The attempt to label Hurricane Sandy as an "unprecedented" event due to climate change and global warming from human CO2 emissions is simply without merit - comparing 'Sandy' and other recent hurricanes to those in the past establishes that this supposed "superstorm" is just one of many 'Category 1' storms
(click on image to enlarge)
Despite the massive flooding devastation delivered by Hurricane Sandy on the huge and dense NY/NJ metropolitan area, it is not some "unprecedented" storm event that the U.S. East Coast has suffered. Nor is it a result of "high" CO2 emissions from man-made activities.
As this chart depicts, over the last 10 years, the East Coast has been hammered by 7 hurricanes, including the 'Category 1' Hurricane Sandy.
But for the 10 years ending 1962, during a period of substantially less atmospheric CO2, the East Coast was struck 10 times by 'Category 1' and higher hurricanes. (Note the 'Category 3' hurricane that wreaked incredible havoc on Long Island during 1954.)
All of these past hurricanes plotted on the chart originated east of the U.S coast, out in the Atlantic, just like Hurricane Sandy. And many of them snaked their way up the East Coast and finally made landfall at higher latitudes, just like 'Sandy.'
Conclusion: When the weather facts are examined objectively, Hurricane Sandy was not an "unprecedented" nor a "superstorm" severe weather event. And higher CO2 levels do not cause more hurricanes or stonger hurricanes to make landfall along the East Coast. To blame "climate change" and "global warming" for a 'Category 1' hurricane during the normal hurricane season is utter nonsense.
The NCDC (an agency of NOAA) publishes global ocean temperature records, which confirm that global warming of the oceans did not cause Hurricane Sandy - in fact, their most recent temperature measurements reveal that ocean temperatures have actually remained flat over last 15 years (thru September 2012), while CO2 levels have increased
(click on images to enlarge)
The chart on the left is a plot of global ocean temperatures for the 15-year period (180 months) ending September 2012. Clearly, since late 1997, global warming of the oceans has not happened and thus can not be the cause of Hurricane Sandy. (Unfortunately, some incredibly dishonest politicians and pundits have actually stated that anthropogenic global warming was the cause.)
The plot on the right represents ocean temperatures for the 15-year period ending September 1997. This chart depicts a modest warming trend of ocean waters, including an increase of CO2 levels.
When comparing the two different 15-year time periods, the following can be ascertained:
CO2 levels for 15-year period ending Sept 2012: Increased by 30 ppm
Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +0.007 degree increase by year 2100
Polynomial trend and 3-year average indicate a cooling is in process
CO2 levels for the 15-year period ending Sept 1997: Increased by 22 ppm
Ocean linear temperature trend equates to: +1.10 degree increase by year 2100
Polynomial trend and 3-year average confirmed a warming trend during this previous 15-year period
Conclusions: The growing increases of atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused a global warming of the oceans over the last 15 years. Global warming was not the cause of Hurricane Sandy, which was essentially a typical weather hurricane that naturally occurs.
Without any empirical evidence, the mainstream media continues to report that global warming is causing an increase of severe weather events - latest scientific analysis of tornadoes disproves IPCC alarmist claims to be meritless
Read here. The IPCC continues to push the bogus claim that "global warming" (supposedly due to human CO2) is (and will) causing more severe weather events with the publication of their new 'SREX' report.
The incredibly stupid and lazy journalists covering climate science dutifully report the desired summary propaganda that the IPCC wants heard. Yet if they made any effort, the reporters would soon discover that the empirical evidence does not support the the IPCC hypothesis that past warming has caused more severe weather.
The adjacent violent tornado chart is a clear cut example that alarmist claims of more severe weather due to warming is indeed not factual.
In addition, climate science journalists are soooo lazy, and obviously enraptured (cult-like?) with misleading the public about climate disasters, they always seem to miss the IPCC's fine print, such as this in the new 'SREX' report:
“While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to the question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme.”...“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”...“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados.”...“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.”
Conclusions: First, severe weather events have not increased as a result of global warming - in fact, even the IPCC admits there is no increasing trend of said events. Second, climate science reporters and the mainstream media continue to mislead and misinform the public and policymakers with bogus reports of 'cherry-picked' extreme weather events, both current and predicted.
'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example
Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.
Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."
And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.
"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?
The IPCC and other global warming alarmists predicted that the frequency of extreme hurricanes would increase because of CO2-induced global warming. At least that's what their theory told them.
Recently, climate researchers analyzed a large Florida sinkhole that had hurricane evidence going back some 4,500 years. This new empirical evidence now establishes that super hurricane frequency was much greater thousands of years ago, and that the modern era has experienced far fewer of these monster storms despite human CO2 and warming.
"Lane et al. developed a 4500-year record of intense hurricane-induced storm surges based on data obtained from "a nearly circular, 200-m-diameter cover-collapse sinkhole...reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these "high-magnitude" events "peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago." Thereafter, it suggests that they were "relatively rare" with "about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago," after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which "began around 600 years ago" and has persisted through the present with "below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia."" [Philip Lane, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Jonathan D. Woodruff, Andrea D. Hawkes 2011: Marine Geology]
The absurdity of "consensus" climate change science and global warming alarmism on display, again
Read here. As the 2011 hurricane season comes to a close, there has yet to be a direct major hurricane strike on the U.S. since 2005 (note: Hurricane Irene in 2011 became Tropical Storm Irene before striking the continental U.S.).
The anti-science left/liberal/progressives and the IPCC Climategate alarmists have long predicted that CO2-induced global warming will cause more frequent and more severe hurricane strikes on America's Atlantic coast. These AGW hurricanes would then cause massive economic damage and carnage resulting in climate refugees fleeing the coast.
In a nutshell, this is the pathetic and hysterical climate "science" that the left embraces and promulgates, without any supporting empirical evidence (image source), or now, even a credible theory.
A team of NOAA researchers has recently completed a new analysis and have now conceived a new "consensus" science: global warming will cause less storms to strike the U.S.
Wang et al. analyzed the Atlantic Warming Pool (AWP) history and determined that when it was warmer and larger, the AWP birthed hurricanes that were farther from U.S. shores and less likely to strike the Atlantic coasts. Ergo, global warming may indeed cause larger storms but they would dissipate over open waters before reaching U.S.
"For this investigation, Wang and colleagues divided the observed history of Atlantic tropical cyclones (since 1970) into years with large AWPs and those with small AWPs and then tallied up within each division storm characteristics such as number and tracking tendency. What they found was that large AWPs were associated with more storms, but—and this is important—storms which preferentially stayed off-shore and did not make landfall along the U.S. coast. In other words, the hurricanes which formed became less menacing...as the AWP increased in size it made conditions more favorable for tropical cyclone formation and growth further out in the Atlantic Ocean. And at the same time, it altered the atmospheric circulation patterns over the central Atlantic Ocean such that the storms which did form were steered more northward into the open Atlantic and away from the U.S. mainland." [Chunzai Wang, Hailong Liu, Sang-Ki Lee, Robert Atlas 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent IPCC "expert" deeply involved in the Climategate scandal, has long promulgated the IPCC prediction that CO2-induced global warming will cause an increase in tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Trenberth even doubles-down by stating that all modern severe weather events are the result of "unequivocal" global warming. Unfortunately for Trenberth and the IPCC, the overwhelming, unequivocally growing evidence documents well that cyclones/hurricanes have not increased as predicted.
First, as all know to be the case (click on adjacent image to enlarge), Trenberth is truth-challenged in public regarding the supposed "unequivocal" global warming claim (he sings a mightily different tune in private conversations). As the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT empirical evidence shows, accelerated global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years.
This evidence is irrefutable, yet Trenberth continues to claim global warming is "unequivocal" despite other climate alarmists giving up the ghost of AGW and are now producing research trying to explain the disappearance of global warming. (One would guess that this disturbing and consistent lack of stating the fundamental climate truth by Trenberth has to be a pathological disorder of some kind.)
Now in addition to the amazing disregard of actual global temperatures, a new study by Ying et al. determines that the empirical evidence proves that the China region has not experienced an increase of tropical cyclones over the last 50 years, which corroborates the vast majority of studies on this subject, globally. Thus, Ternberth's beliefs and predictions are again eviscerated by the cruel empirical scientific process - and the same holds true for the IPCC as well.
"The authors write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) has twice suggested that "precipitation and extreme winds associated with tropical cyclones may have become more intense." However, they note that this dual claim is "mainly based on numerical models,"...Working with tropical cyclone (TC) best track and related observational severe wind and precipitation datasets created by the Shanghai Typhoon Institute of the China Meteorological Administration...report that over the past half-century there have been no changes in the frequency of TC occurrence...they say that "during the past 50 years, there have been no significant trends in the days of TC...that "the seasonal rhythm of the TC influence on China also has not changed."...found that "the maximum sustained winds of TCs affecting the whole of China and all sub-regions have decreasing trends."...state that "the trends of extreme storm precipitation and 1-hour precipitation were all insignificant."" [Ming Ying, YuHua Yang, BaoDe Chen, Wei Zhang 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Read here. The climate predictions of the IPCC, its climate models and "experts," such as Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye and Jeff Masters have been robustly abysmal. As the world struggles with unprecedented and severe financial and economic disasters, the shrill, self-centered, non-scientific incompetence of climate science alarmism continues to be shouted by egotistical personalities regardless of the scientific evidence.
These deniers/liars of past extreme climate change are the same ones whom have long predicted that human CO2-induced global warming would cause more severe tropical cyclones and hurricanes. Fortunately for the rest of us, these deniers/liars have been spectacularly wrong, as the latest peer-reviewed study makes clear.
Researchers used a new updated database of cyclone activity for the Australian region and determined that eastern Australia has experienced a 62% decline in severe cyclone strikes since the 1870's. All alarmists and IPCC computer predicted the opposite.
"The authors note that several studies have raised concerns that tropical cyclones, or TCs -- and especially the severe ones -- "have become more frequent in many places in response to global warming," citing Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005). In addition, Callaghan and Power write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, highlights several studies that conclude that "tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense in the future in response to global warming," citing Alley et al. (2007)...developed and used "a new data base of severe land-falling TCs for eastern Australia derived from numerous historical sources, that has taken over a decade to develop."...new data base allows them "to document changes over much longer periods than has been done previously for the Southern Hemisphere,"...they report that "the sign and magnitude of trends calculated over 30 years periods vary substantially," highlighting the fact that "caution needs to be taken in making inferences based on e.g. satellite era data only." And second, they report that "the linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TC/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TC/year in recent times -- a 62% decline."" [Jeff Callaghan, Scott B. Power 2011: Climate Dynamics]
Read here. Fanatical global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore, have aggressively publicized extreme green/left/liberal catastrophic scenarios over the past decade. These predicted catastrophic scenarios are then widely disseminated, and popularized, by the mainstream media and Hollywood in an attempt to bias both policymakers and the public.
Unfortunately for the likes of Al Gore and the MSM, the predicted catastrophic scenarios, such as an increased frequency of severe hurricanes and cyclones, keep proving to be nothing more than wild, exaggerated speculation.
A comprehensive review of the world's best, recently published peer reviewed research, by scientist Jonathon Nott, determined the Al Gore/IPCC's Climategate science speculation that global warming would cause an increase of catastrophic hurricanes and cyclones is not supported by any empirical evidence. Ergo, the green alarmist prediction of increased CO2 emissions causing more hurricanes from global warming is baseless.
"...the Australian researcher reports that "recent analyses of corrected historical TC records suggest that there are no definitive trends towards an increase in the frequency of high-intensity TCs for the Atlantic Ocean region (Knutson et al., 2010), the northwest Pacific (Chan, 2006; Kossin et al., 2007) and the Australian region, South Pacific and south Indian oceans (Kuleshov et al., 2010)." He notes, however, that "over multi-century to millennial timescales, substantial change has occurred in virtually all TC-generating regions of the globe," with "alternating periods of lesser and greater activity," writing that "the longer, coarser-resolution records display periods from multi-century to over a millennium in length, whereas the higher-resolution records register multi-decadal to centennial-length periodicities." In some of these cases, Nott says that (1) "different climate states, such as periods dominated by El Niños and La Niñas, appear to be responsible for the TC variability." In other cases, he says the responsible factor seems to be (2) shifts in the position of the jet stream, (3) solar variability, or (4) some unknown cause." [Jonathon Nott 2011: Journal ofQuaternary Science]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate "scientists" and the likes of Al Gore have long predicted that cyclone activity (hurricanes, tropical storms, etc.) would increase in frequency from global warming. This highly acclaimed prediction has been a spectacular failure and embarrassment to alarmists though, as the latest research reveals.
Dr. Ryan Maue's peer reviewed study confirms what objective scientists have been stating: recent cyclonic activity is at its lowest level, not its highest, in spite of CO2-induced warming.
"The U.S. researcher reports that "in the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s," and he also finds that "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low." Some details of note include the fact that "a total of 69 TCs were counted during calendar year 2010, the fewest observed in the past 40 years with reliable frequency data," as well as the fact that over that same four-decade period, "12-month running-sums of the number of global TCs of at least tropical storm force has averaged 87," while "the minimum number of 64 TCs was recently tallied through May 2011."...""there is no significant linear trend in the frequency of global TCs," in agreement with the analysis of Wang et al. (2010), plus the fact that the earth is experiencing "this current period of record inactivity,"" [Ryan N. Maue 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. What makes a hurricane? Wind speed, plain and simple. If a storm has wind speeds below 74 MPH then it is a tropical storm not a hurricane. Irene never came close to the '74' threshold. The national media never reported the true conditions of Irene.
Gee, what a surprise that the left/liberal anti-science "journalists" would misreport the weather facts.
"So, despite looking at Irene before, during, and after both landfalls, there is no hint of a hurricane anywhere. By the time it got to New York the eye of the storm had dissipated, what was left were huge bands of rain clouds. Is there a moral in this story? Well, I can understand people taking extra precautions, better safe than sorry is a good rule. And I certainly imagine that when the Weather Service re-examines the records, the error will be corrected. But that doesn’t help in making the decisions. As soon as Irene hit land, it should have been downgraded immediately to a tropical storm. That’s what it was, not a hurricane making landfall but a tropical storm. As far as I can tell, we still haven’t had a hurricane make landfall during Obama’s presidency, a historical oddity."
Real Science has been commenting on the actual weather conditions being reported in the midst of Hurricane Irene, and it appears this storm is not producing wind speeds that "elites" and pundits were predicting.
Below are snapshots of multiple locations in and around the hurricane's path. Images captures around 10:15am eastern time on Saturday. Clearly, the wind speeds are not living up to the monster-hype billing for this storm. (click on images to enlarge)
It now seems that total rainfall and river flooding will be the principal cause of property damage, versus damage from the lower wind speed and smaller wind-driven wave surges. (source of images)
Update: 5:30pm Saturday - Wunderground apparently removed weather station info from their Wundermaps. There may have been a tech problem that was causing wind reports to be misleading - just guessing.
Read here. Hurricane scientist expert (PhD) Ryan Maue takes two climate alarmists to task for their non-scientific ramblings information regarding Hurricane Irene. Bill McKibben is your typical green leftist crackpot eccentric who is now blaming both a pipeline and President Obama for the hurricane, along with, of course, global warming.
The good news for Obama is that McKibben, the nutjob eccentric, can't blame him for past significant hurricanes that struck NYC during these years:
September 23, 1875
August 19, 1788
October 9, 1804
September 16, 1816
September 3, 1821
October 13, 1846
October 6, 1849
October 28, 1872
Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with a bent to blaming every weather event on global warming, chose to make some extreme claims about hot ocean temperatures that are...er....well, bizarre for someone with a science background.
"Masters is quoted that “bizarrely high” SSTs along Irene’s path will cause Irene to be a much wetter and apparently longer-lasting hurricane that normal. This assertion is true if “all else is equal”. However, before attributing the “anomalous SST” to global warming, one must control all other variables in this complex situation. That requires considerable sensitivity research with state-of-the art numerical weather prediction (and climate) models...This hand-waving theory may not hold up when a rigorous scientific hypothesis is tested, yet McKibben does not provide a citation or reference aside from Masters’ quotations, which are not peer-reviewed in the slightest."
And of course, there is then the whole issue of "global warming" being the cause, which Masters and McKibben then conveniently ignore the actual global temperature record for the last 15 years. Looking at the real global temperatures shown in this chart, it begs the question of these two hacks exceptional human beings, "what global warming?".
Read here, here, and here. The New York Times is a leading propagandist for human global warming and all of its associated catastrophic fantasies, but even they can't swallow the hysterical rants/claims of the George Soros controlled, partisan puppets. These are the irrational hacks, like Joe Romm, who are SHOUTING that US tornadoes are a result of human-induced warming - his rantings manage to portray the typical Democrat as exceedingly climate stupid and anti-science. Thank you, Joe!
Why did the NYTimes go out of its way to discredit the rabid, left/liberal anti-science, misinformation campaign by Soros et al.? Likely because the empirical evidence totally refutes the brain-dead propaganda that Soros-controlled media outlets spew out, and maybe the NYT's is getting sick and tired of the utter garbage science that Soros readers and Democrats are victims of.
Let's review the real-world science facts that the NY Times is admitting to. There simply is no empirical evidence that shows strong tornado frequency increasing (see first chart below, click to enlarge) due to warming. In fact, the evidence reveals just the opposite. It is well known, and beyond scientific doubt, that during spring seasons that are cooler than average, there is a higher likelihood conditions will spawn a greater number of ferocious tornadoes. This is especially the situation when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is also in its cooling phase (see charts 2 and 3 below).
And as the bottom two charts reveal, deaths from tornadoes has declined significantly as the U.S. has warmed over the past 110 years.
For further information regarding the total bogosity of Joe Romm's non-scientific claims, here's what the NOAA weather/climate forensic scientists say per Roger Pielke, Jr.
Read here. Michael Mann, the "scientist" behind the infamous hockey-stick and Climategate fiascoes, decided that the world could use his brand of discredited statistics and data manipulation concerning Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. He subsequently published a study purporting to show an increasing trend of hurricanes supposedly due to human-caused global warming. To the surprise of no one, a new peer-reviewed study by actual, honest-to-god, hurricane scientists makes a complete mockery of Mann's non-expertise of hurricanes.
Villarini et al., using widely accepted statistical and data methodology techniques, examined the hurricane information and compensated for the superior satellite hurricane detection capabilities over the last few decades. The end result? There is no increasing trend of hurricane activity.
"By using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century-scale record of short-lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal...Moreover, based on these results and those of Vecchi and Knutson  it is unlikely that a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical storm counts would contain a statistically significant positive trend since the late 1800s. Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record." [Gabriele Villarini, Gabriel Vecchi, Thomas Knutson, James Smith 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here and here. Research was done to determine if ENSO events were drivers of hurricane formation frequency and intensity. In addition, the impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was investigated. These empirical results basically refute any connection to the non-scientific hysteria that global warming causes more hurricanes.
The peer-reviewed study found that over an extended period (1900-2008), La Niña conditions were strongly correlated to high activity hurricane seasons for the Atlantic and Caribbean basins, regardless of increasing CO2 levels and global warming. Also, it was found that a negative AMO phase in sync with an El Niño period was a combination that severely inhibited hurricane formation.
"...confirmed that "Atlantic basin hurricane activity is significantly reduced in El Niño years compared with La Niña years," and that "the largest impacts of ENSO on large-scale climate fields were shown to be in the Caribbean, with smaller signals observed over the remainder of the tropical Atlantic." He also determined that "the large-scale field that appears to be impacted the most by the phase of ENSO is the 200-850-mb vertical [wind] shear field, with considerably more shear present in El Niño years, especially over the Caribbean." And as would thus be expected, he reports that hurricane "landfalling frequency along the U.S. coastline is less in El Niño years as well,"..."in general, El Niño-La Niña relationships are stronger in the negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) than in the positive phase of the AMO."" [Philip J. Klotzbach 2011: Journal of Climate]
"...determined that "the probability of one or more hurricanes and major hurricanes tracking through the Caribbean increases dramatically from 39% and 26% in the 10 warmest ENSO years to 92% and 63% in the 10 coldest ENSO years, respectively," in harmony with the similar findings of Tartaglione et al. (2003), who additionally demonstrated that this cooling-induced response was likely due to "reductions in vertical wind shear and increases in low-level vorticity" in La Niña conditions...researcher also determined that "the impacts of ENSO are reduced slightly when the AMO is positive," and he found that "a negative AMO phase and El Niño combine to provide large-scale climate features that are especially hostile for tropical cyclones." [Philip J. Klotzbach 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Could the rare, massive hurricane again strike the New York and New England region as one did in 1938? That disaster was the result of a combination of a Pacific La Niña phase and a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) phase. Unfortunately for 2011, those same climatic conditions exist, and it has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.
If this 2011 combination of climate factors persist, the U.S. east coast will be extremely vulnerable throughout the hurricane season, including major metropolitan areas that rarely experience the full wrath of a hurricane.
And, if this type of disaster plays out in 2011, what is the likelihood that Obama and Democrats will blame human CO2 emissions? 100 percent?
"At 2:30 p.m., the 50-mile wide eye of the  storm is over Long Island with a central pressure of an unprecedented 27.94 inches. Wind gusts estimated as high as 150 and 200 mph are pounding parts of Long Island and the offshore waters.....As the eye of the storm approaches Long Island, south coast residents watch as a thick bank of “fog” twenty-five to forty feet high rolls in towards the south-facing coast. But what they think is a fog bank is really the storm surge, a virtual mountain of water that is associated with the extremely strong winds and low pressure near the center of the storm. Many die on Long Island as this wall of water smashes ashore. Huge waves, of 30 feet or more atop the storm surge add to the destructive power. The storm tide completely engulfs Fire Island. The impact of the storm surge is so great, that it actually shows up on the earthquake seismographs at Fordham University in New York City and Sitka, Alaska.....the great Hurricane speeds to New England, again with a killer storm surge. Storm tides of 14 to 18 feet are experienced across most of the Connecticut coast with 18 to 25 foot tides from New London to Cape Cod. In Narragansett Bay, a storm surge of 12 to 15 feet destroys most coastal homes, marinas and yacht clubs.....Just over an hour later, the storm was devastating the city. Providence reports 100 mph sustained winds with gusts to 125 mph. But the real killer is the water. Downtown Providence is submerged under a storm tide of nearly 20 feet. The storm tide carries boats and houses into the capital, flooding downtown buildings, where workers are just preparing to leave for the day. Having no idea what a storm surge is, many workers do not evacuate and are trapped and drown where they work."
Read here. Scientists examining the output of the IPCC's climate models discovered that that the models were incapable of "consistent" predictions regarding cyclone activity in the Northern Hemisphere. In other words, the multiple models were all over the proverbial map, lending credence to the observation that climate models are worthless, especially to policymakers.
The fact that no hurricanes have made landfall in Florida over the past 5 years, a new record, is an observational testament of prediction incompetence associated with the "expert" IPCC climate models.
"The authors introduce their study by noting that "understanding the characteristics and trends in summer cyclones is important not only for understanding mid-latitude weather systems and extreme events, but it is also important for understanding the Arctic hydrological cycle and radiation budget.....In an attempt to get some feel for the degree of confidence one should place in the projections of state-of-the-art climate models in regard to these subjects, Land and Waugh say they examined "the robustness of trends in Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer cyclones.....report that they could find "little consistency" among the sixteen models they studied. In fact, they say "there is no consistency among the models as to whether the frequency of hemispheric-averaged summer cyclones will increase or decrease."" [Chang Lang and Darryn W. Waugh 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. The latest climate research from Australian climate change scientists finds that cyclones/tropical storms can actually decrease in number during global warming phases, which confirms the empirical evidence over the last several years. These findings contradict the IPCC consensus prediction and supports the conclusions of skeptical CAGW scientists. (click on image to enlarge)
"CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast."
Read here. For decades, AGW alarmists have been predicting an increase of cyclone/hurricane frequency and intensity due to CO2-induced global warming. Unfortunately for the alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists, the predictions have been hugely wrong.
In another study regarding tropical cyclones, researchers documented the lack of a relationship between warming and cyclone activity.
"The authors analyzed various cyclone characteristics based on four decades of cyclone season data contained in the regional cyclone archive of the tropical South Pacific that is maintained by the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) located at Nadi in the Fiji Islands...Terry and Gienko state that "no linear trends were revealed in cyclogenesis origins, cyclone duration, track length or track azimuth over the four decades of records,".....In discussing the first of these findings, the two researchers say that the lack of linear trends in the four cyclone parameters they analyzed "implies that there is as yet no evidence for climate-change forcing of these storm characteristics over recent historical times."" [James P. Terry, Gennady Gienko 2010: Climate Research]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate community and scientists have predicted that global warming would cause more tropical cyclones. These severe weather predictions have emanated from simulated climates produced by the infamous, virtual climate models. As has been found in the past, the climate model predictions regarding increased severe weather events have been spectacularly wrong.
New research analyzing the area of northwest Australian sea area has found absolutely zero trend of increased cyclone frequency or intensity, the total opposite of IPCC "experts" and climate model predictions.
"The two researchers [Kevin Goebbert and Lance Leslie] report they could find "no significant linear trends in either mean annual TC frequencies or TC days," and they say there was also "no trend in the number of intense TCs for the NWAUS sub-basin." In fact, they state that "none of the 13 NWAUS TC metrics exhibited statistically significant linear trends."....."Once again we have a situation where climate-alarmist theoretical contentions are not supported by real-world data." [Goebbert, K.H. and Leslie, L.M. 2010: Journal of Climate]
Read here. The climate "science" being generated by climate models is so unsettled that one could suffer severe whiplash from the extreme flip-flops being experienced using the virtual (make-believe) techniques, which have proven incapable of producing accurate predictions.
Previously, the IPCC, and its merry band of climate modelers, claimed that global warming will cause hurricanes to be more intense. Now, the revised (better?) climate models say the opposite per a new peer-reviewed study by Perrie et al.
This pattern of recent flip-flops from climate models indicates how totally worthless they really are in assessing climate change impact. Policymakers should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions from such flaky model output.
"A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds that global warming should cause hurricanes to be less intense, contrary to claims of the IPCC and Al Gore. The paper also finds that global warming would also tend to shift hurricanes toward the north and thus decrease strength upon landfall or thereby decrease the likelihood of landfall."
"An understanding of the possible influences of climate change on the storm climate is achieved through our simulations. The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones (about 5 hPa) resulting from the competition between warming provided by the climate change scenario and modest cooling around the storm center induced mainly by dynamic cooling. An additional impact is that cyclone tracks tend to shift poleward." [William Perrie, Yonghong Yao, Weiqing Zhang (2010)]
Well, that's a rather bold statement from a non-scientist when highly taxpayer-funded global warming hurricane experts predicted otherwise. And, of course, the hurricane season is not officially over, which means a mass of hurricanes could strike the U.S. in the next two weeks, making the below chart an absolute travesty.
With that said, the facts are the facts: for 160 years there has been no CO2 impact on the number and intensity of hurricanes striking the U.S. After 16 decades of data, one would hope the ludicrous CO2/global warming/hurricane hysteria and bogus predictions would stop - amazingly and regrettably, they won't. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. MIT's Kerry Emanuel is one of those climate scientists who seeks the limelight and MSM accolades by predicting bigger and badder cyclones/hurricanes because of global warming. Recently, we saw how his hurricane expertise worked its $82 billion black magic on Florida's consumers - definitely not good.
Now, a new peer-reviewed study from Chinese researchers shines an interesting light on the Emanuel's competencies as a scientific researcher, plus confirms Emanuel's tropical storm prognostications are.....well...,er....worthless. The study indicates an almost Mannian-like incompetence with data. It would appear, like Mann, Emanuel seeks only that data that confirms his global warming myopia (bias?).
"The authors write that "in recent years, there has been increasing interest in whether global warming is enhancing tropical cyclone (TC) activity," as has been claimed by Emanuel (2005).....Song et al. analyzed differences of track, intensity, frequency and the associated long-term trends of those TCs that were simultaneously recorded and included within the best track data sets of the JTWC, the RSMC and the STI from 1945 to 2007.....In the words of the Chinese researchers, "though the differences in TC tracks among these data sets are negligibly small, the JTWC data set tends to classify TCs of category 2-3 as category 4-5, leading to an upward trend in the annual frequency of category 4-5 TCs and the annual accumulated power dissipation index, as reported by Emanuel (2005)...And they add that "this trend and potential destructiveness over the period 1977-2007 are found only with the JTWC data set," while noting that actual downward trends "are apparent in the RSMC and STI data sets."...In light of the findings of Song et al., plus those of the other scientists they cite, there would appear to be little doubt that the studies of Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005) -- which climate alarmists long hailed as proof positive of their claim that global warming leads to more intense tropical cyclones/hurricanes -- actually provide no such evidence at all."[Song, J.-J., Wang, Y. and Wu, L. 2010]
Read here. The studies and evidence keeps piling up. The recent global warming has not caused an increase in severe weather, including tropical cyclones. The IPCC climate models, and associated climate alarmist scientists, have been wrong regarding predictions of greater severe weather activity, as this newest study confirms. (click on image to enlarge)
"“The impact of the rising sea surface temperature (SST) on tropical cyclone (TC) activity is one of the great societal and scientific concerns. With the observed warming of the tropics of around 0.5°C over the past 4 to 5 decades, detecting the observed change in the TC activity may shed light on the impact of the global warming on TC activity".....there is clearly no trend whatsoever in global tropical cyclone activity. In their own words, we learn “Note also that the global storm days do not show any trend over the past 44 years.”.....They further note that the western North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere ocean tropical cyclone “activities, which dominate the global TC activity, have no trend.” They find that the number of storm days is related to global teleconnections, particularly El Niño—Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and not to the overall state of global temperatures. They state that “variability of the global total storm days is primarily driven by the ENSO and PDO.....The authors report that the research was supported financially by NASA, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ocean University of China, and the Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program."
Over the past week, the Obama administration has introduced the new terminology of "climate disruption" in order to advance the necessary fear-mongering that elites of big government and big business plan to literally prosper from. Much like the war armament merchants of decades past, who hyped the potential of war in order to sell more arms, the merchants of "evil" global warming do the same.
Luckily, modern fear-mongering has become less effective, as evidenced by the recent desperate changes from "global warming" to "climate change" to today's idiotic phrase of "climate disruption." (Note: vote for next scary Obama/Democrat phrase to be used when "climate disruption" is thrown under the bus.) Obviously, this newest terminology now allows the merchants to claim any weather event as human caused (ie, caused by human CO2 emissions), which liberal Democrats hope to enrich and empower themselves by using.
The good news for the world's populace though, is that severe, extreme weather events have caused less fatalities over the past two decades, which includes events defined as tropical cyclones. If modern global warming is causing more disastrous and fatal climate cyclonic disruptions as claimed and predicted, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Read here. Global warming alarmists, Big-Government money (BGM) scientists, leftist/liberal/Democrats, MSM reporters, and the IPCC climate models all predicted (claimed) that global warming (climate change) caused more intense and more frequent hurricanes. Based on the scientific evidence from peer-reviewed research, it appears these predictions were pure fabrications solely designed to alarm the public, in an attempt to advance the UN's and elites' political agenda.
Analyzing sediment cores that revealed evidence of hurricane strikes in the Caribbean region, scientists clearly determine that hurricanes were not influenced by continuous climate change over 5,000 years.
"...they were able to construct a detailed history of intense hurricane strikes from 5300 to 900 years before present (BP)......Based on their analyses, Wallace and Anderson report "there has been no notable variation in intense storm impacts across the northwestern Gulf of Mexico coast during this time interval," i.e., 5300-900 yr BP, "implying no direct link between changing climate conditions and annual hurricane impact probability." In addition, they say "there have been no significant differences in the landfall probabilities of storms between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico during the late Holocene, suggesting that storm steering mechanisms have not varied during this time.".....the two Rice University (Houston, Texas) researchers say that current rates of intense hurricane impacts "do not seem unprecedented when compared to intense strikes over the past 5000 years,""
Read here. As we have documented in prior postings (here, here and here) severe weather incidents causing large losses of life have not increased over the past two decades as predicted by numerous UN officials and Big Government funded scientists. This is also true for extreme tornado events.
Despite huge injections of CO2 emissions and an increase in global surface temperatures, the global warming alarmist predictions of massive loss of life due to severe weather have not materialized. In fact, the ten worst tornado disasters took place prior to the 1990's. Not even the tornado-cursed, impoverished country of Bangladesh has experienced an off-the-chart tornado disaster over the last 2 decades. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Global warming alarmists and the AGW hypothesis predicted more frequent and more intense weather events. This "climate change" was supposedly due to the vast increase in human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the AGW-hystericals (Hollywood celebrities, liberal/left politicians, MSM reporters, and government paid scientists/bureaucrats), they have been famously wrong:
"Hardly an hour goes by without some press release about the connection of CO2 and extreme weather...Clearly it isn’t happening with violent tornadoes, which peaked during the ice age scare of the 1970s...It also isn’t happening with hurricanes or major hurricanes. Both of them peaked during the 1950s...A direct comparison of hurricanes vs. CO2 shows that they peaked around 300 ppm...No evidence of a CO2 footprint for the most intense hurricanes...The hottest weather ever recorded in North America occurred almost a century ago."
"It isn’t heat. It isn’t tornadoes. It isn’t hurricanes. What is it?"
Read here. Many climate alarmists have a preference to claim 1970 as the year that the global climate started to change, from one of supposed benign characteristics to the period of severe and extreme weather events that they say now exists. But is it really true that we are experiencing more extreme weather events, or is it just the typical exaggerated climate hype and lies similar to those found in Al Gore's movie? Are the alarmist predictions wrong?
Well, when the actual data of severe weather events since 1970 is analyzed, the data is not often very kind to climate alarmists. For example, when reviewing the most severe hurricanes (as measured by low atmospheric pressure) that have struck the U.S. mainland, the last 4 decades have only produced 3 of the top 10 in terms of severity - not what one would expect based on all the alarmist and MSM hyperbole that global warming will cause massive catastrophic weather events, more frequently.
The 2010 hurricane season is still relatively young, which means the U.S. is still vulnerable to an extreme low pressure storm. Despite what could happen, the fact remains that extreme hurricane events since 1970 are not out of the ordinary.
Most extreme U.S. hurricane? 1935 'Labor day' hurricane per its low pressure characteristic.
Read here. Great explanation of the what-and-why of hurricane seasonal activity. In summary, if a weak La Niña (an ENSO phase) develops in the Pacific, and in combination with warmer Atlantic Ocean waters, the number of 2010 hurricanes could be large. Update: here.
"Last year, there were only three hurricanes. The long-term average is 10 tropical storms, six that develop into hurricanes. The season runs from the first of June to the end of November — hurricanes only form over water that is 80 degrees or warmer, as the Atlantic Ocean is usually not warm enough to support hurricanes in June and July. But this year, we’ve already got Alex, so we are off and running. Generally the warmer the water, the greater the chance there will be a stormy season. But there are other important factors.....It is a radically different picture this summer. The water is very warm in the hurricane breeding grounds, and there are signs of a La Nina developing. In fact, the water is at least as warm as 2005, and the developing La Nina will reduce the winds over the Atlantic. These two major factors would seem to indicate that this hurricane season will be another one for the books."
Read here. Climate alarmists are fond of claiming that global warming causes an increase in storm frequency and intensity. There is not much, if any, actual empirical evidence backing up these claims, unless one believes speculative IPCC climate model predictions. What does the actual data say?
Recently, peer-reviewed research out of the New Zealand region confirms that modern warming itself has not generated an increase in storminess or raised storm's severity. In fact, the researchers found over the last 7,000+ years that increases in frequency/severity are usually associated with cooling periods, not warming.
"Working with sediment cores extracted from Lake Tutira on the eastern North Island of New Zealand, Page et al. developed a 7200-year history of the frequency and magnitude of storm activity.....they say that over the course of their record, "there are 25 periods with an increased frequency of large storms," the onset and cessation of which stormy periods "was usually abrupt, occurring on an inter-annual to decadal scale." They also note that the duration of these stormy periods "ranged mainly from several decades to a century," .....while "intervals between stormy periods range from about thirty years to a century." In addition, they find that millennial-scale cooling periods tend to "coincide with periods of increased storminess in the Tutira record, while warmer events match less stormy periods.".....as is demonstrated by the results of their work in the real world, the sudden occurrence of a string of years -- or even decades -- of unusually large storms is something that can happen at almost any time on its own, or at least without the necessity of being driven by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
Read here. Scientists researching the impact of AGW (no, we are not referring to Al-Gore's-Wanker) on tropical storm activity, turned their attention to the major alarmist claim that rising sea surface temperatures results in greater storm activity.
The researchers found no evidence of an increased trend in tropical storms that would support the hypothesis that CO2-induced global warming causes a greater frequency in storms.
"The five researchers report that "over the period of 1965-2008, the global TC activity, as measured by storm days, shows a large amplitude fluctuation regulated by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, but has no trend".....Contrary to the climate-alarmist claim that global warming increases tropical storm activity on a global basis, the results of this study reveal that long-held contention to still be without merit, even with more than four decades of pertinent data in hand."
Read here. Global warming alarmists and the climate models have long predicted that the frequency of severe storms would increase. Data worldwide indicates otherwise and a new study by an EU researcher confirms this.
It is oh so easy to claim that recent destructive storms of all types are the result of the historical warming of the world over the last several decades; but it is oh so wrong to do so; for Barredo states that what is the case for windstorms of Europe has also "been shown to be the case for flood and hurricane losses in the US (Pielke Jr. and Landsea, 1998; Pielke Jr. and Downton, 2000; Pielke Jr. et al., 2008), tornadoes in the US (Brooks and Doswell, 2001), hurricane losses in the Caribbean region (Pielke Jr. et al., 2003), weather extremes in the US (Chagnon et al., 2000; Changnon, 2003), flood losses in Europe (Barredo, 2009), tropical cyclones in India (Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003), and weather-driven disasters in Australia (Crompton and McAneney, 2008)," noting that "all of these studies found no significant trends of losses after historical events were normalized to current conditions in order to account for demonstrably changing societal/demographic factors."
Read here. The latest peer-reviewed studies refute climate models based on the AGW hypothesis: the recent global warming has not caused an increase in severe tropical cyclones. In fact, cyclone activity is basically flat despite the huge increase in human CO2 emissions. In addition, the absolute latest models are now predicting reduced cyclone events if it continues to warm - read the linked article. Obviously, there is no "consensus" among the IPCC 2007 climate models and more recent models. (click on image to enlarge)
"Kuleshov et al. gathered tropical cyclone data for the Southern Hemisphere (SH), the South Indian Ocean (SIO), the South Pacific Ocean (SPO), and the Australian Region (AR). They defined a tropical cyclone as “a tropical system that attains minimum central pressure of 995 hPa or lower.” They also defined severe tropical cyclones as those that attain a minimum central pressure of 970 hPA.....there are simply no trends in their data, and the authors conclude “For the 1981–1982 to 2006–2007 period, there are no apparent trends in the total numbers of TCs reaching minimum central pressures of 995 hPa or lower, nor in the numbers of severe TCs in the five subdomains of the SH examined”. Once again, a study appears in a major journal showing no trend whatsoever in hurricane activity."
Read here. Leftist/liberal politicians, reporters, celebrities and pundits continually repeat global warming disaster claims of global warming alarmists without checking the actual facts. In the case of hurricanes, they claim that global warming is causing ever more destructive hurricanes. If this were so, the U.S. mainland would have suffered from an increasing level of hurricane strikes over the last few warming decades. As peer-reviewed researchers discovered, this is a blatantly false claim (or in the less gentile society of blogland, we call this claim a lie).
"The authors calculated return periods of Atlantic-basin U.S. landfalling hurricanes based on "historical data from the 1900 to 2006 period via extreme value methods and Poisson regression techniques" for each of the categories (1-5) of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale....They also state that the hypothesis that U.S. hurricane strike frequencies are "increasing in time" -- which is often stated as fact by climate alarmists -- is "statistically rejected."
Read here. After years of prediction failures, the experts powered up their climate models to have another go at. After these models kept predicting more frequent and intense hurricanes due to global warming, the actual results (see more here) were stunningly different than predicted:
The past hurricane predictions of the IPCC "scientists" has been found to be embarrassingly bad - 100% of the IPCC statements were found to be wrong.
Why are experts, climate models and the IPCC always so wrong on hurricane and other tropical storm predictions? Simple. The climate models used are worthless as prediction tools but are true perfection for ego-driven public relations, and the need for raising more research funds.
"Despite warnings by scientists that identifying an actual trend in storm
variability is impossible due to a lack of reliable historical data, a
new report in Nature Geoscience is being cited as a solid
prediction of future trends in tropical cyclone activity. The other
thing not mentioned is that this research is based on models of
questionable accuracy....In it, the authors warn that there is precious little that can be
predicted from past data. But this does not stop them from blithely
predicting the future based on new “high-resolution” models."
"Once again, climate scientists are predicting future climate behavior
based, not on empirical data, but on computer models. They go on to
state that confidence in some of their predictions is low “owing to
uncertainties in the large-scale patterns of future tropical climate
change, as evident in the lack of agreement between the model
projections of patterns of tropical SST changes.”
These researchers know that these widely publicized predictions have a very low probability of being correct, yet they are not held accountable for their demonstrably false proclamations. Does that sound far-fetched? Others are starting to think along the same lines.
Here's our prediction (sans model): at some point, a smart group of lawyers will figure out how to structure a class action lawsuit against the hurricane-clowns and their supporting institutions for the billions wasted, not only on the "models" research, but for all the wasted billions spent by businesses to prepare for non-existent hurricanes. Or, maybe it's possible to do a class-action on the mental anguish and fear caused by these false prophets? Or, maybe it will be a few states' attorney generals that go after the deep endowment/foundation pockets that incentivize bogus/fraudulent research. Certainly the FTC and/or FDA wouldn't allow fraudulent predictions like these to made by corporate concerns on any given number of subjects.
Read here. As everyone knows by now, Obama and his alarmist supporters will blame very single weather event on global warming induced climate change, even if it's weather incidents due to normal variability from changing ocean and atmospheric oscillations. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, the president continues to reveal his shallow knowledge of science and climate, or an addiction to lying.
As is well established in climate science, a greater frequency of extreme weather events is more closely associated with global cooling climate conditions, such as during the Little Ice Age. Secondly, the severe weather trend over the last few decades has declined, providing actual evidence refuting the ignorant alarmist claims.
Case in point is the frequency of catastrophic Mediterranean storms on the southern coast of France. Per the researchers:
"Sedimentological and paleoecological results allow us to identify the most powerful storm events as historical period (i.e. paleostorm) with the presence of sand layer (50–150 μm) together with marine species (B. reticulatum) and the disappearance of lagoonal species. Based on our age model the last three catastrophic storm events recorded in this cores-transect occurred in 1742, 1839, and 1893.” "....the most severe storms all occurred before 1900, and long before the buildup of greenhouse gases."
The catastrophic storms happened during or close to the Little Ice Age, not during the "global warming" scare-mongering period of the last two decades.
Read here. From the "experts" that predictedmore hurricanes back in 2005, a group of hurricane modelers create a new model that concludes there will be less hurricanes (about 33% less) in the Atlantic basin, but the number of intense storms will increase by 81% due to CO2-caused global warming. One would hope that these continuous attempts to predict future hurricane activity and intensity would improve, but this new hurricane simulator seems to have some very fundamental problems:
"But a closer look at the results shows that this model-based result is produced by a hurricane model which under-simulates the frequency of strong storms in today’s climate. And that, despite the projected increase in intense hurricanes, the frequency of those storms projected by the model to occur by the end of the 21st century is considerably less than the frequency of intense hurricanes actually observed in the current climate. If the model doesn’t work for the present, why should we trust it for the future?....The bottom line is that if a model doesn’t perform very well in a particular area of interest—in this case in simulating the observed frequency of intense hurricanes—then that model shouldn’t be considered a reliable estimator of how the characteristics of that area of interest will change in the future."
Read here and here. Newest research from eminent hurricane expert totally eviscerates global warming fanatics' claims that hurricanes/cyclones are on rise due to warming. Unfortunately, Obama still favors scientists pushing the bogus science of global warming catastrophes instead of those who are in command of the scientific facts.
Read here. Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms. One should note, that despite the Copenhagen COP-15 scary predictions from the leftist/liberal advocates, despite the mainstream media pandering to the alarmists, despite the typical non-scientific illiterate despot/tyrant/western leader calling for massive climate reparations, and despite the scientific fraud coming from Climategate endeavors, good, objective science is still being produced that sheds light on the very un-settled science of the climate.
"“The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!"
Read here, here, and here. This time it wasn't the MIT climate modelers making the idiotic predictions, but instead the Georgia Tech climate scientists decided they too needed to produce predictions that would fail big-time. These alarmist scientists were so wrong, it's truly frightening - trillion dollar policy decisions being made based on worthless, speculative, hyped climate predictions such as this.
Read here, here, and, here. A scientist who conjured up one of the most debunked pieces of paleo-climate science (the "hockey stick") in the last 100 years, has now applied his unique brand of data techniques and statistical methodologies to hurricanes. This scientist, btw, has no expertise or credibility regarding hurricanes or hurricane history. In contrast, a team of scientists associated with NOAA's hurricane center just released a major study that makes a mockery of Mann's study in hurricane ignorance. (click to enlarge) x
Read here and here. Climate alarmist scientists have spent billions on research regarding low probability, extreme weather events- floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes, wildfires, windstorms, and, etc. The number of potential lives saved from this research is a small fraction of yearly deaths from other causes. Did climate alarmist scientists' greed siphon away needed funds from much more important, critical science and practical solutions for solving non-global warming deaths? Will developing countries initiate criminal or legal actions against institutions and/or scientists for the harm done?