In attempt to discredit IPCC, Hot Air botches recent hurricane research
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey mischaracterized a recent hurricane study in Nature Geoscience in order to claim the study shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report was not "reliable" and should be "dismiss[ed]."
Hot Air falsely claims new study says "hurricane strength has little to do with global warming"
Morrissey claims study "concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming" and "nothing to do with AGW or carbon emissions." From a March 1 Hot Air post by Ed Morrissey:
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists insisted that the stronger storm systems resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making hurricanes increasingly more severe. These claims made their way into the UN's IPCC report and have been a staple of AGW arguments for immediate and drastic action to limit energy production as part of the "settled science" attempt to shut down debate. Unfortunately for the hysterics, new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Geoscience concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming.
[...]
At the very least, the scientific research showing that hurricane strength cycles have nothing to do with AGW or carbon emissions is yet another reason to dismiss the highly-politicized 2007 report and the blatherings of politicians using it to seize control of the private energy sector. About the only reliable information left in the IPCC report is the page numbers.
In fact, study says "greenhouse warming" will increase hurricane "intensity" while decreasing hurricane "frequency"
Study in Nature Geoscience says models project increases in hurricane intensity due to greenhouse warming. The study (subscription required) cited by Morrissey, which was authored by 10 climate experts, states that "greenhouse warming" will cause an increase in tropical cyclone (hurricane) intensity but a decrease in tropical cyclone frequency:
[F]uture projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre.
IPCC report also said "it is likely that future tropical cyclones ... will become more intense." From the IPCC's 2007 Synthesis Report:
Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. [emphasis in original]
Hot Air forwards falsehood that IPCC said global warming "caused an increase in the number of tropical storms"
Morrissey quotes London Times claim that IPCC said "greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms." From Morrissey's post:
Unfortunately for the hysterics, new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Geoscience concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming:
Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN's climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms. ...
However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.
It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.
In fact, IPCC said "there is no clear trend" in the "numbers of tropical cyclones"
IPCC 2007 report did not say greenhouse gas emissions have increased "the number of tropical storms." The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report stated, "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones."
With respect to trends in hurricane intensity, the report stated that "[t]here is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater." The IPCC's Working Group 1 stated that this increase in tropical cyclone intensity in some regions since 1970 was "more likely than not" (greater than 50 percent chance) influenced by human activity. The report further notes: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies."
Hot Air, NewsBusters falsely claim new study undermines IPCC credibility
Morrissey: Study is "yet another reason to dismiss the highly-politicized 2007 [IPCC] report." Misrepresenting the Nature Geoscience study, Morrissey wrote in his post: "At the very least, the scientific research showing that hurricane strength cycles have nothing to do with AGW or carbon emissions is yet another reason to dismiss the highly-politicized 2007 report and the blatherings of politicians using it to seize control of the private energy sector." He added, "About the only reliable information left in the IPCC report is the page numbers."
NewsBusters: Study is "another serious crack in the claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." In a March 1 NewsBusters post, Noel Sheppard stated of the Nature Geoscience study, "These revelations represent another serious crack in the claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and therefore seem quite unlikely to be reported by American media that have been largely ignoring all the errors that have been found recently in key IPCC documents."
In fact, study's author said IPCC gave "an accurate summary of science that existed at that point"
AP: Study author said IPCC provided "an accurate summary of science that existed at that point." While the Nature Geoscience study and the IPCC report agree that global warming will likely increase hurricane intensity in the future, they differ on whether human-caused warming has already changed hurricane activity in the past. The Associated Press reported on February 21 that the authors of the new study attribute this difference to the fact that "recent research has changed" since the IPCC report was compiled:
In 2007, the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "more likely than not" that man-made greenhouse gases had already altered storm activity, but the authors of the new paper said more recent evidence muddies the issue.
"The evidence is not strong enough that we could make some kind of statement" along those lines, Knutson said. It doesn't mean the IPCC report was wrong; it was just based on science done by 2006 and recent research has changed a bit, said Knutson and the other researchers.
Lately, the IPCC series of reports on warming has been criticized for errors. Emanuel said the international climate panel gave "an accurate summary of science that existed at that point."
1. They make a claim. Any claim. It doesn't matter how crazy it is.
2. They never cite any peer-reviewed sources to back your claim. If sources are used, they're usually denialist blogs. And in turn, these sites don't use peer-reviewed papers. It's an endless echo chamber of the same baseless claims.
3. If anyone tries to refute denialist claims:
3a. The denialist goes on the attack.
3b. If anyone cites peer-reviewed papers, the denialist claims the peer-review process is "broken", or does not allow dissent, or a conspiracy to keep the skeptics silent, or all the above.
4. If anyone calls them a denialist, they claim they are "skeptics" and everyone's just trying to keep them silent.
5. And when all else fails, just toss in a lot of ideological gibberish about Al Gore, IPCC, cap and trade, emails, liberals, Obama, etc. Topics that have absolutely nothing to do with AGW/ACC science.
At least science uses a well-known and established process of peer-review. Denialism requires no process other than to just deny.
A true skeeptic does fact-checking using peer-reviewed material, and solid web sites. Unlike a denialist, a skeptic understands the peer-review process isn't perfect, but at least it is a process that mitigates personal biases, and hidden agendas.
"2. They never cite any peer-reviewed sources to back their claim"
At least nothing that you'd ever accept.
Well, as much as you want to complain about it, it's at least something tangible and identifiable.
But out of curiosity, what "standard" do you use, if you don't use peer-reviewed papers? Got anything tangible that you can identify? Is it runes? Bones? Tarot cards? Palm reading? Crystals? Tea leaves? See any good shamans lately?
Just what is the process that causes one to deny? Denialism seems more like a belief system to me. Prove it otherwise.
SLRTX - posted a long explanation of how denialists function.
wookie - posted a comment on SLRTX's post in which the pronoun 'they' and it's forms carried the antecedent 'denialists'.
jose2 - posted a comment on wookie's post in which, linguistically speaking, the only available antecedent in the conversation for the pronoun 'they' is 'denialist'.
Therefore, jose2 just said:
Denialists did more than get it wrong, denialists deliberately lied.
First time I've ever agreed with jose2.
I only see about a half dozen posters agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back...
The left-wing agw denialist aka denialist, would NEVER admit to anything anyone that disagreed says... Just look up Dr William Gray, professor in atmospheric science at CSU... Just ONE EXAMPLE but you'll all attack with names, belligerence, irrelevance and ignorance.... Every time...
This is almost pointless but it does provide a certain amount of humor, you know the repeated talking point rants...
Get any crank with a "Dr." in front of their name, and that makes them an "expert".
Ok, let's play "What's My Line!"
The following is from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
--------------------------
"Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[4] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government."
Achenbach, Joel (2006-05-28). "The Tempest". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
--------------------------
"Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states 'I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s.'"
Harsanyi, David (2006-06-05). "Chill out over global warming". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
--------------------------
Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. 'Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years,' says Webster. 'All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical.'
Prendergast, Alan (2006-06-29). "The Skeptic". Denver Westwood News.
--------------------------
And, here's RealClimate's take on Gray:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
And and interesting article about him in the WaPo:
"But when you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html
That about sums it up for Dr. Gray. Another Earth. But I'd say another Universe. Lala land.
--------------------------
So OTP, got anywhere else you want to drill? This one's a dry well.
I'm guessing that you are just throwing a name out there with a "Dr" in front of it.
I'd be willing to bet you really don't have a clue what Dr. Gray is actually claims - on a scientific basis.
So, just read the RealClimate url. It may make your head hurt a bit, but it's a good read - IF you can understand it.
Can you?
As I've told others like you:
Don't jump into a pit of vipers, then cry about how you're getting bit.
We don't have any say about who posts, and what they post.
But, don't be surprised about the reaction to your posts that you get here.
Why do you think I am the least bit surprised at reaction from idiots like you?
The fact that YOU didn't understand my explanation does not make it wrong.
"They did more than get it wrong, they deliberately lied."
Who? When? Got anything to back that up, jose2?
Or is this another attempt by a denialist troll to just post any baseless crap you can pull out of your rear?
Stick with the facts, and leave the fantasy in your own mind.
Link to government funded lies
"Here comes another idiot."
You don't need to announce your own arrival to these posts. ;-)
You are drifting off on my point #5 above: Ideological gibberish. Your "proof" is an op-ed. It's not proof of anything.
I guess I wasn't clear, and I must have misunderstood your point about "lies". I thought you were claiming climate scientists lied.
I'll stick to the science. If you want to waffle all over the map with random postings about gov't this, Al Gore that, Copenhagen, IPCC conspiracies, emails, etc. Then you can continue talk to yourself - or those voices in your head.
When you are ready to have an adult conversation about the SCIENCE of AGW/ACC, just let us know.
Let us know when you are ready to return from your home planet.
This editorial by a notoriously wrong *Telegraph* doesn't even answer the question. You were asked for proof that "they" (whoever "they" is) lied multiple times. Your link, absurd in itself, doesn't even do that.
3c. If they DO use a legitimate peer-reviewed source and you point out that it doesn't say what they think it says, you are just playing semantics or blinded by "scientific double-speak."
I'll be sure to add that to the list. Thanks.
That does remind me how the denialists got all up in arms about Knorr's paper, "Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?"
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Without reading the paper, or having absolutely no understanding of basic math, they interpreted the paper as saying CO2 levels in the atmosphere was not increasing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/
But, if the rantards would just take a deep breath and actually pay close attention to the TITLE of the paper, they may just realize Knorr was talking about the FRACTION of CO2 remaining in the atm has remained unchanged. The paper explains that the overall amount of CO2 we pump out is increasing, but the fraction of that amount remaining in the atm is constant. Most of the remainder is sequestered in the oceans.
But, denaialists can't see anything beyond their filters. At least some "skeptic" sites backed away from their initial claims, once someone actually UNDERSTOOD THE TITLE. (But not "wattsupwiththat", as you can see in the link above.)
1. Pay attention to SLRTX.
1. Be jose2
If you have anything substantial to back your claims, feel free to post them.
In the meantime, making baseless claims and personal attacks only reinforces the perceptions that you are not a "skeptic", but a denialist with no desire to deal with the facts.
I'll be glad to help reverse that perception, once you start backing your claims.
Either that or you are on the climate activist payroll and you don't actually believe what your are saying.
You seem to be the one making random, baseless claims, and personal attacks.
I go by evidence and proof. That approach is based in reality.
Baseless nonsense can be sheer fantasy, for all we know.
So, just who's entrenched here?
Just post links that back up your claims - and stick to science, please. Ideological rants are not proof of anything, other than it makes denialists trolls look sillier all the time.
Your science is based on fraud. You're the one denying reality.
Well, it worked once.
There's no place like home.
Click.
There's no place like home.
Click.
There's no place like home.
Click.
Oh Auntie Em! It was all so real! Everyone was saying we were causing global climate change! There was this wicked, evil man, Al Gore! He had an army of flying liberals, spreading AGW propaganda! They wanted to take over the world!
Oh Dorthy. That's nonsense. Everyone knows that. Now, go help your Uncle dig for water in the sand. We need to start work early. We all know how hot it gets here in Kansas these days. It's supposed to get up to 120 by noon.
Now, run along dear, and don't let those notions about Al Gore bother you!
The true denialists are those that remain on the fringe of the ex-warmer movement. Science has MovedOn ...
Seriously, do you have anything else?
Then he can make replies all he wants, and they get ignored, and HE gets frustrated, not us!
Please stop feeding this troll.
I'm about done poking this troll.
He's looking pretty silly about now.
I'm more than willing to address anyone who has a legitimate query about the science of AGW/ACC.
But, when the trolls just make baseless rants, it becomes obvious they aren't "skeptics" - they're denialists and a waste of time.
BTW - I'm working on my own site, so I don't use up too much of MMFA's space with these nutcases.
You and your impending climate catastrophe propaganda is going to make your hair fall out, whoops it already did.
So I take it that this is where you all start name calling "troll", "teabagger" or whatever else you can chuck up...
So continue to provide entertainment to those that believe the basic tenets of science and "beat down" HeeHee his arguments...
We're waiting...
So far, you have offered up one scientist who has never been published in peer reviewed journals on climate change, only on hurricanes. The prevailing opinion about him seem to be that while he was an interesting skeptic to debate in the past he has gone off the deep-end lately and just hurls personal attacks these days instead of valid scientific argument.
Got anything else?
Check this out. I'm still working on it.
This is temporary. I think I'll move it to a more permanent site in the near future.
"Prove it without citing any of the discredited, tossed, so called "data". Oh that's right they threw it away... quote from Phil Jones... duh."
You know, this conspiracy is really complicated. Did you diagram this out like Becky-baby before launching on your rantard claims?
Here are the responses from the "cabal!" Where's the data, you ask?
Take a look, if you dare!
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/14/14greenwire-scientists-return-fire-at-climate-skeptics-in-31175.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-4/#comment-145448
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/
Let's see.... That's the 2nd well you dug, but came up dry. You're doing a good job digging those holes there OTP. Keep digging.
Support your rantard claims!
Proof is what counts.
You may be the biggest genius here, but we just can't take your word for it.
After all, we're skeptics.
Ditto. I responded. Thanks for posting the links!
The IPCC has discredited itself. It didn't need any media to do it for them.
The important thing is we're all wasting our breath and wearing out our keyboards to no avail.
There's not one iota of hope that the U.S. Senate will pass, ratify, or even bring to a vote anything to do with GW. And without the U.S., the campaign is done.
It's over.
Depending on your side, you either won or lost.
Move on.
Oh really? The IPCC made one mistake in a 2,000 page document. The claim in dispute was not central to its key findings and does nothing to undermine those key findings. If that counts as discrediting itself, then so has every single person and institution on earth.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...it wasn't sold well.
I know you'll make a point that science shouldn't have to be "sold", but you're only engaging your naivete.
It's political now, and must be sold to get political support.
It's not there. May it rest in peace.
"Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature. These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of strong hurricanes globally since 1970 even as total numbers of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. Specifically, the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes increased by about 75% since 1970."
This was part of the correlation the IPCC made about hurricanes. It is stated clearly that there is a clear correlation between BOTH intensity and frequency. I have to completely disagree with MMFA and their assertion that the IPCC did not state that frequency was correlated with global warming. They clearly made the correlation here.
Chris Landsea also made the same claim saying "We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,”. If the new science is correct then the assumptions of the IPCC were incorrect. AGAIN.
SLRTX you continually defend the science behind AGW, and the when oppsoing science comes out, or when the scientist admit their mistakes you chalk it up to the "scientific process".
That is fine, but the scientific process is continuing to point out mistakes in global warming science. Science which you and others would have us base significant government policy on.
There definitely is some confusion here. Even I had to re-read several passages to see where the disconnects were.
But I think I can explain what's going on.
There's a mix of historical summaries and future projections in the MMFA post, and your response. Let's see if I can explain this so it's clear. Let me know if I've misquoted anything, or made a mistake.
Your link (thanks) states:
"Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-3.html
And, further down on that page, we find:
"Changes in tropical storm and hurricane frequency and intensity are masked by large natural variability. The El Niño- Southern Oscillation greatly affects the location and activity of tropical storms around the world."
That's a statement speaks of historical trends up to now. But, it doesn't come out and say what you claim it says - "It is stated clearly that there is a clear correlation between BOTH intensity and frequency." Did I miss that passage somewhere where it's clear?
The section where MMFA says" IPCC report also said "it is likely that future tropical cyclones ... will become more intense", points to page 15 of the IPCC report. But here they're talking about future projections. That's why they use the word "likely":
"it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf#page=15
On that part, it's clear to me - one's a historical summary (and does not clearly state the frequency is caused by global warming), and one's a future projection.
BTW: Here's a link to data on the summary, just so you know the IPCC just didn't make this up:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html
------------------------
Now, for the other quote by MMFA where they state: IPCC 2007 report did not say greenhouse gas emissions have increased "the number of tropical storms." Here, MMFA points to page 9 of the IPCC report (emphasis is mine):
"There is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf#page=9
------------------------
So it seems to me the statements are consistent. Historically, there have been more cyclones, but the IPCC said the confidence level wasn't there to clearly link the numbers to global warming. And they said there's other factors that may be muddying the results.
Seems like a fair statement to make, don't you think?
It's understandable that this can confuse the layman (those who don't make their career in science), or those who don't follow climate studies (this includes PhDs who focus on non-climate disciplines). The wording is complicated and difficult to follow.
So, I give this one to MMFA. Sorry.
Thanks again for specific links. Things go better that way!
By the way. Here's a link to the paper under discussion on this post, and it does not need a subscription:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
That last link is not to the paper. But it's to Knudsen's summary on the exact same subject.
Where are you?
AZ
Unless you are referring to my response. Its on its way right now.
I suppose what what Mr. Landsea was refering to when he said "We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC." Is in Response to his resignation from the IPCC AR4 research group. His letter of resignation explains why, I'm still looking for the Harvard Press conference where some of the statements were actually made. (If you know where to find it, then please let me know.)
It doesn't look like Landsea was referring to any actual reasearch presented in to IPCC findings, but he was responding to what some of the IPCC researchers were saying, and what they were saying was contrary to the science presented by the IPCC and his previous research.
I'm glad we had this little discussion, I wouldn't have seen some of this information. It is even more disturbing to me that some of these scientist were making claims not based on science, but based on political agendas. Which if Landsea was correct, they were certainly doing, despite their own research. Again if you know where to find the Harvard press conference, I'd like a link to it, and likewise if I find it I'll post it.
Everyone has a bias and and agenda. That's human nature. That's what the peer-review process is all about - to mitigate that.
It doesn't remove the biases and agendas 100%. But given time, those things are discovered and weeded out, under the weight of the evidence. There have been MANY mea-culpas throughout the history of science. It doesn't make science any less credible. The fact that there have been admissions of errors, and corrections to those errors, makes the process much more credible. (As opposed to what you read in the blogs.)
Predictions are always a tricky thing. You make a model, predict from it, verify with real-world data, then adjust & repeat. I know, because I do this in my own work. (I'm not a climatologist, but I do have a Physics degree.)
So at times, organizations like the IPCC makes a prediction, based on the available evidence at the time. If the evidence becomes clearer so that prediction is not entirely correct, they will correct themselves. If they don't, they loose credibility with the scientific community.
I challenge anyone to find a better system than the scientific method, and peer-review process.
BTW - Check this out. And this. It's a work in progress. I'm trying to create something where more in-depth discussions can be carried out. MMFA isnt' designed for that.
I agree. Believe or not, I'm not a fan of Mr. Gore. He's a politician. And we all know how they are. ;-)
Al Gore got the issue a lot of publicity, but in many ways it was the wrong kind of publicity and now people don't trust what they hear now because of it. I really don't blame him as much as I blame the media though.
I do think we need to be hearing from more scientists. Hell, I'd take Bill Nye at this point, just to get accurate info out there.