Tag Archives: IPCC

Does global warming increase the frequency of hurricanes?

Story by Michael Fumento in Forbes magazine. (H/T ECM)

Do greenhouse gases corelate with increases in hurricane frequency?

Here’s the data we have today:

True, both greenhouse gas emissions and levels in the atmosphere are at their highest, but this year had the fewest hurricanes since 1997, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the first time since 2006 no hurricanes even made landfall in the U.S.; indeed hurricane activity is at a 30-year low.

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote a paper to demonstrate that hurricane frequency was independent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Pielke published a report in the prestigious Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society… that analyzed U.S. hurricane damage since 1900. Taking into account tremendous population growth along coastlines, he found no increase. His paper was dutifully ignored by the powers that be.

How did the global warmists at the IPCC respond to Pielke’s paper?

But the so-called Climategate scandal, which illuminated efforts by climate change scientists to squelch opposition viewpoints, has now caught up to one scientist, Kevin Trenberth, who vociferously and influentially demanded that Pielke’s paper be shunned.

Trenberth works in the same town as Pielke and is one of the top researchers on the strongly warmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a leaked e-mail from two months ago, he admitted to colleagues what he had hidden from the outside world: that there’s been no measurable warming over the past decade.

Yet two years earlier he told Congress that evidence for man-made warming was “unequivocal” and things were “apt to get much worse.” And in 2005 he told the local newspaper that Pielke’s Bulletin article was “shameful” and should be “withdrawn.”

My recommendation is to test everything by watching debates. Unless you hear both sides in a debate, you just can’t have any degree of confidence about what is really true. Be wary of people who say that “the debate is over” or that “everyone agrees” or that “there is no case on the other side”. That’s how people lie. Find the two best people you can on either side and watch them duke it out. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

877 snowfall records were set last week in the USA

The post is here on Michael’s Comments. (H/T ECM)

The map:

Excerpt:

The [AGW] hypothesis has been falsified by:

(1) the missing thermal signature of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires.

[…](2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.

[…](3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodymics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse.

[…](4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit.

[…](5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the actual cause of modern global warming is CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation.  Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.

How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?

This is a great post. Read the whole thing! And send it to your friends! (Also, “Al Gore” is apparently leaving angry comments in the post, so read those too!).

Australian climate data also adjusted to hide the decline

Story from Watt’s Up With That. (H/T Lex Communis)

First, a graph of temperates from measuring station “Darwin” in Australia:

Excerpt:

Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

So once again, I’m left with an unsolved mystery. How and why did the GHCN “adjust” Darwin’s historical temperature to show radical warming? Why did they adjust it stepwise? Do Phil Jones and the CRU folks use the “adjusted” or the raw GHCN dataset? My guess is the adjusted one since it shows warming, but of course we still don’t know … because despite all of this, the CRU still hasn’t released the list of data that they actually use, just the station list.

And here’s Steve McIntyre and Chris Horner on the secular-leftist CNN:

Steve is moderate and circumspect, but Chris Horner is quite direct. I just ordered his book “Red Hot Lies”.