February 17, 2010

The Day After Yesterday

Justin Katz

For at least a decade, now, it seemed as if whatever was happening on the planet, globally, regionally, whatever, was attributed to climate change. Here's more indication that even things that weren't happening on the planet were being thus attributed:

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported. ...

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

"When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

And while I'm on the topic of the collapse of the global warming hysteria, here's some more commentary on the matter of global temperatures:

In all, so far, at least 16 major claims made in AR4 (the report for which the IPCC won a Nobel Prize) have been shown to have originated with environmental groups rather than scientists, including the claim that climate change is already making tornado, hurricanes, forest fires and floods worse.

This week, we also learned that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) may have been playing fast and loose with its own calculations of global average temperature. Among the four main repositories of global temperature records, GISS is the only one to show the Earth still warming during the past decade. Now two American climate researchers -- Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts -- believe they know why: Scientists at GISS may have been cherry-picking the weather stations they take their records from to increase global averages artificially.

The pair write that there was a "major" decline in the number of stations GISS scientists were taking readings from "and an increase in missing data from remaining stations, which occurred suddenly around 1990 ... a clear bias was found toward removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations -- the cooler stations -- during this culling process." The pre-1990 temperature records, though, continued to include these cooler stations. These changes tended to make temperatures before 1990 appear extra-cool and those after 1990 extra-warm.

For some reason, I can't shake the image of a lead climate expert having his scientist mask ripped off to reveal his true identity as Al Gore, who'll say (of course) "And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you skeptics!"

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

The older I get the less I trust anybody. Economists, political think tanks, number crunchers, enviornmentalists; all full of it apparently, just trying to feather their own nests and further their own agenda.

Posted by: michael at February 17, 2010 10:58 AM

A statistical analysis published on a personal Web site suggests the IPCC report that concluded "there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones" might have small inaccuracies in other out of context statements? Stop the presses!

Posted by: Russ at February 17, 2010 11:40 AM

Just 5 questions: The temperature record

4. GISS has been accused by critics of manipulating data. Has this changed the way that it handles its temperature data?

Indeed, there are people who believe that GISS uses its own private data or somehow massages the data to get the answer we want. That's completely inaccurate. We do an analysis of the publicly available data that’s collected by other groups. All of the data is available to the public for download, as are the computer programs used to analyze it. One of the reasons the GISS numbers are used and quoted so widely by scientists is that the process is completely open to outside scrutiny.

5. What about the meteorological stations? There have been suggestions that some of the stations are located in the wrong place, are using outdated instrumentation, etc.

Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly temperature changes over the United States, for example, you’d need just a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they're exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues on the large scale — and they haven't found any yet.

Justin, you're quoting TV weathermen as experts now? I take it Ghiorse was busy. It sounds so much more credible when you call them "climate researchers". What do those eggheads at NASA know, right?

Posted by: Russ at February 17, 2010 2:46 PM

"Hatton has thirty years of experience of getting scientific papers published, but describes this one, available on his personal website, as "unpublishable"."

That's right "unpublishable". I wonder why?

"Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity - 2005 - the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory."

That quote from the linked article provides inspiration for this stirring imagery from Katz,

"For some reason, I can't shake the image of a lead climate expert having his scientist mask ripped off to reveal his true identity as Al Gore"

I think that the climate warmed a bit with the release of that line. Pew.

Posted by: Phil at February 17, 2010 10:25 PM

look for medical explanations of her condition. a representation of the wild orgies which stand for worship in all had need and was hungry, himself and they that were with him?

Posted by: Forex Broker Comparison at September 14, 2012 10:06 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.