This article will make your blood boil.

Michaels is such a stupid twat.  His previous blog post before the one on Irene was about the Chevy Volt.  It's just so insanely stupid, I'm kind of tempted to make it Michaels Misinformation #2. Like, he says the solar industry is in decline because one solar company in Massachusetts went bankrupt.  He says the Volt is useless for people who commute more than 50 miles per day.  Even if that were true, which it's not, that's like less than 5% of Americans.

We haven't done any posts on electric cars/plug-in hybrids as a climate solution.  Maybe this would be a good excuse.

Sorry badger, didn't mean to change the subject from Irene.  Yes, Michaels' comments on the subject were also stupid.

I can help you do an article about the Chevy Volt.

So far ten peole have posted on the comment thread to the Michaels article about Irene. All ten are highly critical.

Almost makes you feel sorry for the guy.

I drafted up a post on the Michaels Volt article.  It's in the blog post forum for review. 

but I'm sure we can expect no retraction or apology from Michaels'.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/28/c_131079478.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-28/obama-takes-command-of-hurricane-response/2858854

What a twat! Has he never heard about the Precautionary Principle for starters? Evidently not, which is why he finds climate change denial comes naturally to him!

12 comments now, none supportive. I can't be bothered creating yet another online account or there'd be 13....

Cheers - John

At least Michaels garbage doesn't reach the same number of people of Top Gear who carried out a product assassination on the electric car.

From my previous post

Talk about who killed the electric car, no wonder! They already have a metaphorical hill to climb before they will be accepted by the majority of the general public. However, Clarkson and the Motoring programme Top Gear are determined to make sure they barely get off the mark. They have also have seriously breached the BBC guidelines for fudging tests to make electric cars look worse, the excuses are pathetic.

Top Gear are already being sued by Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster’s true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), Now they have fudged the Nissan LEAFs figures as well. Nissan know this because the car has a monitoring device which transmits information. This shows the programme-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off. Moreover, the sat-nav tells them if they don’t have enough charge to reach their destination. It was also driven in loops until the battery was flat.”

When Jeremy Clarkson was challenged about this, he admitted that he knew the car had only a small charge before he set out. But, he said, “That’s how TV works”. However Clarkson's introductory words are...."to find out James & Me carried out a sensible test, no cocking about" .... "on a perfectly ordinary run to the seaside". Having a look at the electric car fiasco again (it starts after about 18 minutes for those who can view BBC iplayer)

Isn't it about time these opinionated motorheads cleaned up their act, and their cars? Will they be allowed to flaunt the BBCs guidelines, hiding behind the programmes ratings bolstered by their intellectually challenged and irresponsible viewers?

I do have to thank Perseus for the complement.

Having said which, Top Gear do need to be caned for cooking the test on the LEAF.  At a minimum they should be required to broadcast a segment having at least the same length and prominence (including in advertising) as the original segment detailing exactly how they rigged the test.

Probably time for another post on Atlantic hurricanes. I'll draft something up tomorrow. Although frequency looks like it'll diminish during the 21st century, big increases in hurricane strength and hurricane rainfall don't look too rosy.

And yes, Pat Michaels = major tosspot.  

Over at the Guardian there has been a mass-swarming of trolls on the three live update threads regarding Irene - it really has become a first calling-point for the deranged of late!

Talk about wading through glue LOL!!

Cheers - John

Latest episode of Fully Charged (Volvo diesel plug in)

http://youtu.be/XhZa3mlOI3w

Denier Pat Michaels: “It Is Doubtful That Irene Will Even Cough Up Eight Bodies”

I tipped Romm off about Michael's inane article yesterday in the comment thread to Romm's excellent post, How Does Global Warming Make Hurricanes Like Irene More Destructive?

Regarding Top Gear - I didn't think anyone took Mr Clarkson's opinions seriously, even (especially?) when it comes to cars.  TG is purely a comedy/entertainment programme based on (self-) parody of car bore/lad culture.  Having said that the main problem with the Tesla is that it is too heavy, which kills the handling in the corners.  At the moment a battery powered electric sports car doesn't make much sense.

Regarding Michaels - I didn't think anyone took Dr Michaels' opinions seriously, even (especially?) when it comes to the climate.  The Cato Institute is purely a comedy/entertainment orgabnisation based on (self-) parody of right wing libertarian culture... ;0)

Dikran Marsupial

"TG is purely a comedy/entertainment programme based on (self-) parody of car bore/lad culture."

That represents a significant part of modern culture (car bores and lads, have in impact on others, that's why people buy cars that they don't need, such as 4x4s/SUVs in an urban environment, it's aspirational). I actually had a discussion once with a woman that was convinced that Clarkson was telling the truth about a car running on sea water (he had left out the bit about using energy to produce the hydrogen). The problem is that he is intelligent enough (I hope) to understand the processes, but as a 'joke' presents it in such a way that is misleading to those with little technology/science knowledge. Its the same tactic that the tabloids use to spread misinformation. If you do it enough, many start believing it.

Dikran,

You are quite wrong about the Cato Institute. There is nothing funny about them.

Neal yes I know there is in reality nothing funny about the Cato Institute, however a lot of things that deserve to be made fun of are in reality not very funny, just ask Juvenal, or Ian Hislop.  The point I was really making was about Michaels who, through his public statements, has reduced himself to the same position of authority on the climate as Clarkson has on the subject of cars.  Thejuxtaposition of the two on the same thread amused me, but YMMV.

Paul, I'm not sure you are giving car bores the respect they deserve, they mostly find Clarkson funny, but from what I have seen (on motoring blogs) they don't take him remotely seriously.  Of course there will always be some who take TG seriously (it was at one time a serious car programme with the occasional humerous segment), but the same it true of any programme (how many take "The Da Vinci Code" as having some basis in fact for example?).

Latest death toll from Irene in the USA alone is 45, and that number could sadly increase even more.  Damage is pegged at around $10 billion-- more consistent with those expected from a cat 3 storm.  The incredible precip. is the story here, not so much the winds.

I'm at a loss of words to express my disgust at Michaels.

The obvious point here is that under estimating the danger of a hurricane will increase the death toll.  That is the logic behind Michael's argument, ie, that a 'hyped' Irene might lead to an under estimate of the danger from a future hurricane.  But it turns out, it is Irene that has been under estimated; and Michaels has contributed to that under estimation by his article.  By his logic, some of the 45 deaths in the US can be laid at his door.  Don't hold your breath for a mea culpa.

I think this would be worth a post (Michaels Mischief #3).  Michaels underestimated the dangers of Irene just like he and his fellow "skeptics" underestimate the dangers of global warming.  Throw in some science about how global warming makes hurricanes stronger on average.

Anybody want to take this post?

Well, as mentioned earlier in the thread I was going to write about Atlantic hurricanes, but I've only gotten so far as to research a dozen or so studies. More intense rainfall, more headed toward the US coast, and a huge increase of the most damaging hurricanes doesn't sound too inviting. On the flip side, there'll be less of them. 

Sounds like you're the man to do this post, Rob :-)

Rob,  I am also replying to yet more of Spencer's information here, perhaps the content of this post by me might be of some help:

"Roy,  

Can you please comment more on the possibility that tropical storms developing in an environment that typically has higher PWV can lead to more extreme  rainfall (e.g., Knutson et al. 2010, Nature)?

The big story with Irene was the exceptional rain, not so much the wind.  The ACE index does not take that important factor (i.e.m increased rainfall) associated with TCs into account.  Despite what your cohort <b>Michaels recently opined (i.e., "it is doubtful that Irene will even cough up 8 bodies")</b>, Irene has claimed at least 45 live sin the USA alone, with damages consistent with a category three storm, and on Wednesday more than 1.7 million customers remained without electricity from North Carolina to Maine.

You claim that:<i>"Claims that warming “should” or “will” cause more hurricanes are based upon theory, that’s all."</i>
Yet that is not what the latest research is suggesting, and you know it, or should at least.  The latest science suggests that there will likely be fewer but more intense tropical cyclones-- <b>Landsea and Emanuel (who have often been at odds on this issue) are in agreement on this point</b>. Here is an excellent and easily accessible overview:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/tropical-cyclones-climate-and-consensus/

There is also a part II.

And Roy is shamelessly misrepresenting what Gore said in AIC about hurricanes.  He said <i>" "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger."</i> That statement was based on research published by the much repsected Kerry Emanuel.

Also, you surprisingly ignore the following papers:
<b>Knutson et al. (2010, Nature)</b>:<i>"Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and <b>increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre</b>. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies."</i>

Bender et al. (2010, Science):<i>"The model projects nearly a <b>doubling of the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century</b>, despite a decrease in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones, when the downscaling is based on the ensemble mean of 18 global climate-change projections. The largest increase is projected to occur in the Western Atlantic, north of 20°N."</i>

OK, those are modelling studies, so what is happening on the ground?
<b>Elsner et al (2008, Nature)</b> titled "The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones" in which they find that:<i>"We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3  0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones"</i>

<b>Webster et al. (2005, Science)</b> analyzed satellite data from the past 35 yearsand found a “large increase in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching category 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the N. Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans.” <b>Hoyos et al. (2006, Science)</b> came to a similar conclusion. 

What Roy also fails to point out is that while the potential for stronger hurricanes is increasing with time because of warming oceans, that intensity will not necessarily be realized every year because of other factors such as ENSO."

There's been a lot of claims that media overhyped Irene - as part of meme to downplay risks of CC. Well just ask the folks in Vermont about that. It's too soon to have decent numbers and they'll be released with little media attention

Here's the estimate I used from a reliable source: