And just FYI: I'm not going to argue about that fact. If anybody doubts that "C13" was garbage, all they have to do is spend a few minutes on Google and view the evidence.
I spent a few minutes on Google and viewed the evidence from NASA. They don't agree with Jane Q. Public's "utter garbage" accusation.
Could it be that Jane's claim isn't the case at all because, as I've repeatedly noted, that graph isn't showing wildfires at all, but instead includes the staggering amount of intentional burns started by humans for land clearing?
Actually, Dr. Deanna Conners tracked down that graph's source and said: "... So it appears that much of the pre-1960 data were related to incendiary forest fires (per http://www.interfire.org/featu... , an incendiary fire is one that is set intentionally) and not to true wildfires. The post-1960 dataset that I analyzed only contained data for wildfires; the National Interagency Fire Center explicitly separates the wildfire data from the prescribed fire data. Hence, comparisons to earlier data may indeed be akin to comparing apples to oranges..."
Are you absolutely sure that graph only shows wildfires? It doesn't use that word. Maybe it actually shows the total acreage burned, which would include the staggering amount of intentional burns started by humans for land clearing.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim. And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-21]
... The recent declaration of 2014 as "the hottest year" -- when it wasn't anything of the kind -- is a wonderful illustration of the idiocy behind CO2 warming alarmism. Self-described Climate Scientists claimed the satellite temperature record would be the most accurate ever. And it is. But now that the satellite data is disproving their pet theory, they just leave that data out. It's really quite hilarious. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-25]
When the satellites launched, climate scientists lauded them as "the most accurate climate data sources" in existence. Now that the satellite data does not support their "climate change" scam, they just leave it out... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-02]
Funny, but when satellites launched, they were proclaimed to begin a new era in accurate climate measurements... but now that they disagree with your agenda, they are downplayed or ignored. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-04]
Funny. It was claimed satellites marked a new era in accurate climate data, ignored now they don't agree. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-07]
Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!
So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?
Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."
I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedlyshowing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".
And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)
Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said: [Dumb Scientist]
No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:
"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre...."
As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.
In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinionpiece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]
You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]
No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":
I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]
IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one.... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]
Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".
In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinionpiece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?
Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?
Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."
The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea? [Dumb Scientist]
How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed. There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]
As expected, you can't (or won't, which is indistinguishable) link to a paper debunking Dr. Landsea when he points out that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. But you can't/won't admit that, so you just vaguely insinuate that other papers (which you don't have time to link, of course) deny that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. Please consider reading Dr. Landsea's abstract again to look for "speculative" and try to read the bolded part:
"Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate - and if so, how - has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies."
How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]
Jane, please consider searching the whole paper for "speculative". And are you absolutely sure the IPCC gave a "low confidence" rating to the "same" statistic Dr. Landsea's paper mentioned, that the "globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100"? Maybe the IPCC split up their TFE.9 table 1 into early and late 21st century? Would the "same" statistic as Dr. Landsea's "2100" quote be early or late 21st century? Are you absolutely sure the relevant box is rated "low confidence"?
We've been using "modern" measurements for hurricanes since about 1959, which just happened to have a record storm. BUT... that year also had an El Nino. And the strong El Nino of this year again made one more likely. Nothing terribly special about that, statistically. And nothing particular connecting it to "global warming".
The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?
If there's really "nothing particular connecting" a process that's intensified by global warming, then this year's high temperatures should be due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming. If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. Have you seen a graph of global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo)? Do you think that best-fit line through just El Ninos would have a positive or negative slope? Can you think of another metric than GMST which would reveal more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades? Do you see why these questions are relevant to your claim?
P.S. Don't worry- if you can't or won't answer these questions then I will. But first you deserve a chance to show off your scientific skills. If you won't provide a graph, will you accept a graph made by a scientist who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper with Anthony Watts?
Prior to that time, hurricanes were only actually measured at all when they made landfall. Others were only estimated from ships or from shore. Which means most of them were never measured, and in fact we actually have no idea where Patricia falls in the severity range since records began.
"Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."
... this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS?... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]
... This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-13]
Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?
Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.
By the way, changing the y-axis of that interactive tool to "cumulative emissions" shows that my previous statement is also true (and clearer) without the words "per capita". That is, the USA has emitted more cumulative CO2 (total, in tons) than India and China combined. As of 2011, the USA has emitted a cumulative total of ~360 Gt of CO2, compared to India's 40 Gt and China's 141 Gt.
In fact, we've emitted roughly twice as much CO2 as India and China combined. That's quite an "accomplishment" for a nation with only ~320 million people, compared to a combined population of ~2.5 billion. America, fuck yeah!
I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]
As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.
This can be confirmed using simple accountingor by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:
... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries.... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]
I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International"andseveralothersrepeatedO'Sullivan'smisinformation.
Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions
This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]
Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]
Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."
How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?
It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.
Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.
On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.
The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!
How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.
If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely
so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-08-24]
I've repeatedlyshowed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:
If U knew fraud behind that 97% number surely U'd quit using it.... fess up that the 97% figure is the percent of the few scientists who responded to a poll that was itself selectively sent.FRAUD... the 97 % figure you use is a total fraud, just like the rest of the phony evidence of man made Global Warming [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-01]
It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.
Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?
Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me?... U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar.... Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong.... I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]
Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]
Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]
Absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations all end at 2009.5.
If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.
The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.
But as usual Jane/Lonny Eachus just makes up numbers to support his baseless accusations rather than actually doing the math.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent a few minutes on Google and viewed the evidence from NASA. They don't agree with Jane Q. Public's "utter garbage" accusation.
Could it be that Jane's claim isn't the case at all because, as I've repeatedly noted, that graph isn't showing wildfires at all, but instead includes the staggering amount of intentional burns started by humans for land clearing?
Actually, Dr. Deanna Conners tracked down that graph's source and said: "... So it appears that much of the pre-1960 data were related to incendiary forest fires (per http://www.interfire.org/featu... , an incendiary fire is one that is set intentionally) and not to true wildfires. The post-1960 dataset that I analyzed only contained data for wildfires; the National Interagency Fire Center explicitly separates the wildfire data from the prescribed fire data. Hence, comparisons to earlier data may indeed be akin to comparing apples to oranges..."
Are you absolutely sure that graph only shows wildfires? It doesn't use that word. Maybe it actually shows the total acreage burned, which would include the staggering amount of intentional burns started by humans for land clearing.
Nonsense. In the 1990s UAH actually showed cooling because of all the flaws in Dr. Spencer's analysis which other scientists had yet to correct for him. It wasn't until after Dr. Spencer finally corrected for all these spurious cooling trends in his analysis that UAH showed warming!
So Lonny's claim is patently absurd. UAH data couldn't possibly have been "all the rage in the 90's" with "alarmists" because UAH data showed cooling in the '90s! Perhaps Lonny doesn't care about facts and is simply playing a game?
What a sadly typical example of fractally wrong nonsense being repeated by gullible
Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
To be continued as a response to this comment.
No, read your own link: "It is likely - in my opinion - that manmade global warming has indeed caused hurricanes to be stronger today."
I've answered the more important question of "how much stronger?" by repeatedly showing Jane a paper by Prof. Judith Curry which concludes that "the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature".
And once again, Grinsted et al. 2012 helps to answer the question of "how much stronger?" by measuring hurricane surges back to 1923 using tide gauge instruments. This yields a homogeneous record of empirical observations which is totally independent of models and confirms that "warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years." (By the way, measuring instruments like tide gauges and thermometers aren't proxies.)
No, those links show that I've been consistently agreeing with Dr. Landsea and the IPCC when they say that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future because of factors like wind shear. But once again, the IPCC and Dr. Landsea also agree that "the most intense cyclones" are different. That's why the "global" box at the bottom center of Fig. 14.17 has two metrics which go in different directions: Cat 1+ (metric #1) and just Cat 4/5 (metric #2). Again, that's what I've been saying for years, along with the IPCC and Dr. Landsea:
"... future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ..."
Jane
Jane keeps repeating his very tiresome and utterly boring nonsense, so I'll respond there.
As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.
No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":
Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".
Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.
The "global
In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?
Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?
Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."
As expected, you can't (or won't, which is indistinguishable) link to a paper debunking Dr. Landsea when he points out that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. But you can't/won't admit that, so you just vaguely insinuate that other papers (which you don't have time to link, of course) deny that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. Please consider reading Dr. Landsea's abstract again to look for "speculative" and try to read the bolded part:
"Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate - and if so, how - has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies."
Jane, please consider searching the whole paper for "speculative". And are you absolutely sure the IPCC gave a "low confidence" rating to the "same" statistic Dr. Landsea's paper mentioned, that the "globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100"? Maybe the IPCC split up their TFE.9 table 1 into early and late 21st century? Would the "same" statistic as Dr. Landsea's "2100" quote be early or late 21st century? Are you absolutely sure the relevant box is rated "low confidence"?
What's really ironic is
The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?
If there's really "nothing particular connecting" a process that's intensified by global warming, then this year's high temperatures should be due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming. If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. Have you seen a graph of global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo)? Do you think that best-fit line through just El Ninos would have a positive or negative slope? Can you think of another metric than GMST which would reveal more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades? Do you see why these questions are relevant to your claim?
P.S. Don't worry- if you can't or won't answer these questions then I will. But first you deserve a chance to show off your scientific skills. If you won't provide a graph, will you accept a graph made by a scientist who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper with Anthony Watts?
Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:
"Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."
Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?
Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.
Be careful. When Watts was reminded of the three articles at WUWT making that silly claim, he pretended not to remember them.
By the way, changing the y-axis of that interactive tool to "cumulative emissions" shows that my previous statement is also true (and clearer) without the words "per capita". That is, the USA has emitted more cumulative CO2 (total, in tons) than India and China combined. As of 2011, the USA has emitted a cumulative total of ~360 Gt of CO2, compared to India's 40 Gt and China's 141 Gt.
In fact, we've emitted roughly twice as much CO2 as India and China combined. That's quite an "accomplishment" for a nation with only ~320 million people, compared to a combined population of ~2.5 billion. America, fuck yeah!
As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.
This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:
I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.
Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions
Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."
How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?
It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.
Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.
On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.
The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!
How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.
If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely
Continued here.
I've repeatedly showed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:
It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.
Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?
Fixed the first fraud link.
Oops, forgot the ellipses:
That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud
That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud
Just to be clear, I meant that the trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5.
Absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations all end at 2009.5.
If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.
The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.
But as usual Jane/Lonny Eachus just makes up numbers to support his baseless accusations rather than actually doing the math.