Which is greater? 9/4 or 7/4?
So, I poke my head up to see what’s happening in the world of climate alarmism and pop over to WUWT.
Geez, these people just don’t give up. Tisdale has a post up over they regarding a new paper out……
Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change
Apparently, this bit of incredible sophistry has been fully endorsed by SkS.
About the only thing I have to say about all of this is “Holy crap!!! These people are either too stupid to be writing about such stuff or they are preying upon people too stupid to understand the differences between proportion and actual numbers!” From the abstract….
We find no anthropogenic signal in annual global tropical cyclone or hurricane frequencies. But a strong signal is found in proportions of both weaker and stronger hurricanes: the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of ~25–30 % per °C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing system changes. This has been balanced by a similar decrease in Category 1 and 2 hurricane proportions, leading to development of a distinctly bimodal intensity distribution, with the secondary maximum at Category 4 hurricanes.
From the conclusions…..
We find an observed change in the proportion of global Cat 4–5 hurricanes (relative to all hurricanes) at a rate of ~40 % increase in proportion per °C increase in ACCI
There’s so much wrong with this paper, I can’t possibly know where to start. Bob Tisdale, naturally, concentrates on the ENSO aspect. I’ll only briefly touch on this because Bob has it covered. The authors state….”All variance numbers use the 5-years smoothed annual time series to remove ENSO type variability.” ——– What? People point to the fact that there’s been no measurable warming for about 15 years or so, and the lunatics repeat the whiny mantra that we’ve had less Ninos than Ninas over that period. Now they’re just going to smooth it out over 5 years?
The crazies also employed some idiotic index (ACCI) where they pretend they can subtract human caused GHGs and aerosols to get a grasp on how things would be without them. Of course, this has never been demonstrated and much as been made about how we’re now lowering the projections of future warming because the thoughts about GHGs and aerosols have been consistently wrong. Because of this silly ACCI, the paper relies on models, as if models can trump empirical observations. These people’s gluttony for punishment exceeds reason. They have to be masochistic. No one can be this stupid.
The reason why the proportion of major hurricanes have increased is because the total amount of hurricanes have decreased. Here’s the last 30 years.
Oh look!!! The proportion of major hurricanes to all hurricanes has increased!!!!
Note: If I had started the graph to reflect the last 20 years a decrease trend in the major hurricanes would be very noticeable, but the proportion less so.
Accounting for the noticeable decrease in hurricanes, we see this reflected in the decreased values of the ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy)
I don’t know if they have a fundamental lack of understanding about proportions and ratios or if they’re being disingenuous. Once again, we’re left with that horrible riddle. Are they really that stupid or are they just being dishonest?
Observation is always king.
suyts space 
If mother nature will not validate the government mandated ‘theory’, build another model! Grant please!
Dishonest. They are looking for new things to perpetuate the scare. As they trot out each one, and it dies in front of them, they have to try another route.
Yeh, but, I’m giving them the benefit of doubt and realizing some could actually be that vapid.
“Are they really that stupid or are they just being dishonest?”
That is what is known as a false dichotomy. It does not have to be one or the other. It might be something else, or, in this case, it is both. They are stupid AND dishonest. The stupid part is obvious. The dishonest part is obvious also — which just shows that they are not even clever liars, they are stupid liars.
I have to agree.
Jason, I agree. But while being stupid is an overt act, it does not carry any mal-intent. Being dishonest is both overt and mal-intended.
The sheer crass laziness and dishonesty is breathtaking! A two minute glance at the meteorological history shows the evident lazy lack of research in this cited report. All climate start in the 1970s is stuff and nonsense. Indeed just to know that coastal Texan, and Florida towns and cities have had to be rebuilt many time puts this deliberately misguided rubbish in perspective. See –
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_ten_strongest_hurricanes/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/then-and-now/hurricane-worst-storms/
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/hurricane_hotspots.aspx
for some insight, there are many other places to look.