Burma cyclone : How can we tell if climate change created it or made it worse?

[Signal 11]

I think this is going to have to be one I get back to you on if I'm going to have to scour google scholar myself.

His question has already been answered every time he's asked it before, for example in #38 of the "The deceit behind global warming" thread I linked to above. The reason he keeps asking the same thing is that he hopes eventually people will get fed up of answering the same question over and over again and then he will be able to dishonestly pretend that nobody can answer it.

 

[bigfish]

... OK bigfish, I think I'm prepared to concede that the IPCC really should have laid out in much more detail the precise mechanism for increased CO2 concentrations to drive climate change in their technical assessment.

Having gone back and reread it in the hope that it would cover this and save me having to attempt to search out the research myself, I actually agree with you that they really should have a section where they lay out all the evidence to enable them to really nail this arguement once and for all. It's fairly obvious that this questions going to get asked, and need answering, and they've fucked up by not properly nailing this in the report IMO.

So you have no idea how manmade CO2 drives 'climate change', yourself, though you believe it must because the IPCC says so, despite having come back empty handed - just as Corbyn and others have - from searching the IPCC literature for an exposition of the physics. Is that about right?

I think this is going to have to be one I get back to you on if I'm going to have to scour google scholar myself.

Perhaps you could ask laptop to give you a hand. When I asked him where evidence for the CO2 driver theory was, he very kindly provided the following link to 676,000 google scholar articles. According to him, a great deal of the evidence is in there... somewhere

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=6694253&postcount=34

Hopefully though the IPCC might actually take that letter seriously and produce something laying out the evidence as they see it.

There's not much chance of that happening, I'm afraid. I emailed Corbyn to ask if he'd heard back yet from either the IPCC or Monbiot after a 5 and 3 week wait respectively. His reply:

Total silence from IPCC.
Two Australian IPCC members emailed back in a rage wthout giving any evidence to us. Don Parks dealt with them.
Thanks for your interest.
Piers

 

[bigfish]

Even Flawed Data Can’t Hide the Cooling

All the monthly global data sets are updated now. The University of Alabama Hunstville (Spencer-Christy) MSU satellite derived lower tropospheric data shows an anomaly of just +0.015C. The UK Hadley Center version 3v which includes land station and some ocean reports showed an anomaly of +0.265C. Adding this month to the plot since 2002 shows the downtrend continues.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

 

[Crispy]

6 years is too short a time. It's shorter than some el nino/la nina cycles.

Show me a cooling trend over 25 years.

 

[bigfish]

A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming

... the global temperature graph starts in 1998 at a point where a number of factors combined to create an unusually high temperature for that year. Had he started the graph say in 1990, or 1980, in fact any time earlier than 1998 it would have been obvious that the last decade has in fact seen an increase in average global surface temperatures based on 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year averages... ie the underlying trend is upwards, though the warming has slowed somewhat since the 90's...

Yesterday, in response to the thread on “3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade” I got a short note from MIT’s Richard Lindzen along with a graph. I asked if I could post it, and he graciously agreed:

Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes, Dick

Richard S. Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA

Graph: HadCRUT 1993-2007

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

 

[bigfish]

anyway, getting this thread back on track to whether climate change makes cyclones worse or not...

taking the question of sea surface temperatures in the atlantic and pacific cyclone / hurricane forming areas of ocean, this paper indicates the answer is yes, manmade climate change has almost certainly been responsible for increasing sea surface temperatures in those regions over the last century...

FS: If I were you, I'd be extremely cautious of papers in which Hansen and Jones are contributors. A material complaint of research fraud is currently outstanding against Jones, while Hansen is obviously in bed with Al Gore and his banking chums and acted as "Scientific Advisor" on Gore's propaganda shockumentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The film was subsequently shown in the High Court here to be littered with fraudulent scientific claims, one of them relating to the films use of emotive images of Hurricane Katrina suggesting that it was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming. It's a shame Gore didn't read the High Court findings before pronouncing on the recent Burmese cyclone, don't you think?

Global Warming Not Causing Hurricanes, Study Says
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080518/BREAKING/813623488

Prominent hurricane scientist (MIT’s Kerry Emanuel) has publicly reversed his view on global warming’s impact on hurricanes.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/

Emanuel told the NY Times: “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”

 

[bigfish]

6 years is too short a time. It's shorter than some el nino/la nina cycles.

Show me a cooling trend over 25 years.

Here you go.

 

[free spirit]

So you have no idea how manmade CO2 drives 'climate change', yourself, though you believe it must because the IPCC says so, despite having come back empty handed - just as Corbyn and others have - from searching the IPCC literature for an exposition of the physics. Is that about right?

that's a proper cunts trick you've tried there bigfish... did you ask me to explain to you how manmade co2 drives 'climate change' or did you ask me to produce credible evidence of it?

being as I no longer have access to a university library / university accounts for scientific journals, or my own access to scientific journals, and the non-sceptic side of the debate publishes virtually all it's papers in scientific journals, unlike your side that publish them open access on the web, it's going to take me some time to actually answer your question.

unlike you, I'm not actually happy posting up complete bollocks, so forgive me if I take a bit of time doing some fucking research - something you might like to try one day.

btw - I also have a hell of a lot else going on in my life at the moment, so don't even think about trying to misrepresent me not replying within any time limit you might have made up by yourself.

 

[free spirit]

FS: If I were you, I'd be extremely cautious of papers in which Hansen and Jones are contributors. A material complaint of research fraud is currently outstanding against Jones, while Hansen is obviously in bed with Al Gore and his banking chums and acted as "Scientific Advisor" on Gore's propaganda shockumentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The film was subsequently shown in the High Court here to be littered with fraudulent scientific claims, one of them relating to the films use of emotive images of Hurricane Katrina suggesting that it was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming. It's a shame Gore didn't read the High Court findings before pronouncing on the recent Burmese cyclone, don't you think?

Global Warming Not Causing Hurricanes, Study Says
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080518/BREAKING/813623488

Prominent hurricane scientist (MIT’s Kerry Emanuel) has publicly reversed his view on global warming’s impact on hurricanes.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/

Emanuel told the NY Times: “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”

that's all well and good bigfish, I'm happy to accept that the case for whether or not hurricanes will actually increase under global warming conditions is still up for debate, and am happy to debate it, but you were making out that tropical sea surface temps were decreasing, they aren't, or at least not in the cyclone forming areas that count.

there are other factors that influence the development of cyclones which are under dispute, and could mean cyclones / hurricanes don't increase, and there are disputed models appearing to show this, but the fact that sea surface temperatures in the cyclone forming areas rising isn't under dispute afaik... unless you've got any evidence (that stands up to scrutiny) to the contrary.

So, do you have any credible evidence that water temperatures aren't rising in the main tropical storm development areas, or can we put this slightly daft arguement of yours to bed and move on to something that's marginally more worth discussing?

 

[free spirit]

oh yeah, you know that prominent hurricane scientist you say has 'publicly reversed his view on global warming's impact on hurricanes'?

MIT's Kerry Emanuel...

rather than letting bigfish put words into his mouth, let's see what the man himself had to say on the subject shall we (from the links bigfish provides)

"The take-home message is that we've got a lot of work to do," Emanuel said. "There's still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down."

doesn't look to me like he's actually saying anything like what you're making out he's saying.

let's try again shall we...

The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.

also from your links...

For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.

anyway bigfish, how come you're so keen to believe computer models all of a sudden?

 

[bigfish]

btw bigfish that's not a yes or a no, it's a hopefully but it may take some time, and depends on me having access to the papers in question and actually being able to get my head round them as we're getting a wee bit specialist here.

Any luck yet locating the evidence for the CO2 driver theory, free?