Climate Skeptic

HIstoric Cyclones

From the Weather Underground, via Planet Gore.  Please forward this to Al so he can stop embarassing himself.  The twenty deadliest cyclones (that we know about):

Rank:	Name / Areas of Largest Loss:	Year:	Ocean Area:	Deaths:
1	Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh	1970	Bay of Bengal	550,000
2	Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh	1737	Bay of Bengal	350,000
3	Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam	1881	West Pacific	300,000
3	Coringa, India	1839	Bay of Bengal	300,000
5	Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh	1584	Bay of Bengal	200,000
6	Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh	1876	Bay of Bengal	200,000
7	Chittagong, Bangladesh	1897	Bay of Bengal	175,000
8	Super Typhoon Nina, China	1975	West Pacific	171,000
9	Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh	1991	Bay of Bengal	140,000
10	Great Bombay Cyclone, India	1882	Arabian Sea	100,000
11	Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan	1281	West Pacific	65,000
12	Calcutta, India	1864	Bay of Bengal	60,000
13	Swatlow, China	1922	West Pacific	60,000
14	Barisal, Bangladesh	1822	Bay of Bengal	50,000
15	Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh	1699	Bay of Bengal	50,000
16	Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India	1942	Bay of Bengal	40,000
17	Canton, China	1862	West Pacific	37,000
18	Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh	1767	Bay of Bengal	30,000
19	Barisal, Bangladesh	1831	Bay of Bengal	22,000
20	Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands	1780	Atlantic	22,000
21	Devi Taluk, SE India	1977	Bay of Bengal	20,000
21	Great Coringa Cyclone, India	1789	Bay of Bengal	20,000

Oddly uncorrelated with atmospheric temperature or CO2, huh?  In fact, three of the four most recent occured in the seventies, a time known for its cooling.  Two of the top five occured around the period of the little ice age.

What is normal?  One other thought.  I have often asked, vis a vis climate, the question "What is Normal?"  Because of the quality of observation by sattelites, we tend to define normal by what we have observed since about 1979, when the first satellites began gathering relevent global climate data.  For example, when news stories last year said the Arctic sea ice was at "an all time low," they actually meant the lowest point since satellites began observing the ice c.1979.  "All time" meant the last 30 years.  Note that only one of these 22 storms occured in the last 30 years.  By defining "normal" as the last 30 years, we would in this case miss over 95% of the severest storms.  Even defining "noral" as the time since 1900 would cause us to miss 7 of the top 10 storms.

Spot the correlation:  Do you see a correlation in this list?  How about with poverty?  When cyclones hit US low-lying coastal areas and drive flooding up river valleys and deltas (think Katrina) we get a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand deaths, at most.   A tragedy for sure, but Katrina did not even kill 10% of the people killed by the bottom storm on this list.  What is the difference?  Poverty.  From this data table, which option makes more sense:

1. Reduce CO2 and perhaps ocean temperatures by a few tenths of a degree, in the process limiting economic growth and increasing poverty.
2. Burn all the fossil fuels we can on the path to helping people in Bangladesh and China and India become wealthier.

I am sure I know which would save more lives.

HIstoric Cyclones

From the Weather Underground, via Planet Gore.  Please forward this to Al so he can stop embarassing himself.  The twenty deadliest cyclones (that we know about):

Rank:	Name / Areas of Largest Loss:	Year:	Ocean Area:	Deaths:
1	Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh	1970	Bay of Bengal	550,000
2	Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh	1737	Bay of Bengal	350,000
3	Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam	1881	West Pacific	300,000
3	Coringa, India	1839	Bay of Bengal	300,000
5	Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh	1584	Bay of Bengal	200,000
6	Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh	1876	Bay of Bengal	200,000
7	Chittagong, Bangladesh	1897	Bay of Bengal	175,000
8	Super Typhoon Nina, China	1975	West Pacific	171,000
9	Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh	1991	Bay of Bengal	140,000
10	Great Bombay Cyclone, India	1882	Arabian Sea	100,000
11	Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan	1281	West Pacific	65,000
12	Calcutta, India	1864	Bay of Bengal	60,000
13	Swatlow, China	1922	West Pacific	60,000
14	Barisal, Bangladesh	1822	Bay of Bengal	50,000
15	Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh	1699	Bay of Bengal	50,000
16	Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India	1942	Bay of Bengal	40,000
17	Canton, China	1862	West Pacific	37,000
18	Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh	1767	Bay of Bengal	30,000
19	Barisal, Bangladesh	1831	Bay of Bengal	22,000
20	Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands	1780	Atlantic	22,000
21	Devi Taluk, SE India	1977	Bay of Bengal	20,000
21	Great Coringa Cyclone, India	1789	Bay of Bengal	20,000

Oddly uncorrelated with atmospheric temperature or CO2, huh?  In fact, three of the four most recent occured in the seventies, a time known for its cooling.  Two of the top five occured around the period of the little ice age.

One other thought.  I have often asked, vis a vis climate, the question "What is Normal?"  Because of the quality of observation by sattelites, we tend to define normal by what we have observed since about 1979, when the first satellites began gathering relevent global climate data.  For example, when news stories last year said the Arctic sea ice was at "an all time low," they actually meant the lowest point since satellites began observing the ice c.1979.  "All time" meant the last 30 years.  Note that only one of these 22 storms occured in the last 30 years.  By defining "normal" as the last 30 years, we would in this case miss over 95% of the severest storms.  Even defining "noral" as the time since 1900 would cause us to miss 7 of the top 10 storms.

Spot the correlation:  Do you see a correlation in this list?  How about with poverty?  When cyclones hit US low-lying coastal areas and drive flooding up river valleys and deltas (think Katrina) we get a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand deaths, at most.   A tragedy for sure, but Katrina did not even kill 10% of the people killed by the bottom storm on this list.  What is the difference?  Poverty.  From this data table, which option makes more sense:

1. Reduce CO2 and perhaps ocean temperatures by a few tenths of a degree, in the process limiting economic growth and increasing poverty.
2. Burn all the fossil fuels we can on the path to helping people in Bangladesh and China and India become wealthier.

I am sure I know which would save more lives.

Multi-Decade Climate Cycles

Since I am a bit late on this, you have probably already seen the stories from NASA that apparently the Pacific Decadal Occilation, which switches from warm to cool cycles every thirty to forty years, has just switched from warm to cool.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a temperature pattern in the Pacific Ocean that spends roughly 20-30 years in the cool phase or the warm phase.

In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase.
In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase.
In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase.
In 1998, PDO showed a few cool years.

In 2008, PDO seems to be switching to a cool phase. (NASA).

The warm (cool) phase is determined by above-the-average (below-the-average) temperatures along the West Coast of the U.S. and Canada.

At the same time, a longer cycle occilation in the Atlantic called the AMO may also be in the cooling part of its occilation over the next decades.

Though from what I read, the PDO mainly affects temperatures around the Pacific Rim, the Pacific is in fact  a very large part of the earth, so I wondered if its cylcling might have some correlation with world temperatures:

Well, that is kind of interesting.  Note by the way I use the GISS surface data in this chart, so one can assume the warming in the last 20 years is overstated for a variety of reasons we have discussed on this site.  Never-the-less, it is interesting.  A few thoughts:

• Catastrophists are spinning that the PDO cool cycles just delay or suppress man-made warming signals.  OK.  But if you argue this, you have to also argue for the converse -- that the PDO exaggerate what might be man-made warming signals during its warm cycles.  Catastrophists and in particular the IPCC, however, said that all of the post 1977 warming was due to man - I don't remember anyone mentioning "PDO" in these discussions (In fact, they argue that some additional warming was being masked).  Catastrophists love to point to natural cycles only when they can be claimed to mask man-made warming.
• I am constantly amazed at how much the 1905-1947 trend on this chart looks like the 1977-2005 trend.  But here is the amazing thing to me:  Catastrophists as well as the IPCC claim that these trends had different causes.  In fact, you MUST believe they had different causes to believe the AGW story (since there was little man-made CO2 in the first period).  In other words, to belive the catastrophic man-made global warming theory, you have to believe some effect, presumably natural but never identified by the IPCC, drove temperatures through 1947 and then switched off, never to return, at the exact same moment that man began producing CO2 in earnest.

Update:  It may be too early to tell if the PDO is doing a major or sort of minor shift, but the past frequency seems to indicate we will see a shift soon.

Land Use and Climate Change

While everyone is running in circles screaming about CO2, Roger Pielke Sr. has done some interesting work on climate change and man's land use.  He has a number of studies discussing how changing land use may have more impact on regional climate than any number of other factors that get more media play.  Here is an example of his work.

Mother Nature Will Win

In some crazy violation of Boston Globe editorial policy, this article (via TJIC) discusses weather without mentioning global warming.  But it does demonstrate how crazy it is to declare that the condition of the Earth circa 1950 was "normal,"  and any change is somehow abnormal.  The article highlights that change itself is the norm.

The sea, some in Chatham say, gives to the town as much as it takes away. The Atlantic constantly erodes the coastline, but also replenishes it with sediment washed from elsewhere. The only problem, says Leo Concannon, Chatham assistant harbormaster, is that the giving and taking "is often not where people want or need it." The region so incessantly reshapes itself with new shoals, sandbars, and breaks that Concannon's office updates navigational charts with pencils and erasers.

In 2006, the ocean deposited enough sand to reconnect mainland Chatham to South Monomoy Island for the first time in 50 years. In 1987, the change was more abrupt: The Atlantic breached North Beach about 2 miles south of the current break. That gap, now more than a mile wide, eventually destroyed 10 houses on the mainland.

Somehow, the Globe seems to have found the last beachfront homeowner in the country who does not think someone else owes him when nature punishes him for building a house on a sandbar.

Another Rorschach Test

Stare deeply into this chart.  What do you see?

What do you see:

1. Strong evidence of anthropogenic global warming, or...
2. The result of a long term climate cycle, in this case the shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its cold to warm phase, which occurred ... wait for it ... in 1976

This is why I entitled my first climate movie "What is Normal"  [still available for free on YouTube!].

Thought for the Day

Imagine for a moment that the industrial revolution occured 70 years earlier, and we were having this argument about global warming in the 1930's rather than the 2000's.  How would the media have reported the great midwestern US droughts we refer to today as the dust bowl?  Almost certainly, these events would have been blamed on man and CO2 combustion.  Everyone from Al Gore to James Hansen would say that these droughts were most certainly caused by man-made global warming.

We know today that these were entirely natural cyclical events, not caused at all by man (except perhaps to the extent that poor framing practices exacerbated some of the problems).  We know that such an assumption about man's guilt would have been dead wrong.  So how is it today we can be so sure that unusual events we see today are somehow man-made?  Particularly when these events are much less dire than extremes we have already seen through natural variations over the last century.  For example, despite all the news about global warming and reporting on every single heat wave, we actually are seeing fewer all-time temperature highs today than we have in the past.