No more seasonal hurricane predictions from Colorado State University.

No more seasonal hurricane predictions from Colorado State University.

They lost their funding, which is no surprise.

At the beginning of this yearโ€™s season, the team predicted 18 named storms. Nine of those, it said, would become hurricanes. Four would be major hurricanes. Hereโ€™s how it shook out: There were 13 named storms. Only two became hurricanes. Neither was a major hurricane.

They, like NOAA, expected an increase in extreme hurricanes and were wrong. In fact, they were so wrong that they illustrated clearly how much a guess all of these climate predictions are. You might as well flip a coin.

17 comments

This year’s hurricane season, predicted to be above average, was the weakest in decades.

The uncertainty of climate science: This year’s hurricane season, predicted to be above average, was the weakest in decades.

This failure also continues a pattern seen in recent years, where the number of actual hurricanes ends up far below their prediction, but the number of named hurricanes still ends up about right (see the charts on the prediction link above). I noted this in 2012, and now it has happened again. As I said then,

I wonder if their naming process was fudged to get them the numbers they wanted. While it might be possible to do that with the naming process of tropical storms, it is far more difficult to fudge the number of actual hurricanes. My skeptical nature and the recent willingness in the climate field to fiddle with data probably makes me more suspicious than I should be.

Thus to me, these seasonal hurricane predictions are becoming increasingly suspect.

3 comments

A new study suggests that the variation of the cosmic ray flux during the solar cycle has little influence on the climate.

The uncertainty of science: A new study suggests that the variation of the cosmic ray flux during the solar cycle has little influence on the climate.

The study seems statistical in nature, which leaves me skeptical. Nonetheless, the link between cosmic rays and climate change remains tenuous, with only one study at CERN providing any evidence that cosmic rays might have an influence.

3 comments

The sun goes boom!

It is always best to admit when you are wrong as soon as you find out. Last month, in reporting NOAA’s monthly update of the solar cycle, I unequivocally stated that

My interpretation of this data tells me that almost certainly the solar maximum has ended. We might see some later fluctuations whereby the sunspot number jumps, but the Sun is clearly beginning its ramp down to solar minimum.

Well, I spoke too soon. Last night NOAA posted the newest update of the solar cycle, and it shows that in October the Sun was more active then it has been in two years. In fact, for only the second time this entire solar cycle the Sun’s sunspot activity actually came close to matching the predictions of scientists. This month’s graph is posted below the fold, with annotations.
» Read more

2 comments

28 solar flares in the past week.

28 solar flares in the past week.

The sun has erupted more than two dozen times over the last week, sending radiation and solar material hurtling through space – and scientists say more eruptions may be coming.

This shouldn’t be unusual. After all, we are technically at solar maximum, the peak of the 11-year cycle of the sun’s activity. But this has been a noticeably mellow solar maximum, with the sun staying fairly quiet throughout the summer. So when our life-giving star suddenly let loose with 24 medium strength M-class solar flares and four significantly stronger X-class flares between Oct. 23 and Oct. 30, it felt like a surprise.

October was one of the most active months for the sun this solar maximum, and I expect the sunspot count for the month to be quite high as well, more than we’ve seen in two years. I shall have that update in just a few days.

All of these active sunspots have been in the sun’s southern hemisphere, which indicates that hemisphere is finally gearing up to flip its magnetic field, something the sun’s northern hemisphere did last year. Once that happens the solar maximum will be officially over and we will head for the next solar minimum.

0 comments

Global warming activists enthuse about the LA Times’ policy of restricting debate

Leftwing tolerance: Global warming activists enthuse about the LA Times’ policy of restricting debate.

The campaign is to get media outlets to agree to refuse to publish any letter or op-ed by anyone who expresses skepticism about human caused global warming. In other words, their response to any disagreement is simply to say, “Shut up!”

10 comments

Extreme weather events in 2013 are at an all time low.

Another global warming prediction fails: Extreme weather events in 2013 are at an all time low.

There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether youโ€™re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.

As I wrote back in April,

Global warming scientists have spent the past two decades telling us that we were all gonna die from increasing temperatures caused by the increase in CO2. Now that this prediction has proved false, they apparently are shifting gears. Instead, it is extreme events — big storms, long droughts, intense heatwaves — that are going to kill us.

But not only have they no evidence that the increase in CO2 will cause these extreme events, there is no evidence that more of these extreme events are even occurring.

In other words, these stories are mere political advocacy. They have nothing to do with science, but with propaganda, based on fantasy with the goal of trying to convince everyone that we are all gonna die if we don’t do exactly what these scientists say. [emphasis in original]

3 comments

Ramping down from solar maximum

Yesterday, despite the government shutdown, NOAA posted its monthly update of the solar cycle, and as I do every month, I am posting it here, below the fold, with annotations.

My interpretation of this data tells me that almost certainly the solar maximum has ended. We might see some later fluctuations whereby the sunspot number jumps, but the Sun is clearly beginning its ramp down to solar minimum.
» Read more

4 comments

The IPCC fixes the facts.

The IPCC fixes the facts.

Key quote:

None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

Apparently to hide the failure of models to predict the pause in temperature rise during the past fifteen years they tweaked their graphics aggressively, without explanation.

More negative reactions to the IPCC report here.

0 comments

A good global warming scientists comments on the IPCC report: “The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.”

A good global warming scientists comments on the IPCC report: “The increase from 90-95% means that they are more certain. How they can justify this is beyond me.”

Read the whole post. Curry illustrates in blunt language how broken the IPCC process is, and how little it has to do with real science.

1 comment

How the tentacles of the green environmental movement dominate the IPCC.

How the tentacles of the green environmental movement dominate the IPCC.

The U.N. has charged the IPCC with weighing the evidence on climate change in an objective manner. The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity.

The examples are legion. Donald Wuebbles, one of the two leaders of the introductory first chapter of the Working Group 1 report (a draft of which may be released next Monday)โ€”has been writing awareness-raising climate change reports for the activist Union of Concerned Scientists for a decade. Another chapter of the full IPCC report, “Open Oceans,” is led by Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who has written a string of reports with titles such as “Pacific in Peril” for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer, in charge of another chapter of the IPCC report, “Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities,” advises the Environmental Defense Fund (after having spent more than two decades on its payroll).

University of Maryland scientist Richard Moss is a former fulltime WWF vice president, while Jennifer Morgan used to be the WWF’s chief climate change spokesperson. Both are currently IPCC review editorsโ€”a position that’s supposed to ensure that feedback from IPCC external reviewers is addressed in an even-handed manner.

My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency around climate change.

Considering these facts, if the IPCC report even mentions the 15 year pause in warming it will be a remarkable thing.

0 comments
1 37 38 39 40 41 57