From a Clemson University press release, another peer reviewed study refutes the “global warming to hurricane” linkage that supposedly is causing stronger storms.
The increasing frequency of storms in the last 50 years is to be expected, due to better reporting and improved technology like satellites, Hurricane Hunter planes, and Doppler Radar. NOAA agrees on the improved reporting issue in a study 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. On May 15th, 2008, Tom Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. reversed his position on the issue in an AP story and argues “against the notion that we’ve already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming.”
Plus, according to Florida State University’s Ryan Maue, Accumulated Cyclone Energy has hit a 30 year low. The Global Warming linkage simply isn’t there.
CLEMSON — In a new study, Clemson University researchers have concluded that the number of hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic Basin is increasing, but there is no evidence that their individual strengths are any greater than storms of the past or that the chances of a U.S. strike are up.
Robert Lund, professor of mathematical sciences at Clemson, along with colleagues Michael Robbins and Colin Gallagher of Clemson and QiQi Lu of Mississippi State University, studied changes in the tropical cycle record in the North Atlantic between 1851 and 2008.
“This is a hot button in the argument for global warming,” said Lund. “Climatologists reporting to the U.S. Senate as recently as this summer testified to the exact opposite of what we find. Many researchers have maintained that warming waters of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.”
The study represents one of the first rigorous statistical assessments of the issue with uncertainty margins calculated in. For example, Lund says “there is less than a one in 100,000 chance of seeing this many storms occur since 1965 if in truth changes are not taking place.”
He adds, “Hopefully such a rigorous assessment will clear up the controversy and the misinformation about what is truly happening with these storms.”
The study, submitted to the Journal of the American Statistical Association, also found changes in storm pattern records starting around 1935. This was expected at the onset of aircraft reconnaissance, which allowed record-keepers to identify and document storms occurring in the open ocean.
While the study did conclude that more storms are being documented, researchers found no evidence of recent increases in U.S. landfall strike probability of the strongest of hurricanes. Lund notes that “because these types of storms are so uncommon, it will take many more years of data to reliably assess this issue.”
Related Links
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
why should we know, how many tropical cyclones did realy exist at 1900, or 1880 or 1930?
if there is a linear trend from about 8 in 1880 to 10 in 2000, so there is never any statistical signifikanz. all this studies are as dump as studies for sea ice aerea limits at 1800 or. 1900 an comparisons to moedern satellite datas. its nonses, maximal poorly estimates.
US landfall: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512008.txt
Last 50yrs 76 events, previous 50yrs 97 events.
“The study represents one of the first rigorous statistical assessments of the issue with uncertainty margins calculated in. For example, Lund says “there is less than a one in 100,000 chance of seeing this many storms occur since 1965 if in truth changes are not taking place.”
I shall savour that as a perfect example of the genre. Has a poetic quality, doesn’t it? Lewis Carroll would have been proud.
The tropical cyclones are observed by satellites for 40 years.
Before that, how many others have been lost to observers because they haven’t reached the shores or ships at sea ?
Well even the BOM which is more leaning towards AGW stated the following in 2006 as regards frequency:
The paper reaffirms the finding of a 1998 study saying that any change in the frequency of tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) due to climate change cannot be determined due to a lack of knowledge and limitations of the available observing technologies. The little evidence that does exist indicates little or no change in global frequency.
And as regards intensity:
It also says that while some recent studies have suggested the intensity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) has increased substantially over the past 50 years due to climate change, the scientific community is “deeply divided”. Some researchers believe the climate record is too inconsistent to draw such a conclusion due to changes in observations equipment and methods over time. The panel says it cannot come to a definitive conclusion in this “hotly debated area”.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20060220.shtml
Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus?
Re Ulric Lyons (01:31:41)
Thank you, a very cogent link, sorta removes the different observation capacity delima over the period of study.
Should not a “professional study” answer such a question, How can the number of US landfall hurricane’s go down, why the number of reported huricanes consistently increases. Instead they note that there is no indication that US land fall will increase, ant take the increase without discussion and statististical anaylisis of how new technoloy development and implementation of said technology, would impact the chart they headline.
Hum?
“King of Cool (03:10:49) :
Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus?”
Can I have that in proper POHM England please?
Take the annual numbers of hurricanes in the Atlantic of category three or greater since 1944, and assume a Poisson distribution with a secular, linear component of the expected annual number. Perform a maximum likelihood estimate of the “slope” of this secular term, and what you will find is a tiny positive value that is most probably below any statistical significance.
Possibly the incidence of typhoons in the Pacific or Indian Oceans has increased. I don’t know for sure, I haven’t looked at the data. Possibly it is true as well that if one includes the annual count of minor hurricanes of category two and lower in the Atlantic then one might see an increasing incidence. However, in this last case, the example of this 2009 season and the impatience which hurricane meteorologists displayed in naming tropical storms and hurricances, one could propose that increasing incidence of minor storms has more to do with biases on the part of scientists and government agencies than it has to do with changes in instrumentation.
Our local forecasters spin the globe all the way over to the coast of Africa to have anything interesting to say. And then they focus on what “might happen” but never seems to happen.
And then they head over the Pacific to Asia, trying desperately to find something to talk about.
Once a cold front makes it past Tampa, the hurricane season is done.
So let me get this straight…more hurricanes, but no increased chance of hurricanes hitting the US.
Wouldn’t like playing marbles, and saying that I can put more marbles in the ring but not have a better chance of marbles going out of the ring, or that flipping more coins won’t increase the number of tails flipped?
‘For example, Lund says “there is less than a one in 100,000 chance of seeing this many storms occur since 1965 if in truth changes are not taking place.”’
Are there any English speakers out there? He’s not talking about storm reporting changes, he’s saying that since 1965 the earth IS warming so hurricane frequency IS increasing. Or Global Warming = More Hurricanes.
This is in direct contradiction to Ryan Maue’s work stating that frequency is dropping. “global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening”
This supports Joe Romm’s argument, why are you all cheering about it?
There could be an unseen force working to increase the frequency of storms. Should there be an increase in the number of named storms and the number of hurricanes, the calculation of insurance risk will increase. It is to the benefit of insurance companies to demonstrate higher risk from storms due to the statistical number of storms recorded and thus charge their customer a larger premium.
The pressures on the National Weather Service to name every tropical system a storm and to classify every possible storm a hurricane cannot be measured through collected data.
I’ve come to the conclusion that we can never win the AGW argument:
More hurricanes = AGW caused because of warmer waters
Less hurricanes = AGW causing more wind shear, stopping the formation of hurricanes
rising temps = AGW, well that’s what it’s all about
declining temps = AGW, it fits in the model and part of the overall trend
decreasing ice = AGW melting all the ice
increasing ice = AGW causing more precipitation thereby increasing ice
droughts(decreased precipitation) = AGW
Floods(increased precipitation) = AGW
Really, how can you fight an all encompassing theory? /sarc off
kind of ironic too that they publish this study in a year that we have had only 2 hurricanes.
Hmmmm…. I would be interested to here more on how they constructed the pre-satellite era record as the two different records would obviously give an upward bias. Given that this is written by statisticians, I would guess they have some reasonable logic. I would be really interested in Steve McIntyre’s take on this paper
It is always useful to review how the “experts” have performed in their previous forecasting efforts:
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news02455.htm
Date: 24th March 2006
“Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity will remain elevated for at least the next five years.”
Risk Management Solutions (RMS) has announced that increases to hurricane landfall frequencies in the company’s US hurricane model will increase modeled annualized insurance losses by 40 percent on average across the Gulf Coast, Florida, and the Southeast, and by 25-30 percent in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal regions relative to those derived using long-term 1900-2005 historical average hurricane frequencies.
…
Expert panel convened
The RMS medium–term view of hurricane activity was developed in cooperation with a panel of leading experts in hurricane climatology convened by RMS in October 2005, including Dr. Jim Elsner, Professor in the Department of Geography, Florida State University; Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Tom Knutson, Research Meteorologist, Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory, Princeton University ; and Dr. Mark Saunders, Professor of Climate Prediction, Department of Space and Climate Physics, University College London.
Based on the five-year perspective of this expert panel, RMS developed a methodology to update activity rates in its proprietary models based on storm intensity, storm track, and landfall region. This methodology indicates that increases in hurricane frequencies should be expected across the entire US coast, but will be highest in the Gulf, Florida , and the Southeast, while lower in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
—
So – how’s the 2009 hurricane season going??
David (04:21:43) :
“Re Ulric Lyons (01:31:41)
Thank you, a very cogent link, sorta removes the different observation capacity delima over the period of study.
Should not a “professional study” answer such a question, How can the number of US landfall hurricane’s go down, why the number of reported huricanes consistently increases.”
With a $100,000 grant from the National Science Foundation, one would hope for some answers.
How many landfall events of category 1 or above did not get reported in the last 100yrs or so? very few if any. For hurricanes in mid ocean, modern observations would record higher numbers.
The last 50yrs have had 26 category 3 and above US landfall, the previous 50yrs had 39. I finished that tally in 2min 36sec, now that would be a good hourly rate if I was on their money!
AGW promoters are scrambling to distract people from the ridiculous Manniac style, while staying with orthodox climate hype.
And failing.
Over the years I have noticed that as the AGW movement has grown in intensity there has been a greater hype in the push to prove that catastrophic weather has happened. Much of this has been pushed by such as “The Weather Channel”. While I do watch “The Weather Channel” I do so with a grain of salt. This has happened in recent years and I believe has more to do with the political bent of the now owners of the program. There is also the proposition to sensationalize to increase market share to increase revenue. This has happened with all news reporting agencies especially the television markets. Having lived in the Gulf states, Florida 37 years, Alabama 12 years, and Mississippi 10 years, have seen the detection of these storms become increased over time. It is no wonder that the incidence of reporting has increased but from living in areas prone to the land fall of these storms I see no increase in the overall strength of the storms. In my humble poorly educated opinion this study is only expressing what should be obvious to most that follow the occurrences of these storms in the Atlantic basin. I heartily agree with the findings of this study.
Bill Derryberry
In this article: http://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2009/09/23/study-refutes-connection-of-global-warming-and-storm-intensity/
Lund indicated the observational bias that has lead to more observed storms:
“Lund says the increase in the frequency of hurricanes and some measurable increase in strength of the storms was first observed from data from the beginning of the 20th century. Lund attributes the observations from better and more sophisticated technological devices used to monitor the storms. “We saw them from about 1900 which makes sense because most of the data recorded before 1900 was guesstimated and not very consistent. We also found small changes in the strengthof the storms around 1960 which coincides with the onset of satellites.”
Why do all the alarmists completely ignore the obvious observational bias?
Note that the graph only records storm frequency through 2005. The average number of Atlantic storms has dropped off the last 4 years…including this year which has been unusually quiet….despite forecasts to contrary. I’m glad to see that the authors haven’t resorted to tracking named storms as many do who track storm frequency. The definition has changed this decade to now include tropical depressions…skewing the later years to a higher frequency of named storms, everything else being equal.
Even if the Atlantic is getting warmer, it’s simply not possible to have been caused by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Shouldn’t wind shear be considered as a factor in this, since it can weaken, as well as destroy, a hurricane? As from Saharan winds…or related to an El Nino event.
And, what about the fundamental as-seen-on-tv hurricane track coverage…
‘the hurricane will strengthen as it crosses this area of warmer water.’
Dude, just Google it.
How hard is it for people to understand that the tropical cyclone frequency record is not reliable for trend analysis? Did these guys read the recent literature at all?
I’m sorry, it is important that they did an analysis of the strength of storms, but they apparently do not know the issues with the counts. A good place to look is:
ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/gav/PAPERS/LVBK_08_SHORTSTORMS.submitted.pdf
At any rate, there has not been any global increase in frequency, which one would think matters in “global warming”.