As begun in FOIA Facts 1, Ed Wegman and Rep. Joe Barton repeatedly called the Wegman Report "pro bono"* but Wegman and Said later claimed it as work done for existing Federal grants paid quarterly. In response to Dan Vergano FOIA request Wegman and Said each said the work was pro bono, years after claiming for credit it and much...
read moreNew evidence finds global warming triggers stronger Atlantic hurricanes
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:00Bill Miller
New evidence finds global warming triggers stronger Atlantic hurricanes
Scientists at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported the finding in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
"The debate is not about scientific methods, but instead centers around the quality of hurricane data," says lead author James Kossin, a research scientist at UW-Madison's Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies. Kossin and his colleagues had to smooth out the data before exploring interplay between warmer temperatures and hurricane activity, essentially simplifying newer satellite information to align it with older records.
Sea-surface temperatures may be why greenhouse gases are exacting a unique toll on the Atlantic Ocean, says Kossin. Hurricanes need temperatures of around 27 degrees Celsius (81 degrees Fahrenheit) to gather steam. On average, the Atlantic's surface is slightly colder than that but other oceans, such as the Western Pacific, are naturally much warmer.
- Bill Miller's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Atlantic Hurricanes
The desmogblog spin machine
not all or nothing
“Current model estimates of internal climate variability cannot explain observed SST [sea surface temperature] increases in either the ACR or the PCR [Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions]. This conclusion is insensitive to existing uncertainties in model physics and parameterizations, to observational uncertainty, and to the details of the procedure used to compare SST trends in observations and model control runs. It is also reasonably robust to the choice of time period used to estimate historical SST trends. ... In both regions, model simulations with external forcing by combined natural and anthropogenic effects are broadly consistent with observed SST increases. The PCM [Parallel Climate Model] experiments suggest that forcing by well mixed greenhouse gases has been the dominant influence on century-timescale SST increases. We also find clear evidence of a volcanic influence on observed SST variability in the ACR and PCR."
An interesting graph: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/38/13905/F1
Others have noted that the trend in category 4 and 5 hurricanes are significantly related to SST.
Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity
Carlos D. Hoyos, Paula A. Agudelo, Peter J. Webster, Judith A. Curry
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA USA.
Science, March 16, 2006
To better understand the change in global hurricane intensity since 1970, we examine the joint distribution of hurricane intensity with variables identified in the literature as contributing to the intensification of hurricanes. We use a methodology based on information theory, isolating the trend from the shorter term natural modes of variability. Results show that the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in SST; other aspects of the tropical environment, while influencing shorter term variations in hurricane intensity, do not contribute substantially to the observed global trend.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. The full list of authors of Santera et al. is
B. D. Santer a,b, T. M. L. Wigley c, P. J. Gleckler a, C. Bonfils d, M. F. Wehner e, K. AchutaRao a, T. P. Barnett f, J. S. Boyle a, W. Brüggemann g, M. Fiorino a, N. Gillett h, J. E. Hansen i, P. D. Jones h, S. A. Klein a, G. A. Meehl c, S. C. B. Raper j, R. W. Reynolds k, K. E. Taylor a, and W. M. Washington c
a Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
c National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307;
d University of California, Merced, CA 95344; eLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720;
f Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037;
g Institut für Unternehmensforschung, Universität Hamburg, 22765 Hamburg, Germany;
h Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
i National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025;
j Centre for Air Transport and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom; and
k National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC 28801
b To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: santer1@llnl.gov
Funny, funny
Question: do you folks actually proofread these things and bang them against hard reality before hitting the "Publish" button?
Apparently not.
And note well: the 95% confidence used in that report to assert that we would NOT have a below-normally-active hurricane season is MORE "certain" than the IPCC's recent assertion, i.e., that "Most [sic] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Uh... "Most"??? Is that, like, 50.0001%? If not, why didn't they just specify? My guess? Because people would laugh.
Give us all a break, m'kay?
The link you provided
The link you provided states
""NOAA continues to predict a high likelihood (75% chance) of an above-normal 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and a 20% chance of a near-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC), National Hurricane Center (NHC), and Hurricane Research Division (HRD). Therefore, 2006 is forecast to be the tenth above-normal season in the last twelve years.""
and
""The predicted 2006 activity mainly reflects a continuation of conditions associated with the multi-decadal signal, which has favored above-normal Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995. These conditions include warmer than average sea surface temperatures (SSTs), lower vertical wind shear, reduced sea level pressure, and a more conducive structure of the African easterly jet""
Which is what I took the desmog short note and its associated linked press release of saying more or less. As well you mention a 95% confidence interval though I didnt see anything of the sort in the link you provided. 95% condifence though is the standard statical accepted confidence level for an analysis of any data to be considered scientifically valid. The IPCC report doesnt exactly conduct a stastical analysis of all the different data sets from a large number of papers to arrive at a conclusion about human influence on climate. Its a general notion statement, based on the collection scientific research on the topic not a stastical analysis per say. Thus its more an educated approximation.
If you read the IPCC report you can see specifically how the differnt climate forcing factors have been estimated, error, and degree of understanding included. Only the 2001 report is currently available but...you can find the report here
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
I was lazy and got the wiki site image of the IPCC graph that shows exactly what you believe they dont specify. Also pasted below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IPCC_Radiative_Forcings.png
I don't believe an overall percentage of each forcing is listed though. It does also suggest there is need for greater research in a couple of climate areas as well.
Faulty Computer Models and Predictions
Just invert this:
"1. Expected Activity ... 5% chance below normal"
which yields a 95% chance that activity will NOT be below normal, according to the computer's prediction.
These faulty computer models virtually guaranteed at least normal, if not above-normal activity. How utterly wrong that was (for "scientifically valid"). These computer models couldn't accurately characterize hurricane activity when they were run two months into the season, and we're supposed to believe computer models can accurately predict infinitely more complicated phenomena based on events that span millenia? Sorry. No.
"...95% condifence though is the standard statical accepted confidence level for an analysis of any data to be considered scientifically valid."
So by this you mean to say that the IPCC's statement, which uses "very likely" (90%), is not scientifically valid? I've been saying this all along. Thank you.
"Its a general notion statement, based on the collection scientific research on the topic not a stastical analysis per say."
Right. Yet they somehow managed to find a 90% - very likely - statistical probability that "Most" global warming was anthropogenic. Either you're mistaken, and they did a statistical analysis or you're correct and their statement is deliberately misleading. You can pick.
"If you read the IPCC report you can see specifically how the differnt climate forcing factors have been estimated..."
I've read it. And nowhere in the report do they assign a mathematical value to the term "Most", the way they did with the term "very likely". As such, the statement says nothing scientific about the degree to which humans have contributed to temperature changes. Yet we see that statement presented ad nauseam as "scientific proof" that we need to make drastic energy policy changes to avoid disaster.
Starting to see why thinking people are skeptical yet? ;-)
PR Hurricane Pollution
Tim Ball "leaky condo denier"
You wanna hear a good one about Tim Ball?
According to one of the guys who lives in the same condo building as Ball, there was a decision made that each resident was to pay $5000 to fix a minor leakage problem in the building.
Ball, went around talking to all the residents telling them that the damage wasn't as bad as people thought and to listen to him because he knew all about building envelopes.
When it came to the vote, Ball convinced enough people that the decision failed and Ball won. The repairs were never done.
Fast forward two years later:
Since the initial damage was never fixed b/c our little "leaking building envelope denier," Tim Ball, it got way worse and now everyone in the building is facing $100,000 each to repair the damage. I'm not making this up, heard it straight from one his neighbours, who obviously hate Balls' guts.
If you don't believe me, ask Ball himself: timothyball@shaw.ca
So how does this relate to global warming. Well, Ball is NOT an expert in climate change, he has not published any research in over ten years. He is also NOT the "first PhD in climatology in Canada," not even close. Just like the leaking building envelope he fought against taking action on, global warming is only going to get more expensive the longer we wait to take action.
Seriously, read up on this guy before you start using him as a source of expertise on global warming, you are just assisting him in spreading misinformation.
Tell me more
Wow. We've got a lot of
A Lot of Skeptics ...
Congatulations...
...on not being a skeptic or a believer, BCH. I would hope your mission to sort fact from fiction doesn't automatically confer moral superiority over those who have, for whatever reason, decided to take a stance in this matter. There's a lot of that going around, too.
As for the study, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion over some very poor choices of wording, some complex calculations of more than one layer of probability, or both. I wish the principal in this study would take more responsibility for the press releases, or at least learn to communicate properly.
trained on Atlantic
Ah, I should face the fact that I probably won't read the paper, either.
Other basins show increase
Steve, the paper can be downloaded at:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/Kossin_2006GL028836.pdf
It is interesting to note that four of the other five basins showed a slight increase when using the "best track" data. Only the East Pacific Basin showed a decline.
It would have been interesting to see a plot of SST for these basins. I would suspect that temperature increases in these other basins are much lower than in the Atlantic Basin since they all start off at a higher temperature initially thus GW would not have as much of an effect.
Of course none of this says whether AGW will increase the number of tropical storms, only their intensity.
Moral Superiority
Truth and publishing
Atlantic basin tropical
I'm not sure how the
I'm not sure how the scientists would judge it: but last summer CBC said China had an unusually violent typhoon season (they call them typhoons instead of hurricanes). Report on Typhoon Saomai
"At least 110 people were killed after Typhoon Saomai, the most powerful storm to hit China in five decades, slammed into the southeast coast Thursday, resulting in the evacuation of more than 1.3 million people, state media reported..."
So China evacuated 1.3 million people, while the US couldn't manage to evacuate New Orleans.
RealClimate discussion at
RealClimate discussion at this link.
"The big problem with much of the discussions about trends in hurricane activity is that the databases that everyone is working from are known to have significant inhomogeneities due to changes in observing practice and technology over the years...
...However, rather than this study being taken for what it is - a preliminary and useful attempt to make homogeneous a part of the data (1983 to 2005) - it is unfortunately being treated as if it was the definitive last word. We've often made the point that single papers are not generally the breakthroughs that are sometimes implied in press releases or commentary sites and this case is a good example of that..."