I have been meaning to add a link to the Hot Whopper blog, where Sou puts in what is now almost certainly the most detailed and comprehensive critiques of Anthony Watts and his increasingly desperate Watts Up With That blog.
As the story linked above explains, Watts unwisely chose to publish a way-too-early post along the lines of "you see, this typhoon wasn't as bad as the media made out" post.
I'm not sure if they are still updating the number of dead, but the post is one of the most embarrassing things Watts has ever published.
As David Appell and Andrew Friedman note, actual climate scientists are cautious in their comments about climate change and typhoons. But even Lomborg says it would seem the research is pointing towards possibly fewer, but stronger, typhoons in the future. Then he goes on to complain that it is immoral (!) to use this typhoon to argue for CO2 cuts, because adaptation is better! He's become a one track idiot - adaptation to 6 m storm surges in seaside towns and villages in poor countries like the Philippines or Bangladesh? Yeah, sure.
UPDATE: someone in comments wanted me to update this. You can see my response, but I will add an update after all, from a blog post that has a good discussion of why typhoons are particularly destructive and deadly in that part of the world. I thought this part was especially interesting:
There are hints that global warming may be playing a role here: One 2008 study (pdf) in Nature found that the very strongest typhoons in the northwest Pacific seem to have become somewhat more intense since 1981 — by about 20 mph, on average — as the oceans have warmed. Yet making out a clear trend in tropical cyclones over the past few decades is notoriously difficult, and attributing the strength of a single storm like Haiyan to man-made climate change is even harder.Interesting. You have to wonder whether those scientists in the "attribution wars" who always urge caution (to the point of being dismissive) on AGW contribution to an extreme weather event are actually the ones being somewhat prematurely misleading.
14 comments:
Steve, climate change deniers have no idea of what climate change means.
Every publication /I have read has said it means fewer but stronger typhoons.
how csad
care to revist this now the data is readily available?
I thought not.
How sad.
What do you want me to update, anonymous? I made no statement as to the number of dead - it was a WUWT post which started with the initial low counts of death and had to keep updating it upwards.
As to the accurate measurement of the strength of a typhoon, I would bet that precise analysis of this takes some time to compile, especially given (what I would presume is) the likelihood that some stations recording wind speed were destroyed in the process.
Hello Steve
Sort of like the MSM starting with a high number of deaths and having to count down so to speak?
There are already many data points on this event weather wise, the MSM will have to count down in that regard as well.
I will keep an eye on the blog to see if you amend ya opinion on this weather event if the facts indeed require same.
Thank you for the reply btw. I wish ya blog well.
And from ethically challenged and increasingly desperate Watts, SOme facts begin to emerge;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/deconstructing-the-hype-on-super-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#more-97356
Not definitive by any means, yet the data will prevail I suspect. This is a tragic occurence, yet the reality is, it happens.
As an aside, in ya view, is it the number of deaths that determine if this was an extreme weather event or the actual data?
Um, the mainstream media was accurately reporting estimates from the country.
Watts was leaping in, as the typhoon was barely touching land, promising that it will prove to have been "overhyped".
Not much of an comparison there.
(And incidentally, the official death toll is already over 2,000 - it would appear quite likely that the President's downwards guesstimate may end up too low.
"Um, the mainstream media was accurately reporting estimates from the country."
Really, you never saw the numers of 10,000 or 12,000 estimated deaths? Not even once?
Again - As an aside, in ya view, is it the number of deaths that determine if this was an extreme weather event or the actual data?
For the record;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/philippines-braces-for-high-death-toll-new-storm/5084700
http://www.news.com.au/world/super-typhoon-haiyan-kills-more-than-10000-in-philippines-destruction/story-fndir2ev-1226757095609
http://media.canberratimes.com.au/featured/typhoon-death-toll-estimated-at-10000-4912511.html
Plenty more of those.
BTW, I agree the numbers may increase, I think the loss of 1 life is a tragedy.
You seem to have misunderstood me - you brought up the media reporting the deaths of 10,000 and having to count downwards as if it was a case of media exaggeration.
I pointed out that it was the media accurately reporting an initial estimate from on the ground.
You mean an estimate like Watts?
Estimates, they are but that, no?
Again I ask - As an aside, in ya view, is it the number of deaths that determine if this was an extreme weather event or the actual data?
I read you washington post blog, may I offer you another view from the same source?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/12/super-typhoon-haiyan-suffering-and-the-sin-of-climate-change-denial/
Amazing.
Obviously, an extreme weather event is not merely defined by the number of dead.
It is also patently clear that this typhoon falls into the category of "extreme weather event" in terms of strength of the storm, which is also indicated by the damage caused and lives lost.
The only open question is "how extreme".
It would seem not very extreme at all Steve;
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/shock-news-the-philippines-have-always-had-typhoons/
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44204307?searchTerm=typhoon%20phillipines&searchLimits=
Extreme?No, faily normal.
Finally as you used the word unethical with regard to Watts, I did a little research.
Ya Hotwhopper link itself links to;
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/11/09/wuwt-science-denialist-blog-hits-new-historic-low/
This is the original source of commentary. You did mention ethics,so lets have a look at this the ethical behaviour of this original source :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/16/greg-laden-liar/
Pretty desperate stuff dont you think Steve, perhaps, oh, I dont know, unethical?
Anonymous, you're linking to Steve Goddard, the commentator so unreliable that even Anthony Watts stopped having him at his blog?
Anthony Watts has a history of immature petulance towards those who have criticised him.
The issue of the strength of this typhoon is a matter that not so simple, and there is little point in arguing back and forth on it (particularly citing hacks like Goddard on this) until a more detailed assessment is out.
Steve. if the facts in Goddards post are correct, does the source matter?
I dont read Goddard, however he went to the trouble of linking weather events and the Phillipines as a summary. Works for me, independant links were attached in his post for each event.
I could care less about how Watts reacts, I just want facts and data, he provides these rather than dogma.
Immature? Perhaps you could comment on the actions of Mr Laden the original source of your link. oh yes, how does Mr Laden put it...science is culture..:)
Will revisit as more information regarding this weather event is forthcoming. Watts already has most of it however, so I dont think much will change.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Post a Comment