Thursday, June 25, 2009

Ethon RTFR ( a bit edited:)

Ethon flew in the window with a great flap of concern. Big Bird was distraught, someone had moved his liver and it looked like Prometheus was no more. Don't worry Ethon, Eli said, they moved the liver, but you can still have some. The Rabett will bet you that one of the bunnies right now is out there scouting for you and we can have more fun playing follow the dead links on Uncle Stoats blogroll.

Sure enough, the new rock was quickly located tho whether it will be as comfortable as the last is not clear, it is close in Bloggerland, with a fine exposure to the elements, a nearby pool, and Eli still can't go there. (That means you too Dano). The Eagle Scout bunny who reported back, asks Eli to speculate about the need for a move, did Roger's balloon mortgage go south, has Al Gore bought them out, did the new head of the Center say no more or did they have to cut the technical support? The possibilities for speculation are endless, but in that, as much else we will lean back and listen

With the move of his food source to a more exposed position, Ethon put on his GPS and wandered out for a little liver snack. The young fellow lay out in a delightful repast. He started with a tasty snippet and Ethon was delighted as well as hungry,

Silvio Schmidt and colleagues have a new paper in press that replicates our hurricane loss normalization work in Pielke et al. 2008 (PDF).
continuing
After a detailed look at the data they conclude quite properly:
There is no evidence yet of any trend in tropical cyclone losses that can be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change.
They do speculate about a link based on the conclusion of IPCC 2007:
Ethon, being used to this sort of thing, clicked through to the paper, and what did he see. Well first there were three authors, Silvio Schmidt, Claudia Kemfort and Peter Hoeppe. Hoeppe, you may recall is at Munich Re and is the fellow who came up with the idea of comparing earthquake losses with losses due to weather over the long run to try and tease out climate effects. Someone that Roger would like to send down the memory hole. The birdie saw an abstract which is quite different from what was promised.
No trend is found for the period 1950–2005 as a whole. In the period 1971–2005, since the beginning of a trend towards increased intense cyclone activity, losses excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings.
This is interesting, because as everybunny knows, warming really took off in the 70s. The climate record shows that the warming trend flattened out between 1940 and 1970.

But wait, there is more. This one comes from the demolition job our boy tries on Evan Mills
One answer might lie in the fact that Evan Mills was a co-author of the report (p. 159). Do you think that had anything to do with it? His list of consulting clients is positively Phil Cooney-esque. Here are a few businesses and organizations that he lists under Consulting & Advising in his resume:
* Armstrong/Energyn (US)
* Barakat, Howard & Chamberlin, Inc. (US)
* Better Energy Systems (UK)
* Ceres (US)
* CMC Energy Services (US)
* Integrated Process Technologies (US)
* Investment Research, Inc. (US)
* Teton Energy Partners (US)
The amusing thing is that we get a link to Mills' cv, from which Eli will quote somewhat more completely then that carefully selected list. The joy of Roger Jr. is the contempt he holds his readers in, leaving the link knowing that the clientele won't follow.

Major Clients

  • California Air Resources Board (CARB)
  • California Energy Commission (CEC)
  • California Institute for Energy & Environment (CIEE)
  • National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • U.S. Agency for International Development (AID)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
  • U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (GCRP)
Consulting & Advising
  • Armstrong/Energyn (US)
  • Barakat, Howard & Chamberlin, Inc. (US)
  • Better Energy Systems (UK)
  • CalPERS - California Public Employees' Retirement System
  • Capital-E (US)
  • Ceres (US)
  • Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency (US)
  • CMC Energy Services (US)
  • Disney Imagineering (US)
  • Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (New Zealand)
  • Energy Auditor and Retrofitter Magazine (now Home Energy) (US)
  • German Marshall Fund (US)
  • Harvard Medical School - Center for Health and the Global Environment (US)
  • Hewlett-Packard (US)
  • Idyllwild School of Music and the Arts (US)
  • Institute for Environmental Technologies (Netherlands)
  • Integrated Process Technologies (US)
  • International Association for Energy-Efficient Lighting (Sweden)
  • International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths (US)
  • Investment Research, Inc. (US)
  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development--Environment Directorate (Group on Urban Affairs) (France)
  • Peralta Community College District (US)
  • Regents of the Central European University (Hungary)
  • Rockefeller Familly Fund (US)
  • Swedish Parliament Working Group on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources (Sweden)
  • Teton Energy Partners (US)
  • United States Trade and Development Agency (US)
  • United Nations
  • World Bank / International Finance Corporation (US)
It's gonna be a fun summer. But remember always RTFR.

13 comments:

Alastair said...

What are you trying to say? And what does RTFR stand for? The Free Dictionary says Rail Track Fun Run! http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RTFR

Cheers, Alastair.

EliRabett said...

That's why it's free

Hank Roberts said...

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=64229170.2/1755-1315/6/9/092008/ees9_6_092008.pdf

Hank Roberts said...

And Piekle says he's now " ... a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank..."

Which species of furryblogger is seen leaping avidly onto sinking ships?

He's got nerve calling 'Breakthrough' 'progresive' -- their recent climate press release is "the single most hypocritical smear that The Breakthrough Institute has ever made in its long history of pushing disinformation."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/17/the-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-waxman-markey/

But at least he's found a home.

bluegrue said...

Alastair,

should be "Read The Fabulous Report", not quite sure about the fab part, though. I have a feeling, that I got something wrong there.

Anonymous said...

I thought when it referred to something Pielke has written or to something that confirms what Pielke has written, it meant "Read the Funnies (and) Report".

Anonymous said...

Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute"

Does that mean he's now a break dancing expert too?

Roger certainly is a Renaissance man.

Dano said...

Well, I got a comment thru, we'll see how long it lasts:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/for-those-of-you-interested-in-w-m-vote.html?showComment=1246111620109#c5296968463174839192

Best,

D

;o)

Deep Climate said...

A couple of things have always nagged at me about Pielke:
a) A lot of his cites (and his own work) are based on IPCC 2001, rather than more recent analyses of AGW-cyclone links.
b) He seems to studiously avoid analyzing or even discussing the 1970-present time frame.

So here we have both problems on display in a nice neat concise package.

It seems to be that Pielke is selectively quoting from Schmidt et al's chain of reasoning to give tha appearance of "speculation".

But the conclusion is stronger:
"This increase [in losses over 1971-2005] must therefore be ... more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings." [Emphasis added]

And he fails to mention that the "no trend" statement applies to 1950-2005, but not 1971-2005.

I tried to post a comment over there, but it's broken and I gave up.

banonymous said...

Just went to Krugman's blog and saw that a commenter had left the following link that seems to suggest that the IPCC does not know what it's talking about/if deliberately making false conclusions from the available data. Any comments? Link below

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Anonymous said...

CEI: http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

Anonymous said...

CEI saying the IPCC does not know what they are talking about and/or are lying?

That's the best laugh I've had all year!!

CEI brought us such climatic classics as "CO2 is life" and if these guys have ever told the truth about anything, I'm not aware of it.

Chris said...

I put a fuller quote from the conclusions in the comments section of his Schmidt et al. post (see below), I wonder whether it'll appear...

Am I paranoid to wonder why when I linked directly from here there was a 'problem' with my post, but when I linked from Prometheus it went through to moderation?

"annual adjusted losses since the beginning of the last cold phase (1971) show a positive trend, with an average annual rise of 4% that cannot be explained by socio-economic components. This increase can at least be interpreted as a climate variability impact. There is no evidence yet of any trend in tropical cyclone losses that can be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change. But we advance the premise that if losses are affected by natural climate fluctuations, they are also likely to be affected by additional global warming due to anthropogenic climate change. This premise is supported by indications that the intensity of tropical cyclones is affected by anthropogenic climate change."