It is time to stop quivering in our boots in pointless fear of the future and just roll up our sleeves and build it.
- Ray Pierrehumbert

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Bill Gray says no worries

Bill Gray, the hurricane season tealeaf-reader, er, expert, says it's the oceans. Apparently it will cool off soon because cycles are like that, you know.

Fox News runs with it.

PS - In case anybody wanders by who is inclined to take this cycle business at face value, please come up with a cyclic model for this.


Fergus said...

He said this last year, too: check out his speech at the George Marshall Institute. Lots about clouds, at first, then stuff about cycles.

Here's another example of someone who people listen to, because of his reputation, and the 'Katrina' link. The voice of one Gray can overpower the voices of many lesser-known, arguably better-qualified, scientists in the public awareness.

Steve Bloom said...

Somebody (a climate scientist) should contact the AP writer and editor to at least point out out that Gray's stuff has been refuted informally (by RC, e.g.) and has not seen publication in a peer-reviewed journal because it is in essence unpublishable.

The European prediction models have long been rumored to be making their public debut this year (which I guess would have to mean this coming week), and should be a huge help in taking away Gray's public platform. Any idea what's up with those, Michael?

Anonymous said...

Here's the latest science on AGW and hurricanes:

The summary states:
The link between the frequency of tropical cyclones [hurricanes and tropical storms] and anthropogenic global warming has become an emerging focus. However, an analysis of the data shows that improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones.

Michael Tobis said...

Anonymous seems to be trying to change the subject.

This post wasn't about the tropical cyclone trend, it was about Gray's claim that current global warming is cyclic.

On that tangent, the link didn't work for me but I found the EOS publication. Its concluding sentence, conceding that trends in cyclone intensity and duration were out of the scope of the article, was interesting.