Increased hurricanes to global warming link: blown away

From the “we told you so” department:

Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming’s wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues “against the notion that we’ve already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming.”

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

The complete story is here.

This echoes what I reported on April 11th 2008 about Emanuel’s findings as well as what I reported on February 21st 2008 from Roger Pielke Jr. and Chris Landsea at the National Hurricane Center.

Three prominent researchers agree, two have reversed positions. This I think it is safe to declare the “Increased hurricanes to global warming link” as DEAD.


So two questions remain:

1) Will Al Gore issue a retraction or correction to his movie and claims of a GW to hurricane link?

2) Will the American Meteorological Society abandon their draft policy statement which links Hurricane Katrina and climate?

It would be irresponsible for either Gore or AMS not to acknowledge this sea change in the realization that there is no linkage between global warming and increased hurricane frequency.

Dr. Bill Gray must be a happy man today.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 19, 2008 11:25 am

Dr. William Gray has pointed out the absence of a “valid physical theory as to why hurricane frequency or intensity would necessarily be altered significantly” by the projected rise in temperatures.
The model that prompted this article is apparently an attempt to show whether there is any such theory to be found — and it indicates the opposite of the AGW fans’ warnings. I wonder if Gray would agree with a model that shows a decrease in storms after warming.

Frank Ravizza
May 19, 2008 11:34 am

How about an apology to Bill Gray from Hillary Clinton?

May 19, 2008 11:35 am

Really! An 18% decrease in 92 years. Can we extrapolate to the end of the millennium. Such precise forecasting, I’m so impressed…not! Just think, all this hard work is being done on the taxpayer’s dollar.

May 19, 2008 11:38 am

“I think it is safe to declare the “Increased hurricanes to global warming link” as DEAD.”
What I think you mean is that the science behind the idea that there is no link between ‘global warming’ and increased Hurricane intensity is now settled science and is reflective of the ‘consensus science. Henceforth anyone espousing the opposite view shall be named a ‘denier’ and shall be subjected to public ridicule and ad hominem attack 🙂

Joe S
May 19, 2008 11:40 am

Oh, my!

Pierre Gosselin
May 19, 2008 11:43 am

Thanks for posting this. This yet another milestone that is bringing the AGW house of cards crumbling down.
According to one German website, the real climate change is now taking place IN THE MEDIA!
Many of the listed links are in English. It’s a respectable compilation.

Pierre Gosselin
May 19, 2008 11:50 am

Are scientists now beginning to defect the AGW rogue state?
Maybe some experts see more cooling in the pipeline than we do.

Pierre Gosselin
May 19, 2008 11:53 am

You can almost start to list the defectors:
1. Kerry Emmanuel
2. Mojib Latif
3. and now Tom Knutson
I know…I’m being premature.

May 19, 2008 11:56 am

RealClimate managed to post on the story already on Sunday.
Maybe a sign of panic over there, judging from their sudden enthusiasm for debunking studies in Nature.

May 19, 2008 12:00 pm

What I believe is hilarious is the fact that now they are saying that “global warming” will reduce the number of storms. Uhm, so I guess at this point it is safe to say that 2008 is going to have a larger number of storms, right?

Mike from Canmore
May 19, 2008 12:11 pm

To answer your 2 questions: No and Almost for suredly N0.

May 19, 2008 12:12 pm

Anthony, this will be retroactively fitted into Mr. Hansens model to prove they actually predicted that AGW would cause a decrease in Hurricane activity. “Oh what a tangled web we weave”…..

May 19, 2008 12:16 pm

Sorry to disagree with you here, Anthony, but this isn’t going to kill it. Environmentalists will never let one of the cornerstones of their argument just disappear without a trace.
They’ll keep whistling like this never happened, schools will keep showing Gore’s sci-fi flick, and the media will continue to reference it as fact.
Inevitably, another study will pop up in the next few months that claims Knutson’s study is wrong. And then they’ll keep right on teaching it as fact to the next generation.
They’re relentless. The study that will refute this one was already funded & probably began as soon as this study was released by the AP over the weekend. They’ll start at the solution they want & work their way backwards. And those who don’t follow this on a daily basis will be none the wiser.

Mike Smith
May 19, 2008 12:42 pm

“How about an apology to Bill Gray from Hillary Clinton?”
And from Judy Curry.

Dave Andrews
May 19, 2008 12:55 pm

On a deeper level both this and Emmanuel’s paper could just be highlighting that no matter how refined you make the models they still can’t tell you much about the real world.

Evan Jones
May 19, 2008 1:19 pm

Gore’s sci-fi flick
All the weaknesses of Silent Running, yet none of the strengths . . .

Evan Jones
May 19, 2008 1:31 pm

Really! An 18% decrease in 92 years.
Well, you have to consider the fact that they record every storm nowadays and missed somewhere around half in 1900 . . .
Oh what a tangled web we weave
Oh, wherefore art thou, thy distrust, when thrice we practice to adjust?

Vic Sage
May 19, 2008 1:39 pm

On a deeper level both this and Emmanuel’s paper could just be highlighting that no matter how refined you make the models they still can’t tell you much about the real world.
Which is why the models need to be validated. There is a lot of time and money being spent and we have no idea if we are just “grinding smoke.”

David S
May 19, 2008 1:57 pm

I was thinking that the answer to both questions would be; “When hell freezes over.” But then it occurred to me that hell might freeze over. So I guess the answer to both questions would be a simple NO.

Franz DiVinettucci
May 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Al Gore and AGW apostles are trying their best to enact Goebbles’ political philosophy:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”-Joseph Goebbels

May 19, 2008 2:51 pm

Well, the tropics (like the globe) has been cooling since 2002. Maybe that was the reason for Katrina.

Robert S
May 19, 2008 2:51 pm

I think it has been speculated that hurricane frequency would decrease for some time now. I believe the IPCC even mentioned it:
“Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period.”
This new study just adds to the evidence that frequency will decrease.
On the intensity front, Emanuel mentioned this:
“A new technique for deriving hurricane climatologies from global data, applied to climate models, indicates that global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes, though their intensity may increase in some locations.”
In other news, an article titled “Are Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Really Increasing in Number, Intensity?” was in the April edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Here are a few quotes pulled out by Craig James over at his blog:
“it is improbable that the number of tropical cyclones has increased since 1966.”… “In addition, the rate at which storms become hurricanes appears to have decreased”. Also, “little evidence is found that mean individual storm intensity has changed, although the variability of intensity has certainly increased. This increase is probably due to changes and improvements of intensity measurements through time..”

May 19, 2008 2:51 pm

They should throw out all climate models and get back to meteorology (+days at best accurate forecasting), except for seasonal temps of course. Because this study is a model, in my view its not credible even if its goes skeptics way. Also artic ice ain’t melting as agw’ers would like, temps are still going down and staying down….(400, 600 and 900 mb)

Russ R.
May 19, 2008 3:01 pm

There are very good reasons why a warmer world would have less storms and less severe storms. The polar regions would warm much more than the tropical regions, meaning there would be less temperature difference between the equator and the poles. This means a shallow temperature gradient, which is the engine that drives the large low pressure systems that turn into large tropical storms. That is what his model is telling him. It is a simple concept, unless you already have your mind made up, and you discard anything that disagrees with your pre-supposion. Could it be some actual science is breaking out, in the AGW theory support network?
I don’t think we will have to worry about it anyway. We might see stronger storms from a cooler climate. I am sure they will find a way to blame that on “climate change”.
It is fun to watch the climate forecasters get in the mud and argue. It reminds me of the three blind men arguing over what an elephant looks like.

May 19, 2008 3:04 pm

Pardon me if I’m wrong, but the biggest hurricane we know of is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter where, if I understand correctly, it’s DAMN COLD.

May 19, 2008 3:45 pm

Let’s assume there is a link.
Ok, we have two alternate worlds with two identical villages, the exception being that Village A has only and income tax and produces greenhouse gasses. Village B has a combination of income tax and greenhouse gas emissions taxes. Village Bs tax system implemented in a way that completely eliminates greenhouse gas emission, but has no effects on its ability to meet the material need of its population; i.e., the villages have the same GDP and population growth rates.
Both populations start with 2000 people.
The population growth rate is 1.3% for both villages.
The GDP growth rate is 4% for both villages.
30% of both populations have IQs sufficient to perform higher level work requiring a college degree, and do so.
Lets say Village A has a .01 chance of a 100 year storm hitting which will kill .05 of the population and destroy .05 of the economy every year. Due to its greenhouse gas emission, Village B has a .011 change of being hit by a 100 year storm. Various engineering projects are available that will reduce deaths and destruction .005. These projects require 100 civil, environmental, or marine engineers to start.
Assuming a hundred year storm absolutely will not happen until at least 100 years from now, which village is at greatest risk from a hundred year storm? Why?

Bill in Vigo
May 19, 2008 6:46 pm

This is a little OT But.
Has any one checked out the United States Climate summary? It seems that they are using the adjusted GISS temps that still show that 1998 is warmer than 1934 by a substantial margin. It is very good grafting but the bias seems to still be there. I am just eye balling with a straight edge but what a mess. It seems a case of making the historical temps cooler so that the modern temps look warmer.
Some one else look and tell me if I am incorrect.
Bill Derryberry

May 19, 2008 8:13 pm

This good news. Hurricanes, at least Atlantic hurricanes offer a dramatic but very filthy climate signal. El Ninos bringing wind shear, African dust that allows the sun to heat air instead of the seas surface, and other factors mask whatever signal may be lurking in the data.
When Kerry Emanuel got a lot of press for his initial claims that global warming would bring stronger storms, it was clear to me he wasn’t paying attention to what isn’t small stuff.
The Real Climate folks do have some good points about the models’ limits, but there was no reason that this or any future paper in the next while or two will settle the issues.
It is a good step towards giving up on using hurricanes as an indicator of warming.
They shouldn’t be in Gore’s movie.
My guess is that Gray won’t put much credence in this paper. He’s such a confirmed empiricist that if he can’t find signal in a few parameters, he’s not going to trust a model that cannot reflect reality. If the models suggest areas where small changes impact hurricane dynamics, then he’d be interested – in checking historical data to see if the same thing happens in real life.
One of the RC comments was that models have trouble simulating the ITCZ (Intra Tropical Convergence Zone). That strikes me as something that ought to be easy, perhaps the exact location is the hard part.
1″ of snow in parts of Vermont today. My high was 58° (more than 10 degrees below average), 23° on top of Mt Washington. Chilly!

May 19, 2008 9:34 pm

Al Gore retract? Are you kidding? He has blamed the Tropical Cyclone that devastated Burma on global warming. The man has no conscience or morals.

May 19, 2008 9:52 pm

Bill in Vigo (18:46:32) :
“Has any one checked out the United States Climate summary? It seems that they are using the adjusted GISS temps that still show that 1998 is warmer than 1934 by a substantial margin.”
Did you see the pulldown menu above the graph? I had it display the annual data and it reported that 1998 ranked 113 (warmest?)
Annual 1998: 54.99 degF   Rank: 113
Annual 1934: 54.93 degF   Rank: 112
Annual 2006: 54.91 degF   Rank: 111
If you type Ctrl-U (or whatever it takes for your browser to display the raw HTML, then you can cut & paste data from the pulldown.

Pierre Gosselin
May 19, 2008 11:50 pm

Ric Werme,
Are you from Vermont?
So am I!

May 20, 2008 3:19 am

Please, please! Just what on Earth (or off it!) are ‘warmer’ temperatures and ‘colder’ temperatures? And is that big photograph behind Al Gore obtained from a camera behind him on the floor pointing up?

May 20, 2008 4:33 am

This does not cantradict the IPCC models and is in agrement with their projections….

May 20, 2008 5:12 am

Pierre Gosselin (23:50:2-) :
“Ric Werme,
Are you from Vermont?
So am I!”
You asked me that a several threads ago, I forget which one. I had the Old man of the Mountain. I’m next door in NH. Mt Washington (which claims to be home to the world’s worst) has had a little snow too. And METAR reports say snow showers, light & steady snow, and for the last ten hours blowing and drifting snow with steady winds around 50-60 knots and temps in the low 20s. What a cool place!
In a more human account, notes “Glaze ice formed consistently 2 or 3 inches an hour, creating an impressive display 3 to 4 feet deep on a pole directly outside the parapet door through the duration of the night. Glaze ice of this degree required going out every hour to deice. This in turn gave me the opportunity to become intimate with the Pitot Pole, the pole which holds our Pitot static-tube anemometer, after a 92 mph gust thrust me into it.”

Michael Searcy
May 20, 2008 5:53 am

It would be irresponsible for…Gore…not to acknowledge this sea change in the realization that there is no linkage between global warming and increased hurricane frequency.The problem with Gore retracting the claim is that he never made it, at least not in the film. Here’s the transcript of the relevant section.

Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books….And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you’ll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane’s eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
How in god’s name could that happen here? There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger.

I see specific references to warmer waters leading to stronger hurricanes, but I see no specific claim that global warming leads to more frequent hurricanes.
When the conditions are favorable, the development of more hurricanes may not be surprising such as the Japanese typhoon situation mentioned, but Gore never claims on ongoing trend in increased frequency, once again, at least not in the film.
The crux of his message is summed in the statement, “As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases,” and this latest study reinforces this conclusion.
While I can appreciate the desire to demonize Gore, manufacturing claims in order to debunk them is a stretch.
Now, if he has made such claims outside of the film, by all means, let him have it.

May 20, 2008 6:31 am

The Realclimate comments are absolutely hysterical. “I had taken the hurricane slides out of my global warming presentation, but I’m going to put them right back in after reading this. Thanks!”
I have never seen a more sycophantic group than that. Hysterical and sad at the same time.
It has been a bad year for the warmies.

May 20, 2008 9:04 am

Michael, the almighty IPCC has decalerd it so:
“Frequency: According to the IPCC-AR4, on a global scale, “[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones.” As discussed above, however, the frequency of tropical storms has increased dramatically in the North Atlantic. Reasons for this increase are currently subject to intense debate among climate scientists. At least two recent peer-reviewed scientific studies indicate a significant statistical link between the increased frequency and global warming, but research to identify a mechanism explaining this link is ongoing.”
I believe this study comprehensively debunks this link.

May 20, 2008 9:27 am

Doh! I noticed that is switch A and B in the second part of my question. A has a .011 probability of being hit and B has a .01.
Alternately, rather than having no storm hit for 100 years, the probability for village A could simply increase after 100 years. That way the expected cost of a storm can be calculated for every year and a running total can be kept. This will show that for A, the total cost of storms will alway be the same or lower than B.
The reason is Accountants:Engineers. In order to meet the criteria of same GDP growth, Village B must get it’s additional accountant from the pool of risk mitigating engineers.
You can compare the relevant populations in the US here: Accountants:Engineers. You can see that the needed accountant/auditors would be far larger than the risk mitigating engineers (only certain types of engineers are relevant, and still only a small percentage of them).

GR Mead
May 20, 2008 10:31 am

It just goes to show that the only model worth a damn is located in the gray squishy stuff between the ears of someone who has carefully and critically absorbed a large mass of longitudinal data across a broad range of sources.
William Gray, as a preeminent example …
There is no substitute for actual time spent actually grinding on actual data to finer and finer grits. If an internal pattern exists in the data — that form of polishing will reveal it, and virtually nothing else will — which is what a computer model is — “virtually nothing.”

Gerald Machnee
May 20, 2008 11:00 am

Michael Searcy – Now go and check the script to see if Gore says the water or air temperatures are increasing due to global warming.

Gerald Machnee
May 20, 2008 11:03 am

Gore sees fit to note the hurricane off Brazil. Yes, it occurred when the temperatures were BELOW normal. I do not believe the text books say impossible, may rare. One of the reasons for rare reports is the lack of ships.

Evan Jones
May 20, 2008 12:28 pm

Some one else look and tell me if I am incorrect.
It checked out okay to me.
Did you use annual temperatures? The default was January, which did show 1998 as much warmer.

Evan Jones
May 20, 2008 12:42 pm

No, wait, you are right. I looked at the rankings. NOAA has 1998 as warmest year for US (by a little).
But they don’t give a world graph, at least not anymore (which had 2005 as warmest year).

Nick Stokes
May 20, 2008 2:51 pm

Look again with more care at your quote:
‘According to the IPCC-AR4, on a global scale, “[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones.”’
The rest is someone else arguing with them. You will have to look a lot harder to find the IPCC asserting that AGW causes more frequent hurricanes. You won’t succeed.

Nick Stokes
May 20, 2008 3:27 pm


This echoes what I reported on April 11th 2008 about Emanuel’s findings as well as what I reported on February 21st 2008 from Roger Pielke Jr. and Chris Landsea at the National Hurricane Center.
Three prominent researchers agree, two have reversed positions.

Not so much. Here’s Emanuel:

MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion “demonstrably wrong” based on a computer model that doesn’t look properly at storms.

And here is a report of a debate last week between Emanuel and Chris Landsea. I don’t think Emanuel is as converted as you said he was.
I don’t think you’ll find the IPCC asserting anywhere that hurricanes would increase in frequency. In fact, from the AR4 FAQ 10.1

Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally due to the increased stability of the tropical troposphere in a warmer climate, characterised by fewer weak storms and greater numbers of intense storms. A number of modelling studies have also projected a general tendency for more intense but fewer storms outside the tropics, with a tendency towards more extreme wind events and higher ocean waves in several regions in association with those deepened cyclones.

May 20, 2008 8:00 pm

I remember reading about the chances for increased shearing winds just after Katrina. If forget if it was Landsea or Gray who mentioned it then, but having grown up in Miami the effects of upper-level shear is legendary to old hurricane watchers. Pray for shear….
Gore, fool that he is, cited on NPR two weeks ago the cyclone that hit Burma as some kind of harbinger of more to come (invoking his usual trope of the horrors of AGW), even though the seas in the Indian Ocean have been cooling for some time now.
Here in the USA, we have more and more tropical storms listed in the Atlantic Basin every year because more tropical depressions are being named, small, short-lived disturbances that would never have been named 20 – 30 years ago. The old-timers know this.
It’s like increased tornado detection due to the advent of doplar radar, increased lightning strike detection due to satellite sensing, and increased sunspot detection of “Tiny Tims” due to new satellite technology. Take those with the classic case of formerly suburban weather stations now surrounded by urban heat islands.
As detection technology improves and standards expand we are suffering from standard inflation (ala grade inflation). Rather than applying historical trend adjustments in a good, sensible way, the field instead lacks a consistent standard by which it normalizes data for historical trend analysis.
Without some sense of what the old standards were and how the new detection methods differ, all the trend metrics are going to go up, up, up! The result should be obvious to anyone, that current trend analyses may be completely misleading, in terms of risk assessment and climate modeling.
So when climatologists anticorrelate historical sunspot counts against climate, they are using the worst metric possible. The 10.7 cm flux from ionosphere measurements is a better metric, but it’s historic value is limited where it can be only roughly imputed from Wolf #’s & SSn.
There’s a difference between wisdom, knowledge and information. But when the information itself is apples and oranges, what we have is garbage data.

May 21, 2008 5:18 am

Nick, I think you may want to review Chis Landsea’s resignation letter found here:
I’ll quote for you:
“Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.”
So you can sell the notion that the IPCC doesn’t claim it, but I’m not buying it…

Nick Stokes
May 21, 2008 3:50 pm

Again you offer a quote which just isn’t saying what you want it to say. Landsea is complaining not about the IPCC but “a scientist”. And why? Because he is saying something “which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR“.

May 22, 2008 9:50 am

[…] in time to coincide with recent pronouncements of no link between global warming and hurricane frequency, thus just […]

(Gary G) Otter
May 22, 2008 11:08 am

‘I don’t think you’ll find the IPCC asserting anywhere that hurricanes would increase in frequency. In fact, from the AR4 FAQ 10.1’ ~ Stokes
Just curious… but why did it take them until the fourth report, over a period of 20 + years, to tell us that ‘some’ computer models agree with what Dr Gray told us ten years ago?

Nick Stokes
May 22, 2008 3:50 pm

Gary, I did say “anywhere”. I don’t think the IPCC has ever predicted a significant increase in frequency. There was a box (10.2)in the 2001 TAR on the subject:

In an early use of a high-resolution AGCM, a T106 ECHAM3 experiment simulated a decrease in tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere and a reduction of 50% in the Southern Hemisphere (Bengtsson et al., 1996, 1997). However, the different hemispheric responses raised questions about the model’s ability to properly represent tropical cyclones and methodological concerns about the experimental design were raised (Landsea, 1997). In a similar experiment, the JMA model also simulated fewer tropical cyclone-like vortices in both hemispheres (Yoshimura et al., 1999). Other GCM studies have shown consistent basin-dependent changes in tropical cyclone formation under 2xCO2 conditions (Royer et al., 1998; Tsutsui et al., 1999). Frequencies increased in the north-west Pacific, decreased in the North Atlantic, and changed little in the south-west Pacific.

(Gary G) Otter
May 23, 2008 2:56 pm

Thatr still begs the question: Dr. Gary told us rightly ten years ago that this would be the case. Why did we have to put up with ten years of worthless hype? Almost sounds like the ipcc was trying to sell us a bill of goods.

June 12, 2008 6:53 am

[…] human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf […]

Pamela Gray
June 12, 2008 7:16 am

Before global warming, it was your mother that caused your ingrown toenail and all that. In fact, I kinda like this turn of events. When my children start blaming me for their failed attempts at an independent life and want to come back home, I can tell them its the fault of GW and to write to Al Gore for lunch money.

July 16, 2008 7:55 pm

[…] human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes,  hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not,  hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, ice shelf […]

July 22, 2008 10:14 am

[…] more evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes. As the normal scientific process continues to evolve and models […]

July 26, 2008 12:27 pm

[…] more evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes.                    […]

August 19, 2008 11:50 am

[…] Katrina, long the poster child for climate change, yet several studies have shown that there is no trend linking global warming to increased hurricane activity. Thus naming specific storms as linked to climate change is just not supportable. Senator (and […]

August 30, 2008 2:35 pm

[…] but it is important to note that NHC’s own science officer, Christopher Landsea, co-authored a paper that claims otherwise. So have other […]

Bob Moss
August 31, 2008 5:44 am

The Weather Channel has a new clip they are running which blames slow moving TC Fay on global warming. They also show in the clip a global temperature graph which of course leaves off the recent dramatic downturn in temperature. The clip entitled “What’s Causing This Wild Weather?” can be viewed at
You can send responses to the Weather Channel at
Here is mine:
You just had a cute demo with a squeeze toy on your TV channel about the current year’s weather and how global warming is creating high pressure systems that are bringing both cold weather events to certain areas and stalling out low pressure systems such as TC Fay.
If you check ANY and ALL sources for the GLOBAL temperature of the current year (2008) you will find that the GLOBAL temperature has cooled to the SAME LEVEL as it was 20 YEARS AGO before all the global warming hysteria started.
Leaving aside the question of how much warming can be attributed to anthropogenic sources there is one thing that is beyond question. That is that the current weather is NOT due to GLOBAL warming because the GLOBE has cooled off to the level it was when James Hansen and Al Gore first began their campaign. In fact when James Hansen had his 20 year anniversary press conference this spring the GLOBAL temperature according to HIS OWN NUMBERS (NASA GISS) was LOWER than it was when he first made his dire predictions 20 years ago.

Willie Mcdomald
January 13, 2009 8:27 am

Report The Truth about Global Warming-Armageddon apocalypse
In the future the only thing to eat will be other people
By Willie J McDonald
Non Fiction
Armageddon apocalypse and global warming are one in the same Global Warming Armageddon and apocalypse what ever you want to call it can be stopped Please read this report In the name of God the world must listen to me before its too late Please do not trust the US government in this matter. Unlike the US government I don’t have any conflict of interest Im an expert on the subject of global warming The American governmental scientists are knowingly lying to the world about global warming Telling the world green house gases are causing global warming so the oil companies can continue to pump crude oil The truth will cause a world wide economic collapse but the alternative is far worse The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is decaying in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun, and the moons obit around the earth is decaying Its moving away from the earth at 4cm each year Two leap seconds had to be added to the atomic clock, because the earths rotation has decrease in speed Some scientists are saying the days will increase from 24 hours to 25 hours in a day This is due to the suns light and rays covering more and more of the earths surface and thats due to the earth moving closer to it. Unfortunately these trends will continue to worsen. Ive studied this phenomenon since July-1983 warning people of the coming destruction and death People called me crazy at first I understand the weather was normal at that time but now the weather is beginning to support my findings December 2007 Houston Texas is experiencing warm sunny winters a record high of 81degrees Eventually Houstons winters will completely disappear as time goes on
Houston, Texas (latitude- 29.75 north/ longitude-95.36) is the perfect place to observe global warming, what’s occurring in Houston in the winter will occur with other country in Houston’s latitude-29.75 north, and 29.75 south of the equator during both of their prospective winter. South Africa: 29 degrees south is experiencing warmer, than usual winters, and tornadoes in winter, which is very unusual for that region. Houston’s winters are being replaced by warm sunny days, and that not normal for Houston, Texas. The sun is over the southern hemisphere now, and in the past the sun’s direct, and peripheral heat, and rays stayed within the southern hemisphere, away from the equator, and the outer edges of the polar ice caps. The sun is thousands of times larger, than earth. The earth has moved, so close to the sun that it’s peripheral rays, and heat has spread over the equator from the southern hemisphere to the southern part of the northern hemisphere, where Houston, Texas is located, and the sun’s peripheral heat, and rays has spread over the outer edges of the south pole, and is melting the ice. The same thing will occur, when the sun reaches the northern hemisphere. The peripheral heat and rays will spread over the equator, and heat the northern part of the southern hemisphere, and melt the ice on the outer edges of the North Pole, Just ask the governments of Greenland, Iceland, and the city of Alaska-USA about their melting ice packs. Talk to the people of Venice Italy about their rising ocean.
1 of 5
This trend will continue, until all the ice in both polar ice caps is melted, and until winter no longer exist in both hemispheres, back, and forth melting one polar ice cap at a time. The ice is melting faster in the summer months, faster than it can reform (build up ) in the winter months. There is enough ice in both polar ice caps to flood 95% of the existing land mass of this planet. The warmer the winters, the hotter the summers. The direct heat, and rays from the sun will intensify as the earth move closer, that’s the area of the earth the sun is stationed directly over. I grew up in Houston, Texas. I remember the hottest part of the day use to be 12:00 noon, now its 5:00 o’clock in the after noon.
This is more evidence of earth’s orbit is decaying. December- 2007: The thunderstorms, and floods that occurred in the States of Oregon, And Washington State (latitude: 45-49 degree N.)was suppose to by a snowstorm, after all its winter, but the atmosphere was too warm to support a snowstorm, so a thunderstorm was created instead, the flooding was extraordinary. January-2008 tornadoes touch down in the mid-west of America, causing death, and destruction in the millions of dollars. Febrary-2008 many tornadoes touched down, and killed dozens of people.
The only different between a snow storms, and a thunderstorms is the temperature of the upper atmosphere. The position of the sun to the earth determines the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This is the type of weather that will dominate in the future, floods, and tornados during the winter months, when these storms are not suppose to develop. The weather will go from one extreme to the other, from flooding to droughts in various parts of the United States, and the world. Food production will gradually come to a halt, because of the weather. As I said in the past global warming has nothing to do with C02 gases, R-12 gases, CFC gases, a hole in the ozone, the sun going nova, methane gases leaking from the ocean’s floor, or green house gases, as you will see in the future. Global warming will not be reverse by ridding the atmosphere of these gases.
Some of these gases have polluted the atmosphere since the industrial revolution in America, and Europe. In the early 20th century, before emission devices were installed on automobiles, and trucks the air in many cities was, so polluted it blotted out the sun, And cause breathing problems. There was no global temperature increase during this time period. Global warming is in its beginning stages, and will gradually get worse. It will not occur over night, and the winters will diminish gradually, over the decades. June-1978: I went to the mountains of Big Bear, California. As I looked down the city of Los Angles, California. The greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, trucks, and industrial activity was, so bad a very noticeable thick haze formed reducing visibility by 30%.There was no noticeable spike in temperature in Los Angeles, California, during that period. Carbon dioxide is poisonous to all mammals, including humans. If the levels of C02 gases are, so high why there haven’t been reports of carbon dioxide poisonings, such conditions require hospitalization. The reason the earth is moving closer to the sun the molten core of this planet is cooling, because it’s not getting enough crude oil (fuel).
2 0f 5
The oil companies drill into an oil well to extract the crude oil. These oil wells are actually self- pressurizing fuel cells, and over time the crude oil extraction process used by the oil companies releases the pressures needed to force the oil into the outer core. All oil wells (self pressurizing fuel cells) must be capped off, and the pressure within them brought back to normal, so the crude oil can be forced into the outer core. This will raise the temperature in the core, and strengthen the earth’s magnetic field, and push the earth away from the sun. The higher the temperature in the core the stronger the earth’s magnetic field, and the cooler the temperature in the core, the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The core is cooling, because it’s not getting the fuel (crude oil) it once did, before man discovered crude oil, and new uses for it.
Everything that generates energy, or expends energy needs fuel, and the earth isn’t any different from any other machine. People, and animals derive their energy from food, plants derive their energy from water, and sun light, automobiles from gasoline (a crude oil derivative), and thunderstorm, snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes derive their energy from electro-magnetic energy generated by the earth itself, these storms are electro- magnetic phenomenon. The earth (a machine) generates a magnetic energy field from the inner core, and it is derived its energy from combustion of crude oil in its outer core. I was told by other scientist there’s not enough oxygen in the core for crude oil, and/or its components to combust. This is not true, the earth’s core residual temperature is between 5000 to 7000 degrees Celsius, and that’s hot enough to melt steel, and its hot enough to combust crude oil, and its components, come in contact with the core, inspite of the lack of oxygen in the core. Besides one of the components of crude oil is oxygen.
This is no time to be superstitious, global warming (the apocalypse) has nothing to with the wrath of God, it is cause by the ignorance of man. The oil extraction process used by the oil companies are compromising this planet’s fuel system. People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it’s invisible, and silent. The magnetic field holds people, object, and the oceans to the surface of earth. It keeps the air we breathe from escaping into space. It protects life on this planet from the harshness, vacuum, poisonous gases, and radiation of the surrounding universe. It protects life on the surface of this planet from sun flares, and it locks the earth in orbit around the sun, locks the moon in orbit around the earth, and keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun, and moon. Contrary to popular belief the electro- magnetic energy in thunderstorms, winter storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes, etc. are not generated by sunspots, neither, sun flares, nor energy from deep space striking the earth’s magnetic field. The energy in these storms are generated by the earth magnetic field. The earth acts as a generator’s armature. The sun rotates the earth at one thousand miles per hour, the earth’s magnetic field brushes against the magnetic field of the surrounding universe. The electricity that’s generated is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, and dispersed throughout the earth’s atmosphere, where it gathers water from the atmosphere, and form thunder storms, and from thunder storms into other weather phenomena, tornados, and hurricanes, etc.
3 of 5
The electro- magnetic energy in a thunder storms can carry hundreds of million of gallon of water, and weigh hundreds of millions of metric tons. That’s just some of the things earth’s magnetic field does. The earth is a machine, a self-contained biosphere designed specifically for our life form, and fueled by crude oil. These fuel cell (oil wells) can be re-pressurized by igniting the methane gases in them. In fuel cells thought to be empty, such as spindle top in Beaumont, Texas. It will be necessary to pump in a mixture of air, and methane gas, and ignite the mixture. The gas will expand, when ignited creating the necessary pressure to force the remaining oil into the core. These fuel cells extend for thousands of miles, from the upper crust down to the outer core of the planet, the oil companies can only drill less, than ten miles down.
There are millions of gallons of crude oil remaining in these fuel cells, and they are located all around this planet for even heating of the core. Uneven heating of the core will result in a shift of the earth’s axes, and the earth has shifted on its axes by 15 degrees (As reported by NASA).
Normalizing the flow of crude oil to the core will increase the temperature in the outer core, and the outer core heats the inner core, which generates the earth’s magnetic field. If the pressure in these fuel cells (oil wells) were placed back to normal pressures, and left alone the temperatures in the outer core will stabilize. My report is the only way to save all life on this planet. More evidence that large quantities of crude oil are combusted, and sustain the high temperatures in the core, every conceivable by-product, and/or residue of crude oil is ejected from volcanoes all around this planet, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, the tremendous pressure in the core, and the dark smoke that’s ejected from volcanoes, etc. Volcanic eruptions in the past occurred more frequently, and they occurred in various parts around the planet, and were much more powerful, than present day eruptions.
The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the outer core. There is a point of no return, because it will take decades to reheat the core back to normal temperatures. Volcanoes are the means by which the outer core rids itself of spent fuel, and volcanoes regulate the pressures in the outer core, volcanoes extends from the surface of the planet down to the outer core. Volcanic eruptions in the past were far more powerful, than volcanic eruptions in present days. This is more evidence the core is cooling. The higher the temperature in the core, the more frequent, the more wide spread, and the more powerful the eruptions. The cooler the temperature in the core, the less frequent, and the less violent, and the less wide spread the eruptions will occur. Many volcanoes are lying dormant, and haven’t erupted in many decades.
Crude oil is capable of generating temperatures found in the core, after all crude oil is a hydro- carbon, and hydro-carbons are used to melt, and manufacture steel There are three types of hydro- carbons, crude oil (a liquid), methane (a gas), and coal (a solid).
4 of 5
The tremendous pressures ejected from volcanoes are due to the combustion of crude oil in the outer core. The gases in all hydrocarbons expand, when ignited, and will create pressure in an enclosed vessel, such as the core of this planet. There are two different diagnoses, but only one right solution. Please don’t close your mind to my findings. The one thing that frightens me the most, is the lies the leading scientists are telling the world, and the world believes the thing these scientists are knowingly lying about. Once these scientists notice their plans to reverse global warming is failing. These scientist will come up with another explanation for global warming, and convince the world this time they got it right, and the world believe them. I say again eliminating green house gases will not reverse global warming, and/or stop the earth’s orbit around the sun from decaying.
My solution is the only correct one. The leading scientists are wrong about everything, cleaning the air will not reverse global warming. Please keep an open mind. If we choose the wrong solution we will leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren a future that doesn’t exist, It will be a hellish existence. In the future the weather will be, so harsh it will be very difficult to grow plants, and to raise farm animals, what I’m trying to say is in the future the only thing left to eat will be other people. The leading scientist will think of another excuse for global warming, when they realize they are wrong, and their plans are not working. Please don’t let them do that, time is running out! If the earth past the point of no return, or if the core temperature drops below the flash point of crude oil, all is lost. Don’t focus on the fluctuation in temperature from year to year, focus on the weather trends, and the trends are its getting hotter, and the ice in both poles are melting. Global warming is in its beginning stages. Don’t just focus on your local weather focus on the world weather, and temperatures. Its important you see the big picture.
This report has been printed in the Journal of American Science. July- 2008. Volume-4/ number-2, and Volume-5/ number-1. Copy Right-2008
Mr. Willie J. McDonald
2601 Holman St.
Houston, Texas 77004-USA
5 of 5

jack cook
February 14, 2009 5:52 pm

I believe all the windy weather in the midwest this past year,were caused by politians
campaining,all the HOT air blowin out of their mouth,also caused hurricanes…
Thats the only change you will see from Obama..his destruction will be worse
than any Hurricane,wait an see..Remember what I said,we shall end just like the Roman Empire.The Empire of America….

%d bloggers like this: