JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

There are fewer Australian tropical cyclones (thanks to climate change?)

UPDATE: Cyclone Ita is now Category 5 bearing down on Cooktown in North Queensland, the radars will show it soon. 175km NNE of Cooktown. Winds up to 300km /hr.  931 hPa.  See The BOM warnings. Thoughts for those in the path. (It’s clearly visible in the satellite image on the radar link).

——————————————————————————–

A new paper by Andrew Dowdy tells us that from 1980 to 2013 the incidence of tropical cyclones around Australia has been falling. If CO2 is influencing cyclones around Australia, presumably this implies we should burn more coal.

Those convinced about the power of CO2 will point out that the models predict an increase in intensity, not frequency. To that end, I say: see the BOM graph below. Note the red bars marked “severe”. Then tell yourself that the science is settled and we should spend billions to change those trends. The BOM say “the number of severe tropical cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) shows no clear trend over the past 40 years.”

Interestingly Callaghan et al 2010 goes back all the way to 1870. It finds the trend of severe land-falling cyclones has fallen by a whopping 62%. (Let’s rush to go back to 1870 levels of CO2, right?) All in all, the main conclusion I draw is that I can’t find any evidence that modern climate science understands what drives storm trends.

In January, Haig et al showed that almost all of the last 1,500 years has been filled with more cyclonic pain around Australia than we have now. I discussed that at the time, with a lot of caveats. But the picture grows that people who generate alarm about cyclone trends in Australia are decidedly unscientific.

(All fun aside, Cyclone Ita is becoming a category four  FIVE between Queensland and PNG. It has killed 21 in the Solomons already, and [now] threatens Cooktown, Port Douglass and Cairns. All the more reason for us to understand these storms instead of using them for political point scoring. Best wishes to all in her path. Expected this weekend Friday night.)

Hat tip: The Hockeyschtick

Figure 3. Time series of the number of TCs in the Australianregion (a) with the influence of ENSO removed based on NIN (b) and SOI (c). Linear fits to these data are shown.

 

I would not call this study “long term”, though it’s fair enough that Dowdy uses the longest satellite data he could.

 

Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970–2011 which have occurred in the Australian region. Severe tropical cyclones are those which show a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa. | Source BOM site.

Abstract

Tropical cyclone (TC) observations are used to examine changes in the TC climatology of the Australian region. The ability to investigate long-term changes in TC numbers improves when the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is considered. Removing variability in TC numbers associated with ENSO shows a significant decreasing trend in TC numbers at the 93–98% confidence level. Additionally, there is some indication of a temporal change in the relationship between ENSO and TC numbers, with ENSO accounting for about 35–50% of the variance in TC numbers during the first half of the study period, but only 10% during the second half.

From the Discussion and conclusions

A decreasing trend is suggested by the results presented here for the Australian region. It is noted that this is not representative of other regions or the global average.

The correlation between TC #s and the ENSO indices is weaker during the second half of the study period (from 1998 to 2013) than during the first half (from 1982 to 1997). ENSO was found to account for about 35–50% of the variance in TC #s during the first half of the study period (36% for SOI and 49% for NIN), but only about 10% during the second half (9% for
both NIN and SOI).

In Australia, the La Nina state means more cyclones, so we ought be getting more at the moment shouldn’t we, rather than less?

In the Australian region, one possible physical explanation for a decreasing trend in TC #s could be a potential long-term shift in environmental conditions towards a more El Niño-like state, given that fewer TCs tend to occur in the Australian region during El Niño than La Niña conditions.

Someone thought rising CO2 might have made an El Nino type event (called a Modoki event) a bit more common:

Some studies have hypothesized that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could potentially influence the occurrence of Modoki events,with Ashok et al. (2012) suggesting that further increases in global warming in the tropical Pacific may result in more basin-wide warm events in place of canonical El Niño events, along with the possible occurrence of more intense El Niño Modoki events.

But the researchers looked for this and found nothing:

…There was virtually no trend in the EMI data used here, such that a temporal change in the
occurrence frequency of Modoki events is not likely to be the cause of the downward trend in TC #s (Figure 3)  or the variation between the two halves of the study period (Figure 4).

Another longer term study, Callaghan et al, also found cyclones have decreased, and substantially. Looks like there is no joy for alarmism in Australian storm trends. By this measure, the invention of electric power plants, has if anything, improved the climate around Australia:

Callaghan and Power (2010) also reported a decreasing trend in TCs making landfall over eastern
Australia, significant at the 90% level, based on reports from numerous historical sources (including peer-reviewed publications, newspapers, sea-faring observations and other media reports dating back to the late 19th century).

In Callaghan 2010, the abstract says there has been a 62% decline in since 1870 in severe cyclones making land-fall (wow):
The linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in recent times—a 62% decline. This decline can be partially explained by a weakening of the Walker Circulation, and a natural shift towards a more El Niño-dominated era. The extent to which global warming might be also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is unknown.

REFERENCES:

BOM page: Tropical Cyclone Trends

Callaghan J, Power S. 2010. Variability and decline in the number of severe tropical cyclones making land-fall over eastern Australia since the late nineteenth century. Climate Dynamics 37: 647–662, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0883-2.

Dowdy. A. (2014) Long-term changes in Australian tropical cyclone numbers, Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl2.502 [abstract]

Haig, J., Nott, J. and Reichart, G. (2014)   Australian tropical cyclone activity lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years, Nature 505, 667–671 doi:10.1038/nature12882 [Abstract]

 

—————————————–

^Yes, this is satirical poke. I see no evidence at all that CO2 is making a significant difference to storms either way.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (56 votes cast)
There are fewer Australian tropical cyclones (thanks to climate change?), 9.7 out of 10 based on 56 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nkctbtx

87 comments to There are fewer Australian tropical cyclones (thanks to climate change?)

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Oh noes! Less disaster is a disaster … for the alarmists!

    120

  • #
    scaper...

    Australia will eventually get more cyclones, it is a cycle in my opinion that spans more than a few centuries and has absolutely nothing to do with plant food.

    I remember reading some years ago an account by John Oxley that debris in trees from a previous flood on the Brisbane River indicated a river height 97 feet above normal level.

    That is huge!

    90

    • #
      scaper...

      Correction, it was Edmond Lockyer and the upstream level was a few feet lower.

      1825 Major Edmund Lockyer mentioned the evidence of a large flood while in the area of today’s Mount Crosby pumping station – “marks of drift grass and pieces of wood washed up on the sides of the banks and up into the branches of the trees, marked the flood to rise here of one hundred feet”. Lockyer’s descendant, Nicholas Lockyer, in 1919 made the following remarks: “the official record of the flood level of the river on the 4th February 1893 at the Pumping Station, the site of which is within a mile of Lockyer’s camp, was 94 feet 10.5 inches. His remarks would seem to suggest that between Oxley’s visit in September 1824 and his [Major Edmund Lockyer] own in September 1825, the river had experienced a flood as great as that subsequently experienced in February 1893.”

      Link.

      My point is when Brisbane floods it is because of cyclones and there is no evidence that CO2 is responsible.

      250

    • #
      GregS

      For those folks in Brisbane, you only need to go down to Naldham House on the corner where Felix, Mary and Eagle streets all Join. On the northern corner of the building are marked the heights of the 1974 and 1893 floods. The 1893 flood height is much higher than that from 1974. While 1974 marker is down near the footpath, the marker for the earlier floods can only be seen by looking up quite high on the building.

      Now while this is not 100 feet above the current level of the river this is down at the much wider flood plain of the river and shows just how much water flooded over central Brisbane in those early events.

      50

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Agreed. The key is to find out what the cycle is and the influences on it. But that will not happen until science is allowed to progress. And alarmists cannot allow that to happen.

      60

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Eyeballing the bar-chart, there is a case for saying that while the incidence of cyclones has declined markedly over the last 46 years, the incidence of severe cyclones has remained broadly the same throughout the period. This has the effect of raising the percentage of serious cyclones and gives the scientifically innumerate a spurious reason for claiming that cyclones are fewer but getting worse. Those closer to the work face than I might in an idle moment be able to trawl the appropriate literature and see if in fact that is the case.

    80

    • #
      Mark D.

      …gives the scientifically innumerate a spurious reason for claiming that cyclones are fewer but getting worse.

      Kevin, recall Michael The Real Troll?

      11

      • #

        Kevin’s question seems pretty valid. What are we missing that you see?

        03

        • #
          Mark D.

          Sheri, I’m agreeing with Kevin. I’m recalling MichaelTR because he is innumerate to the extent that he used the spurious claim of cyclones being less frequent but now stronger, all due to humans and CO2. Same for Blackudder

          30

    • #
      Ian George

      From 1970 -1979 there were 49 severe cyclones out of 145 (about 30%)). In the past ten years, there have been 40 s/c out of a total of 91 (about 45%).
      So they can claim that the incidence of s/c has increased by 50% without revealing that the number of cyclones and s/c have decreased.
      Let’s await the onset of Ita to see if they do.

      00

  • #
    janama

    Probably not very good timing as a Category 4 is predicted to hit Queensland in the next few days.

    11

    • #
      Winston

      It’s called perspective, janama.

      20

    • #

      Janama, the Dowdy paper has only just been released, and I did note Ita. Coincidentally the next week may be exactly when shameless people milk the loss and damages for unscientific gains. Hopefully saner people will use some of the information above to point that out.

      But fair point, I started this in the satirical vein before I’d even heard of Ita… and might not have used that genre had I known. I’ve “boxed the news” to make it stand apart.

      130

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘the Dowdy paper has only just been released,’now, now, don’t be so economical with the truth! Seeing as you have been blocking evidence of such for a while now!!! LOL, how smug do I feel? You should check out my/the posts more deeply! Hahahahah…………..!

        ‘Wind shear may cancel climate’s effect on hurricanes’

        Hurricane forecasters have long known that increases in vertical wind shear make it harder for tropical storms to form and to increase in intensity. After examining 18 different climate models, Soden’s team predict a “robust increase” in vertical sheer over the Atlantic as result of climate change.

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11633-wind-shear-may-cancel-climates-effect-on-hurricanes.html#.UqHaQuIlMRw

        Isn’t life grand, when people realise they have have being batting for the wrong side for so long! And if you dare post this, one can only conclude you have seen the error of your ways and it’s reverse gear from now on! Well done you.

        [BA - "Article first published online: 8 APR 2014" Wiley. I think it's time we called it quits BA. This comment is irrational. Sorry. Seriously, you've published 440 comments. They still don't make sense. - Jo]

        219

        • #
          Peter Miller

          Jo

          I just read his/her reference, it is just like I said in Comment # 7.

          Irrational comments can sometimes provide some light relief for those who can be bothered to read them. I must admit when I see a thread of irrational rants from Mattb, Blackbladder, or the other occasional trolls, my eye just moves automatically on to the next comment.

          My only thought is alarmist blogs automatically censor all comments unlikely to keep the CAGW faithful feeling warm and fuzzy. This type of censorship rarely happens on sceptic sites, unless you have to deal with a persistently toxic individual. Sceptics should always take the high road of always being prepared to debate with those who hold alternative views, something alarmists point blank refuse to do.

          Blackbladder may be tedious, irrational and often persistent, but I would not describe him as being toxic. Sad yes, but not toxic,

          80

          • #
            the Griss

            Not toxic.. Just a total waste of time and space.

            I agree with Jo, Fatbladder has wasted enough space.

            Well a warmist wants to actually ADD something worthwhile to a forum, and to logically debate, by all means let them stay.

            But Fatbladder never has, and never will.

            71

        • #
          James Bradley

          Okay, that seems to have fixed the ‘Step 5′ response, but now it seems to have slipped straight into ‘Step 8′.

          20

        • #
          vic g gallus

          Didn’t Judith Curry point out something about fewer hurricanes making landfall due to global warming and be labelled a denier?

          20

        • #
          Jimbo

          Those convinced about the power of CO2 will point out that the models predict an increase in intensity, not frequency.

          The models predict everything.

          Abstract:
          Idealized tropical cyclones are inserted into a regional climate model and the resulting intensity evolution of the storms is examined under current and enhanced greenhouse climates. The regional climate model is imple-mented over a model domain near Australia. In general, storm intensities increase under enhanced greenhouse conditions, although these increases are mostly not statistically significant.

          and

          Abstract
          Fine-resolution regional climate model simulations of the impact of climate change on tropical cyclones near Australia
          ….In addition, there is an increase in the number of intense storms simulated south of 30°S. This increase in simulated maximum storm intensity is consistent with previous studies of the impact of climate change on tropical cyclone wind speeds.

          10

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        Jo,

        Off topic but I wanted to congratulate you for being part of a climate triumvirate that is at the center of the internet’s influence on the climate debate!

        Peer reviewed no less!

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014000405

        A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit,

        JoNova

        and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system.

        110

  • #
    peter horne

    Fewer, Jo, not less. Less is the singular and fewer the plural. Pedantic I know but still important.

    —-
    Thanks Peter. Fixed. – Jo

    71

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      The Requirements of written communication: Accuracy, Brevity, Clarity, Relevance, Logic. Pedantic rules OK!

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        A list of independent, but supportive, items should be separated by semicolons, with the last item indicated by the word “and”.

        A list of alternate, and selective, items should be separated by commas, with the last item indicated by the word, “or”.

        Just being pedantic, OK?

        30

    • #
      Ken Stewart

      Sorry, but…. less is for general unspecified quantity (sand, water, time, or wealth); fewer for quantity that can be counted (dollars, cyclones, people, kilograms, or years).

      Pedantic ex-school teacher.

      90

      • #
        abt

        Ken, I agree completely.

        Pedantic former scientist with a keen interest in grammar.

        50

      • #
        pattoh

        Well Ken ther are certainly lot fewer scientists who make up the sampled 100% to get the fabled 97% than have signed up at the Petition Project.

        The figures from a couple of years ago were something like ~ 92(?) / 31000 odd.

        I wonder what the current status of the Petition is? If it is still running it it is probably getting close to an order & a half even if the UN keeeps adding the names of those who write for the IPCC.

        10

    • #
      scaper...

      Looking at the graph, it appears the cyclones are becoming less severe.

      20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      So, with fewer posts by Blackadder we will hear less from him. Did I get that right?

      Mind you, the more posts Blackadder made, the less the sense.

      00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Then tell yourself that the science is settled and we should spend billions to change those trends.

    It is now the view of The Great Lewandowsky that the less settled the science is, the more definite it is that we should take preventive action.

    Just in the same way that we are uncertain that there is an army of purple lizards on the far side of the moon waiting to attack the earth, so it is more definite we should launch a pre-emptive attack on them.

    We should probably burn any woman who lives alone with a cat, as we are very uncertain whether witchcraft exists.

    80

    • #
      the Griss

      “the less settled the science is, the more definite it is that we should take preventive action. ”

      The OBVIOUS corollary is that the more certain we are, the less we need to do. :-)

      32

      • #
        the Griss

        And, of course, even though their models diverge more and more from reality, the IPCC is more and more certain…….

        therefore we need to do less and less to combat the non-effects of increased biosphere nourishment.

        30

        • #
          the Griss

          “combat the non-effects of increased biosphere nourishment”

          badly stated…. let’s try,

          “combat the non-effect of increased biosphere nourishment on changes in global climate”

          22

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Climate astrology/science papers have clearly shown the following:

    Global warming will cause the following:

    1. The number of cyclones per year to rise.
    2. The number of cyclones per year to remain constant, and
    3. The number of cyclones per year to decline.

    All perfectly obvious, what is so difficult to understand?

    Of course, if there is no global warming, the opposite will apply.

    121

  • #
    thingadonta

    A couple of points:

    Magellan named the ‘Pacific Ocean’ after its ‘peaceful’ nature when compared to the Atlantic. This is probably because it is much larger, with heat more evenly spread, and there is therefore less temperature gradient between the equator and poles, meaning less storminess and cyclones. The amount of storminess and cyclones probably relate more to temperature differentials, than overall temperature (this is also why tornados mostly tend to form when cold air meets hot air).

    Under recent 20-21st century global warming (whether natural or greenhouse related), the poles and mid latitudes have been shown to be warming faster than the tropics, meaning less temperature differential and therefore LESS cyclones (the opposite of what the alarmists claim).

    The reason is probably related to the negative feedback of thunderstorms, cloudiness and water vapour in the tropics, after all if more water vapour meant more positive feedback then why aren’t maximum (and average?) temperatures in the tropics higher than in the deserts, as they receive more direct sunlight.? Obviously increased water vapour in the air, at least in the tropics, dampens the effect of climate forcing, which suggests climate sensitivity to c02 is low. (This may not be true with climate sensitivity to solar activity however, as the sun’s effect on clouds and oceans may have feedback effects that are NOT present with c02. I think this is also what Roy Spencer generally thinks, and if true it suggests that solar activity and clouds may be responsible for most of the 20th century warming, and not c02 and other greenhouse gases as the IPCC has prematurely concluded).

    50

  • #
    GreggB

    You let pedants post freely on this site? That’s disgusting! You should all be arrested!

    What? Give me that dictionary!

    Oh…

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Magellan saw the Pacific on a good day. I know, what are the odds? But these things happen.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Hmm, That was supposed to be in reply to Thingadonta …

        Odd happenings today … I think they are changing the Matrix, again.

        30

  • #
    Lawrie

    The greater the difference in temperature between colliding air masses the more intense the resulting storm. It therefore follows that as temperatures at the poles increase due to AGW the difference with tropical temperatures is less hence less intensive storms. If my statements are correct then it seems ridiculous for alarmists to say that storms will increase in frequency and intensity and that temperatures at the poles will increase more so than at the tropics. There appears to be a lack of logical thought here.

    40

  • #
    Jaymez

    The 2007 UN IPCC Climate Report stated there had been a “likely” increase in tropical cyclones since 1970, which was “more likely than not” due to global warming raising sea temperatures. But the latest IPCC report just released backtracks from that statement saying the previous assessment needs to be somewhat revised. After a review of past cyclone counts, it concludes that “tropical cyclone data provides low confidence that any reported long-term changes are robust”. It goes on to say though that “there is evidence, however, that the average intensity of cyclones will rise in the years ahead.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23014-what-leaked-ipcc-report-really-says-on-climate-change.html#.U0UpDfmSzht

    As Jo says, this is essentially plucked from the air. You can plug whatever assumptions you like into your computer models and get the output you want, but the empirical data hasn’t supported their modelling to date. They are simply clutching at straws so that the main stream media and other climate alarmists can still continue to claim that ‘the science tells us that global warming will see an increase in the severity of cyclones.’

    This is exactly what Dr Debbie Abbs from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research department claimed in her tax payer funded research. “Despite a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones, there is a greater risk that a tropical cyclone that forms will be more severe in future,” Dr Abbs said. “Even a small increase in cyclone intensity is concerning because of the threat to life, property, industry and agriculture,” said Dr Abbs in a CSIRO media release.

    Of course the Bureau of Meteorology were happy to parrot the same song. Karl Braganza, David Jones and Yuri Kuleshov, climatologists from the Bureau of Meteorology, also state the difficulty in determining trends for cyclones in a December 2011 article on The Conversation website – Australia expecting an active cyclone season, but future cyclones still hard to predict – but conclude that climate modelling of global warming predicts a trend for fewer storms but an increase in storm intensity.
    See: http://indymedia.org.au/2011/12/28/stronger-but-fewer-cyclones-for-australia-says-csiro-scientist

    At this point you’d have to say that such statements have all the scientific credibility of guessing. Or as we like to say in the Australian vernacular when you make a statement which has no factual basis, ‘they are pulling it out of their arses!’

    112

  • #
    Neville

    In 2001 ABC Catalyst did a show on super cyclones that once occured down the Qld coast.
    But the last one hit in the early 1800s and there hasn’t been another for the last 200+ years.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s382613.htm But their 6,000 year study showed that they were more common before European settlement.

    Bob Carter also showed that super cyclones were more common off the east coast of OZ during the LIA.

    40

  • #
    Tim

    “SST warming over the warm pool has accelerated in recent decades. Therefore, a close monitoring of that warming is important for long-term variations of monsoon rainfall. The inconsistency in the amplitude of drying over South Asia among the various land-based rainfall observations and lack of sustained rainfall observations over the open oceans, however, poses constraints in the results.”

    Could this mean they cannot prove their hypothesis and therefore don’t have a clue? Maybe a climate science person could help me here.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00208.1

    10

  • #

    Re intensity: Four cyclones have been measured below 880 hPa. All were Pacific TCs. Three occurred in the 1970s and one was in the 1950s.

    Who doubts that if these four measurements had been made post 2000 that the klimatariat would be seeing yet another “disturbing trend”? Imagine the mileage they’d get from a Typhoon Tip.

    When you add in Tracy, the Bulahdelah Tornado and the Long La Nina, it’s clear we wasted the 1970s spilling Coolibah Claret on the orange shagpile when we could have been starting a mad millenarian cult around climate.

    61

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    According to this paper by Erl Happ, cyclonic activity in Australia is apparently determined by the movement in sea surface pressure back and forth between 60-90 S and 30-40S S :
    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/climate-disaster-declining-rainfall-rising-sea-levels/

    ‘The loss of pressure at 60-70° south and the gain at 30-40° south enhances the pressure differential driving the westerly winds with the effect of:
    • Enhancing the flow of the circumpolar current, driving water northwards along the western coasts of the southern continents and raising sea levels as it does so and indeed across the global ocean to the north. Sea level falls in the Southern Ocean, the largest expanse of ocean world-wide.
    • Reducing the northward penetration of the polar lows that form on the margins of Antarctica that are responsible for frontal rainfall as they meet humid tropical air traveling southwards.’

    This movement is linked to changes in solar activity acting through a combination of changes in UV flux and wavelength and solar proton flux that determine the site and extent of heating of the stratosphere:
    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/06_projekter/isac/wp501b.pdf

    10

  • #
    Matt Thompson

    Of course, to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of planet earth; the frightening thing would be climate stagnation, not climate change.

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Jo, Anthony and Steve get high praise in a just released study.
    You’re right at the centre Jo, congratulations.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/09/study-wuwt-near-the-center-of-the-climate-blogosphere/#more-107234

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Off topic but on topic:

    What Can We Do About Junk Science?

    “In 2013 radiation expert Robert Emery examined a research paper in his office at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston that declared a health crisis was at his door.
    Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman claimed they could link 14,000 American deaths to fallout from Japan’s March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident.

    The study implied fallout from Fukushima caused 484 deaths in Houston.
    If there had been radiation-related deaths in Texas, Emery was well-positioned to know about them.
    Following the disaster in Japan, he supervised the effort to set up extra air-sampling stations and Geiger counters throughout Houston to monitor any increase in radioactivity; elevated levels were not found.

    The paper’s conclusions were based on a remarkably simplistic correlation that didn’t stand up to further scrutiny; …

    The Mangano and Sherman paper is a prime example of a troubling new trend in which junk science is becoming harder to distinguish from rigorous research.

    It is an example of activists using the trappings of science to influence public opinion and policy.”

    30

  • #
    Ross

    OT but we often discuss the propaganda that has invaded our schools and from comments it seems it is a world wide issue. Well maybe students are able to see through a lot of it given the results of this British survey.Note how low the Greens are, so all the AGW stuff that is pushed onto the students presumably is not “sinking in”.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/09/Survey-Students-More-Likely-to-Vote-Conservative

    10

  • #
    scaper...

    Ross, the over egging of CAGW by the education systems have put the belief on the level of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, devoid of the presents and chocolate eggs. Only a fool would want to wear a hairshirt.

    Especially generation Y that is actually the savvy .com generation.

    11

    • #
      Backslider

      Hey! Please go easy on Santa Claus. I saw Joulupukki when I was a little boy in Finland. He is real.

      10

  • #
    cohenite

    No increase in Modokis or cyclones. Good news. Bob Tisdale will be chuffed.

    01

  • #
    Retired now

    And of course fewer cyclones in Western Australia’s summer means no cyclone tails to bring summer rain and a week’s temporarily cooler weather over that period. Hence we have longer periods of summer drought with higher average temperatures. Therefore with the hotter weather being proof of global climate change and the problems of CO2, then fewer cyclones must be proof of global warming!!

    I actually heard that argument being made.

    00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    I wonder if Bob Brown will be reminding people this is all Clive Palmers fault ?

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6frfku0-1225988806619

    No doubt Milne and Bandt will be on the Bandt wagon pointing out that the models predicted the time, date, nature and name of this cyclone. They should have called it Tony just for a laugh.

    00

    • #
      Backslider

      So, Bob Brown[snip] is saying that before we all started burning coal there were no floods in Australia? Why then are there so many flood plains which have been around for millenia?

      10

      • #
        the Griss

        If you study the Australian rivers, both inland and coastal you will see evidence of massive flood planes

        Rivers like the Diamantina have been recorded as having floods stretching many miles wide.

        I suspect that we are actually in period where floods are actually pretty mild.

        Our records are so short that we really don’t have a whole lot of knowledge just what the Australian climate can really throw at us.

        Evidence is getting stronger that raised CO2 levels actually help move energy around radiatively, thus taking some of the punch out of the natural weather extremes.

        12

  • #
    pat

    much more at the link:

    9 April: Reuters: By Barbara Lewis/Foo Yun Chee: New EU rules on energy funding phase out subsidies for renewables
    Funding green energy will become harder under EU rules published on Wednesday designed to replace subsidies with market-based schemes, just when the Ukraine crisis has heightened the need for alternatives to imported fossil fuel.
    The executive European Commission said the guidelines, which will be gradually phased in, strike a necessary balance after fierce political debate about the cost of green subsidies.
    “Politically, it’s the best balance possible. We were obliged to establish a lot of trade-offs,” the Commission’s competition chief, Joaquin Almunia, told reporters.
    But green energy campaigners, who protested outside the Commission headquarters in Brussels, said the rules were a victory for industry and a blow to the renewables sector as well as ordinary consumers.
    The rules take effect from July 1 this year and from 2017 all member states will have to hold tenders to support new green power facilities following a pilot phase from 2015-16.
    The idea is to replace feed-in tariffs, which have little or no relation to market reality but have spurred renewable development, with auctions or bidding processes open to all green energy generators competing equally for government funds…
    Following extensive lobbying from companies, the new rules allow for exemptions in special circumstances, including sparing energy-intensive industries such as chemicals, metals, paper and ceramics from helping to pay for renewable power. That leaves ordinary household consumers to pick up the bill…
    CITIZENS ‘LOSE TWICE’
    Environmental groups and the renewables lobby are concerned the EU’s renewed emphasis on increasing energy security and weaning itself off Russian gas because of instability in transit nation Ukraine will lead only to more use of coal and efforts to develop shale gas, not more green power.
    “It’s the whole contradiction of the Commission, which asks that we learn from the Ukraine-Russia crisis and then gives in to corporate lobbies,” Claude Turmes, a member of the European Parliament representing the Green Party, told Reuters.
    “Citizens will lose twice: they will pay for industries’ new free ride and will continue to suffer from an outdated energy system.”…
    However, the latest guidelines do not include rules on aid for nuclear energy. This means if member states want to fund such projects, they need to notify the Commission, which will assess requests on a case-by-case basis.
    The omission was a blow to Britain, which wants to use state guarantees to help finance a nuclear plant to be built by France’s EDF…
    ***The industry exemptions cover 68 sectors in all.
    As European energy costs exceed those in the United States, where shale gas has reduced prices, Eurofer, the European Steel Association, complained that even with the waivers it faced a competitive disadvantage.
    (Additional reporting by Ben Garside in London; Editing by Dale Hudson)
    http://news.yahoo.com/eu-rules-energy-funding-phase-subsidies-renewables-134639321–finance.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 April: Bloomberg: Reed Lanberg: U.K. Creating Climate Finance ‘Lab’ to Meet UN $100 Billion Goal
    The U.K. government said it’s forming a “lab” to study ways to boost funding for climate-protection projects, part of a United Nations-led effort to channel $100 billion a year into the industry by 2020.
    Energy Minister Greg Barker said government officials and investors from around the world will meet in London on June 3 to open a “global innovation lab for climate finance.” Norway, France, Japan and Denmark are involved, he said…
    “The outlook for climate investment is looking up,” Barker said at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference in New York today. “Mankind might just prove capabale of rising to the greatest challenge of our century.”
    Barker said the finance lab would work like a “dragon’s den” for investments, stress-testing ideas to make sure they work before giving them the green light for government and private funding to flow…
    Ban hosts a summit in New York in September where he wants world leaders to pledge deeper action on fighting climate change. Industrial nations already have promised to boost climate-related aid to $100 billion a year by 2020, about 10 times the current level. They haven’t said how they will reach that goal.
    Barker said he’s optimistic that poltical attention is returning to protecting the environment because U.S. President Barack Obama will meet his Chinese counterpart in New York in September to discuss climate.
    “Very few global leaders have been investing big political capital in climate action,” Barker said. “They simply would not be going near this issue if both parties didn’t see there was some chance of progress, real progress.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-09/u-k-creating-climate-finance-lab-to-meet-un-100-billion-goal.html

    ***desperately trying to restore “trust” in order to keep the FINANCIAL aspect of the CAGW scam alive, but at least – unlike Bloomberg – RTCC names some of the Banks/Financial institutions involved:

    9 April: RTCC: Sophie Yeo: US, UK, Germany canvass private sector on boosting climate finance
    World Bank and Merrill Lynch among those working on ‘Climate Finance Lab’ to speed up $100bn fundraising goal.
    The US, UK and Germany will invite the private sector to propose ways to raise the billions needed to tackle climate change, in an initiative that UK minister Greg Barker will launch in New York today. The Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance – or ‘The Lab’ – has been designed to spur private sector investments into projects to help developing countries prepare for a warmer world, although it will stop short of offering any new fundraising targets. Despite a pledge from rich countries in 2009 to provide poor nations with US$ 100billion a year from 2020, these funds have so far dribbled in slowly…
    The group will meet for the first time in June, where it will consider various climate finance instruments proposed by the private sector, think tanks and others. It plans to select the best ideas by the beginning of next year, which will be implemented by relevant institutions.
    ***The ability of governments to leverage private sector investment will be vital in enabling developed countries to deliver on their $100 billion promise, which is key to maintaining trust between developed and developing countries…
    Participants will focus on developing new options for raising finance, rather than coming up with specific fundraising targets, a spokesperson from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change told RTCC. She said: “It’s more about coming up with different financial approaches which developing countries can then take to create their own financial arrangements to use in raising capital and approaching banks.”The UK, US and Germany are responsible for leading the project, alongside other donor countries including France, Japan, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway…
    Among the investors and development banks that will comprise the membership of the Lab are the World Bank, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. Bringing together public and private partners is essential in delivering the large amount of money required, with public funds expected to be used to leverage large amount of private capital. According to Greg Barker, the UK has a “direct national interest” in supporting international action on climate change, as around two thirds of greenhouse gases are projected to come from the developing world by 2020…
    So far, little has been delivered in the way of climate finance. Confidence remains low, with slow progress on the UN’s Green Climate Fund meaning there is no easy way to distribute the funds. UK climate negotiator Pete Betts told RTCC last month that the UK was held back from making a donation by the Fund’s lack of preparedness, while UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warned that the “clock is ticking”, as the Fund should be ready to receive money by the Secretary General’s landmark climate summit this September…
    “There has never been a more important time to convert CLIMATE FINANCE IDEAS and knowledge into action,” said Elizabeth Littlefield, CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the US development finance institution, who will serve on the Lab…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/09/us-uk-germany-canvass-private-sector-on-boosting-climate-finance/

    00

  • #
    pat

    a laugh in every line:

    9 April: Guardian: John Abraham: Years of Living Dangerously – a global warming blockbuster
    This new Showtime climate change documentary is a nonfiction thriller you won’t want to miss
    In full disclosure, I am jealous that I did not get a chance to work on this – perhaps the most important climate change multimedia communication endeavor in history.
    Climate change really is a made-for-TV story. It has all the drama of Hollywood, with real-life villains and heroes thrown in. We scientists struggle everyday to communicate the importance of climate change to the world. It is great to see communication experts come in and accomplish what scientists alone cannot.
    That’s why I’m excited about the biggest climate science communication endeavor in history. Airing this spring in the US (Showtime), a cast of the world’s best climate scientists team up with the world’s best politicians and actors to tell the stories of real people from across the planet affected by climate change in Years of Living Dangerously. The first episode is available here…
    The brainchild of veterans from 60 Minutes (Joel Bach and David Gelber), the series has very high standards of accuracy. Along with the blockbuster style of James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, this endeavor is committed to combining great science with compelling story telling. Behind the scenes is best science team you could imagine, including Drs. Heidi Cullen, Joe Romm, Jim Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Michael Oppenheimer… the list goes on and on…
    Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of my personal heroes on climate change for showing that the subject should not be a liberal or conservative issue, leads the “Fire Line” segment. He joins an elite team of wild-land firefighters as they battle infernos. He discovers a hidden secret that may be a bigger danger to national forests than fires…
    There are many more segments covering extreme heat waves and human health, methane and future energy supplies, ice in the arctic, coming political instability with climate change, future energy choices and others. Correspondents include Matt Damon, Harrison Ford, Thomas Friedman, Lesley Stahl, and a very long list of other concerned public figures…
    ***The producers wanted to ensure this series had a long reach…
    The production team was very selective about the composition of the team. The many famous correspondents did not just give cameos; they are truly committed to the project…
    The show premiers Sunday April 13th at 10pm on SHOWTIME, I think I’m going to get cable TV just for this.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/09/years-of-living-dangerously-global-warming-blockbuster

    00

  • #
    pat

    more laughs:

    9 April: Kashmira Gander: UK Independent: ‘Do smelly emissions from baked beans contribute to global warming?’ Viscount Simon asks Energy Minister
    73-year-old Labour peer Viscount Simon raised his concerns about the gasses bean-eaters are contributing to the Earth’s atmosphere as Energy Minister Baroness Verma answered questions in the Upper House on how the Government was tackling climate change.
    “In a programme some months ago on the BBC it was stated that this country has the largest production of baked beans and the largest consumption of baked beans in the world,” said the peer who has been a member of the House of Lords for more than 20 years.
    To laughter from peers, he asked Lady Verma: “Could you say whether this affects the calculation of global warming by the Government as a result of the smelly emission resulting therefrom?”
    Lady Verma described his question as “so different” but added: “You do actually raise a very important point, which is we do need to moderate our behaviour.”…
    His question comes the same week that a study was published suggesting that eating beans offers a range of health benefits, including lowering cholesterol and cutting the risk of heart disease, according to researchers…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-smelly-emissions-from-baked-beans-contribute-to-global-warming-viscount-simon-asks-energy-minister-9249179.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    U CAN SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING!

    9 April: Think Progress: Joe Romm: The Brutally Dishonest Attacks On Showtime’s Landmark Series On Climate Change
    George Marshall, “an expert on climate and communication,” — who is also often a critic of climate messaging — wrote me:
    – What impressed me about the two episodes I watched was the respect that it showed to conservatives, evangelicals and ordinary working people…. it is still the best documentary I have seen. -
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424593/showtime-years-dangerously-response/

    ***Bauer’s opening line belies the headline:

    9 April: TheDetroitNews: AP: David Bauder: Showtime’s ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ tries to transcned (sic) politics
    ***Producers of a Showtime series on global warming said it was crucial to get celebrities and Republicans involved to spread the stories beyond people who already believe it’s an important issue…
    (CLOSING PARA) The series will run for about eight or 10 episodes, Gelber said. Although the series is being shown on a pay cable network, one of its participants, “The Vampire Diaries” actor Ian Somerhalder, said he and other celebrities will try to spread its message through social media.
    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140409/ENT10/304090011/Showtime-s-Years-Living-Dangerously-tries-transcned-politics

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 April: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: The Uphill Climate Challenge in ‘Years of Living Dangerously’
    Joe Romm, the Center for American Progress climate blogger who’s also one of two chief science advisers for the forthcoming Showtime climate series, “Years of Living Dangerously,” sent a query last night after seeing a Twitter note I posted. My note was about an Op-Ed article in The Times by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/the-uphill-climate-challenge-in-years-of-living-dangerously/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    millions wasted on more TV that will be unwatchable & have no repeat value whatsoever.

    00

  • #
    ghl

    O/T sorry
    My lawn is lusher and greener than I remember seeing.
    This is the end of the hottest summer on record?
    I don’t think so.

    10

  • #
     D C  

    But there’s a big one about to strike north of Cairns within 24 hours or so.

    00

  • #

    For those who want to follow Cyclone Ita.

    UPDATE: Cyclone Ita is now Category 5 bearing down on Cape York, the radars will show it soon. 320km NW of Cooktown. Winds 285km /hr. See The BOM warnings.

    01

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Just curious. How did BOM become the agency of weather in Australia? I suppose it is better than the US where they had to go out and spend money to create another agency (government’s favorite pastime), but Mines seems a strange wedding with weather.

      00

    • #

      I want to know if I’m Robinson Crusoe on this.

      Authorities of every type are warning people to stay away, to move to safety, not to come and rubberneck.

      It seems that this applies to everybody ….. except the media, because every media outlet in Australia known to man is sending people there with reporters, cameras, and crews to brave the conditions.

      I find this really incongruous.

      It seems rules do not apply to the media. They can just do what they want to do.

      Tony.

      10

  • #
    Get Real

    Interesting, just watched a report from ABC TV in Australia talking about Cyclone Ita. Report included comments from Professor Jon Knott from the James Cook University in Townsville. Professor Jon said he will be looking at rainfall figures to determine extent of climate change.

    I wonder if Professor Jon knows that the main driver behind a cyclone is the body of water being of a temperature over 26 degrees celsius. The temperature of the water in these latitudes is heated by radiation from the sun regardless of amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    00