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 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, Paul, this study is an artifact of observation.
====================================

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 (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 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 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 original paper and see how they address the improved reporting. Surely they did. Surely.
=============================

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Wikipedia unabashedly. "The Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article".

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 died?

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:

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

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 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 Richard Armitage. Royal don't mean what it useter.
========================

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 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 = 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 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 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 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 warm