Is NASA praying for a major U.S. Hurricane?

hurricane_drought_2014From NASA Goddard, video follows. It seems that when you don’t delve into the meteorological factors, “luck” seems to be the only explanation. In discussing this paper with hurricane expert Dr. Ryan Maue he tells me:

…only looking at last 30-years is too short of time period to extrapolate anything about previous or next 30-years

No Major U.S. Hurricane Landfalls in Nine Years: Luck?

The National Hurricane Center calls any Category 3 or more intense hurricane a “major” storm. The last major storm to make landfall in the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma on Oct. 16, 2005 – the fourth major storm landfall of that year, which was the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. Of course, storms smaller than a Category 3 have made landfall with destructive results, such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Hall and colleague Kelly Hereid, who works for ACE Tempest Re, a reinsurance firm based in Connecticut, ran a statistical hurricane model based on a record of Atlantic tropical cyclones from 1950 to 2012 and sea surface temperature data. While hurricane records stretch back to 1850, the data becomes less complete prior to 1950, Hall said. The study was published recently in Geophysical Research Letters.

The researchers ran 1,000 computer simulations of the period from 1950-2012 – in effect simulating 63,000 separate Atlantic hurricane seasons. They found that a nine-year period without a major landfall is likely to occur once every 177 years on average.

While the study did not delve into the meteorological causes behind this lack of major hurricane landfalls, Hall said it appears it is a result of luck.

“The last nine hurricane seasons were not weak – storms just didn’t hit the U.S.,” Hall said. “It seems to be an accident of geography, random good luck.”

When 2014 passed without a major hurricane landfall, the period from 2006-2014 surpassed the previous record for an absence of known major hurricane landfalls in the U.S., which occurred from 1861 to 1868. The researchers became curious about the probability of nine years passing without a major landfall.

The nine-year period stands out, too, because it immediately followed the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. As major hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma all hit the U.S., debate intensified about how global warming might drive hurricane activity.

Hall said the past nine years show why there are still questions about the connection between hurricanes and the warming of Earth’s atmosphere and ocean.

“Hurricanes respond in complicated ways to their environment,” Hall said. Regarding the larger climate change-hurricane question, he said, “It’s one of the areas of climate change research where reasonable people can still disagree.”

A trickier problem than simply deriving the odds of such a “landfall drought” is trying to predict when the drought might end. Even though a long period of time has passed, the probability that any given year will end the drought is still the same every year, Hall said.

Think of it this way: If you flip a coin and it comes up heads nine times in a row, there is still a 50-50 chance that the 10th flip will come up tails. Hall and Hereid’s statistical analysis found that in any given year there is a 39 percent probability of one or more major hurricane landfalls on the U.S and that that probability does not depend on the drought length. So what are the chances of this historic period coming to an end in 2015, based solely on the odds of the historical record? Thirty-nine percent, Hall said.

“Each year is roughly independent of the year before,” Hall said. “There are known signals, and natural cycles, and possibly human-induced influences. But for the most part, they are independent, especially for the rare intense landfalls.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 20, 2015 5:58 am

Yes, they are.

Mike S
Reply to  SandyInLimousin
May 20, 2015 7:49 am

What no one is talking about how on one hand the greens are saying that everything is going to get worse…hurricanes, tornados, floods all the while wanting more and more renewables…what happens to all of those solar panels when the wind blows them off the roof, who is going to pay for their replacement and the impact of their production (especially if they can get the % of renewable to actually affect the grid). We should be designing power systems that are more robust that will not go down when the climate change hits the fan.

Reply to  Mike S
May 20, 2015 8:57 am

“who is going to pay for their replacement and the impact of their production…”
Why all of the rest of us, of course. The greens/warmanistas/activists will tell you the government should pay…but what that really means is that everyone else should pay.
Just for fun sometime, when you’re really bored, take on of their speeches or articles, and replace “government” with “everyone else”.
It’s an not-so-subtle difference between “We should build that bridge, because the government will pay 75% of the cost!” and “We should build that bridge because everyone else will pay 75% of the cost!”, even though they’re the same exact statement.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Mike S
May 20, 2015 11:56 am

Jimmaine, it pays to remember that governments have no money of their own, all they are able to do is take money from us and give it to other people. In some cases that is seen as necessary, in others, such as subsidising renewables compaines that energy ministers themselves are directors of, it is questionable in the extreme.

May 20, 2015 6:04 am

The media wants the worst hurricane EVVVAAAAHHHHHHH.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 1:28 pm

I hate to be nasty, but it would be nice if the “worst hurricane evvvaaahhhhhhh” hit New York City and points north. Preferably making landfall at a record high tide. And moving so quickly evacuation is all but impossible. Sure it would be costly, but the liberals deserve the destruction.

Reply to  jayhd
May 20, 2015 6:45 pm

what about California?

Jon Lonergan
Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 5:21 pm

The media wants the worst [anything] EVVVAAAAHHHHHHH.
And this [anything] is caused by Global Comm..oops! I meant Warming!

May 20, 2015 6:06 am

If it’s “good luck” that we have not been hit, will it just be “bad luck” the next time we do get hit?

Billy Liar
Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 8:55 am

Yes, it will.

Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 9:13 am

No, it will be man-made climate change.

Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 9:59 am

Maybe the lack of rain in CA has just been bad luck?

Reply to  spetzer86
May 20, 2015 1:51 pm

Actually it’s the normal climate for California.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 12:46 pm

Isn’t it interesting that Billy Liar and Ken are both right! Billy Liar has the answer reality would give (if it could answer) and Ken gave the MSM and climastrophists’ narrative.
In reality it is all just weather!

May 20, 2015 6:10 am

Yes indeed – and the same slack-jawed knuckle-draggers are ‘praying’ for a strong El Nino to temporarily shorten The Great Pause, in order that they can then blame the spike in temperature on ‘man-made global warming’ (and thereby give their diabolical hoax a bit more legs in the run-up to the UN’s Global Government summit in Paris this December).

May 20, 2015 6:10 am

A lack of major hurricanes is luck, but, on the other hand, when we see 4 major hurricanes in a year, we’ve been told they’re caused by manmade greenhouses. [sarc on] Go figure. [sarc off.]

Bill 2
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 20, 2015 8:09 am

“we’ve been told”

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
May 20, 2015 8:13 pm

I call it a Truth Diode. I haven’t figured out how to create one outside of a model though.

May 20, 2015 6:17 am

Like most things climate related it is virtually impossible to calculate probability when one has absolutely no clue of causation mechanisms and are relying on such limited accurate past data.

richard verney
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 20, 2015 8:07 am


May 20, 2015 6:18 am

I got NASA JPL to correct an exaggerated fact last week in their article about the remnant of the Larsen B ice shelf. They said it was 625 sq. miles, roughly the size of lake Superior & Michigan combined. I pointed out Superior is over 30,000 sq. miles. If they make statements like that, how can they be trusted about anything. They are truly in the tank of the AGW crowd.

Reply to  Bobby Davis
May 20, 2015 6:31 am

Nicely done. I recently locked horns over a similar exaggeration made by a wide-eyed mouth-breather who asserted that the Exxon Valdez spilled 1 billion barrels of oil into Prince WIlliam Sound. Of course, it was actually about 260k barrels. They don’t care, though, and they’re quite willing to chance their arm with such wild exaggerations on the off-chance they can pull the wool over someone’s eyes.

Reply to  Dreadnought
May 20, 2015 7:15 am

It’s truly is sad to see what has happened to NASA.

Reply to  Dreadnought
May 20, 2015 6:41 pm

LOL 1b bbl!! That’s a ship weighing what, 200 million tons??? Something like 400x the largest tanker ever built? Assuming a given draft considering harbour limitations it would need to be 10km long!
Trouble is this loon read this stat somewhere. There is a body out there whose job it is to make up crap like that. (Possibly in the Obama govt.)

Billy Liar
Reply to  Bobby Davis
May 20, 2015 8:58 am

What they meant was 18 Manhattans.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Billy Liar
May 20, 2015 12:21 pm

Depending on the time frame, 18 Manhattans would be an extreme event.

Reply to  Billy Liar
May 20, 2015 6:55 pm

You mean the alcoholic drink right, not the island in New York City? I think they were drunk on manhattans or something when they made this up.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Billy Liar
May 20, 2015 10:13 pm

Yes, I think 18 Manhattans = a zombie.

May 20, 2015 6:23 am

This really doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. Their real problem is it’s hard to claim ‘It’s worse then we thought’ when things have never been better. And sure it might just be luck, but it might also be that the current climate encourages tropical cyclones to form and intensify closer to Africa, thus competing their life cycle further out in the Atlantic. So what does the actual data say, and not just their model?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  schitzree
May 20, 2015 7:48 am

It isn’t so much where they initially form. There’s been many a Cape Verde hurricane that crossed the Atlantic at full blast. The trick is the position of the Bermuda High (subtropical ridge). The further east i is the further east the tropical systems will recurve. The intriguing questions is, “Is the position of the subtropical ridge controlled by climate factors?”

Myron Mesecke
May 20, 2015 6:24 am

I thought Sandy was no longer a hurricane when it made US landfall.

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
May 20, 2015 7:34 am

Sandy was a tropical storm when it hit landfall, but try and change anyone’s mind about the nature of it. It is virtually an impossible task.

Reply to  JimS
May 20, 2015 8:14 am

I think she’d actually crept up to a Cat 1 …. just.
The damage of course was the fact that she got herself involved with a winter storm (can’t trust these gals!) and of course hitting NY head on, well ….!

Reply to  JimS
May 20, 2015 8:59 am

Same with Katrina

Reply to  JimS
May 20, 2015 7:35 pm

It was also during a strong spring tide – Sandy…

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
May 20, 2015 11:41 am

I thought it had a cold core as well

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Glenn999
May 21, 2015 11:19 am

newminster: no, I checked the NWS wind readings all round New Jersey very carefully at the time, and at landfall there were no sustained hurricane force winds. Period.
That’s why they invented the term “Superstorm Sandy”, for a while, and then heck, let’s go back to calling Sandy a landfalling hurricane, incorrectly.

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
May 24, 2015 10:21 am

That’s why they had to invent the term ‘Superstorm’… because it wasn’t strong enough to be a hurricane. But it hit the ABC/NBC/CBS/NYTimes head offices, and they HAD to exaggerate so we ALL would know what a terrible time they went through, (and how tough they are).
By the way, in Katrina we had a 26-foot storm surge here on the north shore of Bay Saint Louis, MS, and I had 14-ft of muddy salt water in my yard, so I have SOME little idea of what I am talking about.
For the people in NY-NJ who did get flooded,,,, my sympathies.
Just like a thunderstorm…. It may be a small storm, but if lighting hits YOU, it’s serious!

May 20, 2015 6:24 am

How can create a hurricane, when the temperature of the Atlantic is low?

Reply to  ren
May 20, 2015 2:21 pm

Meanwhile, at the 40N lat. in illinois, the temperature is colder (46F) at my house than I have seen this date in decades.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
May 20, 2015 9:47 pm

The negative phase of the AMO lasts 30 years. Already I getting ready for severe of winter in Poland.

Reply to  ren
May 20, 2015 6:25 pm

Early season hurricanes usually form in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea and a bit east of Florida. Like Ana. Cape Verde hurricanes generally don’t form until September and October, as the water there is generally too cold, and this year colder than usual.

Reply to  Ric Werme
May 20, 2015 6:58 pm

The water looks cool in the southern gulf too and near normal the other places.

M Courtney
May 20, 2015 6:25 am

The study was published recently in Geophysical Research Letters.

So this is worth taking seriously. If it was junk science it would be in Nature Climate Change.
I would ask whether the total number of Caribbean Hurricanes is exceptional?
Or is it just the number that went toward the US?
The latter could well be best ascribed to luck; each storm will have a different reason for its direction.
But the former may have a common cause as they all come from the same Sea.

Reply to  M Courtney
May 20, 2015 9:20 am

The AMO index is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe such as North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel rainfall and North American and European summer climate. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.
Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the US Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent or prolonged. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite—warm AMO, more rainfall.
Climate models suggest that a warm phase of the AMO strengthens the summer rainfall over India and Sahel and the North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.

May 20, 2015 6:28 am

First of all, if we compare apples to apples, Wilma was not a major hurricane when it made landfall. Rita may have been, Katrina and Dennis were not. In the past, major hurricanes were determined by measuring, directly or indirectly, sustained winds in excess of 110 mph at some surface observation location. In 2005, the intensity of all of these storms was determined by air born Doppler Radar, and with the possible exception of Rita, no sustained surface winds in excess of 110 mph were recorded with any of them (to the best of my knowledge). The qualifying winds that were reported with these storms (and every storm in the modern era) would not have been recorded in the past, as there was no flying Doppler radar to find them. I do not recall one instance in the Doppler radar era where a recorded surface wind was as strong as the estimated wind from Doppler radar in a landfalling hurricane. In effect, Doppler radar in aircraft as artificially strengthened all tropical cyclones within the planes reach.
There is no doubt that the intensity and number of tropical cyclones becomes more under-reported the further back in time that we go. I have little doubt, that if we could measure all tropical cyclones over the last 150 years with the same tools that we have today, there would be a very distinct downward trend in both number and intensity of Atlantic tropical cyclones during the 20th Century.

Reply to  jclarke341
May 20, 2015 6:35 pm

From :

Over the open, warm waters of the Gulf, Hurricane Wilma again strengthened to a Category 3 Hurricane, with winds reaching 204 km/h (127 mph). On 24 October, the storm made another landfall near Cape Romano in southwestern Florida as a Category 3 hurricane.

What is your counter reference?
Also, from Wikipedia, which isn’t too bad of a storm information source:

As Wilma began accelerating to the northeast, gradual re-intensification occurred, and the hurricane became a Category 3 hurricane on October 24. Shortly thereafter, Wilma made landfall in Cape Romano, Florida with winds of 120 mph (190 km/h). As Wilma was crossing Florida, it had briefly weakened back to a Category 2 hurricane, but again re-intensified as it reached the Atlantic Ocean.

The Cat 3 wind range is 111–129 mph.

May 20, 2015 6:31 am

I suspect they will be naming oceanic thunderstorms this year to compensate…..

Rick K
Reply to  ossqss
May 20, 2015 7:50 am

It’s a Cat 5 cloudy day over Barbuda!

Reply to  ossqss
May 20, 2015 6:07 pm
Richard Barraclough
May 20, 2015 6:33 am

Here’s my prediction for this year’s hurricane season.
A weakening Category 3 hurricane will approach a sparsely populated section of the US coastline. While it is still a few miles off-shore, sustained winds will be measured at 112 mph, making it just Cat 3. An hour later, and a few miles inland, another measurement of sustained winds will put it at 109 mph, and therefore Cat 2.
The rest of the summer will be spent arguing whether this long streak has at last been broken, whether the sustained winds should be measured for 1 minute (US National Weather Service), or 10 minutes (World Meteorological Organisation), whether the measurement was made at a height of exactly 33 feet, etc etc.
There will be no definitive resolution one way or the other.

Reply to  Richard Barraclough
May 20, 2015 7:11 am

“There will be no definitive resolution one way or the other.”
But the MSM will report the streak is broken, El Nino stopped the Pause, and we can resume our normal warming once again.

May 20, 2015 6:36 am

NASA and NOAA are greately encouraged that their prayers were answered concerning having another El Nino, so, this inspired them to pray about hurricanes too. I swear that this Pause in global warming is bringing back many a scientist to the praying fold.

Clay Marley
May 20, 2015 6:37 am

For what its worth, 2 years ago I took the data from the chart at the top of this post and created a frequency distribution out of it. The result fit an exponential distribution very closely. Such a distribution is used to model “memoryless” processes, such as dice throws, time between random independent events such as earthquakes, random failures, etc. The Mean time Between Major Hurricanes was 561 days.
This suggests it could be “luck” as they describe. It also suggests there is no external forcing factor that is causing changes in behavior, in which case the process would not be memoryless. In other words, what they are saying is, AGW has never had an effect on hurricane frequency.

May 20, 2015 6:40 am

We have been very lucky to have no hurricane hit Florida in about 10 years. What does this say about human emissions of CO2?? Not a thing. Just as it would say nothing if 3 major canes hits Florida this summer.
This obsession with CO2 is beyond belief. Someday people will look back on this era and just wonder how the CO2 delusion hung on so long.

Reply to  markstoval
May 20, 2015 6:46 am

Yep. The climate thing is leaving Y2K in it’s wake. What we wasted on Y2K is chicken feed compared with the current fiasco.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 7:32 am

Was Y2K overblown? Definitely.
Was it a real problem that had to be fixed? Definitely.
The first notice of Y2K problems occurred in 1970, when bankers noticed that calculations for 30 year mortgages were coming up with some really screwy results.
Back in the 90’s I worked at NCR and we had to modify some of our programs to add 4 digit years. Our problem was we couldn’t break existing software that relied on 2 digit years, so we had to add new commands to our programs to support 4 digit years, while continuing to support the older versions while our customers switched their systems to support 4 digit years.
It cost us money to add the new features. It cost our customers money to switch their systems.
The biggest problems were for companies that were relying on programs that were no longer supported by their producers or who’s producers had gone out of business. These companies were forced to buy new programs entirely and retrain their staff in how to use the new programs.
It was never a crisis as the media made it out to be, as I pointed out, the industry had been gradually adjusting for 30 years already.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 8:43 am

No. It was not a probpem at all. In computers yes, with 6 registers to record a date. But in reality, no. Why do I say this? Because many many countries on this rock could not afford the expense. Romania for one, and they have nuclear power stations. And many countries in Africa. It was all bullcarp, just like “climate change”.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 9:45 am

The thing about y2k is that it ended in, er, y2k. Unfortunately co2 does not have a sell-by date. It’s not as if in 2020 we’ll all realise that we’re still alive and nothing bad is happening and we’ll move on to the next formless and ultimately inconsequential terror.

Reply to  toorightmate
May 20, 2015 11:14 am

If it’s a problem for computers, then by definition it’s a problem for anyone who owns or uses computers.
The fact that it wasn’t a problem for the rest of the world was because companies and countries spent the money to fix the problem well before y2k.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  markstoval
May 20, 2015 7:13 am

No, they won’t wonder. If Climate Change-CO2 attributions were still about science, then your assessment would be correct.
But today, Climate Change is about ego, reputations, power and money. Throw in a bit of ideology (that smells of Marxism) with a ruling elite class, and one has all the understanding how future generations will place CC alarmism into the proper context.
Let’s be clear. In primitive cultures, one frequently finds a charlatan that uses scare tactics to control and manipulate a people for their own power, wealth, and ego.. They have various names: Shaman, witch doctor, High Priest. Al Gore and Barack Obama certainly fall into this category. We will be viewed as a primitive culture if we allow these Climate Charlatans to continue their deceptions.

Steve P
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2015 8:08 am

I think it’s more than just “a bit of ideology.” I do admire – but unfortunately don’t share – your optimism about how future generations will put climate alarmism into the proper context, whatever that would be.
Consider that vast numbers of our species still haven’t put ordinary religion “into the proper context” even after two millennia, nor has the realization dawned on these faithful adherents to the various flavors of mumbo jumbo that their leaders are little more than the witch doctors of the day.
It’s easy enough to scare people with various threats, and then offer them some magic defense against the boogie man. It’s one of the oldest tricks, and it still works like a charm.
Now we’ve already sacrificed many virgins in the form of our industrial might, but that still isn’t enough to appease these gods, and we must further shove off the edge and into the pit of human folly what remains of our standard of living, our prosperity, indeed the very power we need to light up the night, warm our homes, and give us clean water.
The planned transfer of wealth from the hands of the prosperous nations, who’ve led the advance of civilization, into the hands of the poorer nations, who’ve held it back, can only be understood as the kind of ideology where some successful parties are penalized, and the duffers rewarded.
The framework is already in place where the poorer nations can demand payment from the wealthier nations for damages caused by climate change. It’s just that nutty, so no, I don’t expect the Cavalry of Common Sense to come charging over the hill any time soon.

Ian W
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2015 8:12 am

But today, Climate Change is about ego, reputations, power and money.

True, but in the reverse order. Bankers and politicians are salivating at the money and power they will be given if they can control and tax the energy sources for the world.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 20, 2015 11:16 am

It really is fascinating the way atheists actually believe that their religion is so superior to others, that they are permitted to insult anyone who isn’t smart enough to agree with them.
It really is sad how small some people’s minds can be.

May 20, 2015 6:51 am

If the El Nino strengthens, the probability of a major landfalling hurricane decreases. My prediction is that we add another year to the landfalling-major hurricane drought. However, a tropical storm will hit the Washington, D.C. area, forcing the President to cancel his golf game. Consequently, it will be declared the worst disaster in US history! The President will blame CO2 emissions and Bush, and the media will print it all, extending their multi-decadal drought of rationality.

Billy Liar
Reply to  jclarke341
May 20, 2015 11:28 am

The hurricane forecasters agree with you. None of them has forecast more than 2 major hurricanes in the whole season and two of the forecasts are pretty close to record low activity.
Yes, I know it will only take one and forecasts have been known to be wrong …

Reply to  Billy Liar
May 20, 2015 7:07 pm

Pick a number between 2 and 15. …………. Congratulations you are an expert in predicting hurricanes. Most of the time you won’t be off by more than 3 and I don’t even have to know what number you picked to make that true. But to make you look even better I’ll do what the media does. Half way through the season I’ll let you revise your guess and I won’t call you out for your first guess. Pretty easy huh?

May 20, 2015 6:58 am

And the moment a category 3 hurricane makes landfall, all of the alarmists will start screaming “Global warming cause it!”

May 20, 2015 6:58 am

Why am I reminded of this? – “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

May 20, 2015 6:59 am

“The nine-year period stands out, too, because it immediately followed the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record.”
You know, it’s almost like weather patterns are cyclical or something. Naaah, that’s just crazy talk.

May 20, 2015 7:07 am

“…only looking at last 30-years is too short of time period to extrapolate anything about previous or next 30-years….”
Does that apply to temperatures as well?

ferd berple
Reply to  Bruce Hall
May 20, 2015 11:34 am

nyquist says it is enough to extrapolate the next 15 years.

May 20, 2015 7:07 am

IPCC & WMO define climate as weather averaged over thirty years.

David A
Reply to  nickreality65
May 20, 2015 12:03 pm

For no good reason.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  nickreality65
May 20, 2015 10:32 pm

They don’t. “Normals” are so defined.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
May 20, 2015 10:34 pm

There is a reason — worked out and described in 1935.
Look this up. Don’t just make stuff up.

Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2015 7:13 am

Well, maybe this year NASA will “get lucky”.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2015 7:41 am

The London mob already tried.

(Just filling in for Max until he shows up on thread.)

May 20, 2015 7:19 am

Let’s see if I have this straight.
Every time a major storm hits the US, it’s caused by global warming.
However 9 years without a major storm hitting the US is just good luck.

tom s
Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2015 9:33 am

You’re learning…

ferd berple
Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2015 11:35 am

from NASA GISS point of view, 9 years without a hurricane hitting the US is bad luck.

Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2015 7:11 pm


Eustace Cranch
May 20, 2015 7:22 am

The current “drought” has no predictive value, and neither would one or two big landfalling hurricanes this season.
Nor can any of this be attributable to human activity. Which of course won’t stop the alarmists.

Geologist Down The Pub Sez
May 20, 2015 7:27 am

When I used NOAA data and did my own arithmetic, I get and average of 8 to 9 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin since the 1850’s, when record keeping began. This is far too short an interval for determining trends, so any prediction of hurricane frequency in the coming year is trivial. Geologically speaking, and we do have good data on this, the frequency of major storms hitting the Gulf Coast has diminished over the past 5,000 years or so. That is probably significant.
Yes, this is probably a disappointment to NOAA and particularly to the Weather Channel munchkins.

Jerry Henson
May 20, 2015 7:30 am

Fortunately for NOAA, “climate disruption” hit Colorado 5/19/2012. 14 inches of snow was reported.

Reply to  Jerry Henson
May 20, 2015 7:37 am

The media, for now, will simply have to be satisfied with record cold and snow events until the next category 3 hurricane makes landfall.

May 20, 2015 7:39 am

The past should be an indicator of the future, under the same conditions; The “Pause” is still ongoing.
From Global Tropical Cyclone Activity – Dr. Ryan N. Maue (, at

May 20, 2015 7:40 am

The past two => three years have been notable for the low level of the global ACE. Perhaps a statistical abnormality, but the data appears to reject the null hypothesis that storm intensity is increasing at the moment on a global basis with a fairly high p value. Hurricanes hitting the east coast of the US are a function of many things. Total cyclone energy all over the globe is less so.
I did not give an exact p value since it depends on how you construct the experiment. Perhaps the best would be a non-parametric statistic on the current run of low intensity after the previous 40 years of data.

Mumbles McGuirck
May 20, 2015 7:42 am

Hall said, “It’s one of the areas of climate change research where reasonable people can still disagree.”
Translation, “This is an area where the data don’t fit our narrative so we have to leave ourselves some wiggle room or we will look foolish.”
I heard Michael Mann use the same dodge when Chris Landsea cornered him on the hurricane record at a recent talk at FIU. It was his way of getting out of debating a losing position.

May 20, 2015 7:50 am

‘Settled Science’ – anything that lets the liberals run off with more loot.

May 20, 2015 7:56 am

Gotta love how they explain their predictions by using the analogy of flipping coins.

Steve Oregon
May 20, 2015 7:58 am

Many of us are getting old and wonder if we will ever see the justice needed to address the biggest scam in human history.
The problem is the mendacious climate change tactics are now being used with every policy making endeavor.
Lying is the most used tool in the tool box leaving every major challenge impossible to resolve.
Think about it.
There is not a single arena where honesty produces sound remedies.
Humans nature has been infected with a deceit pandemic.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
May 20, 2015 7:17 pm

I hope to be alive when my kids say “dad you were so right about that global warming crap they were trying to push on us way back in the 2010s.” But unless medical science increases a lot I kind of doubt it. Obama thinks it is more important to worry about something that might happen in 100 years than to do something about ISIS now. It will take a lot of doing to get these guys to change their minds, or to even have minds.

May 20, 2015 7:59 am

trying to predict when the drought might end….
You would think being able to predict the “pause” would come first.
They just said there’s no predictive skills at all…’s all a flip of the coin

Bill H
May 20, 2015 8:02 am

The USA-centric nature of this collective “sneer-at-warmists” is grotesque. In the Pacific (both East and West) hurricane levels are at record highs. Maybe what happens in the Philippines, Micronesia, Tuvalu and elsewhere can be dismissed at Anthony’s place – as Neville Chamberlain once said: “far away countries of which we know nothing”.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bill H
May 20, 2015 8:27 am

Hint; read the article first, then comment. Nobody is “dismissing” anything. BTW, Warmists certainly deserve all the sneers and derision they get.

Steve P
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2015 8:33 am

2nd hint: read the title

Billy Liar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2015 11:36 am

Third hint – see the Global ACE graph just upthread ^^. Nothing is at ‘record levels’.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Bill H
May 20, 2015 8:31 am

It is easy, and USEFUL to “sneer-at-warmists.” Just as it is easy and useful to sneer at carnival barkers, snake-oil salesmen, and purveyors of confidence scams that in general are aimed to separate naive people from their money by fraudulent means.
Any thoughtful analysis of the ACE data and SST data by basin or region, along with the understanding that one or two years worth of weather events means nothing for climate, should leave the realization that short term increases and decreases in ACE should occur. But conmen operate on irrational fears and emotions of others. As you so well demonstrate.

Reply to  Bill H
May 20, 2015 8:51 am

Could you share the where you’re getting that? Weather Underground doesn’t seem to support that trend though there’s some missing data there.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  TMLutas
May 20, 2015 9:18 am

He is correct in that the current YTD ACE for WestPac is a record high.’s Dr Maue writes:
“May 17, 2015 : Total ACE for Western Pacific has already exceeded 100, most on record since 1970 (most reliable data). The previous records thru May 31 were 1976 (ACE = 94.7) and 2004 (ACE = 80). ”
But for 2014, West Pac was at 90% of historical ACE.

Bill Yarber
May 20, 2015 8:10 am

Sandy was not a hurricane when it made landfall. It was a subtropical storm sandwiched between two other storms, a low to the west and a high to the northeast.
Calling Sandy a hurricane at landfall is the typical misinformation of the AGW crowd!

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Bill Yarber
May 20, 2015 8:45 am

not to mention the timing and exquisite aim, and the fact that over 80% of the property damage was in areas that no sane person would ever build on.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 21, 2015 12:12 pm

Mother Nature is trying to tell them something. But some folks can be stubbornly stupid!

May 20, 2015 8:12 am

Of course they’re praying for a hurricane. They would rather people suffer billions of dollars of storm damage as well as loss of life than admit the mistake they made by overhyping this global warming nonsense.
Just wait until the next one hits. The warmunists will be hollering “See! We told you!”, and the record hurricane drought will be a distant memory.

Steve Case
May 20, 2015 8:13 am

Just like the guys who run Colorado University’s sea level page who complained about a “Pot hole on the road to higher seas” a few years back, these guys also want disaster to strike. It can’t be denied.

May 20, 2015 8:14 am

Better get HAARP fired up again.

May 20, 2015 8:19 am

If they are praying at NASA then presumably they’re using their iPhone compass app to show them which way Mecca is.

May 20, 2015 8:19 am

Global warming no longer settled science, now just luck and prayer

May 20, 2015 8:30 am

The chance of a Category 3+ hurricane landfall on the US *on any given day* is negligible as a percentage. That qualifies the event as a “statistically rare event” and therefore the application of Poisson statistics – so-called ‘log-normal distribution’ – is more appropriate than the usual Gaussian statistics – ‘normal’ distribution – that most non-statisticians are familiar with.
Rather than ‘days between events’, the logarithm of the number of days between events should be used.
“Nothing is more terrifying than ignorance in action.” – J.W. von Goethe

Ian W
Reply to  tadchem
May 20, 2015 10:19 am

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”

Martin Luther King Jr

Mark from the Midwest
May 20, 2015 8:34 am

Disclaimer: I have no formal education in anything related to climate or weather, however…
In the period in question the Upper Midwest has had a string of cool summers, (with the exception of 1 or 2). The northern jet has influenced temps here to a substantial degree. I also know that the jet streams can influence the path of storms, even taking the tops off of them to the point that they shrivel and die. With the Northern Jet frequently impacting activity in the Central Atlantic
Anyone: Is it just a coincidence that the Northern Jet has behaved like it has, and there were no major landfalls? Or am I still drunk from the rather exceptional batch of 2002 and 2003 clarets we consumed last night? And, if I can figure this out shouldn’t we just fire all people who claim to have expertise in the area, and start over from scratch?

May 20, 2015 8:43 am

…only looking at last 30-years is too short of time period to extrapolate anything about previous or next 30-years

Does Dr. Ryan Maue’s rule apply to global warming as well? The main period of warming lasted less than 30 years, yet alarmists were quick to extrapolate additional warming that has not occurred. I wish they would follow their own rules.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Louis
May 20, 2015 9:11 am

They do. When it’s convenient for them.

ferd berple
Reply to  Louis
May 20, 2015 12:03 pm

The Rule says a sample of length X is not sufficient to extrapolate a period of length X. It says nothing about extrapolating a period of length X/30.
Ayres (1969, p. 100) suggested a rule of thumb that the extrapolation forward (by h periods) should not exceed the time span of the historical data.

Mike Bromley the soon-to-be-Kurd-again
May 20, 2015 8:55 am

“Of course, storms smaller than a Category 3 have made landfall with destructive results, such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012”
Of course. Hooplacane Sandy. Who could dare be reminded that it was a tropical storm at landfall, and that it was made rather turgid by its adsorption into a good old Nor’easter. Just thought I’d slip that in there.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the soon-to-be-Kurd-again
May 20, 2015 11:46 am

Nor’easters are very dangerous, very violent and I lived through several during the 1970’s in Coney Island, NY.
And these huge Nor’easters are…indications of global cooling! Sandy was a classic global cooling storm.

Reply to  emsnews
May 20, 2015 6:43 pm

Sandy was transitioning to a post-tropical storm at landfall, and that caused more confusion than it should have, some of the procedural stuff has been fixed, like the NHC will keep producing reports on storms like that instead of passing it on to the local NWS offices.
More on dangerous nor’easters:

May 20, 2015 9:00 am

Yes, the current 9-year strike is luck. And no, the 3-4 major hurricanes in 2005 were not CO2 caused, they were also luck (bad one in that case).
What the 9-year strike DOES tell us is that there is no way that CO2 could be the cause of an INCREASE in hurricane activity on the coasts of the US. Because we have more CO2 than ever, and less hurricanes than ever. This happening when CO2 favours less hurricanes, requires a bit of luck. This happening when CO2 is unrelated to hurricanes, requires moderate luck. And this happening in a context of increased risk of hurricanes due to CO2, would not be just luck, but rather a 1-in-a-million chance. My bets are on either no relationship, or perhaps a positive one (less US coast hitting major hurricanes with more CO2).

Robbie D
May 20, 2015 9:17 am

When you look at statistics, shouldn’t you remove known factors, e.g., impacts of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and ENSO. Look at periods when AMO peaked and started decreasing with ENSO signals…that may help compare fuji apples with gala apples. I know, then there’s only N=2 or 3, which isn’t statistically sound. Who’s going to admit that?

Geologist Down The Pub Sez
Reply to  Robbie D
May 20, 2015 9:55 am

AMO and ENSO are very,very short-term oscillations. Way too short-term to use for climate predictions. Look for 1000 to 10000 year cycles. This is Geology, folks, so you have to think on the larger scale.

May 20, 2015 9:18 am

“Hall and Hereid’s statistical analysis found that in any given year there is a 39 percent probability of one or more major hurricane landfalls on the U.S…”
If that is true, then the probability of no major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. for 9 years is 0.61^9 or about 0.0117. That’s only slightly better than one chance in a hundred. The odds are that something more than just luck is at play here.

Green Sand
May 20, 2015 9:46 am

On many occasions Bob Tisdale has shown the cooling effect tropical cyclones have on sea surface temperatures by showing a track of “cooler” surface waters along the path of the cyclone.
Could a reduction in Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) mean more energy retained in the sea surface possibly resulting in an increase in sea surface temperatures?

Reply to  Green Sand
May 20, 2015 12:11 pm

That line of reasoning sounds like it has merit. These last 2 typhoons in the western Pacific clearly pulled a lot of heat out of the sst. The western portion of ENSO region 4 gave up a lot of heat over the last 17 days. Winds in the Pacific are still shifting as Typhoon Dolphin drags a portion of the easterly stream moving through 10N to 20N, northwest and offshore of Japan. In it,s early days it dragged that same easterly flow and pushed it south across the equator for around 10 days. Between the 12th and the 17th of this month the western ocean sst,s dropped around 1.5C average temps as TS 7 became Typhoon Dolphin. TS 7 started on the 5th, but there was a small rotation sitting there for a week prior to that.

Reply to  goldminor
May 20, 2015 12:13 pm
May 20, 2015 10:25 am

“The last nine hurricane seasons were not weak – storms just didn’t hit the U.S.,” Hall said.
This is simply misleading. The last TWO Atlantic hurricane seasons have been the weakest back-to-back seasons in over 30 years.

Reply to  wallensworth
May 20, 2015 7:00 pm

From the last page of here’s the Atlantic ACE for the past several years:
2010: 165
2011: 126
2012: 133
2013: 36 (The August forecast was calling for 142, an amazing bust for Klotzbach and Gray)
2014: 67
2015: 40 (April forecast, in part due to the expected, and happening, El Nino)
Long term average ACE: 92.

Berényi Péter
May 20, 2015 10:43 am

Hall and Hereid’s statistical analysis found that in any given year there is a 39 percent probability of one or more major hurricane landfalls on the U.S and that that probability does not depend on the drought length.

In that case probability of nine years in a row with no major hurricane landfall in the US is 1.17%. In other words there should be at least one such event in that timespan with a probability of 98.83%. But there was not one. Remarkable.

Frederik Michiels
May 20, 2015 11:00 am

…. and all of the sudden 5 major storms will hit the US and the climate change trumpets will “blow” (sound) again in all their glory
one thing did stand out to me and this appears to happen everywhere:
when you have one aspect that is pronounced, then it’s followed by the opposite fairly near after it happened. I wouldn’t be surprised to see another “dry” year with the el Nino conditions followed by soon or late a record landfall year….
climate is after all en statistic “mean value” of all the weather events you have, including extreme weather and…. the lack of it
i wonder if it will hit the 10 year mark…. just to tease the climate doomsayers….
but i do think that “drought” might end pretty intensely

ferd berple
May 20, 2015 11:19 am

only looking at last 30-years is too short of time period to extrapolate anything about previous or next 30-years
that is statistical nonsense. 30 years of data is certainly enough to extrapolate for next month and next year. The cheat in the statement is to imply that because you cannot predict 30 years you cannot predict 1 year.
Also, if you go 30 years without a hurricane you can most certainly say that the odds are that you will go the next 30 years without a hurricane. if you go 30 years and have lots of hurricanes, you can most certainly say the odds are that you will have lots of hurricanes over the next 30 years.
so to say you cannot “extrapolate anything” is bunk.

Reply to  ferd berple
May 20, 2015 11:33 am

However, because the 30 years from 1977 to 2006 were warmer than from 1947-76, you can’t extrapolate that 1997-2026 will be warmer still. The period 1917-46 was warmer than 1947-76. “Climate scientists” in 1977 were worried that, extrapolating the cooling of the prior 30 years, the world was headed into another “ice age”.

ferd berple
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 20, 2015 12:12 pm

what you can say is that if the climate changed over the previous 30 year period, it is likely to change over the next 30 year period.
simple linear extrapolation makes no sense because nature is cyclical. linear trends do not and cannot persist for long, as they lead to extermination of some sort.
thus, extrapolation of natural systems begins with understanding the cycle length. unless and until you know the cycle length of the natural system under study, extrapolation is meaningless.
for example, children grow more than a foot for each of the first 2 years of life. Extrapolating, an 80 year old person should be more than 80 feet tall.

ferd berple
May 20, 2015 11:21 am

“The last nine hurricane seasons were not weak – storms just didn’t hit the U.S.,” Hall said”
again more nonsense. my accident record hasn’t improved, there were lots of accidents on the road, just no cars hit me.

Reply to  ferd berple
May 20, 2015 11:49 am

There were very few hurricanes in the Atlantic and none were strong last summer which was a very cold summer like this summer is turning out to be, too. It is going down to freezing tonight in upstate NY, for example! Mid May, no less!

May 20, 2015 11:24 am

Our rain drought, tornado drought and Hurricane drought all have the same cause:
Wind farms destroy the pathways in the atmosphere that storms employ to become established:
Storms (all storms) involve the emergence of conduit-like structures (ie. jet streams, tornadoes) that transport energy from high (in the form of low pressure) and lift moist air up, one result of which being rainstorms. Starting from the jet streams that run along the top of the troposphere, these conduits grow downward to initiate storms. But they can only do this if the prerequisite factors underlying their growth are present. There are, basically, two prerequisites: 1) Long smooth distinct boundary layers between dry and moist bodies of air, and 2) Energy.
Here’s the problem. Wind farms introduce turbulence that destroys the smoothness, length, and distinctness of boundary layers between bodies of moist air and bodies of dry air and they remove (harvest) energy.
Are you convinced? No. I don’t expect you to be. Meteorologists have made such a mess of the science that there is little chance anybody can filter out the nonsense. Don’t take my word on it. Instead I suggest you take a look at the maps that show an unusually high degree of correspondence between the location and timing of the drought with construction of wind farms, especially in Texas and California.

Ian Macdonald
May 20, 2015 12:12 pm

“WHY WIND FARMS CAUSE DROUGHT” There may be some truth to this claim, though the explanation they put forward seems a little strangely-worded. Rainclouds are produced by a number of mechanisms but spring showers are typically the consequence of thermals – bubbles of warmed air rising from the surface to an altitiude at which they can no longer hold their moisture due to reduced air pressure and lower temperature. Turbulence can break up and disperse thermals, especially when they are just forming at ground level, and therefore relatively weak.Thus it is quite possible that windturbine downstream turbulence causes a no-rain zone. Exactly how far that would extend would be difficult to say, though. I doubt if it would be more than a few miles.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
May 20, 2015 12:15 pm

Oh no, is that more proof that co2 induces droughts?

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
May 21, 2015 6:42 am

Turbine wake can also prevent the ground level inversion from forming and keep the air moving next to the ground. Instead of dew forming, the ground dries overnight.

May 20, 2015 12:21 pm

They’re praying to Gaia. No matter who you pray to, you need to be aware the answer may not be what you want.

May 20, 2015 1:28 pm

Each year is roughly independent of the year before,” Hall said. “There are known signals, and natural cycles, and possibly human-induced influences. But for the most part, they are independent, especially for the rare intense landfalls.”
Prove it. That is only a hypothesis.
If there are climatological factors that govern the development and life-cycle of hurricanes, then hurricanes ought to autocorrelate with themselves year over year and be correlated with other climatological factors, such as ENSO.
Who was claiming 2005 was just a run of bad luck?

May 20, 2015 2:32 pm

“Scientists have made a breakthrough in man’s desire to control the forces of nature – unveiling plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course, to prevent tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.”
“The list of United States hurricanes includes all tropical cyclones officially recorded to have produced sustained winds of greater than 74 mph (118 km/h) in the United States.”
“The US government is using the HAARP Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) platform to intensify and steer the man made Hurricane Sandy”.

May 20, 2015 3:39 pm

You all aren’t thinking like global warmists. This isn’t causing them a problem at all. If we go more than ten years without a major ‘cane hitting the U.S., when the next one does, they will pull out the word, “unprecedented.”
When we go to the historical record to show they are wrong, lo and behold, all previous hurricanes will have been reclassified as tropical storms. Just normal adjustments for the difference in equipment, ya know. If they can get rid of the MWP and LIA, disappearing storms like Camille would be easy.

May 20, 2015 7:09 pm

“The last nine hurricane seasons were not weak – storms just didn’t hit the U.S.,” Hall said. “It seems to be an accident of geography, random good luck.”
And that is the story of Katrina, an accident of geography, random bad luck.” Git with it guys at NASA, And I like your old logo better, by the way…

May 20, 2015 7:12 pm

Your present logo looks like something from the 1940’s – before manned space travel …oh wait…

May 20, 2015 7:20 pm

This one is better – more modern and reminds me of the Apollo Programs etc.:

May 20, 2015 7:30 pm

Sorry NASA, I do follow all your Mars rovers and all the other NASA adventures in space. Please stick to Space and not Earth…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
May 21, 2015 6:45 am

I’m happy with NASA doing remote sensing operations looking at Earth. I just wish NASA GISS would use more of it.

May 21, 2015 8:24 am

All the Alarmists need is just one, that is one Cat 5 Hurricane making landfall. The dollar value of this and what it means to Alarmists should not be underestimated. Trenbeth will claim that stored “hidden” heat deep in the oceans (which is caused by Climate Change) provided the fuel for such a storm, and the world can look forward to a Hurricane every week as a consequence. Insurance firms up and down both coasts will significantly raise their homeowner premiums, regulators will be empowered to regulate even more.
We have now entered into the theater of the absurd, where highly educated and credentialed experts are reduced to praying to the Gods for a devastating tropical storm.

May 21, 2015 8:29 am

So, we have NASA and its allies praying for an active, devastating Atlantic Hurricane season. Lots of corpses and collateral damage. They also are praying for a once in millennia Super Duper El Nino. But, they cannot have both. El Nino conditions produce unfavorable vertical wind shear that inhibit Atlantic tropical storm development. I imagine they would rather take the devastation from tropical storms. Much better drama.

See - owe to Rich
May 21, 2015 11:40 am

I’m afraid that Sod’s Law, against the influences of El Nino and relatively cool Atlantic west of Africa at 20degN and lack of recent such hurricanes, means that there >will< be a major US land-falling major hurricane this year.

May 21, 2015 9:20 pm

In grad school in psychophysics we randomized there | not-there stimulus presentations with a random number algorithm . For example here’s a string of 80 I just generated in my 4th.CoSy :

s" -O" 2 80 _rand at

Long sequences occur so much more frequently than I intuitively expected that I spent a bunch of time running chi^2s of various sorts on it and it always fitted the theoretical stats quite well , tho you could show graphically that sequential samples fell in hyper-planes .

sound awake
May 22, 2015 7:31 pm

remember you cant spell the word “environmentalist” without the word “mental”

%d bloggers like this: