A dumb redneck needs help reading graph?

Question

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

According to this, global hurricane activity is at a thirty year low. I admit I am just a dumb redneck, so I wanted all you self proclaimed climate surgeons to help me. You people keep telling us that worldwide, hurricane activity has increased, even though it has decreased to a whisper here in the Atlantic.

Go ahead, explain this one away...

Another point for the skeptics camp for not using a blog.

Answer 1

I remember I posted this graph once and the leading alarmists on YA simply attacked FSU and mentioning some famous skeptic (Spencer?) who attended there. They really have no answer. The fact of the matter is they were lying or completely ignorant about blaming hurricanes on humans but that is what you get from that group

Answer 2

FSU, another of America's fine centers of science research. Usually rednecks tell us that the scientists can't be trusted, but now I guess we all like them. That's good.



What does Ryan Maue, the guy at FSU whose graph is linked, tell us about global warming? That it is real, but it might not have an affect on hurricanes.

"The perceptible (and perhaps measurable) impact of global warming on hurricanes in today's climate is arguably a pittance (or noise) compared to the reorganization and modulation of hurricane formation locations and preferred tracks/intensification corridors dominated by ENSO (and other natural climate factors)"



TWO other teams at the FSU say hurricanes ARE increasing. So, we see some disagreement there.

http://www.fsu.edu/news/2008/09/03/warmer.seas/

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/



What else do FSU researchers tell us about global warming?



That flooding poses a threat to New York City.

http://www.fsu.edu/news/2009/03/16/sea.level/



That rising sea levels are a threat to Florida's economy:

http://unicomm.fsu.edu/pages/releases/2008_09/24_climate_change_studies.html

http://www.fsu.com/News/How-Will-Future-Sea-Level-Rise-Linked-to-Climate-Change-Affect-Coastal-Areas



What we see is that the published researchers at FSU are united in warning us that global warming is real. Thank you for pointing to this institution. But there is some disagreement regarding how warming temperature are affecting hurricanes. Is that surprising?



When you say "you people" keep telling us hurricane activity has increased, who do you refer to? Exactly who do you believe told you that? Be specific.



The IPCC said there is a 2 out of 3 chance "that future tropical cyclones, (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense", clearly noting that with the data available there is a 1/3 chance that it will not happen. The jury was still out in 2007, and from what we see from the various studies from Florida State U is that the jury is still out. This is still an area that is not understood well enough and we are likely to continue to see conflicting findings until better models of hurricane influenced are developed.



Contrast the IPCC's level of certainty around hurricanes to the certainty "that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2". The IPCC was at least 90% certain of that, and given that research since 2006 has unfortunately been universally supportive, the scientific community is now more certain that that. I expect that you will be unable to find a single research at FSU who does not fear rising sea levels and increased heat waves. Certainty of of these results will likely be a the 99% level in AR5, due in 2013.



So what the graph shows is that the jury is still out regarding how global warming is affecting and will affect ocean storms. But we knew that. Otherwise, you will find that climate scientists are being taken very seriously. The U.S. Senate is currently debating Waxman-Markey and most of the discussion is about the economics; those few in the Senate who don't believe the climatologists are the ones not being taken seriously. Meanwhile, the world is meeting next month to discuss the economics. The only global warming debates being taken seriously are around the economics and around the degree of some of the effects. There is debate about how fast sea levels will rise, not whether they are arising. There is debate over whether warmer seas will cause more intense storms; there is no debate over whether the seas have warmed.

Answer 3

Perhaps it would help if you read the article instead of just the headlines and the graph. Note this quote from it:

"This is a natural consequence of the rather unusual flip from strong La Nina to El Nino conditions during the past calendar year, which did not happen at all during the period of 1976-2006 as indicated by the MEI-ENSO INDEX"

Answer 4

Illustrates just how fast things can change when you go from an extended solar maximum as we have been in for almost 200 years to a sudden and deep solar minimum. You need a large thermal variation to generate severe weather systems like a hurricane and when you suddenly eliminate the high side of the system with a suddenly cold sun the storm systems become less active. But those of the political extremes will find someway to convince the uninformed that the world is still overheating while people are freezing to death because they believed the leftist power mongers and did not insulate their houses.



I just in time finished installing insulation on the 4th side of my house and so the cold winters and cool summers of the next 20 or so years will not be so expensive as they will for the liberals around who are mentally unable to comprehend these things. I will probably cut my gas usage this winter by more than half just for installing less than $100 of insulation.



http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_publish_global_cooling_study

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/



The real problem is that those who promote the AGW agenda know very little about science and how things really work. The sun is the source of 98% of the energy that warms the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Answer 5

Okay, but you're not going to like it.



The FSU graph was put together by a graduate student named Ryan Maue. His hurricane data contradicts the same data from NOAA, which shows significantly higher ACE values recently.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20090930112552AAqEucH



Why Maue's numbers are different, he hasn't explained yet. Apparently he's got a paper in the works to explain the discrepancy.



So the question is do you want to believe some graduate student, or the scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Oh and by the way, the NOAA data is consistent with recent satellite data which has shown hurricanes are becoming more intense. Obviously this data contradicts Maue's.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html



Sorry, I told you that you wouldn't like it.

Answer 6

If you were to do a linear regression on that data, you would find a positive slope. There are a dozen different things that affect cyclone energy in addition to just sea surface temperature, that's why you don't get a perfect increase year after year.



And anyway it's still not certain what the effect on hurricanes will be from the warming. This is because the strength of a hurricane depends not only on sea surface temperature but also a cooler upper troposphere.

http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/holem/vm.gif

Answer 7

Remember, the alarmists changed their position to state that there will not be more storms, but the intensity of each storm will be greater. Again, they developed a thesis and then went out to gather the appropriate data to support their thesis. The data is not cooperating so expect a new set of thesis's to emerge in the near future concerning this issue.



Thats why I don't argue science on this site because the proponents are making it up as they read different blogs and really do not understand the big picture. I argue the political spectrum only as that is the only way to educate people that this is just another environmental hoax put on by the same players as the last one.

Answer 8

Ah Dawei, the misused linear regression - one of the staples of junk science along with the rediculously long duration moving average. It's a bit like trying to put a trend that died a decade ago on life support. If you take the regression back far enough, you can claim the trend still has a pulse.



Junk science means never having to admit you were wrong.

Answer 9

Now look what you've done! Now Dana 1981 and his cronies are going to go through extensive measures to take that graph off the internet!