Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Michael Mann's New Stick

One of the predicted consequences of global warming is that hurricanes and tropical storms will become more frequent, more intense and more deadly. In fact, they contend that this is happening now. But hurricane experts like Chris Landsea explain that storms go in cycles and that poor data on the number of tropical storms prior to the development of technology to track them, leads many to underestimate the number of these storms. To add to the global warming alarmist's misery, is the pitiful number of hurricanes over the last two years.

So, what to do about the missing data that's needed to support the contention that global warming is causing increased hurricane activity? Why supply it, of course. Hence, this report out of Penn State that claims that the estimates of tropical storms prior to the advent of airplanes and radar and satellites have not been undercounted. They have a computer model that tells them so.

The computer model tells them that they haven't underestimated the number of storms prior to 1944, and supports the theory that storm activity has increased due to warming oceans. This becomes less surprising when you realize that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center, and associate professor of meteorology at Penn State, is one of the three researchers who released the report in the current issue of Geophysical Letters.

Mann, as you probably know, is the inventor of the famed "hockey stick" graph. His graph featured prominently in global warming propaganda until it was proved to be inaccurate. In order to show a global average temperature that was consistent until it suddenly shot up due to human industrial activity (thus forming the hockey stick shape) it was found that the computer model dismissed any temperature data that didn't fit the hockey stick shape. Gone were the "little ice age" and the medieval warming period - deleted from history.

So, is it surprising that Mann has now stated conclusively, based on a computer model utilizing storm data for the last sixty years (years that were after the increase in carbon emissions due to human activity) that he is quite sure of how many storms occurred before that time?

The problem, of course, is that no one can be sure of storms there are no evidence of. Prior to modern tracking methods, the only storms that were recorded were those that made landfall or were recorded by ships. One of the reasons that the Great Hurricane of 1938 caused so much devastation and took so many lives is that ships had put into shore, having had warnings of gale winds. No one knew the storm had intensified as it had, no one knew which direction it was tracking or that it was on a collision course with Long Island and the New England coastline. They didn't know until it slammed into the coast, washing away houses, buildings and 682 people.

On the other hand, had the storm tracked out to sea and eventually dissipated over cold North Atlantic waters, no one would have ever known that it was a raging, intense hurricane capable of such destruction. It would have been undercounted.

We are asked, nevertheless, to have faith once again in computer models, for computer models is pretty much all that is left to support the anthropogenic global warming theory. As hurricane forecasts disappoint with scarcer storms, *global average temperatures start to fall and Arctic ice melts are blamed on ocean current oscillations that are naturally occurring, it gets harder to shore up the theory that time will eventually prove wrong. I hope we can keep them from destroying the world before that happens.

*US satellite figures show temperatures have fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level

No comments: