'Hockey team' make spirited response to Congressional attack 20 July 05

...because of the excellent reply by Mann et al.

Not only did he effectively answer the questions, he made Barton look ignorant AND anticipated many future argumentation. I’m quite sure he retained counsel, and I’m glad he did.

Anyway, it should take some time for the astroturfers to formulate new talking points.

D

The article linked was written by Dr. James O’Brien is the Florida state climatologist and a professor of meteorology and oceanography at Florida State University in Tallahassee. I believe that Dr. O’Brien has had ample reason to study this subject.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpglobalhurricanesi072005jul20,0,6840176.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

In the introductory paragraphs, he says,

” . . . after Hurricane Bonnie, Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004, the prime minister of England, Tony Blair, and many other prominent American scientists told the world that the hurricanes were due to global warming.

But now the alarmists are at it again, claiming that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes. Don’t worry, readers; there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming.”

He closes with, “While it is tempting to blame the frequency or intensity of hurricanes on man, we all must remember how variable nature is—and specifically in this case, the effect of natural variations on hurricanes’ intensity and frequency is extremely higher than the possibility of man’s interference.”

Barton is the antagonist – in more ways than one.

Good job, Mark, on the petition & coverage.

I must admit, the guy’s got a helluva CV, but he parses his words like Lindzen does, so that raises a red flag.

However, the thesis of his op-ed:

But now the alarmists are at it again, claiming that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes. Don’t worry, readers; there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming.

is, simply, wrong. The ‘support’ means the community thinks there’s a correlation.

Knutson and Tuleya 2004. Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization. Journ. Clim. 17:18 pp. 3477–3495.

ABSTRACT

Previous studies have found that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. The present study explores the sensitivity of this result to the choice of climate model used to define the CO2-warmed environment and to the choice of convective parameterization used in the nested regional model that simulates the hurricanes. Approximately 1300 five-day idealized simulations are performed using a higher-resolution version of the GFDL hurricane prediction system (grid spacing as fine as 9 km, with 42 levels). All storms were embedded in a uniform 5 m s−1 easterly background flow. The large-scale thermodynamic boundary conditions for the experiments— atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles and SSTs—are derived from nine different Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP2+) climate models. The CO2-induced SST changes from the global climate models, based on 80-yr linear trends from +1% yr−1 CO2 increase experiments, range from about +0.8° to +2.4°C in the three tropical storm basins studied. Four different moist convection parameterizations are tested in the hurricane model, including the use of no convective parameterization in the highest resolution inner grid. Nearly all combinations of climate model boundary conditions and hurricane model convection schemes show a CO2-induced increase in both storm intensity and near-storm precipitation rates. The aggregate results, averaged across all experiments, indicate a 14% increase in central pressure fall, a 6% increase in maximum surface wind speed, and an 18% increase in average precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm center. The fractional change in precipitation is more sensitive to the choice of convective parameterization than is the fractional change of intensity. Current hurricane potential intensity theories, applied to the climate model environments, yield an average increase of intensity (pressure fall) of 8% (Emanuel) to 16% (Holland) for the high-CO2 environments. Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is 21% higher on average in the high-CO2 environments. One implication of the results is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse gas–induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

Hmmm…OK, so the theory says this should happen, and some model results find same. So,

1. Introduction

Emanuel (1987) used a theoretical model of tropical cyclone potential intensity to propose that tropical cyclones in a greenhouse gas–warmed climate would have higher potential intensities than in the present-day climate. This scenario has received some support from Holland’s (1997) alternative potential intensity theory (Tonkin et al. 1997 ; Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998 ) as well as from three-dimensional hurricane modeling studies using regional nested modeling approaches (Knutson et al. 1998 ; Knutson and Tuleya 1999 ; Walsh and Ryan 2000 ; Knutson et al. 2001 ), although several caveats have been noted, for example, by Henderson-Sellers et al. (1998).

[footnotes omitted]

Hmmm…so there’s a theoretical basis.

4. Simulation results

a. Storm intensity and precipitation changes

A series of 5-day idealized simulations of the hurricane model were performed using the methodology described in section 2. They tested different combinations of GCM environmental conditions (nine different climate models), climate scenario (control or high CO2), tropical storm basin (three different basins), cumulus convection scheme in the hurricane model (four different versions), and small random perturbations to initial conditions (ensemble size of 6 for each combination of the above factors). Thus a total of 1296 experiments (9 ×2 ×3 ×4 ×6) were performed and are analyzed in this section.

Time series of minimum central pressure from all of the sensitivity experiments for two of the nine CMIP2+ models (GFDL R30 and HadCM2) are shown in Fig. 5 . These examples are representative of the features seen for the remaining seven climate models. There is a clear tendency for more intense hurricanes (lower central pressures) for the high-CO2 conditions (solid lines) than for the control run or present-day conditions (dotted lines).

Ah. These guys get similar results.

6. Discussion and conclusions

The results presented in section 4 indicate that the basic findings—more intense simulated hurricanes and greater storm-core precipitation rates in high-CO2 environments—are not strongly dependent on the global climate model used to derive the CO2-induced changes, nor on the particular convective parameterization used in the hurricane model. This suggests that these findings are robust, at least in the context of our idealized experimental design using the variants of the GFDL hurricane model described here or using current potential intensity theories. Our previous study (Knutson et al. 2001 ) indicated that our results are robust to the inclusion of ocean coupling beneath the simulated hurricanes. The more intense hurricanes and enhanced storm precipitation rates were correlated with warmer SSTs and higher CAPE in our simulations. The global models simulated greater CAPE in the high-CO2 environments despite the enhanced upper-tropospheric warming in the models.

An important issue is whether and when any CO2-induced increase of tropical cyclone intensity is likely to be detectable in the observations. The magnitude of the simulated increase in our experiments is about 6% for maximum tropical cyclone surface winds. This change occurs for an idealized climate change scenario consisting of an 80-yr increase of CO2 at 1% yr−1 compounded (which produces SST increases ranging from 0.8° to 2.4°C in the tropical storm basins in the CMIP2 models). The smaller SST changes observed for the past 50 yr in the Tropics (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999 ) imply that the likely SST-inferred intensity change for the past half century is small, relative to both the limited accuracy of historical records of storm intensity and to the apparently large magnitude of interannual variability of storm intensities in some basins (Landsea et al. 1996 ; Knutson et al. 2001 ). This further implies that CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come. Related to this issue, SSTs over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999 ). This is a particularly relevant result since the best long-term records of tropical cyclone intensity are found for this basin. Thus, from the perspective of Atlantic SSTs, there is no expectation of an upward trend in tropical cyclone maximum intensities over the past 50 yr, and none is evident in that basin (Landsea et al. 1996 ). On the other hand, Gettleman et al. (2002) recently reported that CAPE derived from radiosonde observations at several tropical stations has increased significantly in recent decades due to a combination of increased near-surface temperature and water vapor. For example, they found that CAPE at Barbados in the Atlantic tropical storm basin has increased at a rate of 13% per decade in recent decades. Also, regarding tropical storm basins other than the NW Atlantic, Knutson et al. (1999) found evidence for significant SST warming trends (0.5°C per 50 yr or more) in the NE Pacific and Indian Ocean tropical basins, and Gettleman et al. (2002) reported significant CAPE increases in recent decades in the NW tropical Pacific with mixed signals in the SW tropical Pacific. However, long-term homogeneous records of maximum tropical cyclone intensities are apparently even more problematic for these basins than for the Atlantic (e.g., Srivastava et al. 2000 ; Landsea 2000 ). In short, this topic presents a number of issues needing further investigation.

[...]

The main purpose of the present study has been to assess how sensitive our earlier simulation results (increased hurricane intensities and storm precipitation rates in high-CO2 environments) were to the particular climate model used to provide the large-scale environments or to the details of the hurricane model used to simulate the storms. The results show that while there is some quantitative dependence of the sensitivity on the CMIP2+ model used, nearly every combination of CMIP2+ model, hurricane model convection scheme, and tropical storm basin tested shows an increase in simulated storm intensity and of near-storm precipitation rates. This lends support to the notion that after about a century of climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases, the upper limits on tropical cyclone intensity imposed by the thermodynamic environment will be altered in such a way as to allow for tropical cyclones with greater precipitation rates and higher intensity (by roughly half a category in our idealized calculations) than occur in the present climate.

[footnotes omitted]

OK. So this recent paper finds the theory robust, but says the changes are undetectable in the data right now.

Going back to Landsea, we know that he says that folks are being intemperate in their finger-pointing. Which we know to be true. I agree. But the underlying message is valid, despite Norb’s best efforts to FUD and naysay.

So when Norb’s boy says:

However, if one graphs the ocean environment for Category 3, 4 and 5 storms, there is no difference in ocean-surface temperatures for tropical storms and Category 1 and 2 storms. What’s more, the scientific literature documents that the western Atlantic off Africa is the prime breeding ground for the stronger storms—and many of those stronger storms never make it to landfall.

We know, from reading the paper excerpt above, that it is statistically indetectable whether storms are getting stronger. But James puts the ‘never make it to landfall’ caveat in there, giving himself an out. The theory states that warmer SSTs will give more energy to storms, and we know many places on the planet are experiencing warmer SSTs.

We also note that when James says, first off:

There is some disagreement among climate scientists on the potential impact of global climate change on future hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.

and then says:

there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming.

We know that’s incorrect, because his very first passage contradicts this statement – he says there is some support, but not everyone agrees this is correct. We can agree that not everyone agrees this is correct, because we know from reading the paper excerpt above that it is statistically indetectable whether storms are getting stronger or more frequent.

Well! That was fun. Finally got a good’un, Norb; whether or not you knew it is arguable, but hey.

ÐnØ

hmmm…not sure why my edit didn’t make it over. Preview is your (my) friend, Mark.

Bolded edit, rest same:

I must admit, the guy’s got a helluva CV, but he parses his words like Lindzen does, so that raises a red flag.

However, the thesis of his op-ed:

But now the alarmists are at it again, claiming that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes. Don’t worry, readers; there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming.

is, simply, very careful wording, not repudiation of a theory. The ‘support’ means the community thinks there’s a correlation.

---

apologies.

ÐnØ

and made the following comments below.

I am a mechanical engineer and I have been following climate science very closely and I find Dr. Michael E. Mann to be very credible because he is a climate scientist.

By contrast, I find Rep Joe Barton who received over a half million dollars from the oil and gas industry in campaign contributions (second only to Bush) to have a strong bias against climate change issues because it would impact his constituents and maybe his own prosperity from this association.

By contrast, McIntyre and Mckitrick, both of whom challenged Mann, are not climate scientists. McIntyre is a mining industry representative and this creates a bias since coal produces the greatest source of carbon dioxide for the heating value of any major fossil fuel. Therefore, McIntrye has a vested interest in being biased against the validity of global warming since mitigating the effects of global warming may affect the coal mining industry which he represents.

According to Mann, McIntyre and McKitrick’s work has been discredited by ample peer-reviewed scientific work by Dr. Eugene R. Wahl and Dr. Caspar M. Ammann whom have concluded that McIntyre and Mctrick’s results are without statistical and climatological merit. Their credentials and integrity are light years above an unqualified politician such as Rep Joe Barton who is totally inept and incompetent to ever understand the intricate complexities of these world renowned climate scientists.

For the record, Dr.Wahl of the Environmental Studies and Geology Division of Alfred University, Alfred, New York is currently completing a post-doctoral fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, on aspects of global change. Furthermore, Dr. Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado is a climate scientist interested in the reconstruction of natural climate forcings, natural climate variability, coupled modeling of natural and anthropogenic climate change, and data/model intercomparison.

I rest my case. These are professionals. Rep Joe Barton is only a sleazy manipulative politician interested in self gain. He is only a representative of his oil and gas interests. He is not a true representative of the people.

Now, I think it seems prudent under the circumstances that Rep Joe Barton is investigated and the money trail be exposed. It seems apparent that Rep Joe Barton’s motivation to investigate Dr. Mann is based solely on his own self interests and has nothing to do with science or the best interests of the people of the world.

I find the investigation of Dr. Michael E. Mann and the manner in which this inquiry has been conducted to be a total and complete abomination.

Dan

I`m amazed that the letter sent to these scientists was within congressional standards. How can a question about the perticulars of a single study (or small group) be relavent to congress? looking at another post recently about the certainty of climate change, a search of articles in the journal “Science” none of which disagree with the premise that most of the currently experianced climate change is caused by human activity. I totaly agree, these letters where for intimidating the scientists only. The truth is dangerous!

To highlight the need for action now, not denial please visit:

http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/

here there are not only links to campaign sites but also to an accompanying site wich is rich in resources such as govornment reports and policy documents which can be used to inform youre personal letters to MPs, Congress, Parliment or whoever it is you lobby in youre country.

Hi Calvin,

I read your bio and have posted comments about gas flaring a long time ago and it is an important topic.

Flaring natural gas is better than not flaring as the emissions of methane would be worse than the carbon dioxide emissions produced from flaring. Yet, it would be even better to use the methane as a fuel instead of wasting it.

The main problem with capturing natural gas for use as a fuel is that the transport from remote locations is a difficult costly problem. One solution to this is liquefied natural gas or LNG. To liquefy methane requires as much as a third of the heating value of the gaseous fuel because it must be lowered to -162 C which is very cold. By doing this, LNG is 600 times less in volume than when methane is a gas. The gas can also be compressed but much more can be transported if it is liquefied instead.

LNG transport will proliferate when oil becomes scarcer since methane is becoming more plentiful. Methane is a better fossil fuel for greenhouse emissions because it emits less carbon dioxide than other fuels. However, the energy penalty for liquefying the methane offsets the benefits of LNG. Furthermore, LNG has serious safety issues in both the transport and delivery to port facilities. LNG is an extremely volatile fuel.

I suggest that you research thoroughly the LNG Industry since this may be part of the solution to stopping flaring. If all the flaring from oil wells were to cease, then the resulting extra methane would fuel the current methane needs of Germany and France. So, I am mostly an advocate of this industry as long as it continues to develop properly. The safety issues are very important and I would love to see a recycling of the energy used to liquefy the methane at the port terminal by liquefying carbon dioxide piped from a coal power plant to be used to send via ships to sequestration sites.

I have worked out some calculations on this scheme based on thermodynamic properties of methane and carbon dioxide. Currently, the liquid methane is heated via sea water at the port terminal so all the energy used to reduce its temperature is wasted. If carbon dioxide under about 10 atmospheres of pressure is used to heat the cold methane through a heat exchanger, then the carbon dioxide becomes a transportable liquid. Injecting liquid carbon dioxide into sequestration sites or even using it to squeeze out extra oil or methane can increase supply, sequester carbon, and recycle energy used to transport LNG to the port facility. This effort is a way to help reduce total greenhouse gas emissions before the fuel is even used. It is a radical idea but as technologies become available, it may serve as a means to increase the efficiency of reducing emissions from the source energy before it even gets to the consumer.

I know that many would like to see fossil fuels eliminated but this may be unrealistic in the short term. I am a firm believer in using any fossil fuel to its highest efficiency and to continually decrease the need for it. I also think that any effort to lower emissions through sequestration or choosing the best fuels to use would help as well. Also, it is difficult to use something other than a concentrated energy source for transportation purposes. Fossil fuels provide this at present.

Methane can be converted into hydrogen easier than other fossil fuels. If that one carbon atom were stripped from it, then we produce 2 molecules of hydrogen (H2) for every molecule of methane (CH4). If that carbon atom is sequestered with the rest, then we have a zero emission fuel.

If you are serious about utilizing methane sources as fuel sources then this can include methane capture from coal mining operations, landfills, and other sources. This is being done but there is still potential to do more. Every time we capture and use a methane molecule as a fuel we get a net 22 times benefit toward emission reductions then if that methane molecule escaped to the atmosphere instead. One methane molecule has 23 times the global warming potential of one carbon dioxide molecule (using a hundred year atmospheric time frame).

Eliminating heat islands through more reflective paved surfaces and cooler building roofs, sequestration, renewable energy sources, higher energy efficiency, voluntary conservation, smart urban growth, better agricultural practices, choosing foods which reduce emissions, population reduction and control, recycling of wastes, etc are part of the solution.

There are many good ideas and sometimes I feel we need to use as many as we need to use to save the climate.

Best Regards,

Dan