More bad science from the IPCC


@ Compweather.com

Wrong again - click for full size

Another story on the global warming/hurricane non-link:

RESEARCH by hurricane scientists may force the UN climate panel to retract its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said an increase in cyclone-force storms since 1970 was probably caused by climate change.

It followed some of the most damaging tropical storms in history, such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans, and Hurricane Dennis, which struck Cuba, both in 2005.

The IPCC added that the world could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled. The warning helped turn hurricanes — also known as cyclones or typhoons — into one of the most widely cited threats posed by global warming, with politicians including British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and former Us vice-president Al Gore describing them as a growing threat to humanity.

The cover of some editions of Mr Gore’s latest book, Our Choice, even depicts a world beset by super-cyclones as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions keep rising.

However, the latest research, just published in the Nature Geoscience journal, paints a very different picture.

It suggests the rise in cyclone frequency since 1995 was part of a natural cycle and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline. (source)

And don’t worry, Tim Lambert’s smug-blog Deltoid will no doubt add this article to his catalogue of  “The Australian‘s War on Science”, because in Lambert’s book, the war on science is anything which doesn’t fit with his pre-conceived agenda of alarmism.

And also in the news is a worrying sign that Rudd (who is a walking moral and principle vacuum) may do a deal with the Greens to get some kind of carbon trading scheme in place:

KEVIN Rudd has raised the prospect of a deal on climate with the Greens, who want an interim carbon price to end the Senate deadlock over an emissions trading scheme.

But he is playing down the likelihood of using the impasse as a double dissolution election trigger in October, as talks continue between Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and the Greens’ Christine Milne.

“This bill of ours for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is in the Senate now. Penny Wong and others are working with the Greens to see what can be done,” Mr Rudd told ABC TV’s Insiders program. “This is not over yet. And we will see what action emerges from the Senate.”

To secure a Senate deal, the government would, together with the five Greens, need an additional two votes, such as independent Nick Xenophon and a Coalition senator crossing the floor.

And if any Coalition senator did so, and thereby handed the government an ETS or a carbon tax, they should be strung up with piano wire. And prize for the most blindingly obvious headline goes to the Courier Mail:

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme could attract fraudsters

Now tell me something I didn’t know…

SMH: valiantly plugging the warmist agenda


The Sydney Moonbat Herald will print any old rubbish as long as it supports their conclusion (formed years ago) that global warming is real and dangerous. In this case, they publish an article from AFP that fits the bill perfectly:

Tropical storms to be more intense

Tropical cyclones may become less frequent this century but pack a stronger punch as a result of global warming, a new study says.

The study published on Sunday is an overview of work into one of the scariest yet also one of the least understood aspects of climate change.

Known in the Atlantic as hurricanes and in eastern Asia as typhoons, tropical storms are driven by the raw fuel of warm seas, which raises the question about what may happen when temperatures rise as a result of greenhouse gases.

Tom Knutson and colleagues from the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) looked at peer-reviewed investigations that have appeared over the past four years, when the issue began to hit the headlines.

Their benchmark for warming is the “A1B” scenario, a middle-of-the-road computer simulation which predicts a global average surface temperature rise of 2.8 degrees Celsius over the 21st century.

“It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged,” says the paper.

But storms could have more powerful winds – an increase of between two and 11 per cent – and dump more water, it warns.

The SMH will love this of course, since it bolsters the IPCC’s position on hurricanes and cyclones. But it’s all based on model projections and speculation: may, likely, could. We already have 30 years of low-level warming since the late 1970s to use as an empirical test of change in cyclone energy, and what do we find (click for full size):

No change…

And that’s the point – we now regard the projections of climate models as being more “truthful” than empirical observations.

Read it here.

IPCC: Hurricane data questioned


Sorry, Al - wrong again.

Another day, another dodgy claim from AR4. We’ve already had the link between “global warming” and natural disasters debunked, and now this:

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support.

Read the rest of it here. (h/t WUWT)

IPCC "wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters"


Times Online

What shall we call this one? Hurricanegate? Not content with basing claims in an IPCC report on factoids about glaciers found on the back of matchboxes, it now appears that the IPCC has also wrongly linked global warming to increasing frequency and severity of disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The only thing that is increasing are the floods of misinformation and spin being discovered in supposedly “settled science”:

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report’s own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

Typical. Just like buses, you wait ages for an IPCC scandal, and then two come along at once. In fact, I will wager that there is a whole fleet about to exit the bus station, as thousands of independent scientists and bloggers tear AR4 apart.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: