We’ve mentioned many times the lack of major landfalling hurricanes on the USA being in a record drought. When the Atlantic hurricane season starts on June 1st, 13 days from now, it will have been (barring a miracle storm) 2,777 days since the last time an intense (that is a Category 3, 4 or 5) hurricane made landfall along the US coast (Wilma in 2005). Such a prolonged period without an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900.
![hurrdrou0613[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hurrdrou06131.jpg?quality=83)
Source: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
We’ve also routinely talked about Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) being down. You can see the downtrends on the WUWT Extreme Weather Page.
Now Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has posted an updated graph (if you can call through 2011 “updated”) that shows a significant downtrend in all tropical storms, with no discernible trend for severe tropical cyclones. They write:
Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of the equator; 90–160°E) show that the total number of cyclones appears to have decreased to the mid 1980s, and remained nearly stable since. The number of severe tropical cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) shows no clear trend over the past 40 years.
![tc-graph-1969-2012[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tc-graph-1969-20121.png?quality=75)
That’s just another inconvenient truth for those paid activist wailers who insist AGW is making the weather worse, when it actually isn’t.
h/t to Andrew Bolt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Facts! We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
I know this is against the current global warming meme…but if global warming were true, isn’t this one of the few things that the models should predict?
Given the heat dissipation effect of hurricanes and cyclones, doesn’t the fact that cooling has been taking place at the same time as the reduction in these storms make logical sense?
This is great. Good to see. The problem is that we’re in for a high impact season on the east coast U.S. this year. Imagine the press reaction to another Hurricane Carol from the 1950’s, or perish the thought, another storm like 1938. Look what they did with “superstorm sandy.” I think we ought to get out in front of that as much as possible, however we can.
Truly the right hand knowest not what the left————just last night, on the ABC we had our experts justifying the Queensland Govts. proposed disaster levy (to make us “FLOODPROOF”–LOL) with tales about bigger and more frequent cyclones.
“…2,777 days since the last time an intense (that is a Category 3, 4 or 5) hurricane made landfall along the US coast.”
Again, wrong tack imo. This is likely to end this summer, perhaps in a very big way.
Related: Despite the recent tragic tornado outbreak in Texas, the U.S. tornado count is still down significantly this year:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html
Not to say you’re wrong, but why do you think that is the case?
Rhoda R says:
May 17, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Dang, beat me to it.
http://flhurricane.com/cyclone/showflat.php?Board=tb2013&Number=94268&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&fpart=1
Still this is just the odds, and we may miss yet another year here in Florida.
The pro-carbon (sic) tax Global Warming computer models FAILED TO PREDICT A DROUGHT FREE Australia & New Zealand while carbon dioxide is 400ppm and ENSO has been in a neutral phase for over a year .
http://www.daff.gov.au/ludwig/media_office/media_releases/media_releases/2012/april/Australia-to-be-drought-free
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/nz-drought-over/4671688
This is a MAJOR climactic event.
Not a fraudulent “weather IS NOW climate” goal post shift:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html
Yet another nail in the “man made Catastrophic Global Warming” fraud.
D.J. writes: “Not to say you’re wrong, but why do you think that is the case?”
Because you live by the sword and die by it. It’s not the lack of hurricanes that’s important imo, which won’t last that’s material, but the lack of warming over the last 17 years. How can warming be causing extreme weather events, when there’s been none?
Talking about Australia, will be interesting to see what comes of this study
http://rses.anu.edu.au/highlights/view.php?article=240
“”Preliminary results from the Tasman Sea cruise show that, for the last 300 years, SSTs did not increase uniformly as predicted by the Hockey Stick curve of Mann et al., (2008) but that there are areas of unchanged SST offshore southern Queensland whereas, further south, the last 50 years saw a variety of SST changes, some going up, others going down.””
“Australian Cyclone Activity Down”.
Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
Yep – we know this, and the trend is obvious in the chart,
But if you follow the link, you find that it is contradicted:
“… substantial evidence … theory and model experiments … changing as a result of greenhouse warming … “. The same old talking heads stuff …
@ur momisugly Pedantic old Fart:
” …Queensland Govts. proposed disaster levy … ”
I used to work for the minister concerned, so hopefully he will recognise the name, and at least read a submission I sent in regarding alleged SLR and cyclone intensity. The Minister is a “new kid on the block”, but seems to be acquiring the rudiments of wisdom.
Unfortunately, the measure is overdue as a result of 150+ years of building settlements in silly places. Nothing to do with all the AGW/CC flim-flam.
My submission has now reached the desk of the deputy premier. One submission of 6 pages doesn’t pack much weight. Literally. The file/folder (physical or electronic) needs to get a lot thicker.
pokerguy says:
May 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm
“This is great. Good to see. The problem is that we’re in for a high impact season on the east coast U.S. this year. Imagine the press reaction to another Hurricane Carol from the 1950’s,…”
I’m with pokerguy on this. I’ve put out the same warning in earlier posts on hurricane activity. The 1950s is 60 years away and took place in during a cool spell like that developing now. I think we shouldn’t be complacent and simply pooh pooh the failure. Can’t we find a hurricane guy out there that can make this connection and write an article here that anticipates a strong hurricane season to take the wind out of the desperate AGW sails (and complacent sceptic’s). Maybe Willis will take it on? or Ryan Maue.
If not, a big coup is coming from the AGW proponents who have been suffering and grasping at straws for a decade and a big hurricane will result in another generation of disaster enthusiasts in institutions, media and a return of a recently disaffected public – a new, tougher job for sceptics whose protestations that this is what should be expected will sound mealy-mouthed and hollow. The hurricanes are coming along with the cooling.
Considering air temperatures have maintained the highest levels in the last 150 years, and North Atlantic water temperatures continue to climb, and that water has a much greater ability to conduct/absorb energy than does air, I think that the old “17 year hypothesis” is null and void. The fact is, more energy is being absorbed now than has been in the past and that should be the greatest concern.
I am pretty sure this is one of the very few pieces of real data that is supportive of the AGW theory. But fewer strong storms and warmer winter and night time temperatures in arctic regions isn’t scarry enough so the warmers just ignore the actual theory.
Gary Pearse says (May 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm): “The hurricanes are coming along with the cooling.”
Wouldn’t that make it pretty hard to sell the hurricanes as a consequence of warming?
Where are these warmer winters? Most Northern latitudes have been very cold.
With non-severe cyclones trending down, and severe cyclones trending flat, there is only one possible headline: “CLIMATE CHANGE IS INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE OF CYCLONES THAT ARE SEVERE.”
It’s worse than we though. (TM)
O.K. Now we have Australian and US tropical storms down. Fewer tornadoes. Still plenty of the world for all this unprecedented extreme weather (TM) to destroy. Where isn’t it going to strike next?
Concerning the Texas Tornadoes, I don’t live too far from where they hit, and they were tragic. But I can sum up the attitude of just about everyone who lives here, for those who may not know: Hey, this is Texas. We get tornadoes – always have, always will. It bites, but that’s the way it is,
wws says:
May 17, 2013 at 8:02 pm
I hear you, wws.
Now, apparently, the upper midwest is poised for some severe weather this weekend. If there is a tornado outbreak, I can bet you that the CAGW advocates will be out in force taking advantage of the weather tragedies to advance their agenda. Just watch…
Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
That’s just another inconvenient truth for those paid activist wailers who insist AGW is making the weather worse, when it actually isn’t.
Added to the WUWT Extreme Weather Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
@Old woman of the north
“Given the heat dissipation effect of hurricanes and cyclones, doesn’t the fact that cooling has been taking place at the same time as the reduction in these storms make logical sense?”
I think this is an important question. The idea was (according to AGW) that ‘increasing the total energy in the system’ (which is correctly called the ‘enthalpy’) would make the storms ‘stronger’ and ‘more damaging’. One of the proofs this is not true is the fact there are far more massive and powerful storms on planets that are FAR colder than Earth.
The deliverable energy of a system is not related to the enthalpy. It is related to the difference between two energy ‘regions’ and the amount of energy you can dissipate from the ‘higher one’ to the ‘lower one’. One useful way to think of this is to consider two wood stoves side by side, with one being fed more fuel than the other. Both stoves emit lots of heat, but the hotter one heats the cooler one. Reverse the fueling rates and the heat flows the other way.
Now consider what happens if both stoves are fed the ‘high fuel’ rate. They have no net effect on each other, they are both much hotter but between them there is equilibrium because there is no net heat gain by one from the other.
Increasing the energy content of a ‘storm’ is only meaningful if the surrounding region remains cooler. If you raise the energy of the entire system within which the storm operates (GW), the energy it can deliver is not higher than it was before unless there is an additional change in a parameter.
One parameter is the rate at which a storm system can vent heat into the ultimate absorber, space. A hotter storm is more effective at getting heat high into the atmosphere by convection than a less powerful storm. So if the whole system heats, a storm within it is more effective at getting that heat into space, but not more effective at transferring energy to the surrounding low level region because it is also warmer. There is a change in the relationship between the hotter storm and a fixed (very low) temperature in space. There is no change in the temperature difference between the hotter storm and the hotter local environment next to it.
For this reason, it is not true that warming the whole system creates ‘more powerful storms’ in the sense that the storm can ‘deliver more damage’ even though it is quite true that there is an increase in the enthalpy. This has been shown by analysis of the damage records during the past 40 years, factored for the increase in the $ value of the systems at risk. In very brief, the whole system, as extremes are moderated (warming poles, constant tropics) is less and less able to deliver damaging effects from natural weather events. The converse is also true. Stronger temperature gradients permit higher wind speeds (etc).
If someone replies that ‘warming is regional therefore the danger increase’ then by definition is it not global. Regional warming is caused by oceans. That takes us to the work of Bob Tisdale and there I defer to the bumper.