Patterico's Pontifications

5/2/2007

Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (Part 9)

Filed under: Accepted Wisdom,Environment — Justin Levine @ 5:10 pm

[posted by Justin Levine]

In case you still haven’t heard the news, global warming (regardless of its cause) does NOT cause an increase in hurricane activity according to the latest published study.

Knutson said Landsea ”makes a very good case,” but “I consider the science still unsettled.”

Even if the global warming doomsayers refuse to accept the study, the fact that they now admit that the science in this area is “unsettled” represents real progress in their thinking. That is certainly a change in tune from what they have been insisting over the past year. 

I guess this means that we don’t have to worry about more hurricanes on Mars either.

46 Responses to “Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (Part 9)”

  1. From the TimesOnline article referenced in the post:

    “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”

    Brilliant!

    Curtiss (dc35ef)

  2. There is so much wrong with the way the AGW crowd has deliberately manipulated the tropical storm data that it beggars belief. It is heartening to see someone of the stature of Landsea is willing to say anything like the following:

    Other researchers who reported such a link made a fundamental mistake, he concluded. They underestimated the number of storms before the age of satellite monitoring — and before global warming became a concern.

    What this doesn’t make clear is that coming to this conclusion required Landsea to admit that some of his own earlier work was wrong (or made assumptions that couldn’t stand scutiny.) Landsea is now saying that an average of three storms a year are unaccounted for in the Best Track Hurricane data. Back in February I worked out that anywhere between 1.28 to 2.46 per year were missed between the years 1907-1966.Mid Atlantic Tropical Storm Undercounts

    The sad fact is that the “study” that everyone relies on to make the AGW/Hurricane connection (Emanuel, 2005) is fatally flawed, and probably intellectualy dishonest at its core.

    The dishonesty of folks in the face of this new study has been nothing short of breathtaking.

    Post 1
    Post 2

    If folks are interested in the Hurricane topic please feel free to look at my blog. There is a lot more there on the subject.

    Rich Horton (8018ee)

  3. Did you hear that the AGW folks are trying to block the Global Warming Swindle from beind distributed to the public because they feel it will misinform the public, talk about irony.

    Taltos (c99804)

  4. Interesting paper, but anyone who has studied WWII could tell you there is no way the British and U.S. governments missed 3-4 hurricanes a year in the North Atlantic between 1940 and 1945.

    Too many ships and planes traversing it. Too much riding on getting the weather forecasts right.

    Landsea seems to have a hole of his own in his data.

    alphie (015011)

  5. Why not point out the fake ones in his data then Alphie if you are so confident of your theory?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  6. How can I do that when all of Landsea’s data is imaginary, daley?

    All he did was add an extra 3.2 named storms to the data between 1900 and 1965. He doesn’t name a place and a date for his phantom storms, so there is no way to compare them to military records of the time.

    I seem to remember the Mercury shots were over the North Atlantic in the early 1960s, too, btw.

    alphie (015011)

  7. Alphie,

    Check out the link above on Atlantic Undercounts and see where you think the whole in the logic is.

    Emanuel treats the data from 1898 as if it was just as accurate as the data from 1998. That seems completely untenable to me.

    Science always purports to be decribing reality. If you have huge holes in your data set that cannot be filled (as is the case with unmeasured storms) you HAVE to be more circumspect about how you interpret the data you DO have.

    Rich Horton (758608)

  8. Alphie, do you ever think before you post or do you just naturally spew stupidity?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  9. What does science have to do with this debate, Rich?

    The energy companies of the Republican South don’t want to clean up their CO2 emissions, yet they also don’t want America to move away from oil and coal as an energy source….so they rile up the folks who are against anything the dirty hippies are for instead.

    Even Lansea admits that global climate change is making any hurricane that does slam into the Republican South more powerful.

    Irony indeed.

    Why do people vote against their own interest?

    It’s a mystery.

    alphie (015011)

  10. Alphie, that’s an incompetent attempt to steer the discussion away from the science at issue. Which I’ve found typical of AGW adherents, they are usually the least interested in the science.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  11. Alphie is all about threadjacking. It’s a hobby. How did you talk Patterico into leeting you back onto the site after your last ban Alphie?

    Are you a dirty hippie? Is that why you are a AGW alarmist? Do you support nuclear power or offshore drilling or drilling in ANWAR to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Dirty hippies and progs want it both ways. No domestic solutions and low energy prices. For them it’s not about science, it’s a religion. The religion is power.

    Back to the topic at hand Alphie. How about a realistic argument to debunk the peer reviewed study instead of just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  12. What does AGW stand for, Robin?

    And again, I don’t see any “science” in Landsea’s paper (all 4 pages of it, including pictures).

    He says there were more hurricanes between 1900 and 1965 than were counted. That’s no different than me saying there were more alien abductions between 1900 and 1965 than were counted.

    Neither statement is testable. Neither statement is science.

    alphie (015011)

  13. Alphie – There’s a big difference. He presents a hypothesis or theory and presents what appears to be a persuasive argument, backed by mathematical evidence that his hypothesis has merit. Your alien abduction theory? Where are your footnotes and citations?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  14. Here’s my hypothesis, daley:

    Too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to heat up.

    My proof?

    Look at Venus. CO2-rich atmosphere and a lovely average temprature of 860 degrees fahrenheit, far hotter than Mercury, which is much closer to the sun.

    What proof does Landsea offer for his hypothesis?

    None.

    Zero.

    Nada.

    Who you gonna believe?

    Depends on whether you’re willing to cook your children rather than admit Al Gore was right about something, I guess.

    alphie (015011)

  15. As I understand it, most hurricane scientists consider the the link to warming is unproven at best, and ludicrous at worst. Of course, there’s really no telling what some folks will link to global warming

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  16. He says there were more hurricanes between 1900 and 1965 than were counted. That’s no different than me saying there were more alien abductions between 1900 and 1965 than were counted.

    You agree that our ability to accurately identify and track hurricanes has increased correct? This necessitates that the farther back you go the less and less accurate the data will become.

    Taltos (c99804)

  17. It sounds good, Taltos.

    But between 1940 and 1945, allied ships made an average of 500,000 trips a year through the area he says there was no data was reported from. Ships crewed by people who were extermely interested in weather.

    Computers will be the death of science.

    alphie (015011)

  18. The north atlantic encompasses everything from the equator to the arctic circle. The allied ships were crossing at the northernmost reaches of the atlantic for the simple reason that thats where europe is and it’s a shorter trip.

    There was ample room for storms to spawn with no one the wiser as most storms start down around south america and africa where the water is warmer.

    And as for your earlier question AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming.

    Taltos (c99804)

  19. Gibraltor, North Africa and pointts south were also heavily trafficked convoy destinations, Taltos.

    Not to mention constant patrols looking for German subs and raiders that encompassed the entire North Atlantic.

    And if you want to see the effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere, look at Venus, with an average temp of 860 degrees…far warmer than Mercury, which is much closer to the sun.

    alphie (015011)

  20. The energy companies of the Republican South don’t want to clean up their CO2 emissions, yet they also don’t want America to move away from oil and coal as an energy source….so they rile up the folks who are against anything the dirty hippies are for instead.

    If you can’t, or won’t, argue the science, there’s always the good ol’ standby ad hominem, isn’t there?

    Our climate is about to become like Venus’ due to CO2? This illustrates or “proves” exactly what? Does Mercury have an atmosphere? Is CO2 the primary “greenhouse gas” on Venus? Nice non sequitur?

    AGW has all the earmarks of the latest secular religion. Why there are even indulgences. We doubters are heritics, morally equivalent to holocaust deniers. There’s even a “green hotel” in California (naturally) that has replaced their Gideon Bibles with Al Gore’s AIT book. And the beat goes on …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  21. And that might matter, if you ignore the miriad ways in which venus is entirely different from earth.

    Taltos (c99804)

  22. And from the Greenland ice cores we find that rising CO2 concentrations follow warming by roughly 600 to 1000 years. Sort of makes it difficult to cause warming …

    Let’s see, humans contribute approximately 6.5 gigatons CO2 annually to the atmosphere; dead and rotting plants and animals contribute about 150 gigatons annually; and the oceans contribute magnitudes more. I won’t even go into animals and the methane they produce. Whew!

    The human contribution percentage is in the low single digits, yet we are responsible for the warming? How does that work?

    Not to mention that roughly 80 percent of the warming experienced in the 20th century occured prior to 1940, followed by a 35 year cooling period, followed by further modest warming. The warming in the 20th century was roughly .7 degree C. During the entire period the CO2 concentrations were also increasing modestly. There seems to be a loose association but as we all know, logically, that does not imply causation necessarily.

    Virtually all of these predictions are based on computer models. We do not currently understand the physics of how clouds work. We must “assume” cloud functions in the models. Anyone see a problem here? Is it just that I’m placing too much emphasis on clouds? After all, how could they possibly effect the climate?

    I’ll cite Al Gore’s AIT quotation from Mark Twain: “It isn’t what you don’t know that’s the problem. It’s what you’re sure of that just ain’t so.” Anyone see the irony?

    I’d love to say more but I’m on the way to the bank to cash my check from Exxon. Perhaps I’ll purchase some of those carbon offset indulgences on the way home. It gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling to know I’m doing my part.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  23. Alphie, are humans causing the global warming on Mars?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  24. Alphie,

    “Even Lansea admits that global climate change is making any hurricane that does slam into the Republican South more powerful.”

    Not so. The new study on wind shear would not only indicate the inhibition of hurricane formation it would also, on average, keep them from being as intense.

    If you are really interested (as opposed to just being a troll) you should check out the Historical Hurricane Re-Analysis Project, and see what data they did or didn’t use. There is no indication that British naval records form a basis of the database. It is a good idea (and I had the same thought), but to my knownledge no one has ever gone to England to do that (rather tedious) research. All of the researchers working in this field use the HURDAT data so the degree it is homogenous IS scientifically important.

    Of course all of the above assumes you can be brought over into a discussion of the relevant research on the subject.

    But when you say,

    What does science have to do with this debate

    It makes me doubt that is the case. For too many folks the only thing that matters if how “science” affirms their political ideology.

    Rich Horton (758608)

  25. Science still owes me flying cars and food pills, if he doesn’t own up soon I’m going to kick his ass.

    Taltos (c99804)

  26. All that HOT AIR from the mouths of AL GORE AND THE ENVIROMENTAL WUSSIETARDS why dont they keep their pieholes shut and cut off that source of HOT AIR

    krazy kagu (a6e311)

  27. “Alphie, are humans causing the global warming on Mars?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 5/3/2007 @ 3:46 am”

    Of course we are! Everyone knows that observers influence the observed (since Einstein told us so). We’re constantly peering at Mars. We’re influencing it. It’s warming. Thus we’re influencing Mars’s warming!

    See, I can do AGW logic!

    Whee….

    Dan S (6f95f4)

  28. Two more planets added to the global warming list.

    Uranus and
    Neptune

    papertiger (90f9f1)

  29. This is not high enough on my priority list for much time and energy, but I loved this:

    From the TimesOnline article referenced in the post:
    “Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”

    Brilliant!
    Comment by Curtiss

    Curtiss, did the article list other possibilities?? Should we start a list??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  30. Everyone knows that observers influence the observed (since Einstein told us so).

    I don’t get it. Did you mean Bohr? Or Heisenberg? Maybe Schroedinger?

    Russell (13a51a)

  31. Let’s see, humans contribute approximately 6.5 gigatons CO2 annually to the atmosphere; dead and rotting plants and animals contribute about 150 gigatons annually; and the oceans contribute magnitudes more. I won’t even go into animals and the methane they produce. Whew!

    The human contribution percentage is in the low single digits, yet we are responsible for the warming? How does that work?

    I’ll tell you how. It’s true that over 95% of the carbon dioxide emitted would be emitted regardless of human activity, but it is disingenuous to argue that therefore humans have no impact. Carbon dioxide is always in dynamic equilibrium with the various places that carbon is stored (plants, the sea, etc); humans have just tipped the balance a little toward atmospheric carbon, which has resulted in an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    It’s not a coincidence that CO2 concentrations have increased 33% since 1832 to a level higher than any in the last 800,000 years. Now, whether that causes hurricanes is extremely difficult to prove, and not established to my satisfaction (as far as I have read).

    Russell (13a51a)

  32. Direct co2 measurements – not the infered variety derived from ice cores and political wish fulfillment – but the real live, guy with a balloon takes stock of what is in there, variety of measurement has recorded don’t agree with Russell.
    Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
    Warsaw, Poland

    The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.

    papertiger (90f9f1)

  33. It’s not a coincidence that CO2 concentrations have increased 33% since 1832 to a level higher than any in the last 800,000 years.

    It isn’t? Since 80% of the observed warming in the 20th century occured prior to 1940, followed by a 35 year cooling period, how do these facts square with your assertion?

    Furthermore, your assertion seems to suggest a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The fact that there is an association, no matter how tenuous, does not argue that the relationship is causal, particularly since the Greenland ice cores show that CO2 concentrations follow temperature increases by some 600 to 1000 years.

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  34. The ‘Proud Global Warming Skeptic,’ who in the past has sided with Creationists on the subject, now tries to recruit my old fraternity brother and housemate Chris ‘Fishmouth’ Landsea to the cause of utter stupdity. Problem is, Landsea talks about one thing: Atlantic Cyclones. I’m with him on this, and yet anthropogenic global warming as a hypothesis is hurt not a bit by Landsea’s stalwart refusal to play ball with politics. It’s always been an over-reach by the advocacy groups to try to include Landsea’s area of expertise under the rubric of AGW. As for scientists, if something holds up according to data, it holds up according to data. It has to be considered. If Landsea’s caution is wise, than so be it. See, this is how science works, which may be hard for conservatives and their medieval, dogmatic habits to understand. Facts underly the theory, not vice-versa. It’s worth getting used to, because it becomes hard to even tie one’s shoe under traditional conservative ways of thinking.

    Keep going against the science, ‘Global Warming Skeptic.’ I can’t wait to watch you and your kind relegated to specatatorship for another twenty years. Reminds me of last night’s ‘Hands up if you don’t believe in evolution’ moment. Brownback, Huckaby and one other raised their hands. Good god, what an embarrassment you people are to educated humanity.

    multum_in_parvo (ff7b02)

  35. It’s true that over 95% of the carbon dioxide emitted would be emitted regardless of human activity, but it is disingenuous to argue that therefore humans have no impact.

    Disingeuous? Disingenuous: “not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere”. You might choose another word. My argument is in no way disingenuous. Perhaps I didn’t make a logical argument or perhaps a nonfactual argument, but … “disingenuous”? Please

    On the other hand, how is it illogical or factually deficient to suggest that if we contribute less than 5% of the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and that even if we reduced our emissions to zero that it would make anything other than an unmeasurably minor difference? And we’re not talking about zero, we’re talking about reducing less than 5% by less than 20%. In my simple mind that amounts to reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by something on the order of 1% or less. The result won’t even be measurable!

    And for this we are supposed to ruin the economies of the western world? We won’t be able to fight HIV/AIDS. We won’t be able to help feed the poor. We won’t be able to fight malaria in the third world. And there are many other more important actions that we should be taking that we won’t be able to afford. Meanwhile, we might be able to reduce the warming by a few tenths of a degree in the remainder of the century. Should that make sense at all to any reasonable person?

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  36. We hardly ever look at Uranus. – PROOF POSITIVE it’s not man made warming.

    papertiger (778e22)

  37. It isn’t? Since 80% of the observed warming in the 20th century occured prior to 1940, followed by a 35 year cooling period, how do these facts square with your assertion?

    …even if we reduced our emissions to zero that it would make anything other than an unmeasurably minor difference?

    I think you misunderstand me–perhaps I was misleading. I was only arguing that it is beyond scientific dispute that humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmostphere. Yes, our total emission of CO2 is not that high, but it’s enough to cause a measureable increase, because prior to us burning all these hydrocarbons, all the naturally emitted CO2 was (and still is) absorbed by the ocean and grown into plant matter, etc.

    Now, whether or not this causes global warming, or if we should try and do something about that is another question.

    Russell (13a51a)

  38. ‘And for this we are supposed to ruin the economies of the western world?’

    Nice try, and quite funny that you’d say this on the very day when the IPCC released its report laying out in great detail that this claim is, in fact, full of shit.

    multum_in_parvo (ff7b02)

  39. And now the IPCC has entered the “how much tax can we get away with” negotiation mode. Nice try.
    I think we’re still on zero as to what this pig in a poke is worth.

    papertiger (388cb7)

  40. As for scientists, if something holds up according to data, it holds up according to data. It has to be considered. If Landsea’s caution is wise, than so be it.

    But of course this is precisely what is not happening because as we’ve all been repeatedly assured, the “science” is settled, the “deniers” are all backwards hicks, and any qualified scientist who dares disagrees will be threatened with the loss of their funding and livelihood. No, this has become a religion for many.

    See, this is how science works, which may be hard for conservatives and their medieval, dogmatic habits to understand. Facts underly the theory, not vice-versa. It’s worth getting used to, because it becomes hard to even tie one’s shoe under traditional conservative ways of thinking.

    Keep going against the science, ‘Global Warming Skeptic.’ I can’t wait to watch you and your kind relegated to specatatorship for another twenty years. Reminds me of last night’s ‘Hands up if you don’t believe in evolution’ moment. Brownback, Huckaby and one other raised their hands. Good god, what an embarrassment you people are to educated humanity.

    And of course this is another fine example of a rational argument that “considers all the data”. Very rational argument. Very tolerant. Spoken like a true “scientist”. Nothing but an ad hominem linked to a straw men linked to a non sequitur. It would be hard to be more arrogant and condescending. Do you have to work at it, or does it come naturally?

    Nice try, and quite funny that you’d say this on the very day when the IPCC released its report laying out in great detail that this claim is, in fact, full of shit.

    Another intelligent “scientific” and logically reasoned response brought to us by “educated humanity”.

    But thanks, you’ve quite made my point that anthropogenic warming has become a religion.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  41. I was only arguing that it is beyond scientific dispute that humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmostphere.

    True, very modestly.

    Yes, our total emission of CO2 is not that high, but it’s enough to cause a measureable increase, because prior to us burning all these hydrocarbons, all the naturally emitted CO2 was (and still is) absorbed by the ocean and grown into plant matter, etc.

    If I understand your point, it can’t possibly be true. Are you saying that prior to the current industrial age there was no naturally emitted CO2 because it was “all absorbed by the ocean and grown into plant matter, etc”? How is it then, if this is true and CO2 causes the planet to warm that we have experienced warmer periods in the past than we are currently experiencing?

    The point I made above was precisely the opposite of your assertion. The facts are that we are producing less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The remaining 95% did not suddenly appear in the atmosphere when we began contributing. It has always come predominantly from the oceans, plant decay, etc. The ocean is one of the major CO2 “sinks” on the planet. CO2 migrates in and out of the oceans.

    The Greenland ice cores suggest that warming increases CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. 1000 years ago Greenland was much warmer than it is today. Even as recently as the 20th century, 80% of the warming occured prior to 1940 and a 35 year cooling period occured subsequent to 1940. Meanwhile CO2 concentrations increased fairly consistently, and modestly, throughout the entire century.

    I do have one “Goldylocks” question for the “enlightened ones” among us: what is the “optimum” temperature for the planet? Is it better for the planet, and for living things in general, for the planet to be colder than it is now, warmer than it is now, or is it “just right”? If “warmer” or “colder” is the answer, how much? Upon what do you base your assertion?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  42. One more observation:

    See, this is how science works, which may be hard for conservatives and their medieval, dogmatic habits to understand. Facts underly the theory, not vice-versa.

    It would be hard to imagine any group more dogmatic about their beliefs than the “true believers” in anthropogenic warming.

    While I agree that facts should inform theory, it would have been nice to actually discuss a few facts rather than the appeal to authority and the insulting stereotypical attitude. Perhaps a look in the mirror and some introspection would benefit.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  43. If I understand your point, it can’t possibly be true. Are you saying that prior to the current industrial age there was no naturally emitted CO2 because it was “all absorbed by the ocean and grown into plant matter, etc”?

    Let me see if I can phrase this better. I wasn’t saying at all that there was no naturally emitted CO2 prior to the industrial revolution. What I was saying is that all of the naturally emitted CO2 was naturally absorbed prior to the industrial revolution so that the atmospheric concentration stayed relatively constant. CO2 doesn’t just get emitted and stay in the atmosphere forever, it’s constantly being emitted and absorbed all over the place. Humans don’t emit that much CO2 relative to the whole of emissions, but it makes a difference because there is no sink to account for our small contribution, so it builds up–the concentration today is higher than any seen in the last 800,000 years.

    Look, not even Richard Lindzen would argue that humans haven’t caused the concentration of CO2 to increase. People dispute whether or not that then causes the temperature to increase. That’s where the global warming debate is happening.

    Russell (13a51a)

  44. My feet are cold. What I need to know is how much more CO2 global warming do we need until the Earth achieves room temperature?

    On the other hand, how is it illogical or factually deficient to suggest that if we contribute less than 5% of the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and that even if we reduced our emissions to zero that it would make anything other than an unmeasurably minor difference? And we’re not talking about zero, we’re talking about reducing less than 5% by less than 20%. In my simple mind that amounts to reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by something on the order of 1% or less.
    And this less than 1% of human co2 contributed is an infinitessimally small amount of the total Greenhouse gas at work in the Earth atmosphere, 95% of which is water vapor.

    papertiger (6ca9ff)

  45. Melting the Facts About Greenland’s Ice Sheet

    Interesting …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  46. Justin, I thought you might be interested in this. It appeared on the local newscast this evening.
    http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_138155503.html

    Notice what he says about grant money

    kishnevi (6273ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3592 secs.