Landsea said:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field.

I says:

He then wrote an open letter as a result of the press conference hosts asserting that AGW is linked to storm activity (they did not mention the new research).

You says:

Yes they did.

Was Landsea lying then?

Youre suggesting that Landsea didnt know about this new super sized research or he ignored it.

Don’t know about what Landsea did or didn’t know. I’m not going to speculate on it anymore.

He then wrote an open letter as a result of the press conference hosts asserting that AGW is linked to storm activity (they did not mention the new research).

Yes they did. They cited mentioned their main peice of evidence in the press review, and I’ve mentioned it on this thread on comment 43.

However the final IPCC report basically went with Landsea ignoring the new research the Harvard guys were talking about (but didnt mention).

No, the final IPCC report, had no connection with Landsea (he had resigned by then), came out years after his sook and did mention all of the evidence (plus a whole lot more) that the conference had referred to.

You’re suggesting that Landsea didn’t know about this new super sized research or he ignored it. He then wrote an open letter as a result of the press conference “hosts” asserting that AGW is linked to storm activity (they did not mention the new research). However the final IPCC report basically went with Landsea ignoring the new research the Harvard guys were talking about (but didn’t mention).

All this of course makes it way back to the original part of the discussion I was having that the mug shots of all those storms Gore’s movie showed were in fact (by your assertions) an accurate representation of the facts.

Is this right or did i miss something here?

However, it isn’t uncommon for scientists to be unaware of unpublished (at that point) research.

The press conference guys knew but not Landsea. That’s your assertion is it KenM?

And Landsea wouldnt?

Don’t know… but given that Landsea said “To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference… were they reporting on any new work in the field” maybe not.

I also think that it is likely that Trenberth knew about Emanuels observation evidence of increased hurricane power.

And Landsea wouldn’t?

I have only criticised Landsea for his massive over the top reaction which attacked the IPCC for a press release made by a different organisation.

However, the press release mentions the formation of a hurricane off Brazil in March 2004 an area which they have never been seen before (because it was previously too cool for hurricane formation). Plus, from the press release:

Fueling concerns about the link between global warming and hurricanes is a new study on hurricane intensity published on September 28, 2004 in “The Journal of Climate.” The study used extensive computer modeling to analyze 1,300 future hurricanes and projected major increase in the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes in coming decades.

This paper is (presumably) Knutson, T. R., and R. E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. J. Climate, 17, 34773495.

I also think that it is likely that Trenberth knew about Emanuel’s observation evidence of increased hurricane power.

First point: I have a strong dislike of people who slander scientists because their research doesnt support some preconceived idealogical pov.

maybe you ought to take a look in the mirror before you write things like this:

The ironic thing about Chris Landseas giant sook

and this:

If Landsea wants to be known for honesty and integrity he should wait for the IPCC to misrepresent him, before accusing them of it.

Trenberth was making his claims based off new evidence.

Yea? What was that? And if it was why did the IPCC go with Landsea’s broad outline?

So your saying that Landsea’s comment in the letter was untrue? This part here:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field.

You have any evidence you can point to that quote is wrong?

First point: I have a strong dislike of people who slander scientists because their research doesn’t support some preconceived idealogical pov.

Second point: While Landsea was (and still is) one of the experts on hurricanes, he isn’t (nor wasn’t) the only one.

Third point: Trenberth is hardly a novice in the area. He is one of the world experts in the interactions between ocean and atmospheric physics (of which storms are a subset) and was conducting his own research into the area (he now has a number of peer reviewed publications in the area). He also regularly collaborates with experts in the field.

Fourth point: Trenberth wasn’t the head of the IPCC.

Fifth point: The press conference was held by Harvard Uni and was not endorsed in any way by the IPCC.

Sixth point: The Harvard press conference didn’t link Katrina with global warming. Katrina happened after the press conference.

Seventh point: Landsea’s work didn’t suggest the opposite rather he had previously found no evidence for it. There is an important distinction between the two. Trenberth was making his claims based off new evidence.

Now let’s take this very slowly and calmly.

Landsea was pretty well considered the foremost authority on north Atlantic storm activity at the time the IPPC report was being prepared. Would you agree? Let me answer the question for you: yes he was.

Trenberth, without telling Landsea, went and gave a press conference that was diametrically opposite to what Landsea’s work had been suggesting.

This is part of Landseas letter:

Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity

Landsea elegantly resigns in protest. He wasnt a sook as you suggest. He was rather principled in the action he took. His resignation made the difference in terms in forcing the IPPC authorities to be honest about that part of the report. (you think they were going to anyway, however you cant explain the press conference)

So lets do a little fisking shall we?

JC, seriously can you read? Youre really demonstrating why bothering to debate someone who wont argue is good faith is pointless.

Well actually I think you cant follow an argument here, Ken as youre too emotionally attached to your views.LOL

The press conference wasnt a hoax – I never claimed it was and youre a hypocrite for blathering on about honesty and integrity while consistently misrepresenting me.

This is really funny. I was being sarcastic about the press conference being a hoax to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. You cant very well think that Trenberth et al at press conference , the final IPCC report and Landsea were all saying the same thing are you?

It was a number of scientists expressing their view. Nobody claimed that Landsea agreed with them. Nobody claimed that it was the IPCCs view.

Ah yes. As head of the IPCC he should not have done that. Moreover, as he had no expertise in that area that applies doubly so.

The press conference wasn’t a hoax – I never claimed it was and you’re a hypocrite for blathering on about honesty and integrity while consistently misrepresenting me. It was a number of scientists expressing their view. Nobody claimed that Landsea agreed with them. Nobody claimed that it was the IPCC’s view.

Read the section that you’re quoting and tell me exactly what Trenberth did that was so wrong? Publically not sharing the same views as Landsea?

If there was new information that came out, then why did the IPCC go with Landseas views?

They didn’t. Instead they wrote a balanced review which provided an overview of the research done by both sides.

heres a surprise, global warming skeptic doesnt have a clue about what they write about)

Please don’t mispresent my position.

Here, this is what Landsea resigned over. Pity I have to post it for the third time, but heopfully this time it will sink in.

Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media

If there was new information that came out, then why did the IPCC go with Landsea’s views?

Try to think about it, the IPCC accurately represented Landseas views before his resignation and after it. Making it unlikely that they had plans to misrepresent it

So you mean the press conference was a hoax?… LOL.

Thats not an attack on the IPCC report unless you think a press conference is the IPCC report. LOL.

Pay attention, I stated that you “attack the IPCC”, you’re the one who changed IPCC to IPPC report. I know that reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite but try not to mistake your strawman arguments for my arguments.

The IPCC members eventually did the right thing and accurately presented Landseas views. Pity it had to take Landseas resignation though.

Unlike you though I am not about to attack someone like Landsea and call him a sook because he considered honesty and integrity to be important.

Try to think about it, the IPCC accurately represented Landsea’s views before his resignation and after it. Making it unlikely that they had plans to misrepresent it. And if they wanted to misrepresent it, why would they ask him to author it?

Your quotations miss quite a bit of back story (here’s a surprise, global warming skeptic doesn’t have a clue about what they write about). Until recently, Landsea’s view were prevalent, however, this has started to change. Hurricanes had been observed in areas where they had never been seen before, a significant piece of research (by Kerry Emanuel) which found that hurricanes were getting stronger and lasting longer was working its way the scientific community. Some scientists, changed their minds. Landsea didn’t, Trenberth did. Rather than simply acknowledge that some scientists were changing their minds Landsea threw a sook.

If Landsea wants to be known for “honesty and integrity” he should wait for the IPCC to misrepresent him, before accusing them of it.

That’s not an attack on the IPCC report unless you think a press conference is the IPCC report. LOL.

The IPCC members eventually did the right thing and accurately presented Landsea’s views. Pity it had to take Landsea’s resignation though.

Unlike you though I am not about to attack someone like Landsea and call him a “sook” because he considered honesty and integrity to be important.

Landsea was forced to resign. In Landsea’s position I guess you would have stayed on, right?

He presumed that he work would be interfered with and threw a giant sook. Later events proved him wrong.

Oh Yea, Miles. So you dispute this:

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

And this:

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin.

Landsea is one of the worlds foremost authorities on North Atlantic storms and he sees the head of the IPCC hold a press conference contradicting his views on the subject and you would expect Landsea not to be pissed?

Was that an accurate representation as that why Chris Landsea resigned from IPCC. Remember why he resigned? He resigned because there was no evidence that AGW was contributing to bigger and more frequent storms in the north Atlantic and he refused to sign up to a document suggesting otherwise. Gore thought it was fine to make this assertion though, which is something you obviously have no problem with.

Incidentally, nobody wanted Landsea to sign anything. He was asked to write then draft IPCC section on hurricanes. He presumed that he work would be interfered with and threw a giant sook. Later events proved him wrong.

JC, I know why Landsea resigned and you have got the reason wrong.

Here’s Landsea’s open letter, Tim.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

……..

It follows on:

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.

So err, Tim, he did resign for the reasons I outlined.

No, I don’t read Bolt and I think Jackon’s economics on this subject was excellent (despite the fact that I think he was unfair on John Humphreys). That’s something you ought to get up to speed on one of these days as it would help you enormously.

Did Chris Landsea resign from the IPCC as a result of a dispute over north atlantic strom activity? Yes, he did.

Did Gore attempt to dissemble with the Katrina footage? Sure he did. You know that.

I just don’t know why you have to deny these things. Why Tim?

Not only are they low-carbon per se, they are also (in Australia) largely ‘just-in-case’; ie they would be largely used just to replenish reservoirs not to actually supply anyone with water.

Which offers an intriguing possibility: at peak consumption times, desalination could slow down or simply stop and the plant could resell its contracted-for energy into the grid.

Unfortunately it appears that most governments, and in particular NSW’s, are too scared of higher power prices and unions to consider the genuinely unregulated pricing that would support this (in addition to eg a carbon tax). This tends to support Paul’s take on political positions on global warming.

Accordingly, I expect that this could only happen if the government mandated for it, which in reality would involve a healthy dose of our paying for it. But maybe it would be worth it anyway.