"Global Warming" and Hurricane Season 2009

Hi Mike,

And I do admit a skepticism about acuweather.com though that's not to say you're personally subject to GCC (so you may honestly believe everything independently, that's all possible), but interesting to read about:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AccuWeather%27s_science_for_hire

Jason, I am extraordinarily busy this afternoon. However, I want to correct the record on this. Until your post, I had never even heard of the GCC.

And, my colleagues at AccuWeather have a full range of views regarding global warming from extreme skepticism to belief the IPCC is right on the money. There is no corporate position on GW nor is there any pressure to believe one thing or another.

AccuWeather has a global warming blog: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ that attempts to cover both sides of the issue. The Stormtrack readers can try it for themselves and decide.

As to "science-for-hire" I believe we all get salaries. And, I believe our all our institutions and employers are paid for services rendered. There is nothing wrong or sinister about that. There are quality scientists on both sides of the GW issue. I can personally vouch for the quality of people and science at AccuWeather on the issue of global warming. There is zero pressure to believe one thing or another. We want decisions to be made using the best science out there.

Mike
 
Well, I don't really want to dig into all this, and again Mike I don't presume you have any personal connection here, and maybe you weren't involved with this aspect of accuweather "back in the day," but New Scientist had an article by Fred Pearce about the Accuweather/GCC connection:
from an internet search turns out Greenpeace has it in the archives:
and did a library search for the exact issue:
Pearce, Fred (03/25/1995). "Fiddling while Earth warms."
Source:New Scientist 145.n1970 (March 25, 1995): pp14(2).
http://www.gpuk.org/atlantic/press/clippings/nscientist.html

a weather forecasting company called Accu-Weather published a report claiming that global warming over the past century had been "slight" and there was "no convincing observational evidence that...extreme temperature and precipitation events are on the rise". It turned out that the latter assertion was based on temperature readings from just three American weather stations and precipitation data from one. AccuWeather "shot themselves in the foot", according to Bruce Callander, head of the IPCC scientific unit at the Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre in Britain.

The Accu-Weather report was commissioned by a lobbying organisation called the Global Climate Coalition, which was set up in 1989 "to coordinate business participation in the scientific and policy debate on the global climate change issue". Its members include many big American producers and consumers of coal, oil and electricity-such as Dow Chemicals and the National Coal Association-all of whom might suffer from controls on emissions of carbon dioxide.

The coalition's agenda mirrors the increasingly anti-regulatory tone of American political debate. Once it backed measures for the transfer of American energy-saving technology round the world. Now it warns that control of greenhouse gas emissions "would create a competitive advantage for our international trading partners at the expense of US jobs".

Anyhow, I suppose "the truth is out there" as they say. But back to hurricanes and climate change, here's a question/answer sequence from the writers of the 2008 Nature article: The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones
James B. Elsner1, James P. Kossin2 & Thomas H. Jagger1


http://hurricaneclimate.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott,

Current temperatures (HADCrut, the metric I use) are below the IPCC's 95th percentile and have been for the past few years. You can plot them yourself (as I have) and confirm this. Of course, the chance that a hypothesis is correct and a value is outside a 95th percentile is 0.05. At some point .05 X .05 X .05 .... = a small enough number that we have a falsified hypothesis.

But, as Pielke, Sr. says, the more important metric is ocean heat content. And, it is below the lower bound of the IPCC. (see previous link, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/ )

I think this says it well, On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warmingâ€￾ and climate “tipping pointsâ€￾ cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.




Jason,

I don't believe you are doing your cause any favors with conspiracy theories from 1995. It is perhaps human nature to assume that everyone who agrees with you is virtuous and everyone who is skeptical is malicious. That is simply not the case. There are excellent and incompetent scientists on both sides of the issue.


Any reasonable scientist (I would hope) would agree the scientific case the IPCC's hypothesis has weakened the last few years as all measures of the earth's heat content have fallen while the IPCC confidently predicted temperatures would rise. I don't think we are quite to the point of the hypothesis being falsified but if heat content continues to fall, we'll be getting there soon.

Mike
 
I don't believe you are doing your cause any favors with conspiracy theories from 1995. It is perhaps human nature to assume that everyone who agrees with you is virtuous and everyone who is skeptical is malicious. That is simply not the case. There are excellent and incompetent scientists on both sides of the issue.

Why do you assume the GCC/Accuweather connection is a conspiracy theory? First you weren't aware of the connection (maybe because you joined after GCC disbanded? or aren't hired to worry about that side of things, who knows), but aren't you at least curious when the NYTimes and New Scientist have reported on the issue? Don't you want to know about the history of the company you work for? It's not about "virtuous" and "malicious" it's about following the scientific method vs having an industry-driven agenda, and this kind of "science" reported by New Scientist on Accuweather
It turned out that the latter assertion was based on temperature readings from just three American weather stations and precipitation data from one.

As for IPCC predictions, there's also growing evidence to suggest that . . .
By the end of the century, sea levels may rise twice as much as was predicted two years ago in the fourth assessment report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/11/11climatewire-researchers-warn-that-sea-levels-will-rise-m-10080.html
because . . .
The most recent satellite and ground-based observations show that sea levels have been continuing to rise since 1993, at a rate well above average for the 20th century, explained another of the researchers, John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. "The oceans are continuing to warm and expand; the melting of mountain glaciers has increased, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to rising sea levels."

Several years ago, says Rignot, the science community believed that the Antarctic did not affect sea levels substantially; today, "we have results demonstrating that what is happening down there is as significant as is Greenland's ongoing ice loss."

The previous IPCC assessment report, published in 2007, projected a sea level rise of "only" 18 to 59 centimeters by 2100. Copenhagen's speakers stated today that the 2007 numerical models did not fully represent either outlet glaciers or their interactions with the ocean.

"Even the IPCC said that they didn't take some factors into consideration because they lacked the data," Katherine Richardson, vice dean of the University of Copenhagen's faculty of science, noted in an interview. [. . .]
According to Rignot, the scientific community is now more fully aware that ice sliding into the ocean -- as opposed to ice melting -- plays a preponderant role in ice-cap evolution. "Ice is slipping into the ocean at a rapid rate, a phenomenon that was not correctly incorporated into previous models," said Ringot.

"In Greenland, we estimate that two-thirds of the cause of the glaciers' disappearance is accelerated ice slide, while the remaining third of the cause is ice melting. In the Antarctic, the cause is 100 percent ice slide, and the speed-up there is exponential."

Jeff Masters just had a post regarding sea rise and storm surge:
How much will future wetland loss increase storm surge?
Over the next century along the Gulf Coast, sea levels will continue to rise, coastal land will continue to subside, and human impacts due to shipping and the oil and gas industry will continue to cause erosion that will reduce wetland acreage. According to Harold Wanless of the University of Miami, global sea level is presently rising at 3 mm per year, and the land along the Louisiana Mississippi River delta is subsiding at 4-11 mm per year. Relative sea level is, thus, presently rising at 70-140 cm (2.3 - 4.6 feet) per century. Global warming may increase this sea relative sea level rise even further. Wetlands are being lost at an average rate of more than 23 square miles (60 square km) per year, with higher pulses during hurricanes. Water is about one meter deep across recently lost marshes and up to two meters deep in earlier lost marshes. This is of concern not only for the potential loss of hurricane storm surge protection, but because wetlands serve to increase fisheries production, filter pollutants out of water, and provide wave protection.

Wamsley et al. (2007) performed a surge surge simulation using the ADCIRC model of what would happen if the wetlands were allowed to continue to deteriorate with no restorative efforts over the next 50 years. Their results suggested that 50 years from now, storm surge heights would increase by 10-15% along Louisiana coastal areas to the east of New Orleans. These results held for both a severe Katrina-like hurricane, and a more modest hurricane (both making landfall at about 12 mph). However, the authors cautioned that "the impact of landscape features on surge propagation is a relatively new application for surge models and research is required". To underscore this lack of understanding, a White Paper put together by 25 coastal scientists and engineers held in July, 2007 found that adequate storm surge data do not exist for calibrating and verifying the models used to predict the impact of wetlands (or other features) on storm surge. Wamsley et al. are working on a field program in southern Louisiana to reduce these uncertainties. They intend to measure water level and wave attenuation across a wetland between Lake Borgne and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet channel, using four non-directional water level/ wave gauges, an anemometer, and a periodic characterization of the wetland, including elevation, plant type, plant density, and plant height. The data collected will be analyzed to determine the surge and wave attenuation based on the vegetation type, density, and height.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientists are aware, thanks Joe. So far there has been little, if any, evidence that the change in solar irradiance due to the sunspot cycle has been great enough to change the climate as much as we have measured. This has been looked into over and over. It's likely part of the puzzle.

And I'm also not sure how this directly relates to the discussion at hand. I dont believe much discussion was happening regarding the mechanism for climate change, it was centered on possible changes in hurricanes due to the observed climatic changes.

First off I do not have a long bunch of letters to place after my name other than an amateur radio call so I can only relate to what I have read and experienced...

In regards to global warming and hurricane frequency and strength, the last time I studied anything on their formation it was related to sea surface temperature and depth. I am under the impression that insolation and air contact is about all that can effect the SST significantly. I would then assume that "Global Warming" might cause an increase in SST.

In reference to sun spot activity (note the date):
The URL takes you to the full article...


"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

A reference to NASA has also been made. James Hansen is the spokesman for NASA in regards to Global Warming... Since I do not want to turn this into a political discussion for more on him do a Goggle search on "NASA Hansen".
 
but aren't you at least curious when the NYTimes and New Scientist have reported on the issue?

As for IPCC predictions, there's also growing evidence to suggest that . . .sea levels...


http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/11/11climatewire-researchers-warn-that-sea-levels-will-rise-m-10080.html
because . . .

#1. Nope, not the least bit curious.

#2. Uh, sea levels are falling: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

#3. As I have stated, at least twice already, temperatures/earth's heat content are falling and are outside of the IPCC's 95% confidence level, which you have not even tried to refute. It is scientifically unreasonable to believe that their methodology is somehow more accurate at 70 years than it is at 70 months.
 
Even though the climatic observations remain within the bounds of the model forecasts?

http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck3.jpg

Scott,

I intended to respond, but apparently it did not post, so let me try again.

I invite readers to go to the realclimate chart to which you linked.

Then go to:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2009 which is the Hadley Center's graph of world temperatures since 1900.

The realclimate chart has an amazing range of 0.78°C, from zero to near 0.8C (note: 0.8° is warmer than the 1998 world record reading). So, by the standard suggested here, if world temperatures were to fall and then level off at a zero anomaly as they did for several years around 1960, the global warming hypothesis would still not be falsified!

In order for a hypothesis to qualify as "science" it must be able to be falsified. Right now drought, flood, warm, cold, stronger hurricanes, no increase in hurricane intensity, and larger spiders [!] ( http://global-warming.accuweather.com/ ) are all "consistent" with global warming.

That is not science.

Mike
 
#1. Nope, not the least bit curious.

#2. Uh, sea levels are falling: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

#1 Curiosity is a necessary prerequisite for a scientific mind and a lack of any curiousity about things (particularly things that we may not be predisposed to "buy" or believe) is the sign of a hopelessly closed mind (which I hope you are not afflicted with).

As to point #2: How do you point to the charts on that site as an indicator that sea levels are falling when all of the charts there indicate a 3.4mm (+/- 0.4mm) per year RISE ? (Even allowing for the maximum error in your direction, that is the rate of an inch rise every 8-1/2 years.)

sealevel.jpg


Are you misreading the chart to come up with the opposite conclusion, or am I missing something?
 
#1 Curiosity is a necessary prerequisite for a scientific mind and a lack of any curiousity about things (particularly things that we may not be predisposed to "buy" or believe) is the sign of a hopelessly closed mind (which I hope you are not afflicted with).

As to point #2: How do you point to the charts on that site as an indicator that sea levels are falling when all of the charts there indicate a 3.4mm (+/- 0.4mm) per year RISE ? (Even allowing for the maximum error in your direction, that is the rate of an inch rise every 8-1/2 years.)

Are you misreading the chart to come up with the opposite conclusion, or am I missing something?


#1. So, you want me to be curious about a 15-year old news report about a report issued 15 years ago for a group that no longer exists?! I have much better ways to spend my time.

#2. You are correct, I misread the graph and I should have said 'leveled off.' Thank you for setting the record straight.

Mike
 
Thanks for the clarification.

In an age when more and more people decide matters on the basis of their preconceived biases with little regard for the facts, I think it is important to understand that (even on a pretty high quality discussion board like Stormtrack) not all people will be intellectually honest. People don't like being troubled by facts when guesses, hunches, gossip, and drivel are so much easier and more amusing to digest. We've been taught by the variety of cable channels, each of which panders to a specific demographic, that real facts are an endangered species - since everything can be filtered, spun, and viewed through whatever distorted lens is expedient to an interest at the moment.

Someone who has the (call it what you will) to point to a site with data showing that sea levels are rising and state that it indicates that they are falling (and then, when given the opportunity, amends that to "leveling off") has demonstrated what is (IMHO) an appalling level of intellectual dishonesty. It is with that knowledge that one can better assess any other assertions that someone who would do that might make, at least on this subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darren,

I believe your reply is unfortunate. Anyone can look at the graph you posted and see that sea level rise is leveling off in recent years. I thanked you for posting it and correcting the record.

What I find disturbing is that a lot of the AGW advocates attack the person rather than the science. Perhaps this is because the science has not gone their way in the last decade. The fact is sea level rise is leveling off, world temperatures peaked in 1998, ocean heat content is falling (or, at least, not rising) and Kerry has backed off his tropical storms/global warming link. World ocean ice levels are currently above average.

Suggest, in the future, sticking to the science.

Best wishes,
Mike
 
Back
Top