IPCC created and controlled by activists

illusion in grey

Be in no doubt

A reader, Simon, made some interesting points when he commented on my assertion that scientists “incite” policy, saying:

The relatively recent trend of activism by individual scientists is solely because of the way their work is being misrepresented and their concern over the changing environment.

What he calls “concern over the changing environment” is the motivation for activism, so I’m glad we agree on that. But if they only looked more closely rather than satisfying their expectations at first glance they wouldn’t detect any change beyond the ordinary. Because no unprecedented climatic fluctuations have been reported. So why be concerned?

He refers to scientific activism as a “recent trend”, blatantly ignoring the fact that the whole climate scam was started by activists, and describes activism by “individual scientists” to imply they are few. In fact, they are thickly distributed throughout the UN, the IPCC, national and international scientific organisations and national governments, and their pronouncements and opinions are broadcast constantly.

How much more must they do before Simon notices them?

He is either deluded or his eyes are shut. Scientists everywhere get into policy, not just those who leave science to become activists. But not all scientists are biased.

The activism of scientists was well established when the UNFCCC was written in 1992 — even earlier, when the WMO and the UNEP set up the IPCC in 1988. Who could deny that their very purpose was climate activism, when the IPCC was prevented by its founding principles from investigating the truth of anthropogenic climate change. They were forced to take it as gospel and simply find evidence for it. Which is not normally considered a scientific approach.

Climate illusions

The opening paragraph of the treaty on the Framework Convention asserts:

that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.

From then and for ever, IPCC investigators have been prevented from examining the truth of those assertions. If they don’t accept them, they don’t get used by the IPCC. Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.

Definition of an activist

The IPCC’s first chairman was Bert Bolin, a meteorologist (in other words, a scientist), who “cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue [of climate change],” in the words of one commentator. A pretty good description of an activist, I would say. It’s been the same ever since.

Look among the ranks of lead writers, principal authors and other contributors to the IPCC reports and you’ll find many who hold full-time positions with WWF, Greenpeace and other activist organisations — you can be sure they’re not there because of their neutrality towards global warming. Donna Laframboise wrote “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” describing this and other defects of the IPCC authors and processes.

The current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is an activist of the first order and thoroughly involved in promulgating policy and an urgent need for policy.

In his address to the meeting of COP 18 last November he stated openly:

I would like to submit with due emphasis that knowledge from the recent work of the IPCC must drive and define decisions that need to be taken now to deal with the growing challenge of climate change.

Chilling new move

I have just come across this. It is perhaps not surprising to hear of a bold new initiative with the latest Assessment Report, taking the IPCC’s policy involvement to a completely new level, but it is chilling. They’re beginning to leave the heavily controversial science behind them to concentrate on policy. This is revolutionary. Pachauri announced it:

In the case of WGIII, an innovation in AR5 is the “Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning” chapter. This is important because while urban planning is referenced in AR4 there is no comprehensive survey on the role which urban planning can play in adaptation and mitigation. WGIII is also providing greater emphasis on social science aspects of mitigation measures. For the first time, WG III is going beyond the technical aspects and into the social science aspects. WG III AR5 Report is also providing greater focus on technologies, sectors and regions, in order for the distribution of risks and costs to be more specific, i.e, there is less reliance on averages. And finally, it is focusing more explicitly on mitigation options, costs, strategies and policy requirements, with a more integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

It could not be clearer or more stark. Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN? This is the very scenario Lord Monckton has warned us about since Copenhagen in 2009. If we let the UN take control, the world will indeed be damned. We must visit this again; now, moving on…

Activists in New Zealand, too

Here in New Zealand, public scientists active in the “fight” to restrict industry because of its emissions of carbon dioxide include (off the top of my head) David Wratt, Andy Reisinger, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Keith Hunter and Martin Manning. There are many others — I apologise if I left you out.

I was looking at the Antarctic Research Centre web site, which seems otherwise entirely focused on scientific topics and purposes, when I came across a “Policy” page. For anyone concerned about freedom, it, too, makes chilling reading, for they are fully involved in formulating public policy.

Policy

One of the main purposes of climate science is to provide reliable knowledge that can be used by society to make decisions concerning our relationship and responses to a climate system that is undergoing marked change. This involves:

• increasing our knowledge of the climate system and human interactions with this system (scientific basis),
• helping to understand the nature, scale and timing of climate change risk (vulnerability),
• helping to develop realistic climate change adaptation goals and strategies (adaptation), and
• helping the formulation of realistic climate change mitigation goals and strategies (mitigation).

The role of the ANZICE policy component is to help translate the relevance of the research findings for a policy audience.

To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity. Just look at what has happened to Greenpeace.

Nothing’s happening

People who believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming should stop saying the same things endlessly like a machine and start to notice the real world.

The climate has not been warming dangerously — it hasn’t warmed at all for about 20 years — sea level rise is not accelerating, colder northern winters are not caused by melting ice and the only sign of future dangerous temperatures is unproven computer models.

The climate scam is driven by activists, some of whom are scientists too.

188 Thoughts on “IPCC created and controlled by activists

  1. Magoo on April 29, 2013 at 1:58 pm said:

    Yes it’s true, you need to be wary of what you read in the media. That is exactly where you went wrong referring to businessweek.com and usatoday.com about AGW induced extreme weather, instead of the empirical evidence which proves conclusively on all fronts that there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for such a belief.

    Considering what you just tried to pull above regarding extreme weather I think it’s hilarious that you’re accusing others of such things. Maybe you’re so blind that you’re oblivious to your own hypocrisy.

    Richard T is right when he says – ‘You are, sir, incredible.’

  2. So I am still waiting to hear which bit of “epistemic closure” you are referring to, RROK.

    The issues around Lewandowsky’s papers are well documented. There are various claims against them.

    He has been awarded a “merit” award by the Wolfson Foundation.

    This suggests to me that the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation are completely clueless

  3. realityrulesok on April 29, 2013 at 11:18 pm said:

    Epistemic closure: putting your faith in snake-oil charlatans like Bishop Hill, Delingpole, Watts, Tallbloke, Monckton and the rest, whilst distrusting those who actually do the science.

    It’s a politer term than “batshit crazy, paranoid nutters”, but means pretty much the same thing.

    Sure, I do pity you, but I pity your children more. I think of a German friend of mine, and the shame she felt that her father had been in the SS during WWII. He did have an excuse though – he was drafted.

    What’s your excuse going to be? Think carefully, because your grandchildren will expect an answer.

    “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it – first as tragedy, then as farce”.

    I guess old George Santayana saw you guys coming.

  4. I don’t need to put any faith in anyone to see that Lewandowsky is a crook. The guy hardly merits passing a degree, let alone getting a professorship.

  5. Any comment on the ‘extreme weather’ data RROK, or are you still placing your faith in Businessweek and USAToday?

  6. realityrulesok on April 30, 2013 at 4:44 pm said:

    Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.

  7. realityrulesok on April 30, 2013 at 4:46 pm said:

    Careful, Andy, Lewandowsky could be surveying this blog right now, and adding your comments to his award-winning database.

    Better put your best tinfoil hat on…

  8. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm said:

    >”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

    Yes, dogmatic belief is all that is required of faith-based science – even if you understand it.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2013 at 4:56 pm said:

    ‘Oreskes and Conway do the end of the world’

    “It’s extraordinary how this “massive campaign” by fossil fuel interests has gone almost entirely undocumented. There is, to the best of my knowledge, virtually no evidence to support the claim at all. It is something of an indictment of the standards in academia that this kind of conspiracy theorising goes unremarked and entirely unchallenged.”

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/29/oreskes-and-conway-do-the-end-of-the-world.html

    And Lewandowsky strangely silent on this particular conspiracy theory too.

  10. Magoo on April 30, 2013 at 5:16 pm said:

    Yes that’s right, ‘faith is superfluous if you understand the science’. Let’s have another look at the science, see what it says about AGW extreme weather:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

  11. Holland and Bruyère (2013) and Grinsted et al. (2012) show that Hurricane intensity and storm surges have increased in recent years in the Atlantic and is strongly correlated with temperature.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1713-0#page-1

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/14/1209980110.full.pdf+html

    I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm said:

    Re Grinsted et al. (2012)

    ‘I Remain “Roughly” 18 Feet Tall’

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/i-remain-roughly-18-feet-tall.html

    Re Holland and Bruyère (2013) – in their own words:-

    “An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50%.”

  13. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2013 at 6:21 pm said:

    >”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

    Climate Science Articles of Faith: Doctrine

    # Warming in the pipeline is unequivocal…….

  14. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2013 at 6:32 pm said:

    >”I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.”

    Snow too.

  15. realityrulesok on April 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm said:

    Alas for the faithful deniers who parrot his pseudoscientific nonsense here, Watts is not any kind of scientist, but merely a failed meteorologist and paid propagandist for the pollutocracy, via Fox and WUWT. In short, a “useful idiot”…

    “Watts admits “I’m not a degreed climate scientist” on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology.

    Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

  16. Interestingly Pielke, Jr has co authored a paper that shows that the global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive with a p value of 0.06 which means there is only a 6% chance that this trend could have happened by chance.

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

    So we can see from various media reports, 3 peer reviewed papers and the WattsUp blog that extreme weather events of certain classes (including snow fall) are increasing.

    Perhaps Magoo or Richard C would like to comment on why they believe this is happening?

  17. Pingback: A global warming hoax meme is born – in New Zealand too! | Secular News Daily

  18. Magoo on May 1, 2013 at 10:34 am said:

    A few problems with the Holland and Bruyère (2013) paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/on-holland-and-bruyere-2013-recent-intense-hurricane-response-to-global-climate-change/

    Regarding Pielke Jr’s paper – did you actually read it?

    ‘Thus, in the context of climate variability, it is impor- tant to recognize that certain shorter time periods during the past half-century may indeed show significant trends (upward and downward) in TC landfall activity on de- cadal time scales (e.g., Callaghan and Power 2011). The NATL basin has been in an active period since about 1995, which some have attributed to the positive phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (Goldenberg et al. 2001). A linear trend analysis shows a significant upward trend in NATL activity (R2 5 0.13; p 5 0.011) during the past several decades (1970–2010); consideration of the longer period of 1944–2010 exhibits no secular trend in hurricane landfalls (and even longer periods show no increasing trend; see, e.g., Pielke 2009). Intense typhoon frequency has also been shown in the WPAC to be modulated by multidecadal variability (Chan 2008) on time scales of 16–32 years associated with the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and variability of the El Nin ̃ o– Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and no significant trend is found in hurricane landfalls during the period examined (1950–2010).’

    And from the the summary:

    ‘We have iden- tified considerable interannual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls; but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.’

    In addition to this the IPCC also finds no extreme weather except for a rise in precipitation in SOME areas (page 6, Climate Extremes & Impacts):

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

    Regarding precipitation, GLOBAL precipitation looks to be reasonably stable. If you factor in that the effects of AGW weren’t supposed to be visible until after 1980, then it doesn’t seem abnormal to me when compared to the years prior to 1980.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure2.gif

  19. Magoo on May 1, 2013 at 10:49 am said:

    The data on the following page isn’t from Anthony Watts though, is it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

    It’s what’s called empirical evidence and is from the following:

    Dr. Ryan Maue, PhD
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    The US Geological Survey (USGS)
    The Austrian Central Administration For Meteorology (ZAMG)
    Rutgers University
    University of Regina
    University of Colorado at Boulder
    Florida State University
    University of Alabama
    University of California

    Hardly the work of Anthony Watts is it, except that he collected the various the data in one place. What does desmog.com have to say about the institutions above, and do they they have something on your sources – Businessweek and USAToday as well?

  20. Magoo on May 1, 2013 at 10:56 am said:

    Hmmm, Ken’s not using TangledParachute for his climate change viewpoints any more? Perhaps he thinks more people will read it if he disguises it on a blog that discusses religion instead. Ironic considering the fact that AGW lacks any actual scientific evidence and needs vast amounts of faith as a result.

  21. Ken writes

    The easy copy and paste key commands on computers has a lot to answer for.

    which is why we see the same article from Ken appear in several places.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm said:

    Ken obligingly propagates the HS article and paper in the manner of my expectation “the internet will do the rest”.

    Although I wasn’t expecting Ken to be one of more helpful in the process, or even participate.

    Thanks Ken.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm said:

    From Quark Soup:-

    ‘Will CO2 Reach 400 ppm? (Probably Not.)’

    […] So is CO2 going to hit 400 ppm this year? (Technically that should be “ppmv.”) It already has in some northernly monitors, and of course it is already much beyond this in many cities, but will it make this number at Mauna Loa, the Yankee stadium of greenhouse gas monitoring?

    It’s not obvious, and it’s looking a little unlikely.

    Here are the recent weekly CO2 numbers from Mauna Loa: [graph]

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E7TseNSpC1s/UYBSkFxdtwI/AAAAAAAAB7c/NSlflpmWg2E/s1600/Mauna+Loa+weekly+CO2.jpg

    and here is the one-year change for each week: [graph]

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OdT7NJrAZBQ/UYBS_aIF2VI/AAAAAAAAB7k/ZxXNfyCf8oE/s1600/MLO+CO2+1yr+chg.jpg

    Lately, for whatever reason, the 1-yr change has been below average. Since last year’s MLO CO2 peaked at 397.13 ppm on 5/6/12, we probably need a 2.9 ppm annual increase (assuming the peak occurs on the same week, which isn’t always true), which based on the recent numbers isn’t looking likely [at least for the weekly published average].

    >>>>>>>>

    http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/will-co2-reach-400-ppm-probably-not.html

    # # #

    Hmmm……… “for whatever reason”? I wonder what that might be?

  24. Magoo on May 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm said:

    The problem with that though Richard is that nobody visits Ken’s websites. But still, it’s a nice gesture on his part I suppose – it’s the thought that counts.

  25. Nick on May 2, 2013 at 2:39 pm said:

    Hi Magoo,
    Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.

    I also see you have chosen to ignore the 1.89% increasing trend that is explicitly written on the graph you presented from Watts.

    Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95%

    The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.

  26. Nick on May 2, 2013 at 2:43 pm said:

    Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.

    Please remind me exactly what the point you were trying to make was?

  27. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 4:39 pm said:

    >”I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events”James Taylor:-

    Decade-by-decade analysis of the last century by James Taylor:-

    ‘Don’t Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent’

    When Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southern Louisiana last week, the storm provided a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong, damaging hurricanes.

    “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News.

    Normally, of course, the subjective global climate opinions of a mechanical engineer at an obscure Minnesota university wouldn’t be national news. However, global warming alarmists put Abraham forward as the point man for their self-proclaimed Climate Science Rapid Response Team. But hey, if Abraham is the best they can do, so be it.

    Abraham says major hurricanes are the only ones that really matter, and that major hurricanes are increasing. If that is indeed so, then we might have a cause for concern. Let’s go straight to the data to find out if major hurricanes are indeed increasing.

    The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. What are the trends within this 100-year span? Let’s take a look.

    Let’s split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.

    During the most recent decade, 2001-2010, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

    During the preceding decade, 1991-2000, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is below the 100-year average.

    During the decade 1981-1990, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties the least number of major hurricanes on record.

    During the decade 1971-1980, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties 1981-1990 as the two decades with the least number of major hurricanes.

    During the decade 1961-1970, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

    Incredibly, not a single decade during the past 50 years saw an above-average number of major hurricanes – not a single decade!

    Now let’s look at the preceding 50 years in the hurricane record, before the alleged human-induced global warming crisis.

    During the decade 1951-1960, 9 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

    During the decade 1941-1950, 11 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially above the 100-year average.

    During the decade 1931-1940, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

    During the decade 1921-1930, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is slightly below the 100-year average.

    During the decade 1911-1920, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

    Global warming alarmists and mechanical engineers at obscure Minnesota universities may lie, but the objective data do not lie. During the past 5 decades, an average of 5.6 major hurricanes struck the United States. During the preceding 5 decades, and average of 8.4 major hurricanes struck the United States.

    “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage” are not increasing. Hard, objective data show exactly the opposite. Indeed, during the past 4 decades, the time period during which global warming alarmists claim human-induced global warming accelerated rapidly and became incontrovertible, the fewest number of major hurricanes struck during any 40-year period since at least the 1800s.

    Oh, and during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States.

    Global warming alarmists better hope we start seeing a rash of major hurricanes pretty soon if this is not going to be the quietest decade on record. Until and unless that happens, the objective data show the Climate Science Rapid Response Team is actually the Climate Science Rapid Propaganda Team.

    But hey, if that’s the best they can do, so be it.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/

  28. Nick on May 2, 2013 at 4:59 pm said:

    Hi Richard C, Magoo and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media so I presume they will be along shortly to berate you.

    In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.

    [“and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” — Did I? Where? — RT]

  29. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm said:

    >”Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.”

    Not so fast Warmy. “Climate change” has its own specific IPCC definition (and another at UNFCCC) but a report assessing “Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters” is not necessarily “climate change” by IPCC definition. The report assesses what “relationship” there might be between the two, but “extreme events and disasters” include “natural climate variability” and “socioeconomic development” so there are other considerations. Quoting the brochure at Magoo’s link:-

    “This Summary for Policymakers presents key findings from the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX approaches the topic by assessing the scientific literature on issues that range from the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events (‘climate extremes’) to the implications of these events for society and sustainable development. The assessment concerns the interaction of climatic, environmental, and human factors that can lead to impacts and disasters, options for managing the risks posed by impacts and disasters, and the important role that non-climatic factors play in determining impacts. Box SPM.1 defines concepts central to the SREX.”

    And,

    D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses

    “Future changes in exposure, vulnerability, and climate extremes resulting from natural climate variability, anthropogenic climate change, and socioeconomic development can alter the impacts of climate extremes on natural and human systems and the potential for disasters.”

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

    # # #

    The jury is still out on “anthropogenic climate change” so any “relationship” between ACC and “extreme events and disasters” is conjecture at best given there’s already natural variability to and socioeconomic development in the mix.

  30. Magoo on May 2, 2013 at 5:15 pm said:

    My point is, Nick, that the Global Hurricane Frequency data prior 1978 is similar to that after 1978 – there is no long term rising trend in global hurricane frequency. You can choose to cherry pick a starting point & ignore the previous data to make it look like it’s unprecedented but the truth it’s not.

    ‘Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.’

    Yes that’s right, a rising trend of 2-3 major hurricanes over the last 25 yrs. Hardly a significant trend don’t you think, especially when the long term shows no rising trend in hurricane activity?

    ‘Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95% …… The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.’

    What’s your source for the second statement please? The long term data according to Pielke shows that there is nothing unusual with the hurricanes – no trend. Why just look at 1970 onwards?

    Re: 1.89% rising precipitation. If AGW is the cause of rising precipitation why has it been consistent for around 65 yrs – why is it not rising? Again, there’s nothing unusual in the data – why is 1995 – 2010 any different to 1947-1982? If the effects of AGW were only supposed to be apparent from around 1980 onwards why was there less precipitation during the 80’s & 90’s?

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure2.gif

    If you think the rising precipitation over the last century is due to AGW you need to prove man is responsible for the warming. In order to do this you need to prove the positive feedback from water vapour which should be evident in a tropospheric hot spot. As the hot spot doesn’t exist how can you prove the warming is anthropogenic, and if you can’t prove it’s anthropogenic how can you attribute any changes to the climate to mankind? Warming is not evidence of the cause of the warming, and weather events aren’t either – a tropospheric hot spot on the other hand is.

  31. If not having a degree is a handicap, then we would also write off Bill Gates as a has been

  32. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 5:32 pm said:

    >”…they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media”

    Opinion piece? The data source is here The National Hurricane Center

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

    Hardly necessary for a peer-reviewed paper to analyze publicly available information.

    >”In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.”

    If ACC is not evident in US/Atlantic hurricane activity its not eveident:-

    Global Warming and Hurricanes
    An Overview of Current Research Results

    1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity?

    Thomas R. Knutson
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
    Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised January 30, 2013

    A. Summary Statement

    Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

    * Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity?
    * What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?

    In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:

    * It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

  33. It’s not fair to say that Ken’s blog receives no visitors as his own site rankings list OP as number 27

  34. Nick on May 2, 2013 at 5:34 pm said:

    Hi Richard C,
    This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf

    Start with table 7.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 5:45 pm said:

    >”This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from”

    Dispensed with truth completely now have you Nick?

    James Taylor did provide the source of the data so why say (a lie BTW) he got it from somewhere else?

  36. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 6:16 pm said:

    >”Start with table 7″

    OK. From ‘Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.: Sober Analysis, Cool Graphics from Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger’:-

    http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Normalized-Hurricane-Damages-2012-Including-Sandy-300×176.jpg

    U.S. tropical cyclone damage adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth, 1900-2012 [Note – I am using a more updated graph than the one appearing in Addendum. Source: Pielke et al. 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900-2005, Natural Hazards Review, DOI: 10.1061/1527-6988, 9:1(29), updated 12/31/2012].

    http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/

    “Hurricane damages keep going up and up, but that’s due to the ongoing rise in population and development in coastal areas. When hurricane damage is adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and inflation, there is no long-term trend.”

  37. Magoo on May 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm said:

    ‘This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.’

    Ever seen this graph Nick?

    http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/vuwflag2.pdf

    The same applies to your claim that your table 7 shows increasing major hurricanes. Comparing decades to each other as Richard C has done in his comment above is more accurate don’t you think?

  38. Magoo on May 2, 2013 at 6:40 pm said:

    Yes, but the audience consists almost entirely of only 3 people, with an occasional unsuspecting poor bugger making the mistake of clicking on it every once in a blue moon. The newbies soon discover their mistake and never return.

  39. Magoo on May 2, 2013 at 6:45 pm said:

    Sorry I forgot to mention, the publication of the site rankings boosts his visitor numbers for a short term when other blogs such as Whaleoil refer people there to look at the blog ranking stats.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2013 at 6:59 pm said:

    >”…it [Table 7] shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.”

    No it doesn’t. It shows AVERAGE number over different time spans i.e. not an apples-to-apples comparison that James Taylor made with decade-to-decade analysis.

    The last Table 7 period 1995 – 2010 average 3.8 had 16 of which 7 were in 2005 (see Table 8a). There were 8 in 1950 (the record) and also 7 in 1961 but there’s no comparison of those in 15 year context to compare to 1995 – 2010.

    “lies, damned lies, and statistics”

  41. Nick on May 2, 2013 at 9:31 pm said:

    Richard T, you said “I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today” if you want to add Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources then I apologise for misrepresenting you.

    Richard C, name calling is unnecessary. Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to.

    Magoo, if you want to put me in the same class as Victoria University and the IPCC then I am flattered. Monckton’s accusation was met with hilarity as I recall.

  42. Magoo on May 3, 2013 at 10:35 am said:

    As your claims of increasing extreme weather are also met with hilarity. Really Nick, how far do you need to stick your head in the sand to ignore the multiple sources of data that show the extreme weather claims to be complete rubbish. Only an idiot would believe the extreme weather propaganda when confronted with the real world empirical evidence showing otherwise.

    Next you’ll be saying there’s a tropospheric hot spot and that it’s been warming for the last 17 yrs. The reality of it all is that you’re just incapable of admitting you’re wrong, which is why you grasp at straws like ‘extreme weather’ in desperation – even the IPCC admits it’s bogus and their job is to promote AGW. It’s easier just to be honest and face the reality of the empirical evidence instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to say. Even if you could prove extreme weather, you can’t pin it on AGW because there’s no tropospheric hot spot to prove man is responsible. You have empirical data from multiple well regarded sources that prove you wrong on every front.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on May 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm said:

    >”Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”

    You really are prone to untruth aren’t you Nick? James Taylor was responding to this statement (also an untruth we note):-

    “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/

    The source of James’ data is (quoting his article):-

    “The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information [hotlinked] on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC……..”

    The hotlink is to this page for “NHC Data Archive”:-

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

    Nowhere in James’ article is there a reference that “explicitly mentions the report [you] linked to”.

    Clearly Nick, you either a) have reading comprehension difficulties, or b) you just make up any old BS and miss-attribute that to be what the target of your disparagement (in this case James Taylor) said i.e. you are prone to untruth and therefore a liar.

    Which is it Nick? reading difficulty? or liar?

    And you say:-

    >”Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources”

    Are you actually implying The National Hurricane Center (NHC) in USA is merely a source of opinion (because that’s James Taylor’s data source) and the US institution whose specific function, although being hurricanes, is not a credible source of hurricane-related data?

    So apart from the lying aspect of your assertions (subject to your clarification), now you’re completely dissing information sourced from a national institution providing climate data because the data is inconvenient to “the cause” (anthropogenic global warming activism) that you are obviously a party to in some capacity. Those actions would epitomize a typical unethical unscrupulous activist type persona would it not?

    [RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]

  44. Richard C (NZ) on May 3, 2013 at 5:31 pm said:

    >”[RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]”

    Are you condoning blatant lies (untruth) now RT?

    If Nick insists on propagating lies then he should expect to be called out on such and be referred to as a liar because that is exactly what he is. There is no personal abuse just statement of fact unless he retracts or clarifies that his wrongful statements are actually the result of a reading comprehension difficulty or suchlike..

    Same goes for his activism. If he insists on an activist approach (a lying one at that on the face of it) on behalf of the anthropogenic global warming faction then he should expect to be called a Warmy or similar. There is no personal abuse just statement of distinction. He long ago abandoned his original professed stance of objectivity, now he’s just an activist on a mission.

    BTW I’m actually on topic on this except for no Nick-IPCC connection but his activism is the same as your activist-IPCC post.

    [An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence, but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part. By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]

  45. Richard C (NZ) on May 3, 2013 at 7:45 pm said:

    >”[An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence,….”

    But an allegation of lying is a statement of fact when, by your standards, your own criteria is activated as above and as I did (see below). Unless Nick retracts or clarifies his wrongful statements as miss-comprehension or similar then he remains a liar and you are condoning it by your (rather dubious) moderation policy.

    >”….but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part.”

    I’ve called him a liar by your own stated criteria above having laid out your criteria of “reasoning and the presentation of evidence” here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195957

    And here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195967

    And here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195973

    And here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196180

    Having so far seen no retraction by Nick or explanation of miss-comprehension then on the face of it, Nick is a liar and you are condoning that by your moderation policy RT.

    >”By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]”

    Your moderation RT, in the face of the evidence above (and no retraction forthcoming from Nick) that you are in fact condoning lies, has descended into farce, Is that because Nick’s economy of truth conforms to your own unsubstantiated hand-waving standards RT? Viz.

    ”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”

    Ii.e. simple argument from authority (your own) and nothing forthcoming since from reputable source to support your statement. In this respect I have to say there was more than a grain of truth in Rob Taylor’s attempt to take issue with your understanding of ocean heating processes and transport mechanisms that are obviously unconnected to any conventional and uncontested teaching of University level oceanography or thermal dynamics of radiation-water-heat flow.

    It would not do to implement a moderation policy that restricts your own freedom to make baseless statements would it RT?

    BTW, if by “it’s strategically unwise to provoke me” you are considering banning me for exposing for all to see, some SkS/Hot Topic-like inconsistencies in your blog moderation, then by that action (if carried out) your personal and blog reputation would be in tatters.

  46. Richard C,

    I haven’t followed all the references from everyone, but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing. I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic.

    You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident.

    I never got around to responding to your disagreement about movement of thermal energy in the ocean. I remember I said some of the water warmed by the sun is moved at scales of days to decades or longer before its heat comes again to the surface, and this is confirmed by your comments.

    However, most of the energy rises to the surface that very day. My evidence for that is simple: the cold air after every night is warmed, as shown by every continuous temperature record and personal experience. Since the air is cold after the night, the warmth was not already in the water, but is newly arrived from the sun that very day. Since the sun cannot heat the air directly, the heat must be coming from the water’s emission of long-wave IR.

    You call this an argument from (my own) authority, and it is indeed an argument with the authority of my own observation. What else could give a true authority? I don’t know if there might be a paper explaining this, but if you think there’s a need for it, I will write one. Because, frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.

    Cheers.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 10:45 am said:

    >”I haven’t followed all the references from everyone,…”

    Then you have not determined the facts and are in no position to make an assessment as to whether Nick is lying or not.

    >”….but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing”

    Firstly, the whole point of James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis in his article was to show that the assertions of major hurricanes increasing (e.g. the one you make by misinterpretation above) are entirely wrongful (lies, untruth, dishonest). This was noted by Magoo here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195985

    I also (in addition to posting James Taylor’s analysis) addressed the wrongful interpretation here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195993

    Secondly, Table 7 is NOT the source of James Taylor’s data as Nick states “This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.” i.e. Nick lied (and it doesn’t show what he asserts anyway i.e. he also misinterprets as you do and both of you propagate your misinterpretation). Then Nick states in a subsequent comment “Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”. James Taylor did not mention that report let alone explicitly i.e. Nick lied (again). Nick’s two blatant lies are documented here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195971

    And here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196012

    >”I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic”

    You cannot see? If you cannot discern the difference between truth and lies then you cannot uphold truth when called for can you? What exactly do you stand for at this blog if you cannot discern right from wrong Richard Treadgold?

    My reference to study of hurricane damage was IN ADDITION to the case against Nick’s lies i.e. it is also dishonest to assert, as has been elsewhere (not Nick) that major hurricanes are causing more damage. James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis clearly shows major hurricanes are NOT increasing, contrary to Nick’s your misinterpreted assessment.

    >”You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident”

    Damn right I complain about your moderation policy – it stinks. At this point there is nothing that distinguishes this blog from SkS or Hot Topic in terms of truth. I stand for truth and I’m obsessive and strident about that – no apologies, no nitpicking, not a lot of courtesy and plenty of complaints. What do you stand for Richard Treadgold?

  48. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

    >”….frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.”

    I’m not. Clearly, going by the above statement, and as Rob Taylor points out too, you are completely ignorant of ocean heating processes, mechanisms and circulation systems. All of the educational material and oceanographic papers presented and discussed on this bog have been a waste of time in your case.

    Even Gareth Renowden, Rob Painting et al understand ocean energy absorption and heat circulation far better than you do. They will make mincemeat of you if they get hold of your incredibly inept understanding, that being:-

    ”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”

    So according to your application of that convention (convective law), energy that has been laid down by radiation path-length to a depth of 100 – 200m depending on water clarity, necessarily rises to the surface of the ocean in its various states of externally forced turbulence and thermal imbalances and gradients both internal and to the overlying air (not at all like a water pot on a stove element note) “within seconds or minutes”?

    Why then (just for example) do I find at the very top of a simple internet search of the Web (not even Scholar) for – ocean horizontal heat transport, this paper?:-

    ‘Estimates of oceanic horizontal heat transport in the tropical Pacific’

    1. Alejandro F. Pares-Sierra
    2. Masamichi Inoue
    3. James J. O’Brien

    Article first published online: 20 SEP 2012

    DOI: 10.1029/JC090iC02p03293

    Meridional heat transport in the tropical Pacific is estimated using a linear numerical model with realistic boundaries and forced by 18 years of observed wind, covering the period from January 1962 to December 1979. The long-term mean heat transport estimated in this study is similar to the estimates based on heat balance and radiation considerations and on complex numerical models that account for thermodynamics as well. This points to the dominant role played by the adiabatic process, the only heat transport mechanism present in this study, in the heat balance for the equatorial Pacific. The combined Ekman and geostrophic heat transport can account for the net meridional heat transport, except near the equator, where continuity requirements dictate. The Ekman and geostrophic transport oppose each other, and their small difference in magnitude gives rise to the net meridional heat transport, resulting in transport away from the equator for the southern hemisphere and north of 6°N, while for the band between 6°N and the equator an equatorward transport is present. Seasonal and interannual variations are found to be as large as, or even larger than, the long-term mean. Seasonal variations in meridional heat transport are in accordance with seasonal variations in zonal winds via Ekman transport, while the geostrophic transport remains more or less constant on this time scale. The results are a net poleward heat transport in the winter hemisphere and a equatorward transport in the summer hemisphere. At the interannual time scale, variabilities in both Ekman and geostrophic components contribute to the interannual variability in heat transport. Major features of the interannual variations in meridional heat transport appear to be associated with the El Nino events. It is interesting to note that the interannual variations associated with El Nino events are not restricted to the near-equatorial region. Phase locking between the interannual variations and the annual cycle is evident in the data set. Major findings in this study, based on an adiabatic model, are expected to carry over to more realistic nonlinear numerical models.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC090iC02p03293/abstract

    # # #

    How could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport occurring in the ocean described above if, as you assert, “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”?

  49. Thank you for your patience, Richard, but this becomes almost vexatious.

    At least you no longer overlook my use of the word most in “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day.” You ask “how could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport.”

    Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface. I guess you must consider the possibility that “most” could be anything from 51% to 99%. But you must have considered this yourself, since you bring a scientific bent to everything else you study here.

    If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat. Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.

  50. Andy on May 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm said:

    On the topic of activists, Bill McKibben is coming to NZ for a speaking tour in June.
    Dates are at Hot Topic.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 2:34 pm said:

    >”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.”

    As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, the specific heat capacity of air is a fraction of the specific heat capacity of water and the amount of heat in each can be easily calculated if the respective temperatures are known. If “most” of the heat absorbed by the (tropical) ocean in one day were immediately released to the (tropical) atmosphere that same day, the tropical atmosphere would be far hotter than the observed temperature actually is, because (quoting following lecture linked):-

    “The upper 2.5m layer of ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above.”

    And,

    “Heat transport from tropics to polar regions” [Page 19]

    http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/as222d/lec9-07-atmos-ocean-sm.pdf

    But solar insolation is down to 100 – 200m, not 2.5m. The ocean therefore, acts as a “heat-sink” (a store or reservoir of energy) that is far more efficient in that capacity than land is. So “most” of the energy absorbed by the tropical ocean is not released to the tropical atmosphere. It is instead transported to where thermal gradient takes it (the air over tropical seawater is generally warmer than the underlying water so not so much in that direction). The thermal gradients take the heat towards the poles (generally) by thermohaline circulation currents because the thermal gradient from water to air turns from negative (air warmer than water) to positive (water warmer than air) and the water => air thermal gradient increases going north or south from the equator. Thus New Zealand waters are warmed by warm water originating from the tropics where ocean heating is greatest. That warm water, in turn, warms New Zealand air in combination with atmospheric circulation of tropical warm air taken south by weather systems and the diurnal warm-cool cycle of localized solar heating. The ocean however, due to evaporation, thermal lag and circulation currents acts as a modulator of diurnal temperature, without which, both day and night-time air temperature would be much cooler around coastal NZ. I live on a peninsular having ocean on one side and harbour on the other but very rarely are there frosts. Further inland on the same day there are frosts when there are none where I live because the ocean modulates air temperature fluctuation much the same as water vapour modulates air temperature.

    If instead, cold air comes up from the Antarctic, the atmosphere doesn’t do much warming in the diurnal warm-cool cycle especially around lower NZ. The same would be the case for the entire country if warm water from the tropics did not reach NZ.

    A paper quantifying ocean heat transport fluxes has already been cited on this blog, viz:-

    ‘Improved estimates of global ocean circulation,heat transport and mixing from hydrographic data’

    Alexandre Ganachaud* & Carl Wunsch (2000)

    http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf

    The relevant diagram from that paper is Figure 1:-

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg

    Caption:-

    Figure 1 Hydrographic sections and heat fluxes. Transoceanic sections from the WOCE program were selected to ensure a reasonable temporal consistency (1990±1996) and to avoid crossing sections. Between Jakarta and Australia, the 1989 section from the Franco-Indonesian JADE program was used while pre-WOCE sections (1985, 1987)3
    were used in the North Paci®c and at 328 S in the Indian Ocean. Each section is a collection of high-density temperature, salinity, oxygen and nutrient measurements. From temperature and salinity, a geostrophic velocity field is calculated and adjusted so that mass and other conservative tracers (see Methods) are conserved between sections. The resulting heat (or `enthalpy’, where the net mass flux is non-zero) transports are indicated by the arrows and red numbers (positive northward/eastward). The white box at the tail
    end of each arrow is the one-standard-deviation uncertainty. Between sections, ocean± atmosphere heat transfers are indicated by the zonal length of the coloured boxes (blue for ocean cooling; red for ocean heating), with the length of the white box inside indicating the uncertainty. (Because the ocean±atmosphere heat transfers are anomaly residuals, that is, corrected for residual mass imbalances, they do not correspond exactly to the
    differences between net fluxes across sections, for example, in the North Indian Ocean. But this discrepancy is much less than the uncertainties.)

    Clearly, ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).

    Schematic diagrams (and there are numerous versions in Google Images) as follows:-

    Ocean Heat Transport [horizontal],

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/graphics/conveyor_lumpkin.jpg

    Global Ocean Conveyor Circulation (thermohaline circulation) [horizontal]:-

    http://hermes.mbl.edu/news/press_releases/images/thermohaline_circulation.jpg

  52. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm said:

    Should be:-

    “Clearly, [generally] ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).”

    There are exceptions of course.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 4:04 pm said:

    Schematic diagrams showing predominant global “Heat release to atmosphere/air” from the heat transport circulation belt occurs from the North Atlantic (2 regions), and a lessor loss occurs from the South Atlantic (1 region). All 3 regions of predominant loss are adjacent to either the North or South Pole.

    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/images/image2.jpg

    https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/earth540/ocean_conveyor.jpg

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif

    http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/thermocirc2.gif

    http://www.eoearth.org/files/111001_111100/111095/620px-2_thermohaline_003.png

    But those diagrams however, do not reconcile with the heat gain/loss quantities in Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1:-

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg

    They calculate a gain in the South Atlantic and South Pacific with the major loss occurring from the Southern Indian (add south of Australia to that too), The next order of losses are almost equal across the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Mid-South Atlantic. The gains/losses are in units of PW where 1 W = 1 J/second i.e. enormous amounts of energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere every second.

    The major heat gain on the other hand, is the even greater influx of energy to the equatorial/tropical Pacific. The next but lessor gain is to the southern tropical and equatorial Atlantic. None of the major oceanic heat loss regions are in the tropical zone of either Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm said:

    >”Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface.”

    Before you preach to me RT, with nothing to back your claim, no citation of relevant studies, no energy budget diagram i.e. hand-waving waffle, I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg

  55. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 4:53 pm said:

    >”…this might cheer you up a bit RC”

    Not really Magoo. I’m convinced solar cycles control climate from all the evidence and R.J. Salvador’s correlation just adds to that already very large body.

    But as with the warming scenario of climate controlled by GHGs, the solar explanation will undergo the test of time in the very near future too just like any other scenario prediction. I certainly wont be cheered up if the solar cooling scenario is proved correct because the consequences are considerable to human well being, to put it mildly. I will however be satisfied that the solar explanation is the correct one when cooling is evident in non-La Nina conditions over the next few years i.e. from empirical observation.

    That satisfaction, if realized, is what is colloquially referred to I believe, as “cold comfort” so any cheering up in that event would be bittersweet (to use another colloquialism). Hasn’t happened yet though but the early indicators are in-the-money.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 5:35 pm said:

    >”…the early indicators are in-the-money”

    Like this one:-

    ‘Temperature change in a Nutshell’

    Written by Ed Hoskins MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)

    [See graphs]

    The UK Met Office long term Central England Temperature record has kept a continuous and consistent data set since the 1660s. It appears to be reliable and to have maintained its quality. It has not been adjusted as have so many other official temperature records.

    Although the CET record covers only a small part of the northern hemisphere, it has shown a consistent rise since the end of the little ice age in 1850 at a rate of about +0.45°C / century or about +0.67°C in the last 150 years. This rise accords well with other temperature records.

    However since the year 2000, diminishing solar activity in solar cycle 24, moving back towards little ice age patterns, appears to be having an real effect.

    So since 2000 the CET shows an annual temperature diminution at the rate of -0.49°C / decade or -0.59°C in 12 years: this negates ~80% of the entire CET temperature rise since 1850. Although this is a very short period, the extent of the climate change that has been observed since the turn of the millennium is remarkable.

    Using the March 2013 CET value it is possible to show the winter temperature values up until March 2013 with a combination of the four months December – March for the first 13 years of this century. The diminution of the four winter months temperatures is more remarkable at a rate of -1.11°C / decade or -1.49°C in the last 13 years. This compares with a winter temperature increase rate from 1850 to the year 2000 of +0.32°C / century or +0.48°C for the whole 150 year period.

    Continues>>>>>>

    http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_May_3_2013

  57. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 6:35 pm said:

    >”I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently”

    To assist, a description in words from Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000):-

    “Figure 1 shows the heat (actually, enthalpy) transports, across
    each hydrographic section (arrows) along with the residuals reflecting
    atmospheric heat exchanges (boxes). Residuals are accurately
    determined at middle and high latitudes, but are more uncertain at
    lower latitudes (for example, in the Atlantic Ocean) owing to an
    enhancement of the geostrophic noise there. Nevertheless, the total
    heating over the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans are well determined,
    respectively 0:7 ± 0:2PW (1PW = 10^15 W) and
    1:6 ± 0:4 PW. No significant heat transfers are found in the
    Indian Ocean because of the large, uncertain, warm water inflow
    from the Pacific Ocean. This large warm water flux is the main heat
    escape from the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a northward heat flux in
    the South Pacific. In the southern Pacific sector, significant heating
    is found, in contrast with the sparse in situ observations, but in
    qualitative agreement with the recent re-analysis of the European
    Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts.

    Figure 3 shows the globally integrated heat fluxes compared to independent estimates.
    Most of the cooling occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, at a rate of
    -1:7 ± 0:2 PW, in balance with the 2:3 ± 0:4 PW heating in the
    tropical band and the -0:7 ± 0:3 PW cooling in the Southern Ocean.”

    http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf

  58. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm said:

    Proportional allocation of solar radiation absorption in the tropics to atmosphere/ocean latitudinal transport from an educational resource:-

    1.3 Latitudinal energy transfer

    Energy deposition is not uniform with latitude. Less solar radiation is deposited at high
    latitudes than low, and in the winter than in the summer hemisphere. A local equilibrium
    temperature can be computed at each latitude, but the resulting temperature distribution has
    a much steeper decline toward the poles than is observed. Thus, energy must be transported
    from the tropical regions toward the poles.

    Let us make a quantitative calculation of this eect for the case in which the sun is directly
    over the equator, i. e., at the equinox. The key issue is the actual versus the projected area
    of a latitudinal strip of the earth’s surface, as illustrated in gure 1.4. The actual area of the
    strip of earth’s surface illustrated in this gure is S = 2Rcos   R, while the projected
    area of this strip as seen from the sun is Sp = 2Rcos   Rcos . Assuming albedo A
    at latitude , the energy balance at this latitude is Fs(1 􀀀 A)Sp = T4
    radS, resulting in a radiative temperature there of

    Trad() = ” Fs(1 􀀀 A) cos  #1=4 : (1.7)

    Figure 1.5 shows the latitudinal distribution of radiative temperature as well as the
    global radiative temperature and the mean sea surface temperature as a function of latitude.
    Also plotted is the sea surface temperature minus 40 K, slightly greater than the dierence
    between the surface temperature and the radiative temperature in the globally uniform case.
    This can be taken as an approximation of the actual local radiative temperature. Within
    50 of the equator the predicted radiative temperature exceeds the actual value, whereas
    at higher latitudes the reverse is true. This implies lateral export of energy by the oceans
    and atmosphere from low latitudes to high, i. e., transport of energy down the temperature
    gradient. In other words, there is a net flow of energy into the atmosphere and oceans at
    low latitudes, followed by transport to high latitudes, where there is net export.

    Figure 1.6 shows that this transport actually does take place. On an annual average,
    import of energy by radiation at the top of the atmosphere exceeds export by 2 + 5 + 2:5 =
    9:5 PW between 30S and 30N. the same amount is exported to space at higher latitudes.
    The poleward transport of energy is shared almost equally by the atmosphere and the ocean,
    with the ocean contributing slightly more.

    Within 10 of the equator, the atmospheric absorption of solar radiation and the emission
    of infrared are nearly in balance, so that the net absorption is only about 2 PW. The
    absorbed energy is exported to higher latitudes. This compares with a solar input of Fs(1􀀀
    A)  2R2 cos2 , which equals 27 PW for  = 0 and  = 20=57:3radians. Thus, the
    atmosphere in this band exports laterally only about 7% of the incoming solar radiation.
    However, an additional 11%, or 3 PW of incoming solar energy travels indirectly to higher
    latitudes via the oceans.

    The transition between net inflow from space to net outflow to space occurs near latitudes
    30. This is lower in latitude than suggested by the estimate in figure 1.5 where this
    transition occurs nearer 50. However, we must remember that figure 1.5 is based on rather
    loose arguments.

    Figure 1.7 shows the global energy flows as in figure 1.6, except averaged over December,
    January, and February only, i. e., during the northern winter. As would be expected from
    the southerly position of the sun during this period, there is a net inow of energy into
    the southern hemisphere and a net outow in the northern hemisphere. These hemispheric
    imbalances are partially compensated by ow of energy from south to north in both the
    atmosphere and the ocean. However, this ow doesn’t account for all of the southern hemi-
    sphere gains and northern hemisphere losses. Substantial warming with time occurs in the
    southern hemisphere as well as substantial cooling north of the equator. This heat storage
    eect is most important in the oceans, as the oceanic heat capacity is much higher than that
    of the atmosphere. The situation for the northern summer is nearly a mirror image of that
    for the northern winter.

    http://kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph332/notes/energyflows/energyflows.pdf

    # # #

    Between 10 N and 10 S, 11% of 27 PW input or 3 PW is exported latitudinally by the ocean. 7% or 2 PW is exported latitudinally by the atmosphere (note that that the 27 PW is NOT what is absorbed by the ocean, that figure will be reduced to some – unstated – degree)

    Between 30 N and 30 S, [?]% of [?] PW, or 9.5 PW is exported latitudinally. Half by the atmosphere, half by the ocean.

    The proportion exported by the ocean from between 30 N and 30 S will be greater than the 11% from between 10 N and 10 S because solar input is less further from the equator.

    Also see:-

    Figure 1.7: December-January-February averaged net energy flows (in petawatts; fluid trans-
    port plus radiation) between space and various latitudinal segments of the atmosphere and
    ocean. The numbers at the bottom are the rates at which energy is stored in the ocean
    segments. Zero storage is assumed for the atmosphere. Data adapted from Peixoto and
    Oort (1992).

    If “most” energy is exported from the ocean to the atmosphere each day, it would be impossible for 9 PW of the net SH summer TOA inflow of 14.5 PW (i.e. there’s more energy coming into the SH system than going out to begin with in the SH summer) to be stored in the ocean between 0 and 90 S. 8.5 PW of that storage going to between 30 S to 90 S, and 13 PW more energy coming into the SH ocean than leaving.

    Almost the opposite is occurring in the NH winter at the same time (ocean energy loss, no ocean storage) but greater latitudinal transport in the NH than SH and more energy leaving TOA (18 PW) than entering.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on May 5, 2013 at 12:03 am said:

    ‘The flow of energy through the earth’s climate system’

    By KEVIN E. TRENBERTH∗ and DAVID P. STEPANIAK

    National Center for Atmospheric Research†, Boulder, USA
    (Received 1 June 2004)
    (Symons Memorial Lecture: delivered on 21 May 2004)

    [Page 9]

    (b) The oceans

    […] The mixed layer on average involves ∼90 m of ocean. The thermal inertia of the ocean depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the mixed upper ocean layers and the deeper more isolated layers through the thermocline. Such mixing is not well known and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10 to 100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf

    # # #

    “fastest”: 10 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – tropics (expected)

    “slowest”: 100 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – high latitudes (expected)

    That 10 – 100 year lag is consistent with Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Usoskin (I think) and others I can’t recall right now. But is in no way consistent with “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”.

  60. Magoo on May 5, 2013 at 9:29 am said:

    Record number of days between major hurricane landfalls.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hurricane_drought_may2013.png

  61. Richard C (NZ) on May 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm said:

    If, in respect to the tropical ocean say, “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”, then we should expect to see a diurnal SST and subsurface day-time maximum to pre-dawn minimum temperature fluctuation range of about 20°C (or more than 15) for day-time SST of about 30°C.

    But the largest observed diurnal fluctuation (variation) I can find in the literature is 3.5°C from Deschamps and Frouin (1984), in the Mediterranean Sea, and Stramma et al. (1986), near the Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS) mooring in the Atlantic.

    Diurnal warming can be on the order of 3°C or more in the Tropics under calm and clear conditions according to Fairall et al. (1996) and Soloviev and Lukas (1997). Clayson and Weitlich (2006) show typical fluctuations of 0.37°C and 1.48°C on successive days, see:-

    FIG. 1. Several days of SST observations from a TAO buoy, along with indications of the predawn and maximum SST and resulting dSST value for two of the days.

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pne/pdf/clayson_weitlich_07_jc.pdf

    Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992’, presents graphs of diurnal SST and subsurface T.:-

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/cron1713.shtml

    Figure 7. Hourly time series of the vertically averaged surface layer temperature (Ta), SST at 1 m depth, and the temperature at the base of the surface layer (Th, where the base of the surface layer is defined as the depth of the 21.8 kg m density surface).

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig07.gif

    The largest diurnal SST variation is about 1.7°C in the 4 month period. The maximum subsurface diurnal variation is about 1°C.

    The thermal characteristics (properties) of sea water just do not allow the rapid diurnal warming-cooling-warming that occurs in near surface air temperature. Land damps diurnal temperature fluctuation similar to water as can be seen in equivalent observations to the sea water above.

    There will be egress of energy from near the surface that was laid down by solar radiation earlier that day, no dispute, especially when the mixed layer is very shallow in the tropics in calm conditions (see Clayson and Weitlich above). But the deeper the mixed layer and with wind and turbulence (see Cronin and McPhaden above), the longer the inertial time lag between ingress and egress of energy from the active layer. Trenberth and Stepaniak in their 2004 lecture up-thread expected a 10 year ocean => atmosphere temperature lag in the tropics. This means, a large measure of the energy leaving the surface of the tropical ocean in the surface heat budget (see Cronin and McPhaden above), was laid down by solar radiation 10 years previously by their expectation.

    There are however, more recent papers identifying planetary inertia (thermal lag) by different methods that arrive at global averages a little longer than 10 years (e.g. 14 yrs +/- 6 Abdussamatov). But Scafetta argues for a 2-stage lag consideration, the first 1 year, the second 12 years. This makes cognizance of the fact that there are more immediate responses than 8 – 10 – 14 – 20 – 100 years (see Tallbloke plot below). The most immediate response in the atmosphere to solar radiation striking the ocean would be virtually instantaneous (speed of light). That is in the case of reflection where there is no surface absorption and no change of wavelength from SW to LW. Reflected SW remains SW after reflection. But the reflection response is negligible from what I can gather. Equally, the response to same-day ocean energy ingress-egress is also negligible. The major solar-ocean-atmosphere lag is in the order of 8 – 20 years in century-scale data (Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Trenberth, Stepaniak).

    An example by Tallbloke of UAH near surface atmosphere temperature lagging HadSST2 by “several months” is here:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sst-lt-lag.png

    Cronin and McPhaden show heat budget diagrams in Figures 10a,b (top) and 10c,d (bottom).

    Figure 10. Box diagrams of the heat balance (equations (2a) and (2b)) for (a) the pre-wind burst period from September 19 to October 17, 1992, (b) the wind burst period from October 18 to November 12, 1992, (c) the post-wind burst period from November 13 to December 7, 1992, and (d) the beginning of the December wind burst from December 8 to 17, 1992. The mean wind speed during each period is listed, and the mean layer depth is indicated in the boxes. As discussed in the text, although we generally interpret the residual in terms of entrainment mixing, during the post-wind burst period the residual is positive and therefore cannot represent mixing. Instead, we believe that during this period it may represent horizontal advection of a sharp temperature front.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10a.gif [Fig 10a,b]

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10b.gif [Fig 10c,d]

    Difficult to interpret the values but the system boxes show the effect of a “wind burst” on subsurface heat storage, horizontal advection (heat transport), and active layer depth over a 3 month period. Little of the change in heat would occur if most of the diurnal subsurface energy ingress mixed down to 68m (Fig 10b), rose to the surface the same day.

    Rather than the active ocean layer diurnal temperature fluctuating over a large range, the temperature in the active (mixed, say sfc – 80m tropics) is maintained at almost the same level in the layer, say 28.5 – 30 C tropics. Below the active layer the isotherm contours are much closer together because temperature is maintained at levels of say (tropics) 28.5 down to 17 C from depth 40/80m down to 200m. Cronin and McPhaden graph that situation in Figure 4a:-

    Figure 4. Daily averaged subsurface (a) temperature, (b) salinity, (c) potential density, (d) ADCP zonal flow, and (e) meridional flow. The surface layer is defined as the depth of the 21.8 kg m density surface (ATLAS moorings use the 28.5�C isotherm as the surface layer depth). The subsurface temperature contour interval (CI) is 1�C for values less than 28�C and 0.5�C for warmer values. The salinity CI is 0.2 psu. The density CI is 0.1 kg m for values less than 21.4 kg m and 0.4 kg m for denser values. The velocity CI is 25 cm s. Westward and southward directed currents are contoured with dashes.

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig04a.gif

    Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth is just not going to lose “most” of that 20 C level daily down to 8 C say and gain it back again. Or, if the 20 C isotherm were to be a daily average where “most” of the energy was lost daily, the maximum would be about 28 C and the minimum about 13 C (“most” lost 15) to give an average of 20 C. Similarly assuming radiation penetration of 100m and 24 C isotherm or 80m/25,26,27,28 C.

    I personally cannot conceive of a 15 C diurnal ocean temperature fluctuation from 28 C to 13 C and back again at 150m depth, but if there’s proof to the contrary that I need to consider I’d certainly like to see it. At that depth I’m inclined to think the diurnal fluctuation would be less than 1 C, possibly 0.5 C, but more likely nil, negligible, or unmeasurable.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on May 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm said:

    >”Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth…”

    That is not to say I’m also assuming that the daily solar radiation pass is actually the direct and only mechanism that heats the water to 20 C at 150m. My understanding is that NIR IR-A and SWIR IR-B absorption is most effective in only about the 10 micron to 10m depth range (also a little but minimal UV heating effect) and that is where most energy is laid down by radiation. That’s going by Hale & Querry (1973) primarily:-

    http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

    It’s the subsequent mixing and conduction/convection processes (“venting” as Trenberth and Stepaniak term it) that heat the water lower down in the main in my understanding and also the major cause of oceanic thermal lag along with water’s thermal properties, the radiative heating is all but exhausted at 100 – 200m depending on water clarity I think I recall i.e. there’s not equal amounts of energy laid down over the entire pathlength of radiation penetration therefore the effectiveness as a heating agent is not equal at every point on the penetration pathlength (I think I could dig up a formula for the energy laid down at each point if I had to).

    I think photosynthesis still occurs relatively unhindered at depth in clear water but I could be wrong on the radiative heating effect at depth (or wrong on both). There’s at least one paper I know of that investigates sunlight penetration at depth, that one in the Caribbean but I can’t recall the details and can’t be bothered looking it up.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on May 5, 2013 at 6:40 pm said:

    I’ve given up trying to access the “information” James Taylor alludes to at the NHC Data Archive. I’ve looked at both the Atlantic HURDAT2 and NE/NC Pacific HURDAT2 databases in conjunction with the data description and nomenclature, “L” = Landfall, “I” = Intensity etc but can’t make head or tail of how to extract Cat 3,4, and 5 hurricanes. The information is there but I can’t retrieve it.

    Although Taylor doesn’t “explicitly mention” NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 in his article it does appear at the bottom of the NHC Data Archive page he linked to as:-

    Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Atlantic Tropical Cyclones

    * The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense Reports

    There is a decade-by-decade analysis of major hurricanes in Table 6 (not the Table 7 Nick points to) but the decade figures don’t match Taylor’s exactly, the 100 yr total is different (65 vs 70), and the average per decade is different (6? or 6.5? vs 7). It is not out of question that Taylor did use Table 6 as his data source but if he did it was incredibly sloppy transcribing. He may have just rounded 6.5 to 7 to get the 100 yr total 70 for example instead of adding up the values. That doesn’t explain the mismatch of decade values though (except for possible sloppiness) which leads me to think he accessed the databases directly because NHC-6 is from August 2011. The data may have changed slightly since then if some of the other US institutions are anything to go by. There is a HURDAT note I found elsewhere of one small change but that didn’t alter the figures. There’s also a tabulation in NHC-6 Appendix A of major hurricanes from HURDAT but it is incomplete and not up to 2010.

    UPDATE: from comments under the article:-

    James Taylor, Contributor 7 months ago

    “Go to the link I included in the article. There is a very prominent heading for, “Past Track Maps of U.S. Landfalling Major Hurricanes: The images below are from the NHC’s Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical cyclones report.” Open up the Track Maps (if you need help figuring out how to do so, please let me know). If you need help counting the hurricanes, please let me know (most of the decades will require you using fingers on both your hands to count them up, so this may be difficult for you).”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-657-3816

    Past Track Maps of U.S. Landfalling Major Hurricanes

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml#tracks_us

    So James Taylor did in fact “explicitly mention” the Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical cyclones report that Nick linked to – BUT IN COMMENTS, NOT IN THE ARTICLE. I retract my allegation of lying and apologize, but reservedly, for any damage to reputations, Nick’s or RT’s. Reservedly, because Nick could have saved a great deal of angst and effort for everyone (esp. myself) if he’d been direct.

    James Taylor did NOT however get his information directly from that report as Nick assumed. Taylor’s “information” was accessed by him directly from the NHC Data Archive page. He retrieved each image in the pull-down box for each decade individually and laboriously counted tracks, hence the discrepancy (haven’t checked his count though – that may be correct) for some reason between his analysis and NHC-6 Table 6 e.g. 2001 – 2010 = 7:-

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_2001_2010.jpg

    In either analysis anyway – NHC-6 or Taylor’s – US landfalling hurricanes show no increasing trend in simple decadally averaged terms. Scrolling through comments under the article there’s a link to Dr Ryan Maue’s even more enlightening POLICLIMATE page:-

    thephysicsguy 7 months ago

    “Furthermore, global ACE and PDI values are their lowest in almost 20 years. See the graphs for yourself:”

    http://policlimate.com/tropical/

    I do see a jump in energy/power regime around 1995 (what was the anthro event if there was one in 1995?) but there’s been a decrease since then and frequency is certainly nothing to be alarmed about either.

  64. Penetrating questions!

  65. Richard C (NZ) on May 7, 2013 at 12:09 am said:

    >”If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day,

    Yes I do, but Tair is not necessarily dependent on Tskin or SST (0.45m deep). See Chen and Houze Jr (1997) quote below for the diurnal air/sea heating process and Figure 15 (page 18) for the respective temperature profiles. It is not possible to conclude therefore that ALL of the warming occurring in the air each day is a direct result of ALL of the energy being released from the sea surface that arrived in the sea from the sun the same day after subtraction of horizontal transport to give “most”.

    >…then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat.”

    No I don’t. As for above and also, there is varying heat storage in a unit mass of surface water and transfer to lower depths (Cronin and McPhaden up-thread) which is not released to the air diurnally. Also, Chen and Houze Jr (see below) state “direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair”, meaning not all of the energy added to the air during the day necessarily comes from the underlying water. And some LWup/OLR goes directly to space. So the “residual” after subtracting the “remaining fraction” which by adding terms is more like [horizontal transport(+ or 0) + storage(+,-, or 0) + transfer down + direct solar=>air + LWup/OLR direct to space] is less than just subtracting a “remaining fraction” of horizontal transport alone.

    [Note 1: a comment follows (maybe tomorrow) by which anecdotal means (local NZ rather than tropical) are used to distinguish between heating of air over land and heating of air over water, and possible conflation/confusion of land/air heating with sea/air heating in the assumption that “most” diurnal solar energy ingress to the sea is released to heat the overlying air the same day (or even in seconds or minutes)]

    [Note 1a: When comparing local NZ land/air heating in Note 1 above to tropical sea/air heating in Chen and Houze Jr (rather than local NZ), the latter range is “The observed diurnal variation of SST and Tair can be as large as 1-2 degC over the western Pacific (Lukas 1991; Chen et al. 1995; Weller and Anderson 1996)” i.e. Tair over sea and SST variation is relatively small in the tropics compared to local NZ variation]

    >”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.”

    For this, and wrt the tropical case, I defer to the relevant section of Chen and Houze Jr (1997) commencing page 17 (there may be a more recent and better updated study that I’m not aware of however):-

    ‘Diurnal variation and life-cycle of deep convective systems over the tropical Pacific warm pool’

    By SHUYI S. CHEN* and ROBERT A. HOUZE Jr
    University of Washington, USA

    Q. J. R. Meteorol. SOC. (1997), 123, pp. 357-388

    5. DIURNAL VARIATION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS
    In this section we present some observational evidence of the diurnal cycle in surface variables relevant to convective variability. These observations suggest that the phase of the diurnal cycle in certain surface and near-surface thermal variables are in favour of the afternoon initiation of convective systems (Figs. 10(a) and 13(a)).

    Until recently, the diurnal variation of SST and surface air temperature (Tair) were thought to be negligible over the tropical oceans, Spectral analysis of surface data from the TOGA TAO and the IMET moored buoys, however, shows a clear diurnal peak in Tair as well as in SST (Zhang 1995). The observed diurnal variation of SST and Tair can be as large as 1-2 degC over the western Pacific (Lukas 1991; Chen et al. 1995; Weller and Anderson
    1996). The same characteristics of the diurnal cycle in Tair are found in data collected by different types of instruments (M. McPhaden (1996), personal communication). There is no clear signal of the diurnal cycle, however, in the surface water vapour specific humidity (Young et al. 1992; Zhang 1995).

    To examine the diurnal variation of surface conditions in relation to atmospheric deep convection, we divided the surface measurements from the IMET buoy into the convectively suppressed and active periods of the ISO [intra-seasonal oscillation], the same way we did for the IR cloud-top temperature over the IFA in Fig. 7. Figure 15 shows the diurnal cycle of SST, Tair, skin sea surface temperature (Tskin), water vapour specific humidity (q) and equivalent potential temperature (0e) measured at the IMET buoy for the convectively suppressed and active periods of the IS0 (as indicated in Fig. 6). The SST is a bulk sea surface temperature measured at 0.45 m below the sea surface (Weller and Anderson 1996). T,, is calculated using a warm layer and cool skin correction of Fairall et al. (1996). The vertical error bars indicate the mean standard deviation for each surface variable, computed from the diurnal variation (subtracting daily mean from each hourly data).

    The diurnal cycle in SST and Tskin is driven by diurnal solar heating but modulated by other factors. Surface wind, either directly related to local deep convection or indirectly as part of large-scale atmospheric responses to convection, enhances vertical mixing in the ocean surface layer, redistributes the incoming solar energy over a larger water mass, and therefore reduces the SST diurnal cycle. The cloud radiative effect at the surface is to reduce the diurnal cycle in SST, because it reduces the daytime solar heating. Convective downdraughts often cool and dry the boundary-layer and surface air (Zipser 1969, 1977)
    and, therefore, increase the air-sea temperature and humidity differences and enhance the air-sea heat fluxes. Air-sea fluxes can also be enhanced by convectively induced wind gusts. These convective effects tend to decrease SST and, thus, amplify (reduce) the SST diurnal cycle if they occur at night (day). The effects of precipitation on the diurnal cycle are the most complicated (Anderson et al. 1996) and also depend on whether the rainfall
    occurs during the day or night.

    Despite all these complex effects, the diurnal cycles of Tskin and SST exhibit similar diurnal peaks at 1200 and 1400 LST, but quite different amplitudes in the suppressed (- 1.2 degC and – 0.7 degC, Fig. 15(a)) and active (- 0.6 degC and – 0.3 degC, Fig. 15(c)) phases of the ISO. The smaller amplitudes in the active phase of the IS0 are likely due to the effect of strong surface wind (e.g. Lukas 1991; Zhang 1995; Weller and Anderson 1996). Webster et al. (1996) showed that the SST diurnal cycle diminishes when the surface wind speed > 10 m s-l. Although the surface winds were generally strong during the active phase of the ISO, they varied over a broad range from [less than] 1 to > 10 m s-‘ (Weller and Anderson 1996). It is not surprising that average Tskin and SST still exhibit a diurnal cycle during the active periods. The results in Fig. 15 are consistent with observations over other parts of the tropical ocean. The diurnal cycle of SST – 0.5-1.0 degC was observed near the coast of north Africa under clear sky and light winds (Halpern and Reed 1976) and – 0.3 degC (from daily minimum to maximum) under disturbed conditions over the eastern Atlantic Ocean (Reed and Lewis 1980).

    Tair has a diurnal minimum at 0600 LST and increases rapidly after sunrise and reaches
    the diurnal maximum slightly before Tskin. Cool convective downdraughts from the daytime
    convection produce a cooling signature in Tair in the afternoon of the suppressed days (Figs. 7(a) and 15(a)), whereas they decrease Tair significantly before dawn during the active periods, when the large convective systems reached maximum strength at night (Figs. 7(b) and 15(b)). The convectively generated cold pools associated with organized convective systems can reduce Tair by as much as 4-5 degC (Parsons et al. 1994; Young et
    al. 1995; LeMone et al. 1995), similar to values found in GATE* (Houze 1977; Johnson
    and Nicholls 1983). The diurnal variation in q is very weak, if any (Figs. 15(b) and (d)), as
    found by Young et al. (1992). The diurnal cycle in Oe, is practically similar to that of Tair.
    The large standard deviations in 0e, and Tair are a result of the variability of the convective
    activity.

    These results show the consistent feature that all the variables (except q) reach their maxima in the afternoon in both the active and suppressed phases of the ISO. These diurnal maxima indicate that the surface conditions are the most favourable to the formation of the cloud systems in the afternoon regardless of the IS0 phase.

    The above observations raise several questions. First, to what degree is the diurnal cycle in Tair related to that in SST and Tskin? A strong diurnal cycle in SST and Tskin can enhance the diurnal cycle in Tair through sensible-heat flux. Zhang (1995) observed that the diurnal cycle in surface sensible-heat flux is quite weak and the diurnal cycle in Tair remains significant while that of SST is small during high-wind and clear-sky situations.
    Therefore, the diurnal cycle in Tair seems not completely dependent on that in Tskin. The
    direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair.

    Second, to what extent is the diurnal cycle in Tair a result of convection? To isolate
    the surface diurnal variability with and without the influence of deep convection, Zhang
    (1995) composited surface conditions for the non-cloudy (‘clear sky’) and cloudy days
    using data from two TAO buoys (circled buoy locations in Fig. 1) for the four-month
    period of TOGA COARE. Under clear skies (solid curve in Fig. 16), the air temperature,
    on average, reached a maximum of over 29°C at about 1600 LST. On days when the
    minimum cloud-top temperature occurred between 0000-0600 LST over the TAO buoys,
    the diurnal cycle of Tair (dashed curve in Fig. 16) resembled that on the clear days in
    timing and amplitude, but the average diurnal maximum is only a little over 28 “C and the
    minimum is 27 ‘C. The convectively induced night-time cooling evidently enhanced the
    diurnal cycle in Tair during the active periods (Fig. 15(c)).

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/MG/PDFs/QJR97_chen_diurnal.pdf

    # # #

    I think now that there is a standstill in atmospheric temperature and the focus has moved to the ocean (e.g. the “AGW continues in the ocean” meme) that it is important to have a handle on ocean heat (e.g. Bob Tisdale’s articles and rebuttals to Balmaseda et al etc) and especially on the solar-ocean-atmosphere system but extra-specially on the oceanic thermal inertia lag component of that system because the CO2-centric warmists (incl IPCC solar specialists) demand an almost instantaneous atmospheric response to solar change when the reality is that there is considerable lag of at least a decade in the most significant response.

    Getting to grips with above discourse and follow-up comment to come (maybe tomorrow) would go a long way to understanding from a basis in the literature, just how the oceanic heat-sink performs the major planetary heat accumulation/release role (i.e. modulation) over a complete cycle of the quasi-1000 year solar cycle of Grand Minimum solar input => Grand Maximum solar input => Grand Minimum solar input and over the intermediate shorter fluctuations because a 50 or 400/500 year ocean heat accumulation say, starts in the tropical diurnal cycle but what happens in the tropical diurnal heating cycle of the ocean has significant atmospheric impact in 8 – 20 years time rather than just the 24 hour 1-2 degC diurnal fluctuation that has a direct solar-to-air input also.

    The atmospheric temperature REGIME response (not merely fluctuation) to the lower solar output now evident (of any consequence and thus lessor input to the ocean diurnally), the consequential onset of which was about 1997 – 2007 (mid-range at 2002), is predicted to become evident after 2014 (12 – 14 year lag after 2002). The temperature REGIME change that will accrue 2060 – 2100 is predicted to be about -1.3 degC by Abdussamatov here:-

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EAKAvpnnFqM/Tkbk2aBl1MI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2dWg-fgn7pw/s1600/Two+century+cyclic+variation+of+the+TSI%28Total+Solar+irradiance%29.jpg

    -1.3 degC is almost exactly opposite in magnitude and sign to the lower CS estimates being submitted to the IPCC right now. So if come 2015, GMAST is obviously following a downward trajectory (it’s already showing signs of that), I hope after all of the above I don’t have the occasion to say “I told you so”.

  66. Hilary Ostrov has some thoughts on IPCC lead author Andrew Weaver and the role of the taxpayer-funded CBC in Canada

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation