good, what are the odds that Mr. Science will discover that he was wrong? Precisely zero. My prediction: the only science we're going to learn in your next post will be the psychology of motivated reasoning.
You know it's interesting how the OCD AGW crowd sticks to their guns despite the facts. Atlantic hurricanes are nearly non existent but they just won't give up. Are these guys smokin crack? 2013 Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] is only 25% of normal; another 10 hurricane-free days will set a record Despite this the AGW crowd just keeps on going like the Energizer bunny. "Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but the link between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to and Atlantic SST in Figure 1 suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If the correlation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity shown in Figure 1 is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential--roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 2 a). http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes "The researchers also report that storms in the North Atlantic now typically mature from a Category 1 to a Category 3 in 40 hours instead of the 60 hours that transition took 25 years ago. (Hurricane Michael, currently swirling far out over the Atlantic went from a Category 1 hurricane to a Category 3 in about 6 hours, according to reports from the National Hurricane Center.) The North Atlantic basin also shows the strongest warming trends during the study period. In the past 30 years, sea surface temperatures in Hurricane Alley – the main Atlantic hurricane development region – increased nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius). http://www.livescience.com/23003-hurricanes-increase-intensity-global-warming.html
I should also mention, Nature recently made a major faux paux in terms of their credibility, in a field I am quite familiar with. Here is the faux paux: http://www.nature.com/news/natural-gas-the-fracking-fallacy-1.16430 and here was the response from those who actually know something on this topic and took offense at the quality of the Nature piece. http://www.beg.utexas.edu/shale/docs/Nature_Response.pdf http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/...he-work-that-journalists-wont-do-2543564.html http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/article/nature_news_feature.pdf May I recommend a source that doesn't allow such shoddy work into their "peer review" process, if in fact that is how you wish to represent this particular organization? When even Scientific American is agreeing with the specialists against what passes for "information" from Nature, you KNOW you've got a problem. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...e-from-u-s-energy-information-administration/
I'm sorry, I had thought that, as a scientist, you would know how to find scientific papers on the web. My mistake. Why don't you start with this one, and we'll see how it goes.
Certainly is. I asked for any paper of your choice to read over, not links pimping web subscriptions to websites that can't even do analysis of US gas production estimates correctly. Sure as long as I'm not required to cough up money or go to NCAR to round up something.
Oh, and this one will do quite nicely. Give me a few days, I would like to download at least one of the datasets mentioned and run it through some empirical testing. Should be a hoot.
For Poor Debater. Would you care to explain this issue to the masses, or would you prefer I do it instead? From your reference: "So, how certain can we be of the temperature evolution observed in a given observational analysis? A detailed measurement error and bias model was constructed for HadCRUT3 [Brohan et al., 2006]. This included descriptions of: land station homogenization uncertainty; bias related uncertainties arising from urbanization, sensor exposure and SST measurement methods; sampling errors arising from incomplete measurement sampling within grid–boxes; and uncertainties arising from limited global coverage. The uncertainty model of Brohan et al. [2006] allowed conservative bounds on monthly and annual temperature averages to be formed." Notice the reference as to where the data comes from. From that paper, titled: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850 P. Brohan, J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. F. B. Tett & P. D. Jones Accepted version: December 19th 2005 "A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns." Not only is this statement correct....it is also wrong. Do you know why? Surely you didn't throw out your reference without going back through the underpinning work did you? Do you understand which part of the first quote misrepresents what the second quote says? Would you please venture your opinion on the sheer, blinding SILLINESS of these statements? Basically, by moving back one more paper referenced in the sequence (a standard technique in science to not have to call attention to really bad assumptions you would just as soon blame on someone else, should you be caught) you discover that no...these folks aren't quantifying ALL the uncertainty, only the uncertainty they WANT to quantify. Like insulated buckets used to take temperatures, versus regular buckets. It also mentions which data was changed,averaged in with other stations, the qualifications for inclusion that were changed because...wait for it.....IT NARROWED THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE UNDERLYING DATA. Again, this is one of those things that doesn't seem to bother the climate folks much. I mean really, this is very similar to Hansen's scheme for the US, right? I don't like this data, I say NOTHING about the underlying distributions of uncertainty because...maybe...I CAN'T...so I just toss out or change the numbers that make me unhappy. In neither of these papers is that particular uncertainty even explained or quantified...just a nice comment on how I can happily clean my data by throwing out the ones I don't like, or changing it. Maybe these guys learned this from Hansen, or Mann before that? Actually saw a statistician do this once in an analysis of oil field size distributions....got themselves fired...but then...that was a scientist operating under the kind of scientist rules I am familiar with, and worked in for 15 years. The good news? I have even STARTED on loading the actual data to find out underlying empirical distributions within either all the data, or the underlying grid systems. The even better news? I haven't even begun to parameterize their error equations to determine whether or not the level of the noise itself is capable of drowning out the entire signal they claim to be able to pull out of the data, or even finished reading both papers thoroughly. All I have done so far is begin checking references. And it certainly still looks like a hoot!! In the meantime (and take your time, certainly I am going to, due diligence is nothing if not time consuming) why don't you run off and try and see if you can find a way around your reference relying on papers that specifically state they CAN'T definitively quantify the uncertainty necessary to do this right. And don't forget, you picked this paper.
