Sign in / up

back to article Another climate change myth debunked by proper climate scientists

Proper climate scientists with PhDs in the subject and everything say they have "debunked" a climate change "myth" which is commonly repeated on the internet. The myth in question is the idea that global warming is causing an increase in the number of tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Certainly there's plenty of support among …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. TheOtherHobbes

    Consensus

    is the word you're looking for, and not likely to find.

    Because - you know - cherry picking stuff just makes you look stupid.

    Just in case anyone wants to read what the abstract actually says, it's this:

    There is, however, considerable interannual variability in the number of storms making landfall over the countries investigated; most probably driven by cyclical atmospheric forcing, including El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Recent trends indicate an increasing number of tropical cyclones tracking to the south of Madagascar, potentially associated with the southward shift of the 26 °C isotherm, combined with a decrease in the steering flow during La Niña years.

    Now, it's true that you can't generalise global trends based on a sample based on one small geographic area.

    But then that's the difference between real climate science and 'journalism'.

    Oh, and you might want to look up what 'southward shift of the 26 °C isotherm' means.

    63 23
    1. Naughtyhorse
      Reply Icon

      Re: Consensus

      lol

      If lewis ever looked something up that would make his ass unavailable as a hat.

      same old same old

      yawn

      lewis long since lost any credibility as a "journalist" now he's just someones mad old dad with a laptop, who really should not be allowed out unsupervised.

      sad really

      47 33
    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Consensus

      Nice troll. By quoting the entire second half of the abstract, starting with "however", you provoked me into reading the first half, which is the principal finding and supportive of Lewis' take.

      That said, the "meh" interpretation of a later commentard is probably where I'd stick my flag.

      25 5
    3. AndrewG
      Reply Icon

      Re: Consensus

      Consensus

      Is a word that means nothing in the world of "real" science

      In 1938 as part of a propaganda piece, 100 german physicists were induced to add their name to a report explaining how Einstein theories was totally wrong.

      Einsteins response: "If they could prove me wrong it would only take one of them"

      verifiable, repeatable experiments that can not be disproven are the difference between science and social studies, its a pity that too many people don't seem to know that any more.

      57 5
      1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Consensus

        verifiable, repeatable experiments that can not be disproven are the difference between science and social studies, its a pity that too many people don't seem to know that any more.

        I want to clarify what you have said here. One basis of the scientific method is that a scientific theory must be falsifiable, i.e. it can be disproven, if and/or when the appropriate contrary evidence is found. If a claim or explanation cannot be disproven, it is not scientific.

        A scientific theory is an explanation that repeatably fits the observable natural evidence. The scientific method does not deal with absolute positive proof.

        28 0
        1. P. Lee
          Reply Icon

          Re: Consensus

          So the question to be answered before we accept consensus is, "What would be the proof that global warming is not man-made or is not occurring?"

          The permutation you pick depends on whether you care about the cause or just the results i.e. do I think I can fix the cause, or am I just going to deal with the results?

          Vast amounts of cash and research appear to be going into, "is X caused by AGW?" (is there any research which comes back with "no" to this question?) and very little into, "how do we deal with the results?" The cynic in me thinks this might be SIG's trying to prove a point and politicians finding a convenient topic of distraction. How much interest would there be in the topic if warming was both real and natural, but just as disastrous?

          The cynic in me also thinks that in very large groups, humans are unlikely to disadvantage themselves for the benefit of others for a sustained period of time. Mostly we would destroy large parts of the earth and fight over the remaining scraps. That appears to be the reality of history.

          8 0
      2. JimB17
        Reply Icon

        Re: Consensus

        No, this is not the case. The consensus referred to by the commentators, NOT the original author of the article, is an informed consensus of experts qualified in the specific field; precisely the people who are referred to then misrepresented in that note.

        The Einstein quote is accurate but mis-applied here.

        6 16
        1. Fluffy Bunny
          Reply Icon
          Devil

          Re: Consensus

          "The Einstein quote is accurate but mis-applied here"

          Not so, There are numerous examples where warmist claims have been proven to be false. Tree rings, decades without warming, complete lack of rising sea levels, etc. However, because because consensus works on a belief system, not facts and science system, the believers choose not to notice anything contrary to their beliefs.

          No matter how much evidence is accumulated contrary to AGW, the believers will never change.

          27 10
    4. Richard Barrington
      Reply Icon

      Re: Consensus

      The view of the climate scientists I've worked with is while the frequency of extreme weather events may not increase, the volatility and unpredictability will. ( more pressure in complex systems )

      It is true that one swallow does not a summer make, but when you're up to your gonads in water, keep bailing!

      4 4
      1. Colin Tree
        Reply Icon

        Re: Consensus

        and the location..... we're getting more cyclones in NW Australia and less down the east coast

        0 0
  2. Vociferous

    FTA:

    "However, long-term trends of tropical cyclone numbers in either direction are obscured by patterns of climate variability where records span less than a century.

    There are already notable cyclic patterns of inter-annual tropical cyclone counts, with periodicities exceeding a decade (Walsh, 2004; Chan, 2006; Knutson et al., 2010).

    Furthermore, these patterns of variability and cyclicity not only obscure statistical trends, but also act as drivers to decrease the impacts of global warming on tropical cyclone formation through hindering the development of tropical storms (Singh et al., 2001; Walsh, 2004).

    The impact of global-scale climate change on tropical cyclones may thus take longer to detect than for other weather systems (c.f. Singh et al., 2001; Goldenberg

    et al., 2001; Walsh, 2004; Knutson et al., 2010)."

    "Despite mean global atmospheric temperature having increased over the past century, consequently raising mean sea surface temperature, the trends

    and rates of change are not consistent worldwide or within individual ocean basins (Sugi et al., 2002; Webster et al., 2005; Xie et al., 2010). Furthermore, atmospheric conditions are not changing uniformly across all regions."

    Translation: Global warming actually predicts FEWER but STRONGER hurricanes in the studied Madagascar/Mocambique area, but as of right now no such pattern can be distinguished. The authors conclude that observed increase in number of hurricanes in the area can be explained by natural variability.

    This isn't a debunking, it's a "meh".

    7 5
    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Reply Icon

      "...no such pattern can be distinguished."

      That isn't a "meh". It's shoving it into a shredder and standing on the lid.

      6 5
      1. Return To Sender
        Reply Icon

        "It's shoving it into a shredder and standing on the lid."

        Err, no. No it isn't. All it's saying is that the current data isn't sufficient to show a pattern. It's not saying that the pattern won't appear (or will for that matter).

        One of the reasons I generally pay little attention to populist media on this topic is that they have to present to an audience which struggles to think in long timescales and non-absolutes. The mass media have to be over-simplistic or they'll lose their audience. Big storms? - global warming. Summer droughts? - global warming. Makes a quick & easy headline, and guarantees a few more day's worth of stories as protagonists on both sides pitch in to ya-boo the others.

        Have we as a species made climate variation more extreme? Well, right now, nobody actually knows. Lots of data about, lots of theories in lots of directions, but no hard and fast evidence in either direction. I personally feel you can't go around dumping loads of energy in to the system without something happening, but that's a feeling, not a fact.

        It could be that the Hollow-Earthers were in fact correct, and Shamballa is now heated by a sophisticated system of heat exchangers drawing energy in at the holes in the poles; this is why we don't have tropical summers in Yorkshire or whatever global warming was supposed to produce according to earlier ideas. Of course, there will be excess heat, which has to go somewhere. I suggest that Shamballa is actually located somewhere under Yellowstone Park and is directly responsible for the so-called super volcano the geologists love to talk about. See - global warming will get you in the end...!

        6 1
        1. Squander Two
          Reply Icon

          > One of the reasons I generally pay little attention to populist media ...

          But it's not just the populist media. It's a bunch of climatologists too. That's the problem. Your summary of the state of knowledge today -- "right now, nobody actually knows ... no hard and fast evidence in either direction" -- is spot on, but voicing it will have Michael Mann and his cronies calling you an "anti-science" "denier" and, if you're an actual scientist, diligently lobbying scientific journals to stop them publishing your papers and even putting pressure on your employers to sack you.

          The problem is not the media misrepresenting science. The problem, sadly, is a bunch of politically motivated scientists living in an echo chamber.

          21 5
          1. Vociferous
            Reply Icon

            > right now, nobody actually knows ... no hard and fast evidence in either direction" -- is spot on, but voicing it will have Michael Mann and his cronies calling you an "anti-science" "denier"

            And rightly so, as you are opposing what (admittedly imperfect) evidence there is based on nothing but personal incredulity.

            4 11
            1. Squander Two
              Reply Icon

              > And rightly so, as you are opposing what (admittedly imperfect) evidence there is based on nothing but personal incredulity.

              Well, firstly, calling the evidence "imperfect", as you just did, will have Michael Mann and his cronies calling you an "anti-science" "denier" etc etc. Seriously, go to his Facebook page and try it. He's quite absurdly thin-skinned and paranoid.

              Secondly, Judith Curry has more reasons for disagreeing with him than personal incredulity.

              And I'll say this yet again: I agree with Feynman that you can't get results out of models. Data, yes; results, no. Feynman was not God and it's certainly OK and probably sometimes even right to disagree with him, but agreeing with him is not anti-science and is not mere personal incredulity; it is an informed and principled position.

              6 3
              1. Vociferous
                Reply Icon

                > calling the evidence "imperfect", as you just did, will have Michael Mann and his cronies calling you an "anti-science" "denier"

                No. Check your persecution complex.

                > Judith Curry has more reasons for disagreeing with him than personal incredulity

                The Judith Curry who state that she supports the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, but feel that climatologists should be more "accomodating" to deniers, and occasionally makes unclear statemens on flimsy grounds? (Actually calling it 'flimsy' is too kind -- she intentionally cherry-picked the starting and ending point of her graph to achieve this effect, which is simply dishonest)

                > I agree with Feynman that you can't get results out of models. Data, yes; results, no.

                When people speak about models they really mean the simulations in which the models are used; data are observations, i.e. what you put in to your models when you run your simulations, not what you get out of them. What you get out of a simulation is a prognosis or an inference, or in other words a result.

                2 9
                1. Squander Two
                  Reply Icon

                  Paranoia.

                  > No. Check your persecution complex.

                  Well, I have, in fact, commented on Michael Mann's Facebook page before, when he first announced he was suing Mark Steyn. He said something about how awful it was that National Review were setting their lawyers on him and I pointed out that they were in fact employing their lawyers to defend themselves against his legal action. I also stated that he should feel free to sue National Review if he wanted, but that he realistically needed to expect that their lawyers would therefore mount a defence. That's all. I didn't say a thing about climate and didn't criticise his science. For that one comment, he permanently banned me from his page. The only people he's interested in conversing with are sycophants and he regards everyone else as an attacker.

                  8 0
        2. Tom 13
          Reply Icon

          Re: It's not saying that the pattern won't appear

          And if that were the actual claim from the Warmist cult, you might have a point.

          However the actual claim is that we have already seen strong evidence that this is happening. So yes, it is quite putting that claim through the shredder.

          4 3
        3. Tom 13
          Reply Icon

          Re: they have to present to an audience which struggles to think in long timescales

          Which, objectively speaking is the longer time scale: 100 years or 10,000 years?

          Because all the Warmist cult postings I see reference about 50 years of real data, and all the skeptics are looking at stuff that starts at the 10,000 year and goes through 100,000 years.

          6 4
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    I for one am sure!

    That any increase in cyclonic storms is due to the amount of hot air being generated by both sides in the AGW debate!!

    8 3
    1. The Dude
      Reply Icon
      Flame

      Re: I for one am sure!

      Hot air is not difficult... just ignore it. "Carbon taxes" justified by such uncertain 'science' is simply robbery writ large.

      33 15
      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Reply Icon
        Devil

        Re: I for one am sure!

        The Beatles had a song about taxing the air we breathe.

        3 2
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Happy

          Re: I for one am sure!

          "The Yellow Submarine"--perhaps a post-apocalyptic environmental anthem about how to escape global warming and sea level rise??

          John, Paul, George and Ringo really were WAY ahead of their time!!

          0 1
          1. Squander Two
            Reply Icon

            Yellow Submarine

            > a post-apocalyptic environmental anthem about how to escape global warming and sea level rise

            That actually makes as much sense as the song's other interpretation, in which the submarine is obviously a coffin, because Paul is dead.

            2 0
  4. Charles Manning

    That's the problem with all this cool new NASA data

    In the past we had a few blokes taking measurements a few times a day at specific points, or bobbing about in boats measuring ocean temperatures.

    Now we have satellites measuring the whole planet's data 24/7.

    The problem though is that until there is at least 30 years of consistently gathered data we really have nothing from which to actually make any good predictions. Now the NASA satellites are up there we need a long wait until the data set is big enough.

    It is not at all suprising that we have alarmists being able to get away with the looming ice-age predictions of the 1970s and the predicted overheating of the 2000s.

    18 7
    1. Gannon (J.) Dick
      Reply Icon

      Re: That's the problem with all this cool new NASA data

      Somewhere an Alien astronomer is looking at Earth and saying "Wow, look at the water and that rock-Moon-thingy. If my math is right, they probably have tides, and dare I say it, maybe even tsunamis. Too bad for my Tenure I can't prove it"

      There is settled science and settled math. They are not the same thing, unfortunately.

      1 0
    2. NomNomNom
      Reply Icon

      Re: That's the problem with all this cool new NASA data

      "The problem though is that until there is at least 30 years of consistently gathered data we really have nothing from which to actually make any good predictions"

      We have over 100 years of surface data and it's fine. It's been analyzed and re-analyzed to death and which ever set of eyes take a look find the same result.

      2 4
    3. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: That's the problem with all this cool new NASA data

      More accurately:

      Now we have satellites we believe are measuring the whole planet's data 24/7.

      Because all the measurements are done by proxies, and then mathematically massaged. We think we have good cause to trust the proxies, but we could find problems with them.

      There are more problems processing the data than the data processors want to admit. Simple things like not having end of file markers on a data set during data storage and transmission from the satellite. Or questions about the reliability of the calibration technique the satellite uses to set its sensors. This is information I've gotten from an AWG agnostic who works directly in processing the data.

      3 0
      1. -tim
        Reply Icon
        Holmes

        Re: That's the problem with all this cool new NASA data

        Reading data by proxy can be dangerous and it must be full of errors and scientist need to isolate those errors in the data. For example NASA will often use parts of the Australian desert to calibrate their systems but most of the time, the old sat and the new sat aren't in orbit at the same time so there is a slight gap between the data. Add in the fact that the new system will use different technology than the old one, they can't even measure the same things. Then you can throw in the calibration of the old records and modern modeling that loves to consider nearest points. The problem with that and using the Australian outback as a yard stick is that one of the 5 nearest calibrated thermometers are in Melbourne and Darwin which are very far away and have much different climates. I've seen a few of the early official weather instruments used to collect the early data points and I expect the non-linear, factory seconds state of some of them means their scale is not best to count on for high accuracy data. Science is a fractal, the closer you look, the more detail you can see. Data isn't much different.

        2 0
  5. Daggerchild Silver badge

    Erm. Yes. Known for a while now?

    The point you're trying to occlude is that it's not the number of storms that's going up - it's their power.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7596643.stm

    http://www.upi.com/blog/2014/02/10/UK-Met-Office-stronger-storms-linked-to-global-warming/9501392054013/

    16 2
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Erm. Yes. Known for a while now?

      And this ace research that I posted here a couple of weeks ago:

      Fewer but much bigger cyclones

      I'd rather deal with twenty Cat 1 cyclones in one season than one Cat 5.

      3 1
  6. Forget It
    Joke

    microclimate

    So it's all a storm in a teacup then.

    5 0
  7. Spotthelemon

    The best simple explanation of how global warming affects severe weather is to look at it as thows of a dice, middle numbers represent middling weather, high & low numbers are extremes of weather. changes to weather patterns from warming tend to weight the dice in favour of high & low numbers but you can't tell when you throw a high or low weather number whether it's down to the dice being weighted or whether its one of the those that would have been thrown with an unweighted dice anyhow

    1 2
    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      But that is only a theory. It's no good going to your keyboard and claiming the latest evidence from your computer model says, because it's all just castles in the air until you do an experiment and successfuly predict the outcome in advance. The computer models haven't even been able to predict the lack of warming in the last decade, how could we trust them with a subtle feature like more/less storms?

      11 3
  8. Tom 35

    It's amazing

    How you can tell it's a Lewis Page story right from the home page just by reading the title.

    Tom.

    22 0
    1. Grikath
      Reply Icon

      Re: It's amazing

      Or the usual suspects in the comments who can't resist lashing out at either end of the spectrum of this old and tired discussion.

      It evens out....

      6 1
      1. Rob
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's amazing

        The most valid comment in this entire discussion, I'm now neither a denier or a believer, I'm the apathetic one in the middle.

        1 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meh

    Climate change (in all of it's guises, natural periodic, AGW or otherwise) is open to apophenia - by both sides of the debate.

    4 0
  10. Andy Roid McUser
    Pint

    you can avoid nasty weather...

    Sitting on your deckchair in a lovely walled garden running iWeather.

    Problem solved. Thanks Apple.

    3 1
  11. Bloodbeastterror

    Risk

    I've thought for a long time that the opponents of the global warming proposition are like those people who play Russian Roulette. Sure, there's only a small chance of death, but personally I won't take the risk.

    And in 2040 when the chairmen of Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. look at their grandchildren's deteriorating world, will they look back and console themselves with "Ah, but in 2023 we had *record* profits!"

    14 26
    1. BillG
      Reply Icon
      WTF?

      Re: Risk

      I've thought for a long time that the opponents of the global warming proposition are like those people who play Russian Roulette. Sure, there's only a small chance of death, but personally I won't take the risk.

      You are taking the "just in case" position. Problem is, what if there really isn't any man-made global warming? Then the "solution without a problem" could be what really causes global planetary damage!

      18 7
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Risk

        > You are taking the "just in case" position. Problem is, what if there really isn't any man-made global warming? Then the "solution without a problem" could be what really causes global planetary damage!

        Isn't the "solution without a problem", as you put it, to not continuously shovel shit into our atmosphere? Surely not polluting is the absolute opposite of "planetary damage", whether or not such pollution causes climate change?

        12 6
        1. BillG
          Reply Icon
          Childcatcher

          Re: Risk

          Isn't the "solution without a problem", as you put it, to not continuously shovel shit into our atmosphere?

          CO2 isn't shit. It's needed for plants to survive and is balanced by the world's oceans. And alongside advanced irrigation techniques it's one reason why agriculture is thriving today.

          Do you want to take the risk that the planet hasn't adapted to increased CO2 by growing more plants to process it? Do you want to take the risk that dramatically reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere might result in massive crop failures and global famine? Or are you incapable of doing that math?

          Or are you Dilbert's pointy-haired boss whose motto is "anything I don't understand must be easy"?

          4 2
    2. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Risk

      ...Sure, there's only a small chance of death, but personally I won't take the risk...

      Can I cut off your legs, then? There's a small chance that you'll walk under a bus tomorrow, and I'm sure you wouldn't like to take the risk...

      In other news the BBC reported on increased green levies on energy, so they're starting to cut our toes off already...

      10 6
    3. Fluffy Bunny
      Reply Icon
      Devil

      Re: Risk

      The trouble is the massive amount of fraud in the AGW argument. The claim is that the risk is massive, but if you look at it rationally, what is being claimed?

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going up. It is now double the level when people started measurments. However, CO2 is a plant nutrient and needed for trees and flowers to grow. We are presently living in a (relatively) starved invironment. The increase in CO2 has meant that agriculture has recieved a big increase in productivity. Somehow the warmists never point that out.

      As a result of the increase in CO2, it is asserted that (using the flawed radiative forcing model), that the Earths temperature must increase. If (when?) the Earth warms, then agriculture will receive another boost to productivity.

      The sea may rise. It hasn't yet, but it may rise by a metre by the end of the next century. This used to be the biggest threat from the warmists, back in the days it was going up by 35 metres gauranteed. So we have 187 years in which to stop using houses built on the ocean shore and build them futher inland. Cities can build sea walls.

      The adaptations are simple and nothing like the gigantic costs to stop emitting CO2 in a futile attempt to stop warming that hasn't even eventuated. Remember that humans add 5% of the CO2 to the planet. The rest comes from nature. How are we going to stop that? Plug Mount Etna?

      15 4
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        Re: Risk

        "Remember that humans add 5% of the CO2 to the planet. The rest comes from nature. How are we going to stop that? Plug Mount Etna?"

        That 5% is cumulative and is the sole reason CO2 is rising. If man stopped emitting CO2, CO2 would stop rising.

        I wouldn't be so sure adaptation will work when the impacts are unknown and forward loaded.

        6 7
    4. Squander Two
      Reply Icon

      Record profits

      Well, first of all, according to the Precautionary Principle, we shouldn't use the Precautionary Principle, just in case.

      That aside, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the very worst predictions of the AGW alarmists are correct and that we therefore need to cut pollution as much and as soon as we possibly can. How do we do that?

      Well, handily enough, an absolutely superb experiment was conducted on this matter. They took a whole continent and split it down the middle -- even cutting a country in half, to minimise ethnic or cultural differences that might have influenced the experiment -- and tried (broadly) market capitalism on one side and (broadly) state socialism on the other. After half a century, we were able to observe pollution and environmental damage on each side. And what did we find?

      Well, what we found was that socialism utterly fucks the environment. Environmentalism, it turns out, is a luxury good, which people are willing -- even eager -- to spend money on when they have surplus wealth, whilst people without wealth are perfectly happy to screw the environment to bring the cost of living down a penny or two. So what we need, if we want to cut pollution as much as we possibly can, is as wealthy a society as possible. So, to answer your rhetorical question:

      > And in 2040 when the chairmen of Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. look at their grandchildren's deteriorating world, will they look back and console themselves with "Ah, but in 2023 we had *record* profits!"

      Those record profits -- which both reflect and contribute to record wealth in society -- are the best known chance at preventing the deterioration of the world.

      Yet environmentalists are all socialists for some reason. Go figure.

      17 3
      1. NomNomNom
        Reply Icon

        Re: Record profits

        "Those record profits -- which both reflect and contribute to record wealth in society -- are the best known chance at preventing the deterioration of the world."

        You could have made a similar argument 200 years ago - all those mills and factories spewing smog into the London air and dumping waste into the Thames. Gave them great profits and contributed to record wealth in society. Letting raw sewage be dumped into the Thames 'is the best known chance at preventing the deterioration of London'.

        But those environmentalists and socialists want to force through clean water and air laws - force the expensive construction of a sewage system under london - and destroy the economy of London in the process! Thank god that didn't happen.

        My bet is that if we DID abolish fossil fuels the economy would adapt just fine to other energy sources, just as no-one today blinks an eye at the cost of clean water and air.

        4 7
        1. Squander Two
          Reply Icon

          Re: Record profits

          > You could have made a similar argument 200 years ago - all those mills and factories spewing smog into the London air and dumping waste into the Thames. Gave them great profits and contributed to record wealth in society. Letting raw sewage be dumped into the Thames 'is the best known chance at preventing the deterioration of London'.

          Considering that the Thames is now one of the cleanest city rivers in the world and has cormorants and grebes swimming on it, and that London no longer has smog, it's difficult to see what point you're making.

          3 2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.