Stronger, more frequent tropical cyclones ahead, research says

Jul 08, 2013
From his vantage point high above the earth in the International Space Station, Astronaut Ed Lu captured this broad view of Hurricane Isabel. Credit: NASA

The world typically sees about 90 tropical cyclones a year, but that number could increase dramatically in the next century due to global warming, a US scientist said Monday.

Rising could lead to a 10 to 40 percent increase in the frequency of tropical cyclones by the year 2100, said prominent Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Those storms could be up to 45 percent more intense, making landfall 55 percent stronger—a "substantial" increase, said the research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stronger storm surges, winds and rain would likely be felt most acutely in the southern Indian Ocean, North Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean, and could raise risks of damage in coastal areas, he said.

Satellite data has shown that cyclones—which are rotating systems of clouds and thunderstorms—have remained relatively consistent in frequency and power over the past 40 years.

But he projected a steady uptick in the future using six different combined with forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts will about triple by 2100.

Tropical cyclones can bring heavy rains and winds, and vary in potency from tropical depression to tropical storm to hurricane.

The Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico typically see about six hurricanes and 11 tropical storms per year, while the Pacific Ocean gets about 10 hurricanes and 19 tropical storms, according to US government ocean monitors.

Cyclones form in areas where there is warm deep water and cool humid air. Wind over the water pushes thermal heat upward, causing the warming air to circle and get stronger.

Explore further: Biology trumps chemistry in open ocean

More information: PNAS paper: www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/05/1301293110

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

3 hours ago

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

"Ferrari of space' yields best map of ocean currents

11 hours ago

A satellite dubbed the "Ferrari of space" has yielded the most accurate model of ocean circulation yet, boosting understanding of the seas and a key impact of global warming, scientists said Tuesday.

Researcher studies deformation of tectonic plates

14 hours ago

Sean Bemis put his hands together side by side to demonstrate two plates of the earth's crust with a smooth boundary running between them. But that boundary is not always smooth and those plates do not always ...

User comments : 88

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (52) Jul 08, 2013
The AGW prophets of doom and gloom looks into their CO2 filled crystal ball, then reaches around and pulls this piece of propaganda from their behinds. The real world, where there is absolutely no indication of this, does not matter, only the millions in grants do. And the ignorant cult shall believe.
sstritt
1.9 / 5 (39) Jul 08, 2013
And yet we are currently in a hurricane drought!
VENDItardE
1.8 / 5 (41) Jul 08, 2013
MORE greenie BS
Birger
3.5 / 5 (27) Jul 09, 2013
"pulls this piece of propaganda from their behinds"

...as in..
."using six different climate models combined with forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts carbon dioxide emissions will about triple by 2100."

Using available data plus computer models = propaganda????

"And yet we are currently in a hurricane drought!"
....because what happens right now is the ONLY thing that is happening????? If we have a snowstorm at one point, it does not disprove global warming.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (34) Jul 09, 2013
Funny, this paper here says just the opposite:

Decreasing trend of tropical cyclone frequency in 228-year high-resolution AGCM simulations

Weren't all these climate scientists supposed to be in lockstep agreement?

gmurphy
3.7 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2013
@ubavontuba, only in your rigid little denialist world is everything in lockstep agreement.
_ilbud
3.5 / 5 (22) Jul 09, 2013
Always amusing when the ignorant fear filled dupes of oil companies repeat the stupid denialist lies. History will remember you as the vermin you are.
Egleton
2 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2013
Whatever blows your hair back.
Unless you are standing with your back to the wind, in which case it will blow your hair forward. (I had to get that out there before someone else.)
ThomasQuinn
3.2 / 5 (26) Jul 09, 2013
Funny, this paper here says just the opposite:

http://www.leif.o...3360.pdf

Weren't all these climate scientists supposed to be in lockstep agreement?



Right, and one obscure article you found, co-authored by one of the more or less bogus 'research' institutes the Japanese government uses to justify whaling, suddenly proves that masses of peer-reviewed, highly sourced and independently verified research is all propaganda. The climate negationists should be ashamed of themselves, but they appear to lack the intelligence to realize this.
Humpty
1.8 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2013
Well the government of Australia has banned all air from entering Australian airspace, without a permit.
pithole_hermit
2.2 / 5 (30) Jul 09, 2013
@Birger

Have you ever built model airplanes. A hint: If you built a model six different ways that later are shown not to fly, then you better take a close look at how how you are building them. The predictions of models from 10 and 20 years ago have not panned out, in fact in many cases they have shown the opposite and yet they continue the use same procedures. I don't know why. I might not call it propaganda but it certainly isn't science. Science requires rethinking something which is proven wrong.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (28) Jul 09, 2013
Always amusing when the ignorant fear filled dupes of oil companies repeat the stupid denialist lies. History will remember you as the vermin you are.


Arab oil companies like the ones who just financed a $500M check to tobacco farmer Al Gore's cable TV channel love Greenpeace, do they not?!
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (27) Jul 09, 2013
Instalanch! Cool. Thousands of readers need view this basic background graph that shows that our high CO2 era corresponds with a major *lull* in tropical cyclone intensity:

http://tucsonciti...ergy.jpg

Not since the Civil War have so many years passed with no major hurricane hitting shore.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2013
Instalanch! Cool. Thousands of readers need view this basic background graph that shows that our high CO2 era corresponds with a major *lull* in tropical cyclone intensity:

http://tucsonciti...ergy.jpg

Not since the Civil War have so many years passed with no major hurricane hitting shore.


Interesting - however it's irrelevant to the paper....

"The world typically sees about 90 tropical cyclones a year, but that number could increase dramatically IN THE NEXT CENTURY due to global warming, a US scientist said Monday."

My capitals.
By my estimation that's at least 87 years away.
Alec_Rawls
1.6 / 5 (25) Jul 09, 2013
Hurricanes are a byproduct of the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles. Global warming, if it were to happen, would be greater at the poles, reducing the temperature gradient and hence the tendency of hurricanes to form. So Emanuel managed to locate a selection of climate models that violate this basic physics. Nice. He found another way to falsify these already known-to-be-wrong models!

But global warming is not going to happen. The best estimate going forward is that it's going to get colder, now that the actual cause of 20th century warming--an 80 year span of unusually high solar-magnetic activity--has reversed. The sun has gone quiet, and if past patterns persist, that means its going to get cooler, which really will cause an increase in hurricanes, and really is dangerous in many other ways as well.

Do not celebrate the end of global warming. It is what we should be hoping for, but it is not what we are going to get.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2013
Hurricanes are a byproduct of the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles. Global warming, if it were to happen, would be greater at the poles, reducing the temperature gradient and hence the tendency of hurricanes to form.


No, hurricanes are driven by SST's and the release of latent heat of evaporation in ascending air.
Equator-Pole temp gradient ( exhibited aloft as the jet-stream ) does not come into the life of a hurricane until it, late in life, ( usually ) turns right as it enters the jet on it's northward journey off the US coast ( not all move that way - some cross into Central America - and interestingly Sandy moved west at that point ).
They have their genesis in westward-moving tropical waves out of N Africa - which is correlated to the El Nino/La Nina oscillation however.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (32) Jul 09, 2013
So much denialist BS posted in this thread, with none being worthy of even the smallest possible effort at rebuttal.

Such are obviously not here to learn, but to pretend that their amateur standing makes them more qualified than professional scientists on any and all subjects of their choosing.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (30) Jul 09, 2013
So much denialist BS posted in this thread, with none being worthy of even the smallest possible effort at rebuttal.

Such are obviously not here to learn, but to pretend that their amateur standing makes them more qualified than professional scientists on any and all subjects of their choosing.


You're the emperor and you want dumplings! You want to nitpick in the face of the biggest and most brazen scientific *fraud* in human history and feel superior in the process? Not even logic is on your side then, basic logic, deep logic.

I have a question though: what exactly am I denialisting?

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
runrig
3.9 / 5 (21) Jul 09, 2013

You're the emperor and you want dumplings! You want to nitpick in the face of the biggest and most brazen scientific *fraud* in human history and feel superior in the process? Not even logic is on your side then, basic logic, deep logic.


Right - so you're saying that it is not logical to go with the probability that the consensus of GW science is right in it's conclusions. If my interpretation is correct - How does that work in a rational mind?

Would it be logical to you to not have someone believe your work in chemistry?
As you are an expert?
As climate scientists are, and the large sampling rate of studies greatly reduces statistical error - unless you are one of those unreasonable people that require 100% equanimity?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (28) Jul 09, 2013
Nik, you only have a PhD in Chemistry, NOT climate science so you are not an expert.

How many PhDs in Climate Science are out there? Must not be very many as the National Academy of Science said climate science peer review is incestuous.

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (31) Jul 09, 2013
So much denialist BS posted in this thread, with none being worthy of even the smallest possible effort at rebuttal.

Such are obviously not here to learn, but to pretend that their amateur standing makes them more qualified than professional scientists on any and all subjects of their choosing.


You're the emperor and you want dumplings! You want to nitpick in the face of the biggest and most brazen scientific *fraud* in human history and feel superior in the process? Not even logic is on your side then, basic logic, deep logic.

I have a question though: what exactly am I denialisting?

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

1) Your claim of "fraud" is a naked assertion.

2) You show no sign of understanding the underlying Physics.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (32) Jul 09, 2013
Nik, you only have a PhD in Chemistry, NOT climate science so you are not an expert.

How many PhDs in Climate Science are out there? Must not be very many as the National Academy of Science said climate science peer review is incestuous.

This from one who persists on insisting that a free capitalistic marketplace is the cure for everything, one who has shown absolutely no understanding of the Sciences.
JWnTX
1.5 / 5 (25) Jul 09, 2013
It's disturbing how easily some people are turned into eleutherophobes. Whether global warming is manmade or not is really immaterial because nobody else on the face of the earth really gives a damn but our sycophantic Gaia worshipers in this country. So we're supposed to sacrifice everything we have in order to try to resolve something we have no chance of resolving without forcing the rest of the world to cooperate (which ain't gonna happen). On another note, isn't it funny how no one pays any attention to the technology that COULD offset the emissions in THIS country because the real goal isn't solving global warming--it's to try to drive the oil companies out of business.
_teve
1.6 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2013
I'd be more impressed with all this if they could get their long term models to even resemble known past weather patterns. I guess the "hockey stick" turned into a cricket bat. Say did anyone ever actually sort through the twisted wreckage of non-reproducable data and experiments that produced that turd? I'm sure billions in taxes are being spent on that post haste..
Alec_Rawls
1.7 / 5 (28) Jul 10, 2013
Nobody needs a degree in anything to verify for themselves that the IPCC is committing omitted variable fraud. Dozens of studies have found a very strong correlation between solar-magnetic activity and climate, in the range of .4 to .6, going back many thousands of years. That is, solar activity "explains" in the statistical sense something like half of all past climate change. Yet the only solar variable included in the "consensus" climate models is the very slight variation in solar radiation (about one tenth of one percent over the solar cycle, while various solar magnetic variables swing up and down by a full order of magnitude).

The solar irradiance variable is parameterized in the IPCC models as having 1/70th the temperature forcing effect of CO2 since 1850. 2.83 w/m2 vs. .04w/m2 according to AR5, p. 8-39.

That is, CO2 is assumed to have 70 times the warming effect of the 50% driver of climate. The most blatant scientific fraud in history.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 10, 2013
The solar irradiance variable .... in the IPCC models as having 1/70th the temperature forcing effect of CO2 since 1850. 2.83 w/m2 vs. .04w/m2 according to AR5, ... That is, CO2 is assumed to have 70 times the warming effect of the 50% driver of climate. The most blatant scientific fraud in history."


You are mixing percentages and W/m2.

The variation in Solar irradiation since the Maunder Minimum is 0.04%
Which equates to a variation of 0.5W/m2 ( in 1365 W/m2 ).

The increase in forcing due to human CO2 since 1850 is estimated at 1.4W/m2
So your assertion that the IPCC states that CO2 has a warming effect 70x that of solar variation is in fact 2.8.

Dozens of studies have found a very strong correlation between solar-magnetic activity and climate, ... going back many thousands of years. That is, solar activity "explains" in the statistical sense something like half of all past climate change


You are confusing orbital changes with solar variation. Look up Milankovitch.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2013

But global warming is not going to happen. The best estimate going forward is that it's going to get colder, now that the actual cause of 20th century warming--an 80 year span of unusually high solar-magnetic activity--has reversed. The sun has gone quiet, and if past patterns persist, that means its going to get cooler, which really will cause an increase in hurricanes, and really is dangerous in many other ways as well.

Do not celebrate the end of global warming. It is what we should be hoping for, but it is not what we are going to get.

Indications are that the sun is headed for a grand minimum. So, if we are lucky, the worst we will see is another little ice-age and stormier weather. With billions squandered on the AGW lie, hopefully there is money to deal with this.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013

Do not celebrate the end of global warming. It is what we should be hoping for, but it is not what we are going to get.

Indications are that the sun is headed for a grand minimum. So, if we are lucky, the worst we will see is another little ice-age and stormier weather. With billions squandered on the AGW lie, hopefully there is money to deal with this.


A Grand Minimum may indeed be coming in around 30 years, and hold up AGW somewhat, but as my previous post highlighted, the forcing lost even at that extreme scenario would be 0.5 W/m2 whereas human CO2 emissions have added an extra 1.4 W/m2. So no the CO2 will win - unfortunately.
Alec_Rawls
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2013
You are mixing percentages and W/m2.

The variation in Solar irradiation since the Maunder Minimum is 0.04%
Which equates to a variation of 0.5W/m2 ( in 1365 W/m2 ).


Wrong, and I even gave you the AR5 page citation for the forcing estimates in watts per meter squared: p. 8-39. You can find the PDF at stopgreensuicide.

This seems to be runrig's m.o. He pontificates some totally wrong assertion about what skeptical critics are getting wrong, in-effect throwing mud at the wall to see what he can get to stick. He did the same thing in response to my earlier comment about hurricanes being a byproduct of the temperature gradient from equator to poles, which Co2-driven warming would cause to DECREASE. Runrig said this only comes into play with the jet stream. Ridiculous. See following comment.
Alec_Rawls
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2013
Two things drive hurricanes (and storms in general): the horizontal temp gradient (equator to poles) and the vertical gradient. Runrig correctly mentions SSTs as a cause of hurricanes. They are a PART of the vertical gradient. But how is Co2 theorized to affect SSTs? By FIRST warming the upper troposphere, which in turn warms SSTs (but not as much). In other words, it is predicted to REDUCE the vertical gradient.

Given the complexity of climate there will be some secondary effects that work in the opposite direction but earlier studies found that these secondary effects do not outweigh the primary effects (the reduced storminess from the reduction in the horizontal and vertical temperature gradients). Not just Sugi and Yoshimura 2012 linked above, but also Hernandez-Deckers 2012.

PhysOrg posts what seems to be a direct excerpt from Emanuel's press release without mentioning how it is contradicted by this other recent research. They would never do that with skeptical claims.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013
You are mixing percentages and W/m2.

The variation in Solar irradiation since the Maunder Minimum is 0.04%
Which equates to a variation of 0.5W/m2 ( in 1365 W/m2 ).


Wrong, and I even gave you the AR5 page citation for the forcing estimates in watts per meter squared: p. 8-39. You can find the PDF at stopgreensuicide.

This seems to be runrig's m.o. He pontificates some totally wrong assertion about what skeptical critics are getting wrong, in-effect throwing mud at the wall to see what he can get to stick. He did the same thing in response to my earlier comment about hurricanes being a byproduct of the temperature gradient from equator to poles, which Co2-driven warming would cause to DECREASE. Runrig said this only comes into play with the jet stream. Ridiculous. See following comment.


Let me first state I am a meteorologist - so you cannot teach me anything about that subject. Do some research to dispel your ignorance. The explanation I gave is correct.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013
Alec_Rawls:
Sir, your post said "The solar irradiance variable .... in the IPCC models as having 1/70th the temperature forcing effect of CO2 since 1850. 2.83 w/m2 vs. .04w/m2 according to AR5, ... That is, CO2 is assumed to have 70 times the warming effect of the 50% driver of climate"

Is that or is it not .04Wm2?

Here is the relevant quote from IPCC... "In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2)"

Is that, or is it not 0.04%?

You use 2.83W/m2
I, from...hhttp://en.wikiped...ouse_gas
use 1.85W/m2

Do you want me to do the maths again?

I say again you confused % and W/m2.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013
Two things drive hurricanes (and storms in general): the horizontal temp gradient (equator to poles) and the vertical gradient. Runrig correctly mentions SSTs as a cause of hurricanes. They are a PART of the vertical gradient. But how is Co2 theorized to affect SSTs? By FIRST warming the upper troposphere, which in turn warms SSTs (but not as much). In other words, it is predicted to REDUCE the vertical gradient.


Hurricanes are extra-Tropical and the equator-Pole temp gradient as present ( and only present ) in the polar jet-stream does not play any part in their formation.

GHG theory predicts a reduced lapse rate, however, a higher SST will easily overcome that. The primary driver of Hurricanes ( or Cyclones, Typhoons ) is that of release of latent heat as evaporated water recondenses in ascent.

See this Tephi diagram.
http://homepages....gram.pdf

Cont
runrig
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2013
Cont.

Place a surface temp of 25C at 1000mb then one at 30C - follow up the dashed lines. The 25C plot will arrive at 200mb ( 39000ft ) at a temperature of ~ -45C. The 30C plot will arrive at 200mb at a temp of ~ -33C. That is energy released from LH and allows rising thermals/thunderstorms within the Hurricane to overcome the lapse rate. Coriolis force provides the spin - this all initiated from a sub-tropic westward travelling wave ( divergence aloft - convergence below ) out of N Africa.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (23) Jul 10, 2013
I'd be more impressed with all this if they could get their long term models to even resemble known past weather patterns.

Assuming that you mean "known past CLIMATE patterns," that's already been done.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (22) Jul 10, 2013
Indications are that the sun is headed for a grand minimum. So, if we are lucky, the worst we will see is another little ice-age and stormier weather. With billions squandered on the AGW lie, hopefully there is money to deal with this.

Still having trouble getting the facts straight, I see. That's what happens when you just parrot the denialist talking points.
Alec_Rawls
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 11, 2013
I say again you confused % and W/m2.
Dude, I gave you the page citation to the RF table from the Second Order Draft of AR5. What are you looking up all this other stuff for? You are quoting some IPCC statement about the Maunder Minimum, which is far outside the period that they address with their models. To see what is driving their models--the subject under discussion here--look at their RF table, which is what I cited. Don't know why that's difficult. I'd give the link but the comment system here doesn't like it, so I just gave the website: stopgreensuicide. The AR5 page is 8-39.

It's comical to see all the consensoids here rating runrig's flounderings with 5 out of 5 stars. The guy repeatedly can't come up with the simple IPCC RF values and people cheer this. "Yay, go runrig," just because he denies this "denier's" claims, and they give me a thumbs down (one star) for correctly citing the RF numbers. It's ludicrous. All you people care about is defending your presumptions.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2013
Mr Rawls:
comical to see all the consensoids here rating runrig's flounderings with 5 out of 5

They do that because I am correct.
Again ....

As far as I am concerned the only IPCC Assessment Report currently relevant is AR4 .......
Taken from:
http://www.ipcc.c...ter2.pdf
Ch 2 p192

"2.7.1.2.2
Implications for solar radiative forcing. In terms of plausible physical understanding, the most
likely secular increase in total irradiance from the Maunder Minimum to current cycle minima is 0.04% (an irradiance increase of roughly 0.5 W m–2 in 1,365 W m–2)."

Whatever your "draft AR5" says ( I couldn't link to the particular section from your instructions ), it certainly won't have changed 0.04% into 0.04W/m2 now will it?
The Maunder relevance is because you posted "an 80 year span of unusually high solar-magnetic activity--has reversed. The sun has gone quiet, and if past patterns persist, that means its going to get cooler."

Cont.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2013
Cont.

Hence harking back to irradiance at 1750.

Your quote is .... "The solar irradiance variable is parameterized in the IPCC models as having 1/70th the temperature forcing effect of CO2 since 1850. 2.83 w/m2 vs. .04w/m2 according to AR5, p. 8-39.

OK, lets use the irradiance from 1850 ( 1365W/m2 ) and current irradiance (at top of atmos.) - from this source...http://www.climat.../Sun.htm
also ( for current )......http://en.wikiped...Sunlight
1366W/m2. ie - which is an increase of 0.07% or 1W/m2 - Not even close to your 0.04W/m2.

And certainly does not equate to "70 times the driver" C02 for which you used 2.83W/m2

It would be in fact 2.83 times.

Cont.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2013
Cont.

Further you stated in an earlier post....
This seems to be runrig's m.o. He pontificates some totally wrong assertion about what skeptical critics are getting wrong, in-effect throwing mud at the wall to see what he can get to stick. He did the same thing in response to my earlier comment about hurricanes being a byproduct of the temperature gradient from equator to poles, which Co2-driven warming would cause to DECREASE. Runrig said this only comes into play with the jet stream. Ridiculous.


Do you still say "ridiculous" ( to a meteorologist talking about weather )?
Also, as you got personal with me, I will with you...

You are quite obviously a rabid denialist who looks at nought on the subject of GW other than that which confirms his bias. Whether your IPPC AR5 Draft is a typo or whatever, your lack of critical thinking reveals your stance. I come on here to deny ignorance and you,it seems, are a prime example. Now go back to your Blog and preach to the converted.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2013
Alec_Rawls
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 12, 2013
RF table from AR4:

http://www.ipcc.c...2-4.html

Lists RF from CO2 at 1.66 W/m2 compared to .12 W/m2 for total solar effects for a ratio of about 14 to one, not quite as crazy as the 70 to 1 ratio in AR5 but not qualitatively different. In both cases they assume, on the input side of the model, that solar variation has a minuscule effect compared to changes in CO2, which is the opposite of what the paleo record says.

Dozens of studies find a high degree of correlation between solar activity and climate (in the neighborhood of .5), while there is no evidence in the paleo record that CO2 has any significant effect on climate. We know from theory and from experimental evidence that it has a small forcing effect (about 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2) but this modest forcing effect could get multiplied up or dampened down by feedback effects and the fact that temp drives CO2 obscures in the paleo record any effect CO2 may be having on temp.
Alec_Rawls
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 12, 2013
Upshot: the IPCC simply assumes that climate is being driven by Co2 when the only climate driver that is strongly evidenced in the paleo record is solar activity. The IPCC's assumption that Co2 has many times the warming effect of solar activity runs directly counter to the main body of evidence.

Warming alarmism is an insane anti-science, putting theory (models) over evidence, directly contradicting the very definition of science, which is that evidence trumps theory. It's the biggest scientific fraud in world history, and people like you are going to have a LOT to answer for, unplugging the modern world in the service of an easily identifiable LIE.

So I'm glad you make your name public Tony Banton. I wish all the other alarmists had that much integrity. Your children and grandchildren have a right to know who it was that razed their futures.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2013
Using Forcing as 1/4 of the solar variation then x0.7 for albedo -then that is about right, though since the Maunder min around 0.5W/m2.
Dozens of studies find a high degree of correlation between solar activity and climate (in the neighborhood of .5), while there is no evidence in the paleo-record that CO2 has any significant effect on climate

On the contrary - there are masses of studies that show that CO2 is in lock-step. The carbon cycle does ensure that CO2 rises behind temperature BUT these solar influences are due to the Earth's ORBITAL changes, which play out in 10's of thousands of years, and as such does not matter us. Anthroprogenic CO2 on a current Earth has thrown it off-balance. Currently natural cooling cycles - chiefly ENSO - are holding up further rises but the El Nino phase will return. Yes x2 CO2 gives ~1C rise but that is without feed-backs - primarily the WV feedback ( absolute humidity must rise with temp as the hydrological cycle is in balance

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2013
with that re relative humidity). As a result a rise of 3C +/- 1.5 is calculated and is the consensus
So I'm glad you make your name public Tony Banton. I wish all the other alarmists had that much integrity. Your children and grandchildren have a right to know who it was that razed their futures.

My pleasure. It is your kind that jeopardise our descendents future. Failure to act can never be undone. Whereas taking sustainable mitigating measures as soon as practically possible is the sensible thing to do given the weight of scientific evidence that is the consensus. I see the evidence through the prism of my knowledge of meteorology. What is your m.o ( using your term )?

Your instinctive "ridiculous" claim to my explanation of the meteorology behind Hurricanes. reveals a psychology of deniers - that the layman knows more about it than the expert - often followed up when pointed out, that that is just an appeal to authority. Well of course it is - that how we know things.
ccr5Delta32
1.8 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2013
Your children and grandchildren have a right to know who it was that razed their futures.

Don't you worry they will know and what model do you propose ? The only perfect model is this reality and even this run numerous times would return different results .There's no evidence poison is poison while you want absolute proof that that pumping 100s times more CO2 than volcanoes has trivial consequences , Pull the other one :

I believe that you believe the things you say you believe . That I think is gullible of me but but please consider it an insult
RobPaulG
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2013
Hilarious! These clowns haven't gotten ONE prediction correct yet. 16 years of COOLING is not going to cause MORE hurricanes. Any imbecile knows that...
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2013
Hilarious! These clowns haven't gotten ONE prediction correct yet. 16 years of COOLING is not going to cause MORE hurricanes. Any imbecile knows that...


Glass half-empty is it?
"haven't got one forecast prediction correct yet" Is just as impossible as getting every forecast correct.
Have a look at a normal distribution curve.
I suppose your local weather forecast is always wrong too?
I've come across peeps like you in my profession ( profile) and you sicken me.
Feldagast
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 13, 2013
They said this last year before the season started too, and think the year before. They were almost wringing their hands in glee when Sandy showed up just to give them some sort of justification to their predictions.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2013
They said this last year before the season started too, and think the year before. They were almost wringing their hands in glee when Sandy showed up just to give them some sort of justification to their predictions.


More classic denier speak.

First off this article isn't talking about the 2013 season - rather ".....that number could increase dramatically in the next century due to global warming, a US scientist said Monday."

2nd: actually the 2012 season was " extremely active, tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2011 for having the third-most named storms on record. "

http://en.wikiped...e_season

Yep, I know: facts in the denier's world are never other than their world allows
Alec_Rawls
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2013
The carbon cycle does ensure that CO2 rises behind temperature BUT these solar influences are due to the Earth's ORBITAL changes, which play out in 10's of thousands of years
Wrong. Strong correlations between solar-magnetic activity and climate have been found on every time scale. It is only solar irradiance that does not vary significantly except on longer time scales. The strong correlations to climate on shorter time scales imply some solar driver of climate other than (and more powerful than) the slight variation in solar irradiance.

There is no such evidence for any Co2 driver of climate. As you acknowledge, the paleo evidence for any Co2 driver is obscured by the carbon cycle (where temp drives Co2). So you want to unplug the modern world in fear of a concern that you have no evidence for. Your theory has actually been falsified. It predicts an upper tropospheric hot spot that does not exist, but you are content to put theory over evidence. You are not a scientist.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2013
Hilarious! These clowns haven't gotten ONE prediction correct yet. 16 years of COOLING is not going to cause MORE hurricanes. Any imbecile knows that...

Thanks for so clearly outlining what "Any imbecile" knows.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (12) Jul 14, 2013
Wrong. Strong correlations between solar-magnetic activity and climate have been found on every time scale. It is only solar irradiance that does not vary significantly except on longer time scales. The strong correlations to climate on shorter time scales imply some solar driver of climate other than (and more powerful than) the slight variation in solar irradiance.

There is no such evidence for any Co2 driver of climate. As you acknowledge, the paleo evidence for any Co2 driver is obscured by the carbon cycle (where temp drives Co2). So you want to unplug the modern world in fear of a concern that you have no evidence for.You are not a scientist.


Satellite data reveals an imbalance in incoming vs outgoing radiation that cannot be explained by your theory.
Correlation is not causation - you are only claiming for your advocate that which you deny CO2. Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.
Egleton
2.5 / 5 (18) Jul 14, 2013
Die, Die, Die Big Carbon. Along with your Wall Street criminals.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Jul 14, 2013
Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.


What about ALL other factors? What are ALL other factors?
Why do climate scientists want CLARREO and TRUTHS?
semmsterr
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2013
The AGW prophets of doom and gloom looks into their CO2 filled crystal ball, then reaches around and pulls this piece of propaganda from their behinds. The real world, where there is absolutely no indication of this, does not matter, only the millions in grants do. And the ignorant cult shall believe.


What planet do you live on? Hasn't everything they've predicted come true? Have you taken note of the time-scale? Do you pay any attention at all to your environment? Unlike you, they use data trends to arrive at their conclusions.
RobPaulG
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 14, 2013
Climate clown doomsters have the entire world laughing now. 20 years of incorrect predictions leave these liars and shysters with ZERO credibility. Time to make sure they don't have jobs too.
Feldagast
1 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2013
I predict a global war in the future, wait for it.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2013
Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.


What about ALL other factors? What are ALL other factors?
Why do climate scientists want CLARREO and TRUTHS?

Why, Oh WHY, has no one cured CAPSLOCKITIS!
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2013
I predict a global war in the future, wait for it.

Why don't you wait for it, while I supervise from orbit?
Alec_Rawls
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 14, 2013
Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.
But the GHG effect of Co2 is only a modest forcing effect. For human increases in Co2 to have more than a small warming effect the Co2 forcing has to be multiplied up several times by feedback effects, while all the direct evidence about feedbacks is that they are small or negative (dampening rather than multiplying forcing effects).

Green religionists like runrig are unplugging the modern world on the assumption that feedbacks are large and positive when there is no evidence for this position. Truly evil.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2013
Green religionists like runrig are unplugging the modern world on the assumption that feedbacks are large and positive when there is no evidence for this position. Truly evil.


My knowledge is meteorology. I look at the evidence ( all of it ) and I see the overwhelming case for CO2 as the driver of recent warming. We will have to differ on that ( I have no illusion on any change of mind ). Your "Greeny" pejoritive cuts no ice and is far from the truth. Your angle is?
Experimental data for CO2 explains GW. CO2 is the Earth's thermostat and WV provides the amplified effect. I don't consider the fact that there are papers out there that contradict this sufficient to not doing anything. Give me a causation theory and I'll consider it. Not correlation or hand-waving about solar-magnetism or CFC's.
..direct evidence about feedbacks is that they are small or negative

You concurred that CO2 was a follower as the graph I posted clearly shows - driver nor feedback?
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2013
Die, Die, Die Big Carbon. Along with your Wall Street criminals.

You forgot the ancient superstitions in service of the powerful that encourage oppression and overpopulation.
Alec_Rawls
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 15, 2013
You concurred that CO2 was a follower as the graph I posted clearly shows - driver nor feedback?
Correct. The fact that temperature drives Co2 implies neither that Co2 drives temperature nor that there is any substantial water vapor feedback effect. This is news to runrig? Some expert.

I'll repeat again what we do know: that Co2 has a small forcing effect. But water vapor feedback effects are expected on theoretical grounds to be small or negative, and this seems to be what we observe.

The theoretical grounds for a small or negative water vapor feedback ought to be well known to any meteorologist: increased evaporation makes the rain cycle (which pumps heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere) more efficient. Lindzen has written about this. Spencer has written about this. Eschenbach has written about this. Consequently they are all skeptical that human increments to CO2 could cause any dangerous amount of warming, causing runrig to stick his fingers in his ears.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (18) Jul 15, 2013
Reality escapes the AGW Alarmist Cult, greed for the millions in grants would do that.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2013
MrRawls:

I know I'm beating my head against a wall but I persist to deny ignorance.

Correct. The fact that temperature drives Co2 implies neither that Co2 drives temperature nor that there is any substantial water vapor feedback effect. This is news to runrig? Some expert.


That statement is on a par with your "Hurricane" bollocks.

The theoretical grounds for a small or negative water vapor feedback ought to be well known to any meteorologist: increased evaporation makes the rain cycle (which pumps heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere) more efficient. Lindzen has written about this. Spencer has written about this...


I've told you before. There is nothing about meteorology that you can teach me. Just as there is nothing I can teach you about your profession - whatever it is. So kindly stop the insults and have some integrity.
It does both! It drives and it follows!
Are you denying that CO2 is a GHG or even that there is a GHE?

Cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2013
Don't turn the world on it's head and call me or anyone else studying the science "some expert". State your expertise or else you are the usual "I know better" denialist. I am still waiting for links to any causation science for any of your claims BTW - they are just the usual myths that go round and round.

I know Spencer has his (very controversial) views. To do with negative cloud feedback NOT WV feedback...
see...
http://en.wikiped...ientist) to appreciate why.
I have posted on his website - actually re a very odd theory put forward by an Australian physicist - Cotton - look it up - it may be to your taste.
One thing you say of convection is true - that WV is transported by it through the atmosphere - that is only how it gets there, along with warm advection jet-stream induced conveyors in conjunction with fronts.
The WV feed-back effect though is purely the increase in absolute humidity of the atmosphere as must happen with a stable relative humidity.

Cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2013
More WV molecules are present in warmer air ( given that stable rel hum ) therefore more GHE. Simple as that. It is the small imbalance in CO2+other anthro GHG's ( CO2 has risen by 40% during the industrial era ) that is the controlling thermostat. If you are saying that magically energy is taken away from the atmosphere by WV through convection then I disagree - WV merely distributes energy in the atmosphere and in being present creates a GHE mitigated by CO2 and other GHG's. Don't mix up transport of energy aloft via LH release with molecular blocking of outgoing IR due to a GHG effect.

For those willing to learn....
http://scienceofd...art-one/
Alec_Rawls
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 16, 2013
It does both! It drives and it follows!
Are you denying that CO2 is a GHG or even that there is a GHE?
I have said several times now that CO2 both follows and drives temperature. It has a SMALL temperature forcing effect, about 1 deg C for a doubling of Co2. For this to cause any worrisome amount of warming it would have to be multiplied up several times by water vapor feedback effects, but the evidence on feedback effects are that they are small or negative.

Runrig assumes that relative humidity remains roughly constant as temperature rises. This is what the consensus models all assume, and is key to their prediction of an upper tropospheric "hot spot," a prediction that is NOT borne out.

On the strength of assumptions that have been falsified he and the other warmistas want to unplug the modern world. They refuse to account either the harm that would result if they are wrong, or the evidence that they are wrong. Their immorality is total.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2013
The cult always brainwashes its blind followers to not see reality, then when it catches up with them, it's kool-aid time.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2013
.... It has a SMALL temperature forcing effect, about 1 deg C for a doubling of Co2. For this to cause any worrisome amount of warming it would have to be multiplied up several times by water vapor feedback effects, but the evidence on feedback effects are that they are small or negative

http://en.wikiped...feedback
"Water vapor feedback:
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly ..."

cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2013

".... because the air is warmer. Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur."

Runrig assumes that relative humidity remains roughly constant as temperature rises. This is what the consensus models all assume, and is key to their prediction of an upper tropospheric "hot spot," a prediction that is NOT borne out.


It does - because of the hydrological cycle. The mixing and distribution of WV in the ( global not local ) atmosphere. Relative hum stays the same during the process but abs. hum. must increase with the temp.
http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

The "tropospheric hot-spot" is difficult to quantify due to the inherent problems with the radiosonde data and the sat data is also biased cold by the cooling Strat.

cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2013
... A response, I may add that is the real marker of AGW. The Strat will cool under CO2 influences but warm under solar.

Re your "... a prediction that is NOT borne out " and " ... but the evidence on feedback effects are that they are small or negative."
Quote from Spencer via your link..

"While it seems rather obvious intuitively that a warmer world will have more atmospheric water vapor, and thus positive water vapor feedback, I've just listed the first 5 reasons that come to my mind why this might not be the case. I AM NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT I NECESSARILY BELIEVE. I will admit to having waffled on this issue over the years, but that's because there is evidence on both sides of the debate." ( my caps )

You make even a skeptics doubts an absolute.
They refuse to account either the harm that would result if they are wrong, or the evidence that they are wrong.

Time lost with "business as usual" can never be revisited. The precautionary principle is sensible done sustainably
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) Jul 16, 2013
The cult always brainwashes its blind followers to not see reality, then when it catches up with them, it's kool-aid time.

The more things change, the more trolling remains the same.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2013
The AGW prophets of doom and gloom looks into their CO2 filled crystal ball, then reaches around and pulls this piece of propaganda from their behinds. The real world, where there is absolutely no indication of this, does not matter, only the millions in grants do. And the ignorant cult shall believe.


Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt': US historian
http://phys.org/n...ian.html

Leaks show group's climate efforts
http://phys.org/n...rts.html

Learn more about logical fallacies and real critical thinking here:
http://rationalwi...-science
Alec_Rawls
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2013
The precautionary principle is sensible done sustainably
No, the precautionary principle is morally insane. It says to account some risks and ignore others. Par for the course for warmistas like runrig, who also ignore evidence that does not support their presumptions.

There is tons of paleo evidence for a powerful solar-magnetic driver of climate (a solar driver beyond and much stronger than the slight variation in solar irradiance). There is NO paleo evidence for CO2 having any significant effect, yet the warmistas endorse models that assume away any solar effects other than TSI and assume that all in-this-way unaccounted-for warming is attributable to CO2.

It's called "omitted variable fraud" and is the most basic and commonplace form of statistical fraud there is. There is no excuse for ANYONE being fooled by it.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2013
No, the precautionary principle is morally insane. It says to account some risks and ignore others. Par for the course for warmistas like runrig, who also ignore evidence that does not support their presumptions.


Really? seriously? What are you doing then if not "ignore(ing) evidence that does not support their(your) presumptions"?
If I have any presumptions it is that the science is weighed massively on my side with both correlation and causation physics to back it up. Don't be a hypocrite. If you do not accept the science then of course you would say "the precautionary principle is morally insane" because you do not understand what the consensus science is saying about the effects of AGW down the line.
This is not a lunatic asylum ( yet ) and "you" are not the only sane one in it. Whilst there is a consensus then you cannot accuse "us" of being the "idiots". ( in the sense of the analogy ).

Cont.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2013
There is tons of paleo evidence for a powerful solar-magnetic driver of climate (a solar driver beyond and much stronger than the slight variation in solar irradiance). There is NO paleo evidence for CO2 having any significant effect, yet the warmistas endorse models that assume away any solar effects other than TSI and assume that all in-this-way unaccounted-for warming is attributable to CO2.


Looking into your claim I found this paper: SOLAR ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST 1150 YEARS: DOES IT CORRELATE WITH CLIMATE?
http://www.mps.mp...c153.pdf

And it says in the last para of its conclusion:
"Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations.During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Cont.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2013
Ah - I've just come across an article you wrote for WUWT and it appears you're on about UV and/or cosmic rays (this is addressed in the above quote also). Well that's at least something that can have a different sign to TSI which is definitely not the current driver. It is known that UV has increased during recent low solar and it has been hypothesized that this has warmed the Arctic Polar Stratospheric Vortex during some NH winters. Thereby causing a neg AO and hence cold air spilling further south. This is however is merely a redistrubution of air-masses and the Arctic became warmer in those winters. It is not a big enough energy flux to impact ave global temps and would need to be a persistent effect to be seen anyway. Cosmic rays, may or may not affect cloud formation and may also affect the Strat. during the Polar winter months. Again it can only be a driver if affecting albedo ( clouds ) and persistent in it's +ve effect.

Cont.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2013
From this paper:The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate. A workshop report.
http://agbjarn.bl...te_0.pdf

"...Although many paleoclimate studies claim that there is a record of solar forcing in proxy records, very few of these demonstrate a convincing, statistically significant relationship. Often, the argument rests on nothing more than a crude similarity between a time series of the proxy and the cosmogenic isotope anomaly series....."

So, you ignor consensus and inflate the significance of this/these solar effects - all without causation physics. And you say of me I ignore evidence that does not support my conclusions. I know of these influences but they cannot be considered serious candidates without the physics to back them up. Of course solar insolation variations have played a major part in climate history - just not this one. Measurements tell us so.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 21, 2013
"pulls this piece of propaganda from their behinds"

...as in..
."using six different climate models combined with forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts carbon dioxide emissions will about triple by 2100."

Using available data plus computer models = propaganda????

"And yet we are currently in a hurricane drought!"
....because what happens right now is the ONLY thing that is happening????? If we have a snowstorm at one point, it does not disprove global warming.

It's the perceptual limit of the zealot. "I do it, therefore everybody else must do it, because there can't possibly be any other way."
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
Upshot: the IPCC simply assumes that climate is being driven by Co2 ...

It is you who err in claiming that the IPCC assumes that which is factually demonstrable.

... when the only climate driver that is strongly evidenced in the paleo record is solar activity.

Patently false.

The IPCC's assumption that Co2 has many times the warming effect of solar activity runs directly counter to the main body of evidence.

Do not project your assumptions as being those of others.

Warming alarmism is an insane anti-science, putting theory (models) over evidence, ...

Models and Theory are two distinctly different things. In this case, the underlying Theory is well understood and does not stand in contradiction to observed facts. That models may not yet be fully mature is immaterial to the fact that the Theory is sound.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.


What about ALL other factors? What are ALL other factors?

What factors do you propose that are not effects of the electromagnetic force?

Of those you propose, which are plausible and evidenced as here being in play?
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
Climate clown doomsters have the entire world laughing now. 20 years of incorrect predictions leave these liars and shysters with ZERO credibility.

You must be newly arrived from an alternate universe.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
Radiative theory has been established for over 150 years and entirely explains the GHG effect of CO2.
But the GHG effect of Co2 is only a modest forcing effect. For human increases in Co2 to have more than a small warming effect the Co2 forcing has to be multiplied up several times by feedback effects ...

That is a naked assertion that is sorely lacking for any theoretical basis. You clearly fail to understand that we are here dealing with a multivariate function, such that the effects of all inputs are cumulative.

deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
Reality escapes the AGW Alarmist Cult, greed for the millions in grants would do that.

Yet another pungent expression from our resident anal orifice.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
The cult always brainwashes its blind followers to not see reality, then when it catches up with them, it's kool-aid time.

As is well evidenced by how well you have been indoctrinated by the minions of Big Oil and Big Coal.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2013
The precautionary principle is sensible done sustainably
No, the precautionary principle is morally insane. It says to account some risks and ignore others. Par for the course for warmistas like runrig, who also ignore evidence that does not support their presumptions.

There is tons of paleo evidence for a powerful solar-magnetic driver of climate (a solar driver beyond and much stronger than the slight variation in solar irradiance).

Proof required, not only of past effects, but of those of the present as well.

There is NO paleo evidence for CO2 having any significant effect, ...

Patently false.

... yet the warmistas endorse models that assume away any solar effects other than TSI and assume that all in-this-way unaccounted-for warming is attributable to CO2.

Either you gravely misunderstand the position of those who accept AGW as being real or you deliberately misrepresent such.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.