Roger the SPM for AR6 WG1 says (A.3.4): “There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation
associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence), but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale.”
They do mention unexplained changes to the western North Pacific but it's all a bit so so.
Strange this seems somewhat inconsistent with the detailed analysis in the main text.
Wonderful analysis and why it is SO important to have a critical eye to the data. As a meteorologist I have felt that we have been “boosting the numbers” and have trouble blindly reporting what agencies are claiming!
Absolutely devasting. We know the IPCC is a political body but this take down reveals it's duplicity for all to see. What a shame the Fossilized Media don't have the intuition to look behind the propaganda. Political commentator Matt Goodwin here in the UK has just released a book explaining a view of what is going on in all 'governing' institutions such at the (fossilised) media, big business, Government, the civil service, NHS, the police etc. We are ruled everywhere by a graduate class that share a narrow view of the world, the generally come from very privileged backgrounds and have little experience outside their chosen field. They are obessed with signalling virtue and generally unaffected by what they 'campaign' for. Perhaps his thesis extends to supra-national bodies as well.
Read through the comments, no one taking a shot at you.
My interpretation is that you don’t have a big enough audience yet so they are simply ignoring you in hope you wither away. I’m trying to help, posting links to LinkedIn and elsewhere.
Maybe eventually they’ll send out Hausfather to try a personal attack a la Koonin.
Meanwhile the synthesis report continues its intended purpose, synthesizing (creating) the evidence needed to drive desired effects ($$$).
I remain convinced that a class action lawsuit for 100billion naming everyone involved in these synthesis/summary reports is the path.
If the underlying ipcc science is relatively sound and many contributors are pissed off with these summaries, then legal action is one thing they cannot ignore.
Roger, I actually agree with you on this one, unlike the review of Alex Epstein’s book Fossil Future that left a lot to be desired. I’d take your analysis a step further. This was not a “mistake” by the IPCC as any 9th grader looking for the truth could find it.
This was blatant deception on their part. Obviously this begs the question, where else are they cooking the books in their work to support their climate catastrophe narrative? Better question is where are they NOT cooking the book?
If the IPCC will lie about something so easily disproved, it’s hard to take much they say seriously.
Once you've made a forecast and it's not quite correct, boy is it hard to admit an error. Next time Maybe include predictions of what the media headlines will be. "We don't have time to read the full report, what's the headline?" Whoops, may not be as bad as we wrote in the last headline/major anchor soundbite
Not a counter argument but a request for clarification. Why is the discussion focusing on the "proportion" of major hurricanes to total hurricanes? Is it not more transparent to count the trends in the absolute number of hurricanes (or major hurricanes)?
Well done. Nice and easy to follow explanation. Not Rocket Science. Due diligence on accumulating the relevant data and basic statistics after that.
A couple of questions:
1. Were the geniuses that did the underlying "scientific" analysis incompetent or were they intentionally picking cherries?
2. If they were intentionally picking cherries did they do this on their own to perpetuate their preferred narrative or were they directed (either explicitly or implicitly) by their betters?
3. Is there a process in place to recognize or refute the assertion of a major blunder?
4. Please, please, please, pleeeeeeeze explain why, given a history of intentional distortion and misrepresentation of climate change the IPCC remains important. Is it fixable or should it be relegated to the dustbin of history? If you think it's fixable, how would you fix it?
Superb. Gee. Not like we’ve ever seen “leaps of faith” or outright errors from a WG (any/all) ever make it to an SPM and a SR before. Major or minor (Himalayan glaciers 2035/2305 ooops anyone?)
For some strange reason, it seems to be that the leaps of faith and mistakes always seem to be unidirectional, Roger. We can’t recall a drastic mistake underestimating climate doom. (Sea level rise 1.2mm/yr. !!! Ooops. We meant 2.1mm/yr. 🧐 )
On your point, “More seriously, what does the scientific community conclude ...”, we recast it more broadly:
What does the scientific community conclude when a climate _______ does not indicate trends outside the bounds of observed variability? (Seriously. And rhetorically...)
Having followed all of you for 15+ yrs, it occurs to us that most people do not realize the full importance of the work done by you, Ryan, Judy and many others in this area. Not just re: climate science. But science in general. Our next piece has a connection to that theme, and where it is likely to be apples next.
On a personal note, what folks like you and Judy and many others have endured is shameful. But, very telling. VERY. (About the accusers, not the accused....we predict that’s how history will record it, too.).
To your work and that of the others, we say “ROGER THAT!”
That being said. It'd obvious that anyone outside of the academic establishment has no credibility or say in what the IPCC does or says. We are just part of the ignorant masses that must live with the consequences of poor, uninformed political decisions.
Very diplomatic of you to use the term "blundeted" (mistake resulting usually from stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness ). I hope your not self-censoring.
People outside of the academic world would tend to be a little more direct and call the IPCC statement what it is;
"a purposeful mis-statement that ignores the historical facts in support of an obvious political agenda..."
The sad thing is no rebuttal from the so called experts out there? I am dying to see it. Any analysis that as you say cherry pick a starting date has no value. Man I am glad I subscribe you your blog.
I noticed that, if you go to the main page <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/>, the biggest, most prominent image is the start of the video, and it's message: "To ensure a livable and sustainable future for all we need: scaled up funding." So, the most important message is: Give us more money. I think I've heard that one before.
Great article. One story that might change the 1950-2022 trend though. In 2005 in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) we had Hurricane Katrina and Rita roughly a month apart. Two 500 to 1000 year hurricanes a month apart! Significant damage was done to many offshore platforms. Simplifying, offshore platforms are constructed with air gaps (water level to lowest deck) to withstand the 100 year storm with no damage and only minor damage in 1000 year storms (the platform should still be there in the morning). Given the 2005 storm season and damage done to many platforms we started wondering if we had the design basis incorrect. Of course the first hypothesis was storms were getting more severe. So the met-ocean folks dug into the data and sure enough we did have the severity data wrong, but NOT for the reason we thought. The problem was the data before 1960 or so. What happened in 1960? We started flying airplanes into storms. Before that the data was measured at the beach and extrapolated offshore. So, as an example, more Cat 5 storms offshore landed as Cat 2 than we thought.
Not sure how the severity data Roger shows was observed, but if storm severity was measured at the beach, then the older data is biased to weaker storms, and lower severe to total ratios, further making the case in this paper.
Thanks Roger for bringing some sanity to the non-debate. Personally i cannot fathom what their motivations are when they only have readon to be (to provide a clear synopsis of the science). I remember cherry picked start dates a decade or so ago in the temperature data, and the wildfire data, et cetera. Now the temperature datasets are corrupted by SST and interpolations based on anyone’s guess followed by dishonest science attribution and signal detection from the IPCC politicians. What malarkey and we, the long suffering prols are taking the brunt of this mass psychosis pain!
Roger the SPM for AR6 WG1 says (A.3.4): “There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation
associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence), but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale.”
They do mention unexplained changes to the western North Pacific but it's all a bit so so.
Strange this seems somewhat inconsistent with the detailed analysis in the main text.
Wonderful analysis and why it is SO important to have a critical eye to the data. As a meteorologist I have felt that we have been “boosting the numbers” and have trouble blindly reporting what agencies are claiming!
Absolutely devasting. We know the IPCC is a political body but this take down reveals it's duplicity for all to see. What a shame the Fossilized Media don't have the intuition to look behind the propaganda. Political commentator Matt Goodwin here in the UK has just released a book explaining a view of what is going on in all 'governing' institutions such at the (fossilised) media, big business, Government, the civil service, NHS, the police etc. We are ruled everywhere by a graduate class that share a narrow view of the world, the generally come from very privileged backgrounds and have little experience outside their chosen field. They are obessed with signalling virtue and generally unaffected by what they 'campaign' for. Perhaps his thesis extends to supra-national bodies as well.
Read through the comments, no one taking a shot at you.
My interpretation is that you don’t have a big enough audience yet so they are simply ignoring you in hope you wither away. I’m trying to help, posting links to LinkedIn and elsewhere.
Maybe eventually they’ll send out Hausfather to try a personal attack a la Koonin.
Meanwhile the synthesis report continues its intended purpose, synthesizing (creating) the evidence needed to drive desired effects ($$$).
I remain convinced that a class action lawsuit for 100billion naming everyone involved in these synthesis/summary reports is the path.
If the underlying ipcc science is relatively sound and many contributors are pissed off with these summaries, then legal action is one thing they cannot ignore.
Roger, I actually agree with you on this one, unlike the review of Alex Epstein’s book Fossil Future that left a lot to be desired. I’d take your analysis a step further. This was not a “mistake” by the IPCC as any 9th grader looking for the truth could find it.
This was blatant deception on their part. Obviously this begs the question, where else are they cooking the books in their work to support their climate catastrophe narrative? Better question is where are they NOT cooking the book?
If the IPCC will lie about something so easily disproved, it’s hard to take much they say seriously.
Once you've made a forecast and it's not quite correct, boy is it hard to admit an error. Next time Maybe include predictions of what the media headlines will be. "We don't have time to read the full report, what's the headline?" Whoops, may not be as bad as we wrote in the last headline/major anchor soundbite
Not a counter argument but a request for clarification. Why is the discussion focusing on the "proportion" of major hurricanes to total hurricanes? Is it not more transparent to count the trends in the absolute number of hurricanes (or major hurricanes)?
Well done. Nice and easy to follow explanation. Not Rocket Science. Due diligence on accumulating the relevant data and basic statistics after that.
A couple of questions:
1. Were the geniuses that did the underlying "scientific" analysis incompetent or were they intentionally picking cherries?
2. If they were intentionally picking cherries did they do this on their own to perpetuate their preferred narrative or were they directed (either explicitly or implicitly) by their betters?
3. Is there a process in place to recognize or refute the assertion of a major blunder?
4. Please, please, please, pleeeeeeeze explain why, given a history of intentional distortion and misrepresentation of climate change the IPCC remains important. Is it fixable or should it be relegated to the dustbin of history? If you think it's fixable, how would you fix it?
Superb. Gee. Not like we’ve ever seen “leaps of faith” or outright errors from a WG (any/all) ever make it to an SPM and a SR before. Major or minor (Himalayan glaciers 2035/2305 ooops anyone?)
For some strange reason, it seems to be that the leaps of faith and mistakes always seem to be unidirectional, Roger. We can’t recall a drastic mistake underestimating climate doom. (Sea level rise 1.2mm/yr. !!! Ooops. We meant 2.1mm/yr. 🧐 )
On your point, “More seriously, what does the scientific community conclude ...”, we recast it more broadly:
What does the scientific community conclude when a climate _______ does not indicate trends outside the bounds of observed variability? (Seriously. And rhetorically...)
Having followed all of you for 15+ yrs, it occurs to us that most people do not realize the full importance of the work done by you, Ryan, Judy and many others in this area. Not just re: climate science. But science in general. Our next piece has a connection to that theme, and where it is likely to be apples next.
On a personal note, what folks like you and Judy and many others have endured is shameful. But, very telling. VERY. (About the accusers, not the accused....we predict that’s how history will record it, too.).
To your work and that of the others, we say “ROGER THAT!”
That being said. It'd obvious that anyone outside of the academic establishment has no credibility or say in what the IPCC does or says. We are just part of the ignorant masses that must live with the consequences of poor, uninformed political decisions.
Very diplomatic of you to use the term "blundeted" (mistake resulting usually from stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness ). I hope your not self-censoring.
People outside of the academic world would tend to be a little more direct and call the IPCC statement what it is;
"a purposeful mis-statement that ignores the historical facts in support of an obvious political agenda..."
The sad thing is no rebuttal from the so called experts out there? I am dying to see it. Any analysis that as you say cherry pick a starting date has no value. Man I am glad I subscribe you your blog.
I noticed that, if you go to the main page <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/>, the biggest, most prominent image is the start of the video, and it's message: "To ensure a livable and sustainable future for all we need: scaled up funding." So, the most important message is: Give us more money. I think I've heard that one before.
Very helpful analysis, Roger, as always.
Great article. One story that might change the 1950-2022 trend though. In 2005 in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) we had Hurricane Katrina and Rita roughly a month apart. Two 500 to 1000 year hurricanes a month apart! Significant damage was done to many offshore platforms. Simplifying, offshore platforms are constructed with air gaps (water level to lowest deck) to withstand the 100 year storm with no damage and only minor damage in 1000 year storms (the platform should still be there in the morning). Given the 2005 storm season and damage done to many platforms we started wondering if we had the design basis incorrect. Of course the first hypothesis was storms were getting more severe. So the met-ocean folks dug into the data and sure enough we did have the severity data wrong, but NOT for the reason we thought. The problem was the data before 1960 or so. What happened in 1960? We started flying airplanes into storms. Before that the data was measured at the beach and extrapolated offshore. So, as an example, more Cat 5 storms offshore landed as Cat 2 than we thought.
Not sure how the severity data Roger shows was observed, but if storm severity was measured at the beach, then the older data is biased to weaker storms, and lower severe to total ratios, further making the case in this paper.
Thanks Roger for bringing some sanity to the non-debate. Personally i cannot fathom what their motivations are when they only have readon to be (to provide a clear synopsis of the science). I remember cherry picked start dates a decade or so ago in the temperature data, and the wildfire data, et cetera. Now the temperature datasets are corrupted by SST and interpolations based on anyone’s guess followed by dishonest science attribution and signal detection from the IPCC politicians. What malarkey and we, the long suffering prols are taking the brunt of this mass psychosis pain!
Roger: An overwhelmingly convincing article. A masterful job of analysis.