« In Sickness And In Hell, Part I | Main | A War We Might Just Win »

This Week, Global Warming = Hurricanes

I hope you have a score card at home. You've been told the science was settled and Global Warming causes hurricanes but that was before the 2006 hurricane season was a dud so the global warming hucksters made a new theory that Global Warming reduced hurricanes.

But either this week's folks didn't get the memo or the grant they received was to prove hurricanes where caused by global warming, but whatever the reason, we have another bogus study on our hands...

Study blames climate change for hurricane rise

By Jim Loney
MIAMI (Reuters) - The number of Atlantic hurricanes in an average season has doubled in the last century due in part to warmer seas and changing wind patterns caused by global warming, according to a study released on Sunday. ...

The new study, published online in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, said the increased numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the last 100 years is closely related to a 1.3-degree Fahrenheit rise in sea surface temperatures. ...

In the new study, ... researchers found three periods since 1900 when the average number of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes increased sharply, and then leveled off and remained steady.

They did?

OK, let's disembowel this study in as few words as possible. I must be getting old as it took 2 google searches to do it. But on the other hand I got a great graphic form Wikipedia on the number of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms.

North_Atlantic_Hurricane_History.png
Go ahead, click on it for full size

While your eyes might be looking at the blue line, or even the green, that's not the most important part of this graphic. Look at the top. The top shows what methodology we used to find hurricanes when. Hint: We didn't have weather satellites in 1900.

Taking the last 10 years off the table, you see quite clearly that the number of storms recorded doubled not from global warming but because of the technology used to find them. A perfect example of this can be found with Hurricane Vince in the infamous 2005 hurricane season. There is zero percent chance that would have been recorded in 1900.

Also, recorded storm intensity increases with better technology. We now try to measure pressures right at the eyewall while they are still over open water. We didn't even know to do that 30 years ago.

But I know what some of you (cough liberal trolls cough) are thinking, so I won't stop there.

Now let's look at the last 50 years. There was a profound spike when we started using aircraft. If you look carefully we've been well below those numbers thru the 1960s, 70s, 80s and most of the 90s. Also notice this graphic is smoothed so the 1992 and 2005 hurricane seasons weights it. Let's look at that...

Tear your eyes off the big bold lines and look at the jaggy lines in the back. You'll see the 10 year weighted average is skewed by the 1992 and the 2005 seasons. You'll also notice this graphic DOES NOT yet include the 2006 season which as I linked above was almost non-existent. That would bring the 10 year average (the bold line) back down.

A simple look at the red line shows that we're barely back to 1950 levels.

An honest look at the graphic reveals that the RECORDED number of hurricanes has indeed doubled in the last 100 years... But not because of global warming, but because we now have the technology to watch every corner of the globe. Correlation does not imply causation but here we don't even have correlation.

In short, this "study" is completely bogus.

Update: I cited Hurricane Vince from memory above as an example of a hurricane that would have been missed in the past. And below the jump I speculate that 1933 had more storms than 2005. Turns out I barking up the right tree.

Chris Landsea was already way ahead of me. (pdf) Here is a graphic I snipped from his pdf that shows 1933 vs 2005.

2005v1933.jpg
Click it!

It shows the "missing" hurricanes from 1933. Enlightening to say the least.

(And I have another interesting note on this chart after the jump.)

So 2005 was the worst tropical storm season in history right? Let's give that a qualified maybe.

Look at the blue spikes in 2005 and then back at (what I'll guess are) 1887 and 1933. Now consider there was only about 6 fewer storms recorded in 1933 than 2005 but that was before we had aircraft, radio or satellites to track the storms. The 1887 season is also incredible considering the recording methods of the day.

We'll never know for sure, but it is quite plausible that 2005 not near was the worst year in history.

And lastly, for you die-hards, read the Wikipedia description of this graphic... It destroys the notion: (em mine)

For more than half the record, it is likely that hurricanes were undercounted due to the failure of any trained observer to encounter the storm. Similarly, the intensity may be understated if no observer encountered the eye wall. The fact that hurricanes often obtain their strongest state in the open ocean only increases the possiblity that past storms were miscategorized, though hurricane reanalysis projects do attempt to estimate likely storm intensities. Symptomatic of this, only 5 of the 36 Category Five storms observed in the North Atlantic were reported prior to the use of aircraft in studying hurricanes. In contrast, the techniques used to study storms in the past (e.g. inferring wind intensity from pressure and/or size of waves) may also have overestimated some storm intensities (Emanuel 2000). For many purposes, only the record known since the availability of satellite imagery in the 1960s is considered sufficiently reliable for analysis. It should also be noted that only in the North Atlantic does any attempt at systematic records exist for periods earlier than the 1940s.

This study belongs on Mythbusters.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23011.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This Week, Global Warming = Hurricanes:

» Flopping Aces linked with Garbage Science Is Back

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2007

» Don Singleton linked with Blowing Hot Air

» Maggie's Farm linked with Monday Cocktail Hour Links

» Iowa Voice linked with A Bogus Study

» Atlas Blogged linked with Hurricane History

Comments (92)

And yes mantis, I went off ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

And yes mantis, I went off the reporter's version of the report and not the actual report itself...

There is reasons for that.

#1 time. This post took 1 hour and 13 minutes to compile. (I work slow) I simply don't have time (unless you're paying me) to read every study.

(but post it and if time allows I'll debunk it too)

#2 The public does not read the study, they watch the news. So that's the "important" part in public debate terms... This story or some flavor of it will run in thousands of media outlets, I'm doing my little part to call bull shit on it.

#3 It is getting VERY COMMON for "scientists" to issue press releases that say one thing but their work really does not support it. I find it impossible to believe that all these poor climate scientists are victims of bad reporting - all in the same direction. -- No the people who did the study cultivated the press coverage and they got what they wanted. THE MEDIA DOES NOT read the studies before they report on them, they read the press releases.

And yes, I started typing this before anyone even posted.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner ma... (Below threshold)
kim:

Gerlich and Tscheuschner may have the little article that could.

icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

They claim the IPCC is desperately mistaken with their Greenhouse Gas Theory, and that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

This is a difficult paper, but the physicists are getting excited.
================================

I suspect you're right, Pau... (Below threshold)
kim:

I suspect you're right, Paul, this study is an artifact of observation.
====================================

One wonders what led them t... (Below threshold)
kim:

One wonders what led them to the 'confident conclusion' they mention at the end of the article. I note the article sticks in a lot of IPCC stuff which did not come from the study.
=========================

Oh Kim, the reporter idiot ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Oh Kim, the reporter idiot (Jim Loony) clearly considers himself an environmental ranger. There is a more balanced version I saw later.

You're right, he quotes IPCC more than this study. Not surprising considering how intellectually lazy he is...

Really his newsroom can't get wikipedia?

BTW- Another thing I found ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

BTW- Another thing I found interesting for those of you in the comments....

Did you notice a dip during World War One....

Another during the Great Depression then a spike while we where fighting WWII and Korea?

I wonder how historical events skewed the numbers... especially during the depression there where less ships at sea and during WWII a large increase.

dunno, but interesting.

Well, Saddam increased albe... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, Saddam increased albedo setting Kuwait on fire, and I'm sure there is a researcher somewhere who can link, even correctly, man's efforts during wars and economic exigencies to climate, or at least to weather.

I don't think those social events changed hurricanes, but like you, I don't know, and sometimes correlations do mean causal links.
=============================

I'd like to see the origina... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'd like to see the original paper and see how they address the improved reporting. Surely they did. Surely.
=============================

I think you have to be a me... (Below threshold)
kim:

I think you have to be a member to get it. Oh, well, it's horseshit, anyway.
=====================

This fits nicely with the f... (Below threshold)

This fits nicely with the front page story in our local rag about how global warming, sorry, specifically anthropogenic global warming (they were specific) is causing trees to grow faster. They even show a cut tree with the rings visible and, indeed, on the tree they show there are some larger rings towards the outside...of course the ones at the very outside, past 5 or so years, are very, very small. The obvious conclusion they draw? Anthropogenic global warming is making trees grow too fast so they will die faster. I can see it now, trees shooting up during the day, choking on our carbon dioxide, and all night long we're kept awake by the overinflated trees blowing to pieces.

Only one solution as I see it to abate the exploding tree apocalypse upon us - pave the earth.

Paul,I hate to tel... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Paul,

I hate to tell you, but you're absolutely mistaken....so are the scientists.

The hurricanes are Bush's fault. So is global warming.

See, I feel better now. Blame everything on one guy and the world seems so simple!

"Did you notice a dip durin... (Below threshold)

"Did you notice a dip during World War One....

Another during the Great Depression then a spike while we where fighting WWII and Korea?

I wonder how historical events skewed the numbers... especially during the depression there where less ships at sea and during WWII a large increase."

Paul, I've wondered about that as well. I wonder if it had something to do with the military controlling meteorlogical info during those times (especially WWI and WWII.) I've never found out if the Best Track datasets included military records or not. I tend to think they did not, as I think I would have seen a reference to it...but I'm not sure.

I love how in the MSM if you dispute these, as Kim said, horsehit "findings" you are a skeptic. In reality it is these two researchers who are far outside the prevailing scientific opinion.

Shouldn't THEY be the skeptics?

Do you realize heralder how... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Do you realize heralder how many people dies from Bush's hurricanes? It has to do with Halliburton, oil and Cheney. Maybe Rove also. For sure the 8 fired USA's.

As far as Global Warming, it looks like Algores scam is falling apart. ww

Do you realize her... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Do you realize heralder how many people dies from Bush's hurricanes?

Not as many as from Bush's World War II, Bush's Korean War and Bush's Vietnam.

It has to do with Halliburton, oil and Cheney. Maybe Rove also.

Whaddya mean maybe Rove? That guy can make someone's nose bleed just by winking at them.

Paul, as much as I agree wi... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Paul, as much as I agree with your stance, the second anybody relies on Wikipedia for proof of their argument, for me, their argument goes straight out the window. Could you shed a little light on why you trust it so much? I'm not trying to break balls here, but I just really hate that Wikipedia is used as evidence by so many, when anyone can get on that site and change what they like.

Oh yes according to the env... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Oh yes according to the envromentalists wackos 2006 was suppost to be the worse hurricane season ever becuase of GLOBAL WARMING and it fizzled they claimed that 2006 hurricanes would make KATRINA look like a summer breeze whata bunch of blabbering idiots and the biggist amount of HOT AIR around comes from AL GORE,GREENPEACE and the rest of the global warming advocates. And to think their jerks at GREENPEACE wanted them to name hurricanes for various industries they claim were cuasing global warming GREENPEACE SUCK ENVROMENATL DEFENSE SUCKS

>Paul, I've wondered about ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul, I've wondered about that as well. I wonder if it had something to do with the military controlling meteorlogical info during those times (especially WWI and WWII.)

I dunno, remember, they aren't exactly static.. the numbers might be completely accurate.

But if ships = sensors and the number of ships changes from a low point to a high point in 10 years, it seems logical that more sensors = more storms.

If I had to gun to my head I'd guess the data was skewed by the number of sensors but in reality we don't have enough data to get more than a hunch.

To quote the tootsie roll pop commercial, "The world will ever know."

D-Hoggs..Don't knock Wikipe... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

D-Hoggs..Don't knock Wikipedia unabashedly. "The Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article".

Paul, as much as I agree... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Paul, as much as I agree with your stance, the second anybody relies on Wikipedia for proof of their argument, for me, their argument goes straight out the window. Could you shed a little light on why you trust it so much?

If you notice, I didn't quote the verbiage (interpretation) I only used them as the source for raw numbers. (I did put the verbiage in the "bonus section" by I wrote my own in the regular post.)

Look- Everything written by the hand of man is fallible. - Look at this news story for example.

Do I trust Wikiedia to have valid raw data? Well, admittedly, I'd love to have gotten the graphic from NOAA but the bottom line is I think it is reasonable to assume the data (that they sourced in the footnotes) was accurately represented.

I'm not trying to break balls here, but I just really hate that Wikipedia is used as evidence by so many, when anyone can get on that site and change what they like.

Here is my personal thing about Wikipedia; I NEVER go there for anything political. If the truth be told, this is borderline in my value system.... (being tangentially related to GW with is solely a political event)

But let me say this about "anyone can get on that site and change what they like." I know it feels funny but that is the future and I think for the better. "Open knowledge" is sooooooo much better than single source.

Or put another way, a bad day on Wikipedia beats a good day on Pravda. KnowhatImean?

Al Gore lied, Hurricanes di... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Al Gore lied, Hurricanes died?

Steve Crickmore, fascinatin... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Steve Crickmore, fascinating article. I know squat about the bible so I'm not qualified to comment on it bt it was still fascinating.

FYI:<a href="http:... (Below threshold)
BC:

FYI:

Historical record of named storms.

Yellow bars depict total number of named systems, including tropical storms, green bars are hurricanes, and Cat 3 or greater hurricanes are in red.

-BC

Paul says If I had to g... (Below threshold)

Paul says If I had to gun to my head I'd guess the data was skewed by the number of sensors but in reality we don't have enough data to get more than a hunch.

To quote the tootsie roll pop commercial, "The world will ever know."

We may not have the data (how can you ever fill in the blanks from unobserved storms?), but you can clearly delineate the logical holes when you treat the Best Track data as "the entire story."

Anyone who doesn't learn the lesson Landsea pointed out simply isn't being serious. (Hell, even I figured this out before Landsea published his piece on undercounts in the data set.)

Given what we DO know we can still say this new study is bunk, without breaking a sweat.

Anybody know if the Mann re... (Below threshold)
gmax Author Profile Page:

Anybody know if the Mann referenced in the Landsea article linked above by Horton is one and the same Michael Mann of global warming "hockey stick " fame? If yes, anyone surprised that he tries to explain away the improvements in observation with some mumbo jumbo about shipping lanes? This is a scientist?

Whew, I was about to post f... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whew, I was about to post for Paul that he had support from Landsea, but I should have said "Relax, Horton's got your back".
============================

Welcome Rich anyone who pen... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Welcome Rich anyone who pens,

Oh, I found that most important piece of present day "science"...the press release. Plus it's handy helper, the guide for idiot journalists. (So you can hold their hands when you tell them what to print.) But the actual study itself? Who needs it?!. Ah science.

Is ok in my book.

Anybody else notice that th... (Below threshold)

Anybody else notice that the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is functioning like a leftist political journal out of Paris in the days of yore?

It was only a couple of weeks ago that they announced (in a non-peer reviewed piece) that the question of solar influence on climate was settled (by a single study no less.) It is like reading the tea leaves of the Soviet politburo.

Hey, the Queen knighted Ric... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey, the Queen knighted Richard Armitage. Royal don't mean what it useter.
========================

shame on you Kim<a... (Below threshold)
Paul:

shame on you Kim

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mann+emanuel+2006&btnG=Search

BTW thanks BC for the chart, looks the same. Ugly but the same numbers.

Welcome Rich, anyone who... (Below threshold)

Welcome Rich, anyone who pens...Is ok in my book.

Thanks Paul. That is the sort of thing I write when I'm agitated AND have had a couple pots of Earl Grey.

This week hurricanes = ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

This week hurricanes = global warming

And this week democrats = stupid.

But that is something that doesn't change from week to week.

William Gray in the 7/26 WS... (Below threshold)
kim:

William Gray in the 7/26 WSJ thinks that Atlantic thermohaline circulation is the cause of the increase since 1995.

Right, Paul. Mann and Emmanuel are charter members of the climatology echo chamber.
==========================

IF I listened to the GW ala... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

IF I listened to the GW alarmists, my head would be spinning. Like in 1984 , the reality is what THEY say it is. Solar activity has NO effect on climate change? Sure, that sounds believable. More hurricanes because of GW? Of course! Less hurricanes because of GW? Brilliant! Aside from the pseudo-science, the leaps in "logic" are almost death defying.

Paul wrote:BTW ... (Below threshold)
BC:

Paul wrote:

BTW thanks BC for the chart, looks the same. Ugly but the same numbers.

I think my chart is the one the Wikipedia ones are based on -- they plotted out and then did some curve fitting to get the 3 separate curves.

The overall trend has been an uneven, but gradual increase in the number of hurricanes. This is sort of a statistical thing -- hurricanes are powered by the temperature differential between the warm ocean water and the cold upper level atmosphere. So an increase in the average ocean temperatures would increase the probability of tropical storms becoming hurricanes, and a Category 1 hurricane becoming a Cat 2 and so on.

The rise in the global mean temps have been on the order of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the turn of the century. That's not a whole lot to drive up the probabilistic numbers for number and likely intensity levels of hurricanes. Also a key concept of global warming is that the most noticeable change will come in changes in regional climates and "typical" weather for a given area -- that is some places start to consistently get more rain than average, some less, other places become "unseasonably" warmer/cooler, more extreme weather, and so on.

The arctic poles, though, seem to be experiencing the most extreme changes to their local climate.

-BC

heh- BC I see you're trying... (Below threshold)
Paul:

heh- BC I see you're trying to keep the dream alive that the CBS Bush memos are true...

I think Kevin installed a loon magnet in the site.

Duck! A UFO!

The overall trend has be... (Below threshold)

The overall trend has been an uneven, but gradual increase in the number of hurricanes. This is sort of a statistical thing -- hurricanes are powered by the temperature differential between the warm ocean water and the cold upper level atmosphere. So an increase in the average ocean temperatures would increase the probability of tropical storms becoming hurricanes, and a Category 1 hurricane becoming a Cat 2 and so on.

Please point me to the study that proves this. (If you say Emmanuel 2005 I'll do a spit take all over my monitor...I swear to God I will.)

Have you read Vecchi & Soden? Yep. It matters.

Plus there has been statistical work showing that Emmanuels "effect" is driven entirely by the additional storms in the record and NOT by increaded average storm intensity. (Sorry I dont have that link handy...I'll find it though.)

Careful Rich, BC believes t... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Careful Rich, BC believes the Bush CBS memos are true and all sorts of other loony stuff... Check out his site.

You're welcome to play the game but I just wanted you to know reason and logic where worthless.

Paul wrote:heh-... (Below threshold)
BC:

Paul wrote:

heh- BC I see you're trying to keep the dream alive that the CBS Bush memos are true...

What can I tell ya -- I'm a sucker for facts and research.

I think you may want to check with some of your highly confused right wing buds before even thinking giving me a hard time about the Killian memos. Chances are that they will tell you in no uncertain terms not to go there.

I think Kevin installed a loon magnet in the site.

You got that right, so to speak, but not quite in the way you intended.

Duck! A UFO!

A Harpoon UFO? Good stuff.

Unlike your stuff....

-BC

Hmmm....My reply t... (Below threshold)
BC:

Hmmm....

My reply to Paul was blocked -- let's see it this is also blocked....

-BC

What's the temperature done... (Below threshold)
kim:

What's the temperature done since 1998?

Answer: flat.
========

Rich, BC will recognize the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rich, BC will recognize the link you have in your 11:39 comment. He linked to that on the last thread as comprehensive refutation of Svensmark.
================================

Paul wrote:Care... (Below threshold)
BC:

Paul wrote:

Careful Rich, BC believes the Bush CBS memos are true and all sorts of other loony stuff... Check out his site.

And do try to find something wrong with it -- I'm always looking for ways to improve it, although I admit it is cluttered with hard evidence, which most people, especially right wingers, aren't really fond of these days.

As I stated in that strangely blocked reply, you better check with your right wing buds before even thinking of giving me a hard time about the memos.

You're welcome to play the game but I just wanted you to know reason and logic where worthless.

Are you talking about your crackpotty post about global warming that started this thread? Yes I agree and you deserve kudos for admitting that there is no reason and logic here, especially when it comes to sciency stuff like global warming

To Rich Horton:

How do you think hurricanes work?

-BC

Ignore this -- this is jus... (Below threshold)
BC:

Ignore this -- this is just a test to see what got that earlier reply blocked.

Let's see....

-BC

[Editors Note: Akismet classifies that site as spam which is why it's automatically blocked.]

A-ha -- someone to do with ... (Below threshold)
BC:

A-ha -- someone to do with Wizbang is a lame ass coward. What got me blocked twice is my link to the latest addition to my humble little memos site -- "The Festival of Animation". It actually isn't as definitive a refutation of the forgery nonsense as some other research on the main page, but some people still find it more persuasive (or disturbing.)

Go click on the URL link above to go directly to it.

-BC

Whoops -- I meant below, on... (Below threshold)
BC:

Whoops -- I meant below, on the "BC" as in the "Posted by BC"

-BC

Well, except for not unders... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, except for not understanding that you can debunk a copy as a true copy of an original, but you cannot verify that a copy is a true copy WITHOUT PROVENANCE, BC's reasoning on the memoes is fairly sound, but terribly mistaken.

I've been fighting with him about global warming on another thread, and he confidently links to sites which don't refute me. He still likes Mann's crook't hockey stick, believes Svensmark has already been refuted, and is happy to flow with the consensus of the climatologist's echo chamber. Otherwise, he's half decent, and only mildly insulting.
============

Excellent example, BC, how ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Excellent example, BC, how does your last link answer Rich Horton's question? It is not good to be condescending when you are in fact ignorant.
========================

Quick, now, what's a Thermo... (Below threshold)
kim:

Quick, now, what's a Thermohaline Circulation?
=============================

Lets send AL GORE and those... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Lets send AL GORE and those global awrming edvocates to the planet of ALFA 177 where the night time tempature gets down to 120 below zero

>And do try to find somethi... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>And do try to find something wrong with it -

hmmm ok... You "prove" they are true becasue you could not replicate them in WORDPERFECT when thousands of people around the globe reproduced them fine in WORD. (no they are not the same)

In short you could not reproduce them and claimed that as proof that Charles could not.

You're a loon. You need mental help.

You're also banned from this thread. All future posts will be deleted... Now go tell your mommie it's because we're soooooo scared of the truth. (rolls eyes)

Seek professional mental help. I know I'm not the first to tell you that.

How do you think hurrica... (Below threshold)

How do you think hurricanes work?

I'm assuming you believe they work the way a grade school science project "volcano" works. Just read "warm water" and "low pressure system" for "baking soda" and "vinegar."

Anyway...I said I'd find a link before, and I'm true to my word.

From the paper by William Briggs:

Bayesian statistical models were developed for the number of tropical cyclones and the rate at which these cyclones became hurricanes in the North Atlantic. We find that, controlling for the cold tongue index and the North Atlantic oscillation index, there is high probability that the number of cyclones has increased in the past thirty years; but the rate at which these storms become hurricanes appears to be constant. We also investigate storm intensity by measuring the distribution of individual storm lifetime in days, storm track length, and Emanuel's power dissiptation index. We find little evidence that the distribution of individual storm intensity is changing through time. Any increase in cumulative yearly storm intensity and potential destructiveness, therefore, is due to the increasing number of storms and not due to any increase in the intensity of individual storms.

Notice that this paper assumes that the storm counts are completely accurate as is (Emmanuels base assumption.)

Reading BC's comments makes... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Reading BC's comments makes my head spin!

>Reading BC's comments make... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Reading BC's comments makes my head spin!

Don't worry, you won't have to.

Links to arXiv.org "pape... (Below threshold)

Links to arXiv.org "papers" are not proof -- virtually anyone can post there and they are not peer-reviewed for credibility.

Is this another way of saying you don't know Bayesian statistical models enough to make a judegment upon the work?

And if peer review is your absolute standard how can you defend things in the PTotRSoL?

The so-called greenhouse ef... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

The so-called greenhouse effect requires gases like CO2 to absorb infrared radiated from the surface which then warms the upper atmosphere and radiates that energy back to the surface (as shown in one of Al Gore's graphics for his movie). Apart from any comments on the validity of the physics involved, the greenhouse effect reduces the temperature difference between the surface and the upper atmosphere. The GC models all predict a warming of the upper atmosphere, but this has not been observed.

Because of the thermal mass of the ocean as compared to the upper atmosphere, there will be less difference in temperature between the two than without the greenhouse effect. Global warming by some other mechanism could increase the temperature difference between the upper atmosphere and the ocean, so if more active hurricane seasons are not just an artifact of observational changes, it suggests a cause other than greenhouse gases.

(Pssst-bc you and bryanD ne... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

(Pssst-bc you and bryanD need to get togather-you can tell him how steel melts and he can tell you about the "alien" in Area 51.)

For all you who still hope ... (Below threshold)
kim:

For all you who still hope to find hockey sticks among the crumpled paper and boxes.

Link

========================

Kim,There's also thi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Kim,
There's also this gem in their comment: "We showed that the PC method yielded biased trends..."

Ok they're not talking about political correctness, but I expect they have an opinion about it. Maybe it was a Freudian slip.

Mr. Lorry at 3:27Yes... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Mr. Lorry at 3:27
Yes, it seems to me the observed warming seems to be surface warming vs. higher up. Which brings up the weather station siting problems mentioned by others. The siting problems have likely occured as the stations were switched from mercury thermometers to automated systems which had limitations imposed due to cable length requirements. It would be interesting to see a plot of the average temperature increase vs. the number of stations switched to automated monitoring. It may be quite possible that there has been no out of the ordinary warming.

BC, your a disgrace to th... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

BC, your a disgrace to this Country and mankind. Just another practicing democrat.

Some of the GW proponents h... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Some of the GW proponents have linked to information that's aimed at refuting the connection between the Sun, cosmic rays, and clouds so I wanted to post some information from the original CERN proposal.

The second paragraph of the Summary of the April 2000 Proposal for the CERN CLOUD experiment is as follows (emphasis is mine).

Beyond its semi-periodic 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer timescales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled during the last century [2]. The extra shielding has reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's atmosphere by about 15%, globally averaged. This reduction of cosmic rays over the last century is independently indicated by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores. If the link between cosmic rays and clouds is confirmed it implies global cloud cover has decreased during the last century. Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

[2] M. Lockwood, R. Stamper and M.N. Wild, A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years, Nature 399 (1999) 437.

Some will no doubt cite claims that the M. Lockwood, R. Stamper and M.N. Wild study has been refuted, but that's not the case as seen in the Cambridge Conference Correspondence from 2003. EVIDENCE FOR AN UNUSUALLY ACTIVE SUN SINCE 1940

Also, here's a list of most of the scientists that make up the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) Collaboration.

• B. Fastrup, E.Pedersen -- University of Aarhus, Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus, Denmark

• E.Lillestol, E.Thorn -- University of Bergen, Institute of Physics, Bergen, Norway

• M.Bosteels, A.Gonidec, J.Kirkby, S.Mele, P.Minginette, B.Nicquevert, D. Schinzel, W. Seidl -- CERN, Geneva, Switzerland

• P.Grundsøe, N.Marsh, J.Polny, H. Svensmark -- Danish Space Research Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

• Y.Viisanen -- Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland

• K.Kurvinen, R.Orava -- University of Helsinki, Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland

• K.H¨ameri, M.Kulmala, L. Laakso, J.M.M¨akel¨a, C.D.O'Dowd -- University of Helsinki, Lab. of Aerosol and Environmental Physics, Helsinki, Finland

• V.Afrosimov, A.Basalaev, M.Panov -- Io_e Physical Technical Institute, Dept. of Fusion Technology, St.Petersburg, Russia

• A. Laaksonen, J. Joutsensaari -- University of Kuopio, Department of Applied Physics, Kuopio, Finland

• V.Ermakov, V.Makhmutov, O.Maksumov, P.Pokrevsky, Y. Stozhkov, N. Svirzhevsky -- Lebedev Physical Institute, Solar and Cosmic Ray Research Laboratory, Moscow, Russia

• K.Carslaw, Y.Yin -- University of Leeds, School of the Environment, Leeds, United Kingdom

• T.Trautmann -- University of Mainz, Institute for Atmospheric Physics, Mainz, Germany

• F.Arnold, K.-H.Wohlfrom -- Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics (MPIK), Atmospheric Physics Division, Heidelberg, Germany

• D.Hagen, J. Schmitt, P.Whitefield -- University of Missouri-Rolla, Cloud and Aerosol Sciences Laboratory, Rolla, USA

• K.Aplin, R.G.Harrison -- University of Reading, Department of Meteorology, Reading, United Kingdom

• R.Bingham, F.Close, C.Gibbins, A. Irving, B.Kellett, M. Lockwood -- Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Space Science & Particle Physics Depts., Chilton, United Kingdom

• D.Petersen, W.W. Szymanski, P.E.Wagner, A.Vrtala -- University of Vienna, Institute for Experimental Physics, Vienna, Austria

We were all bone tired, soa... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

We were all bone tired, soaked, and hadn't seen the sky for three days. When we had finally cut the mainmast overboard it had taken our best officer with it, and the only man left who could take a position, as if we could see anything of the stars anyway. God only knows where we were now or what lay in our path.

The wind was relentless as wave after wave crashed over the dying ship. So loud it was that conversation was impossible at anything less than a full shout. It would be days before our hearing would return, if ever, and then the rain came. We had been taking on water even before.

I had been trying to keep the log so there would be a record of us, if even at the bottom of the sea. "What do you figure?" I yelled again and this time he answered: "Its blowing fucking hard mate." And so that's how I wrote it down, somewhere in the Atlantic.

Exactly so, Robert, and I d... (Below threshold)

Exactly so, Robert, and I do not think anyone could have said it any better. Anyone who does not understand the basic logic that as sensors and detection methods improve/increase, detected data points also increase, is not fit for any manner of scientific, logical, or rational debate, whatsoever. Of course, having lived through Katrina, and then been threatened with the "WORST HURRICANE SEASON EVER!!!111!!1!!" the following year (when no hurricanes made land-fall any higher than being "tropical storms"), I have come to the conclusion that anyone claiming any tie between "global warming" and hurricanes also falls under the same category.

Of course, I am willing to wager that your average leftie does not stand a snowball's chance in a fusion reactor of understanding basic statistics, except to the point of knowing that whatever a public opinion poll indicates, that is what they should do.

Excellent work on the initial post, Paul... as usual, the standard application of thought, intelligence, information, and logic tends to spell doom for most of the theories of the "global warming" cultists. Of course, I am still waiting for those same cultists to explain to me why other planetary bodies in our solar system are experiencing similar, concurrent warming trends... Yeah, I know, get a Snickers.

Oh, and BC (if you can read this), making posts to a thread just to spam links to topics that have nothing to do with the thread... that is just indicative of a remarkably insecure person attempting to garner public attention to a remarkably hole-frought theory. Good job, that.

Mac, several days ago I men... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mac, several days ago I mentioned Vaclev Havel, but I meant Vaclev Klaus. Sorry if you went looking for the wrong stuff.
==========================

Paul, I like your style. T... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Paul, I like your style. Today, I will burn a tire in my backyard in your honor.

"believes Svensmark has alr... (Below threshold)
Rick:

"believes Svensmark has already been refuted, and is happy to flow with the consensus of the climatologist's echo chamber."

Kim, Svensmark is a very well known denier who has been debunked many times over. The sun has natural cycles but they are too small and too short to have any long time effects and that is why such cycles are barely noticeable over the last 600,000 years of temperature proxies.

The current upswing in the sun's output produces a heat forcing of about 0.14 Watt/Sq.M..Comparatively, the forcing due to CO2 has been calculated at about 3.7 Watt/Sq.M.

We know how much CO2 we're putting out, we know how much the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in the last 150 years, and we know what heat forcing that CO2 is causing. What else do you need before you will believe it?

It never ceases to amaze me how people can dismiss 30 years of research by thousands of scientists from all over the world simply because they find one or two guys who come up with a bogus explanation to the contrary. If you're really interested in this subject, why don't you go read the real science? The science that is published in peer-reviewed journals and has been backed by the community?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/#more-412

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/#more-359

Rick,Talk about de... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Rick,

Talk about deniers. Did you notice my post 61? The CLOUD Collaboration is the result of Svensmark's work. Do you think all these scientists are unaware of the so-called rebuttals? Not hardly, the find that the rebuttals themselves are fatally flawed. The CLOUD experiments are now taking place at CERN. It's not the Sun's radiant output that's important for this effect, but it's magnetic activity. I linked to the Cambridge Conference Correspondence from 2003, which reviewed the peer reviewed and published work of several scientist. There work demonstrates an increase in the Sun's magnetic activity over the last 100 years. That increase has also been independently verified by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores.

One of Kim's links on a different thread is to a new paper that demonstrates there's no scientific bases for the greenhouse effect. In fact, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, there has to be some other explanation for historical changes in the climate and Svensmark's work point to the mechanism.

Rick hasn't been reading th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rick hasn't been reading the threads, Mac.

The Belgian Weather Service is putting out a report claiming that the influence of CO2 on climate has been vastly overrated.

G&T is warming up. The physicists especially are excited.
=================================

Mac, a recent article publi... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Mac, a recent article published by Mike Lockwood who has worked extensively on solar physics, discredits the idea that magnetic activity has anything to do with warming we are experiencing.

Given Svensmark's history of misusing possibly falsifying data I don't see how you can put your trus in him. However, I'd be willing to read if you have links to papers rebutting the rebuttals of his workd which you claim are flawed.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

"The Belgian Weather Servic... (Below threshold)
Rick:

"The Belgian Weather Service is putting out a report claiming that the influence of CO2 on climate has been vastly overrated."

I'd be very curious to see that report, However asssuming it is true, there are far more reports claiming the converse. It seems as though you are cherry picking what data you will pay attention to Kim. True science means following the data wherever it leads.


More studies like the one t... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

More studies like the one that started this thread Rick?

This one is so bad its laughable, but believe it if you must.

Rick,Mac,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Rick,

Mac, a recent article published by Mike Lockwood who has worked extensively on solar physics, discredits the idea that magnetic activity has anything to do with warming we are experiencing.

What's interesting is that LockwoodD and Frohlich state the following (emphisis mine):

The third proposed mechanism is considerably different from the other two--it has been suggested that air ions generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007). This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived (lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air(Harrison & Stephenson 2006).

Here's what I get form this. The authors are hedging their bets in the first part of the paragraph because experimental science is now happening at CERN and it gives them pause about just declaring the effect doesn't exist. What's more, they cite a study that shows the effect is real at least under some circumstances. The Sun/Cosmic Ray/Cloud effect is no longer a crack-pot idea. Skeptics take note.

While the authors attempt to show there has been no significant change in the Sun's magnetic activity over the last decade or so, they accept without question that the global mean temperature has increased in that same time frame. That's interesting for two reasons, first they talk about a decade's long lag between a warming cause and any observable temperature change, and two, they ignore recent proof that the surface temperature record is contaminated with data from measuring stations that are grossly out of specification such as being next to air conditioning equipment. If the lag time is long then you wouldn't expect the global mean temperature to correlate with the near instant changes in the Sun's magnetic activity. If the surface temperature record is sufficiently polluted with bad data there may in fact be no global mean temperature increase which results in good correlation with the Sun's magnetic activity.

Given these defects this study doesn't discredit the idea that magnetic activity has anything to do with warming we are experiencing.

Kim found this paper and ga... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

Kim found this paper and gave a link to it a few days ago, but I think it's worth repeating.

Link to: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The guy who runs ATMOZ tried to discredit this study, but had to close the comments (won't accept any more) with this statement of faith "Greenhouse theory correctly predicts the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Period." Apparently he's not up to arguing with one of the Wizbang crew.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

The guy who runs ATMOZ tried to discredit this study, but had to close the comments (won't accept any more) with this statement of faith "Greenhouse theory correctly predicts the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Period." Apparently he's not up to arguing with one of the Wizbang crew.

Why should he bother? Crybaby "Duh, I kin do all da memos in Word" Paul would just block him and remove his comments as soon as logic and real science & evidence get brought up.

You do understand that at least 99% of all the anti-global warming stuff appearing in the right wing media is no more than an exercise in crackpottery, right? Even when scientific work is mentioned, it's almost some sort of obscure Google-found thing that's untested and dubious at best, if not already disproven.

It would be best if you guys stick to something you're good at, like...um, hmmm...well, I'm sure there must be something. Try Googling for it.

-BC

BC, Why s... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:

BC,

Why should he bother? Crybaby "Duh, I kin do all da memos in Word" Paul would just block him and remove his comments as soon as logic and real science & evidence get brought up.

The difference is that, unlike Wizbang, this guy holds out his blog as being specifically for the scientific discussion of climate issues. He chose to review a paper that seeks to prove the greenhouse effect does not exist. I didn't get involved until no more comments were being posted, yet the point of the paper under review was total missed. When I expanded on the paper's alternative explanation for the apparent missing energy the limits of this guy's knowledge of physics was quickly revealed. At that point he made a statement of faith and block further comments. Obviously he's not qualified to review this paper, yet now claims it's wrong. Had I had not pressed him past his limits someone like you would have linked to this guy's review with the claim that it debunked the particular paper.

You do understand that at least 99% of all the anti-global warming stuff appearing in the right wing media is no more than an exercise in crackpottery, right?

I have been addressing the CLOUD experiment at CERN and listed 55 of the scientists who are part of that collaboration. That's far from crack pottery. In fact the study Rick linked cites a peer reviewed study that demonstrates the effect is real at least in limited conditions. Something you need to take note of and stop posting links to the crack pots who claim to have debunked the effect.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

I have been addressing the CLOUD experiment at CERN and listed 55 of the scientists who are part of that collaboration. That's far from crack pottery. In fact the study Rick linked cites a peer reviewed study that demonstrates the effect is real at least in limited conditions. Something you need to take note of and stop posting links to the crack pots who claim to have debunked the effect.

I never linked to any such crackpots -- you must have me confused with someone else. I tend to link to stuff by the IPCC, NASA and legitimate science links. Regarding the CERN CLOUD thing, that's not scheduled to go online until 2010, and there is no indication that it's going to contribute any evidence that would any way refute the current and growing findings that mankind is easily the main culprit in the current warm up.

Lots of things cause clouds and the CERN experiment might help in determining how much of a factor cosmic and solar radiation is involved, but....if you put all the pieces of evidence we now have on the table, the picture is already clearly that of wasteful, destructive humans and their insouciant attitude towards anything outside of their little worlds and immediate concerns, and their denial of blame in order to maintain a lifestyle of the dumb and clueless.

-BC

Regarding the CERN... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:
Regarding the CERN CLOUD thing, that's not scheduled to go online until 2010,

It's occurring right now, but won't be complete until 2010. There may be preliminary reports. Experimental science at this scale takes time.

there is no indication that it's going to contribute any evidence that would any way refute the current and growing findings that mankind is easily the main culprit in the current warm up.

The study you linked to includes this "recent observations of short-lived (lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006)." It's also the study Rick linked to and I reviewed in post 72. Experimental results always trump correlation studies. Anyone who says what the CLOUD experiments will do before they have been run is either a psychic or a fool. Which are you?

Lots of things cause clouds and the CERN experiment might help in determining how much of a factor cosmic and solar radiation is involved, but....if you put all the pieces of evidence we now have on the table, the picture is already clearly that of wasteful, destructive humans and their insouciant attitude towards anything outside of their little worlds and immediate concerns, and their denial of blame in order to maintain a lifestyle of the dumb and clueless.

What's clear is that you and many others require human development to be the cause of a looming catastrophe in order to impose your lifestyle on others. It's that requirement that drives you to claim as bunk any theory or evidence that we are all just along for the ride and have little power to control the climate. Such as you fear nothing so much as the continued scientific investigation into climate change.

Mac Lorry wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

Mac Lorry wrote:

The study you linked to includes this "recent observations of short-lived (lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006)." It's also the study Rick linked to and I reviewed in post 72. Experimental results always trump correlation studies. Anyone who says what the CLOUD experiments will do before they have been run is either a psychic or a fool. Which are you?

What can I tell ya -- the precept behind cosmic rays influencing cloud formations and hence possibly the weather worldwide depends incoming radiation levels somehow paralleling (or with some lag factor) the overall global temps. But....

I keep wondering if it would help matters if a definitive study was made and published regarding that anomalous dip and leveling off of global temps from the early 40's to the late 70's. I have a very good idea of what the cause is and there was nothing at all natural about it (hint -- go research what few but dramatic human activities can reach into the troposphere and check the timelines.) I have to wonder if you can demonstrate with no ifs or buts mankind's ability to affect the climate, would that then be persuasive enough for the "AGW's" (Anti-Global Warmists).

I have the feeling, though, that for the bulk of the AGW's, it's evidence, shmevidence.

-BC

What can I tell ya... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:
What can I tell ya -- the precept behind cosmic rays influencing cloud formations and hence possibly the weather worldwide depends incoming radiation levels somehow paralleling (or with some lag factor) the overall global temps. But....

But nothing. The data you link to is from the Climax station neutron monitor in Colorado. That station has a vertical cutoff rigidity of over 2.5 Gev. That mean it cannot detect any cosmic rays with energies below that value, and other limitations in neutron monitors limits their upper detection energy to 20 Gev. The energy spectrum of interplanetary cosmic rays span over 14 orders of magnitude from 10^6 eV to over 10^20 eV. The neutron monitor you and others keep citing as proof of no trend covers less than 20% of one order of magnitude. That's like monitoring the visible spectrum and claiming there's no directional variation in light in the night sky. It's bunk and it demonstrates there are non-scientific motives involved in such assertions.

Besides the interplanetary cosmic rays the Sun produces them at energies from 10,000 to 100,000 eV. CERN is investigating all these energies up the maximum of around 10^12, as that's all the higher they can get.

I keep wondering if it would help matters if a definitive study was made and published regarding that anomalous dip and leveling off of global temps from the early 40's to the late 70's.

What about the little ice age of the 1700's? What about the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period. The human caused global warming proponents have to deny these events were global in spite of ever growing evidence. The entire greenhouse effect requires heat to flow from a colder region to a warmer region with no work added. That violates the second law of thermodynamics. The observable temperature of Earth can likely be explained by the shifting emissivity mechanism produced by the day/night cycle and the mostly infrared transparent atmosphere. If the greenhouse effect exists at all it's likely much less important than currently thought.

I'm not anti-global warming. I'm unknown cause of climate change When there's actual evidence of a particular cause that's what I'll accept. By the way, GCMs are not evidence, they're only amplified ignorance.

Oops, thought this thread w... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oops, thought this thread was dead. Mac, there is a statistical study out of Milwaukee with some very interesting results, which seem to correlate with Landsheit's ideas about the sun's influence. There may be a connection between the variability of the magnetism and the distance of the sun from the solar system's center of gravity, and that may correlate with temperature.

Lots of talk about this on Climateaudit.org, esp. comments #26 and 38, as well as 98, on the Unthreaded #17. I suspect you know this.

N. Johnson is a putz.

BC, faith is a wonderful thing.
===============================================

Also see Clive Cook's artic... (Below threshold)
kim:

Also see Clive Cook's article in the 8/2/07 London Financial Times, p. 9. He reviews an article by David Henderson in the current issue of World Economics trashing the IPCC.
===========================================

To Kim:You keep th... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Kim:

You keep the faith -- I'll stick to evidence, science and logic. While David Henderson may have some sort of expertise in financial areas, he's no more than another pro-big-business crackpot when it comes to the science of global warming. By his own admission in 2006, "I am not a climate scientist, and I am a relative newcomer to climate change issues." But of course that hasn't stopped him, like other crackpots, to second guess real climate scientists doing real research for quite some time now.

To Mac Lorry:

In the regards to measuring a wider spectrum cosmic rays, the odds of there not being a periodic pattern very similar to that being measured by Colorado is slim to none. You don't have to see into the ultraviolet or infrared spectrum to know when the sun rises in the morning and sets at night.

And as far as past global warming/cooling periods in the 1700's and back, wew already know than many things can cause such change and while it would be great to know exactly what caused them -- and science will likely eventually figure it -- the matter at hand is what's causing the current round of global warming, and the best evidence indicates that humans are primarily to blame.

You really should have looked a little bit into that early 40's - late 70's cooling period, especially with the hint I gave you. Two human "activities" that can penetrate the troposphere are an intense, wide firestorm and setting off nuclear bombs. Go check when Dresden-type city wide fire storms started, when above ground nuclear tests started and when they ended. And then compare this to the start-end dates for that anomalous cooling period.

Sorry for the delay, but I've been busy and I am still technically blocked.

-BC

BC, I'm glad you are not bl... (Below threshold)
kim:

BC, I'm glad you are not blocked. Why do you attack Henderson's bona fides rather than his points?

I don't think you've addressed Mac's point about the inadequacy of the Colorado study. You don't seem yet to understand the theory of the sun's magnetism effecting the earth's in order to shield us from Cosmic rays, or let more in as the case may be.

Very interesting idea about atmospheric nuclear tests. The albedo from firebombing etc, dissipates fairly quickly. The effect of massive volcanic explosions is measured, known, and fades.

Newsbusters fisks the latest Newsweek bullshit.
============================

And thanks for the link; it... (Below threshold)
kim:

And thanks for the link; it is good.

If all these echo chambered climate scientists were truly just talking to each other in journals, I could care less. But what Kyoto, and all the hysteria about labeling man and fossil fuel use as a culprit do is massively and tragically effect public policy issues, and who better than an economist to be involved in the debunking of the public policy conclusions of the IPCC. Surely you can see this point. Will your faith allow you to accept it?

Every time the Gorebellied Fool opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes. Not good karma, me boy.
==============================

Alright BC, you really gott... (Below threshold)
kim:

Alright BC, you really gotta cut the bullshit. Your niggling objection that Henderson is not a climate scientist is complete and utter bullshit. He is talking about the IPCC and public policy. No wonder you didn't address the substance of his talk. In fact, I'll bet you didn't read past his disclaimer. Read your own link.

C'mon, I value you, but this is pitiful.
=====================

And before you speak anymor... (Below threshold)
kim:

And before you speak anymore about 'real climate scientists doing real science' you need to read what Wegman said about the cloistered community of climate scientists.

You still don't get it; Mann's Crook't Hockey Stick is the biggest academic fraud ever, and it has been a tremendously costly mistake. Furthermore, the costs continue.
============================

To Kim:*sigh*....<... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Kim:

*sigh*....

1) I'm still "blocked" -- this is a workaround.

2) Mann's "Hockey Stick" has been upheld nth times over. There was some scientific quibbling over some of Mann's initial methods, but they were addressed and the big friggin frauds now are people claiming that Mann has been discredited.

3) Edward Wegman is yet another crackpot -- he's a statistician who's a Professor of "Information Technology", and not a climate scientist. Wegman, like any other right wing fraud, acts like Mann's calcs were completely wrong and ignores subsequent scientific review and corrections to Mann's work that, again, basically upheld Mann.

4) We humans regularly detonated an awful lot of above ground nukes during the time of the cooling anomaly.

5) Global warming is for real and this round of of it is caused by us mere mortals. At this point, the anti-global-warmists are just annoying and distracting fringy crackpotty, fools, however well-meaning some, if any, might be.

-BC

Have you seen von Storch's ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Have you seen von Storch's latest comment on M05? You are wrong about Mann. Mann erred originally with an inadequate understanding and use of statistics; subsequently, he's been deliberately deceptive.

Now you stepped in it. Wegman is an extremely authoritative statistician. He was criticizing Mann's statistics. Google him, and look at his Curriculum Vitae.

I'm beginning to think you are hopeless. That's twice now you've savaged someone because they weren't a climate scientist and there input and expertise wasn't even climatology. The first was Henderson the economist, and now this one, a statistician. Wegman a crackpot? That's got to be some kind of sign.

Of projection, you know. You should really look anew at this stuff, or quit. You are out of your league here, and it is obvious. It is a good time to be a skeptick.
===================================

I meant 'their input'.<br /... (Below threshold)
kim:

I meant 'their input'.
============

To Kim:How <a href... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Kim:

How many times do I need to point out that Mann has been shown to be right and his critics wrong or even worse? Note Von Storch's comment in that last link: We are speaking about the shaft of the hockey stick, not the blade says von Storch. We have no conflict about anthropogenic warming. That's not the point.

And I did Google Wegman (of course -- if nothing else, you should realize that I do my homework.) He's no more than another dude of highly dubious motivation commenting on something outside of his field and expertise. Von Storch had done a much more through statistical critique of Mann's methods and said, basically, that Mann's hockey stick should have a rougher shaft. Which summarizes the main scientific critique of Mann's work. Not exactly discrediting it, is it?

Look, you seem like a nice enough person -- the global warming "debate" has basically two sides these days: on one side, with few and fast
diminishing exceptions, the entire global scientific community; and on the other, with likewise very few exceptions, pro-lassiez-faire, right-wing, anti-science frauds & crackpots and their organizations, often couched in bogus, scientific-sounding names, publications and web sites. Not
to mention being funded by the likes of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris.

Which side do you really want to be on?

-BC

You link to old stuff. Weg... (Below threshold)
kim:

You link to old stuff. Wegman took Mann apart in 2006. Where's your link to that? Von Storch and Zorita have a new comment on M05(Mann's 2005 paper trying to justify his 1998 statistics), and they find him wanting.

You do homework uncriticallly. You find a link which supports you, but don't understand it.

It is bizarre your criticism of Wegman.
====================================

To Kim:You're not ... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Kim:

You're not quite getting it: people like Wegman and Henderson have no standing in climate science and they're only mentioned at all because of all the crackpot and political BS being served up by the always-wrong right. That poster boy for anti-science right-wingery, Representative Joe Barton, is the one mostly responsible for Wegman's "status," if you can call it that. Barton went after Mann used the likes of Wegman to discredit the hockey stick thing, but nothing really came of it.

We're arguing in circles here. You ignore my hard science links, especially those supporting Mann, to instead just toss the standard right wing crackpot BS. That is not exactly how to have a debate.

-BC




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy