Al Gore and the media were wrong: U.S. Major Hurricane Drought Now One Decade and Counting

As of today, October 24th, it has been 3652 days (including leap years) or a decade (10 years) since the US has been hit by a Category 3 or greater hurricane.

The last such hurricane was Wilma on October 24th, 2005. Hurricane Wilma was the most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded in the Atlantic basin. Each day forward will be a new record in this decade long hurricane drought period.


Map plotting the track and intensity of the storm according to the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale

Via Wikipedia’s article on Wilma:

Part of the record breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which included three of the six most intense Atlantic hurricanes ever (along with #4 Rita and #6 Katrina), Wilma was the twenty-second storm, thirteenth hurricane, sixth major hurricane, fourth Category 5 hurricane, and second-most destructive hurricane of the 2005 season. A tropical depression formed in the Caribbean Sea near Jamaica on October 15, and intensified into a tropical storm two days later, which was named Wilma. After heading westward as a tropical depression, Wilma turned abruptly southward after becoming a tropical storm. Wilma continued intensifying, and eventually became a hurricane on October 18. Shortly thereafter, rapid intensification occurred, and in only 24 hours, Wilma became a Category 5 hurricane with winds of 185 mph (295 km/h).

Intensity slowly leveled off after becoming a Category 5 hurricane, and winds had decreased to 150 mph (240 km/h) before reaching the Yucatán Peninsula on October 20 and 21. After crossing the Yucatán Peninsula, Wilma emerged into the Gulf of Mexico as a Category 2 hurricane. 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, Floridawith 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 hurricane intensified into a Category 3 hurricane for the final occasion, but Wilma dropped below that intensity while accelerating northeastward. By October 26, Wilma transitioned into an extratropical cyclone southeast of Nova Scotia.


Hurricane Wilma nearing record strength southeast of the Yucatán Peninsula on October 19, 2005


But, to listen to Al Gore and the media, you’d think global warming has made more hurricanes hit the U.S. since then. In fact, there has been no Category three or stronger hurricane that has made U.S. landfall in a decade.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. wrote on his blog:

Above are some graphs for those of you interested in the remarkable, ongoing drought in intense hurricane landfalls in the US, which is stretching close to 10 years. The top graph shows the days in between intense (category 3+) landfalls in the US since 1900. The bottom graph shows the same information, but only for Florida landfalls.

You can see that for the US, the current “intense hurricane drought” is unprecedented in at least a century. For Florida, there have been other long stretches between intense hurricane landfalls. Over the past century the average time between intense landfalls in Florida has just about doubled, from about 3 years to 6 years.

Data, sources, discussion: Pielke (2014)



Note: the graphs have been updated by WUWT to reflect current date and values since Pielke wrote his analysis. quoted Al Gore back in 2005:

… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 – largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes.

Well, tornadoes aren’t doing any better, as these graphs from the Storm Prediction Center show. Eight of the last eleven years have been below average:


And 2015 threatens to tie the record low year of 1954 for U.S. Tornadooes:tornado-2015

Back to the hurricane drought, the mighty media was quoting the mighty scientists, and they have fallen flat on their face. Here’s a collection of failed predictions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina:

In 2006, CBS’s Hannah Storm Claims Katrina-like Storms Will Happen ‘All Along Our Atlantic and Gulf Coastlines.’ Just five days before Hurricane Katrina’s one year anniversary, CBS news anchor Hannah Storm featured climate alarmist Mike Tidwell on The Early Show to discuss his book, “The Ravaging Tide.” “I think the biggest lesson from Katrina a year later is that those same ingredients, you know, a city below sea level hit by a major hurricane, will be replicated by global warming all along our Atlantic and Gulf Coast lines,” Tidwell said on August 24, 2006. Tidwell then went on to claim that cities all along the coast would be underwater due to increased hurricane activity and intensity “unless we stop global warming.” In a 2009 Washington Post op-ed, Tidwell explained just how far he thought people should go to “stop global warming.” After comparing the current global warming problem to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, he insisted that “After years of delay and denial and green half-measures, we must legislate a stop to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.”

‘No End In Sight’ For Big Hurricanes, CBS Says Less than a month after Katrina made landfall, CBS anchor Russ Mitchell predicted that there would be “continued high levels of hurricane activity and high levels of hurricane landfalls for the next decade or perhaps even longer.” “For years now, experts have been saying we’ve entered a period of increased hurricane activity that may last a long time.” Mitchell said on the Sept. 22, 2005 Early Show. Later in the broadcast he added, “since 1990, the number of big hurricanes in the Gulf is up again, and there’s no end in sight.” Now, a decade later that prediction looks laughable since there hasn’t been a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher) to make landfall since October of 2005, when Hurricane Wilma struck Florida.

NBC Blames Global Warming for Stronger Hurricanes, Says It’s ‘A Trend That’s Likely To Continue’ In the weeks following Katrina, NBC turned to global warming as the hurricane’s cause. On September 18, 2005, Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, “scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.” NBC’s chief science correspondent Robert Bazell continued, asking: “Was Katrina a warning of more terrible hurricanes in the next few years?” Bazell admitted “one storm cannot prove anything about climate change,” but claimed the projected ocean temperature rise would cause more severe storms through the end of the century. That NBC report included climatologist Stephen Schneider who said, “humans won’t make the storms, but we can make them a little stronger than they otherwise would have been.”

From Newsbusters:

Looking back, it’s easy to see how wrong the networks were.

In 2008, The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) responded to climate change assumptions about hurricanes saying, “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.” As the years passed, the more obvious it was that fewer major hurricanes were hitting land. In April 2015, the American Geophysical Union reported that the United States has been in a nine year Atlantic hurricane landfall drought. A record low. AGU said, “Such a remarkable ‘hurricane drought’ has never been seen before – since records began in 1851 … the last major hurricane – of Category 3 or higher – to make landfall in the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma in 2005.” Research by meteorologists Anthony Watts and Ryan Maue, and environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. showed the same hurricane drought and an overall slump in tropical cyclone activity throughout the world. Chris Landsea, who is the Science and Operations Officer for the National Hurricane Center at NOAA, tweeted skeptically about a hurricane/climate change link in May 201

How long will it be before the media stops pushing the meme of “more hurricanes due to global warming”? Perhaps never, because as we all know the news cycle maxim: “if it bleeds, it leads

Note: shortly after publication, the first paragraph was updated to mention leap years


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I think it is perhaps more important to notice that the global ACE has not shown any trend and in fact was lower in the past four years than it was at any other time since 1970. If we have a global effect, it should show a global effect. It doesn’t.

Richard Barraclough

Exactly. Whether or not a hurricane actually crosses the US coastline is just down to the vagaries of the tracks, and you can’t read too much significance into it.
Accumulated cyclone energy is about 50 per cent above the long term average this year worldwide, though, as you say, there’s no noticeable trend


Hasn’t Ryan Maue recently been saying that ACE was getting rather high? Or am I misremembering that?


I think his comments were related to the western pacific basin. I could be wrong however.


I’d be more worried if we returned to another Little Ice Age.

Elyse Scileppi et. al.
Sedimentary evidence of hurricane strikes in western Long Island, New York
[1] Evidence of historical landfalling hurricanes and prehistoric storms has been recovered from backbarrier environments in the New York City area. Overwash deposits correlate with landfalls of the most intense documented hurricanes in the area, including the hurricanes of 1893, 1821, 1788, and 1693 A.D. There is little evidence of intense hurricane landfalls in the region for several hundred years prior to the late 17th century A.D. The apparent increase in intense hurricane landfalls around 300 years ago occurs during the latter half of the Little Ice Age, a time of lower tropical sea surface temperatures….
doi: 10.1029/2006GC001463
Laurent Dezileau et. al. – 2011
Intense storm activity during the Little Ice Age on the French Mediterranean coast
…The apparent increase of the superstorm activity during the latter half of the Little Ice Age was probably due to the thermal gradient increase leading to enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity over a large Central Atlantic/European domain and leading to a modification of the occurrence of extreme wind events along the French Mediterranean coast….
Hubert H. Lamb – 1984
[Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis 1984, pp 309-329]
Some Studies of the Little Ice Age of Recent Centuries and its Great Storms
…And so the series gives us our most reliable estimate of the magnitude of the temperature depression in England and neighbouring countries. In northern Scotland, southern Norway and Iceland there are indications of a significantly greater depression of the prevailing temperatures…..The enhanced thermal gradient between latitudes about 50° and 60–65°N in this part of the world is thought to have provided a basis for the development of some greater wind storms in these latitudes than have occurred in most of the last 100 years…
doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-7692-5_34
Dr. Paul Reiter – 2000
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
…Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine. Violent storms caused massive flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent losses of large tracts of land from the Danish, German, and Dutch coasts….
doi: 10.3201/eid0601.000101
L. Dezileaua et. al. – 2011
Intense storm activity during the Little Ice Age on the French Mediterranean coast
…The apparent increase in intense storms around 250 years ago occurs during the latter half of the Little Ice Age, a time of lower continental surface temperatures….
Abstract – 2004
Kam-biu Liu et. al.
A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, Reconstructed from Chinese Historical Documentary Records
Remarkably, the two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong (AD 1660–1680, 1850–1880) coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China during the Little Ice Age.
Abstract – 1997
K. J. Kreutz et al
Bipolar changes in atmospheric circulation during the Little Ice Age
meridional atmospheric circulation intensity increased in the polar South Pacific and North Atlantic at the beginning (-1400 A.D.) of the most recent Holocene rapid climate change event, the Little Ice Age (LIA). As deduced from chemical concentrations at these core sites, the LIA was characterized by substantial meridional circulation strength variability,…
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5330.1294
The Little Climatic Optimum, with its persistent trade winds, clear skies, limited storminess, and consistent Walker Circulation may have been an ideal setting for migration. The Little Ice Age with its increased variability in trade winds, erratic Walker Circulation, increased storminess, and increased dust from volcanism may have helped prevent migration. Such changes in climate would influence the migration pattern through physical perception and decision making by the Polynesians, rather than having a direct impact.


Brrrrr! Frequency and intensity.

Philippe Sorrel et. al. – 2012
Persistent non-solar forcing of Holocene storm dynamics in coastal sedimentary archives
…Here we present a reappraisal of high-energy estuarine and coastal sedimentary records from the southern coast of the English Channel, and report evidence for five distinct periods during the Holocene when storminess was enhanced during the past 6,500 years. We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier…..
Letter to Nature
Jeffrey P. Donnelly
Intense hurricane activity over the past 5,000 years controlled by El Niño and the West African monsoon
…..It has been proposed that an increase in sea surface temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change has led to an increase in the frequency of intense tropical cyclones2, 3, but this proposal has been challenged….sea surface temperatures as high as at present are not necessary to support intervals of frequent intense hurricanes….


“I think it is perhaps more important to notice that the global ACE has not shown any trend” Not according to this article…

Ben of Houston

There is only one reason to use the USA coastline as a measurement: length. America has had good records of hurricane landfalls since the 1830s and the establishment of the Republic of Texas. We have not had such good records elsewhere, and we have historically been horrible at measuring hurricanes that don’t make landfall. Trying to measure total hurricanes will restrict you to the satellite era.
As the USA takes the brunt of one of the three major hurricane zones, so it should be decent proxy for total hurricane activity.

I wouldn’t pay any attention to this author. Hurricane Sandy, Category 1, is neatly left out of his sweeping over generalization of science that he clearly doesn’t understand. Beware of people who make big claims based on false information.

Tsk Tsk

Pot. Kettle. Black. Category 1 hurricanes are the weakest, so they have no bearing on the metric. And Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane when it made landfall.

Alan Robertson

Meanwhile, as Hurricane Patricia is reported as the strongest hurricane ever to hit the Western Hemisphere, one has to wonder by what metric is it called the “strongest ever”? Even Wikipedia lists 19 Atlantic hurricanes of Patricia’s reported wind speed 165 mph or above between 1924 and 2007.


I notice that too ! Doesn’t any journalist check there facts anymore ????

Henry Bowman

Typically they find it much easier to simply make them up. Checking facts is simply really hard work.

Gerry, England

No. Takes too long and the truth would undermine their juicy story.


Oh yes, Seth Goebbelstein was using a headline that included North America in the title for the hurricane that hit Mexico. Oh yeah, Mexico is technically North America. If it had hit Chile, it would have hit America. It’s kinda funny watching these people squirm, and when you read the Comments sections, no one’s buying the crap any more.


If Mexico is North American, then where on Earth is Central America?
And why do they called people from the USA Norteamericanos?


The media is picking up and using AGW alarmist phraseology. “Strongest ever” can be interpreted as “category 5,” but without the full explanation, “strongest ever” looks good in a headline.


But the big question is…how the hell can the strongest hurricane ever hit a place, and leave virtually no damage?
Not even tin shanties were knocked down!


As i read it it referred to the Satellite era. Nothing has happened before we improved reporting and measurement.
Like the Cat 5 that hit the same area Patrica did-in 1959….
Back when Algore was farming with mules…


Initial reports indicate no major damage, deaths from Hurricane Patricia
When the eye gets smaller…they get “stronger”……….


Patricia, most overrated hurricane EVAH, should have called it slowcane. I feel for the people that have had a lot of rain but that should be no surprise they do live along an Ocean in a tropical zone.


The “Strongest Storm in History” hits Mexico just before the Paris Climate Conference. And so far no reports of deaths and only minor damage.
This shows the power of Mexican Technology. Unlike the faulty US technology on display in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, or the equally faulty US technology on display in New York during super-storm Sandy, where untold billions in property damage resulted, with thousands of deaths, the Mexican technology survived the Strongest Storm in History with barely a scratch.
What this shows is faulty results that come from the US obsession with blaming everything on Global Warming, with the only solution being to criminalize CO2. The drug solution applied to climate. It should serve as a wake up call to the US. Even the poorest fishing villages in Mexico does a better job of weathering storms than did New Orleans and New York.
Hats off to Mexico and their can-do, Mexican spirit of inventiveness and preparation. The US should take a lesson from Mexico. Built it stronger if you want it to last. While the US sits on its ass, twiddling its thumbs, trying to save the world by plugging the exhaust on every car and power-plant in the world with red-tape.


That is it…I am going to shelter in place in a make-shift tin-roofed shanty next time a hurricane approaches SW Florida.

Boulder Skeptic

Maybe the difference (Patricia in Mexico and Katrina in the US) is that the people of Mexico have it ingrained that they have to fend for themselves and make good decisions because they know their government is unreliable; whereas, the “sheeple” of the US have to be told by big brother government how to do everything in life, are frozen in fear by the media and still don’t realize how unreliable their government is.

Alan Robertson

Hurricane Patricia was reported to have had 200 mph winds while at sea, which had slowed(?) to 165 mph as it approached and struck the Mexican coast. Those hapless people feeling the brunt of the storm’s power probably didn’t suffer any less because of the reported difference, it’s still a disaster for them.

Well put. Mike Smith pointed out in his blog that taking care of the people affected by Patricia was of more immediate importance than whether it was/was not caused by AGW.
South Texas is expected to be hit with more rainfall from the remnants of Patricia, and damage from the flooding may be at least as severe as wind damage from hurricane force winds – noting that Patricia won’t even be a remnant low when moisture hits Texas.


Sky News reported it as the biggest storm EVER by 5kph.


I watched news reporters on the scene of the center of impact, and there was virtually no damage.
Shacks and trees and power lines largely intact.
Less visible damage than a bad thunderstorm here in the US.
Less flooding than in an isolated heavy rain shower in the SW US.

Bill Illis

Hurricane Patricia certainly blew itself apart very fast. I haven’t seen anything like it. There is still a lot of energy there, but it certainly lost its circulation and cloud-tops in a very short period of time.

Walter Sobchak

A storm track running into the mountains and deserts of Central Mexico is a lead pipe loser.

This sort of hurricane is very typical on the Mexican coast. We ducked into Manzanillo in ’85 in a 26′ sailboat to let one go by. It eventually slammed into Mazatlan, demolished the city. Wiped it out. Something like $26.84 US total damages. The Mexicans rebuilt it in a week, better than ever. I hear tourist can go there, even to this day.



As I asked recently at Climate, Etc., I’d be interested to know more about the sampling frequency and areal coverage of past hurricanes regarding windspeeds and barometric pressures.
New media claims that a particular hurricane is “the biggest” or “the baddest” leaves out the rather obvious observation that tropical cyclones Camille, Patricia and Haiyan (among others) all approached an apparent upper limit on hurricane intensity.
Incredibly small differences due to inconsistent measurements are insufficient, IMO, to distinguish amongst them.

Camille: 900mbar , Patricia: 879mbar, Haiyan 895mbar, looks like a clear difference to me.


Phil, you can’t compare pressure levels across basins, the relationship between central pressure and maximum sustained windspeed is different in each basin, as is the background level of sea level pressure.

Camille (1969) was chosen as an example since it was a Cat 5 landing with gusts well over 200 mph and 20+ foot storm surge. Camille also preceded the more intensive reconnoitering of storms possible in the modern era. Nevertheless, it was a severe storm that matched the “punch” of other great storms, whether in 1935 or in 2015.
Therefore, to declare a “clear difference” among the storms because of one metric misses the points I was concerned with.


In fairness, Patricia was 880 mb – that is pretty low – as Lows go.
I note that a small area is reported [yeah, I know] as having winds of 250 mph – about 400 kph.
IF [capitals for emphasis] accurate, that would have been some humdinger of a storm.
Maybe – ‘The deepest and windiest hurricane to hit Mexico in the satellite era’ [if the reported depth and winds are indeed correct].
But – some humdinger at landfall . . . .


I think they had Michael Mann taking the readings of that hurricane !!!


Let us see…no storm surge, no significant damage, no deaths…
Something stinks to high heaven here.
The storm looked quite impressive, but must have been the fastest and most complete dissipation of storm energy ever, anywhere.
So, as a mark of distinction…that is as good as it gets, IMO.
Fastest fizzle ever.
Once again proving…the bigger the alarmist hype, the less damage Gaia will inflict.


I seem to recall the recent heavy rains and flooding in the Carolinas as being described as a “1000-year rainfall.” The media ran with that as well. Well, maybe a 1 in 1000-year chance of that much rain at any given location, but of it occurring SOMEWHERE? Hardly.

Richard G

WeatherBell shows Patricia at 175 mph but only 17 ACE because it was short lived. Olaf just before Patricia was at 130 mph but had ACE of 37.8 because it was long lived. I believe I heard news reports of 165 mph at landfall for Patricia.
Globally in 2015 I couldn’t find any above 155 mph except for Patricia. Global ACE is running above average in 2015 but there doesn’t seem to be any trend since 1972.


Please do not try and counter AGW alarmism with facts and data. It just won’t work, you know.


I noticed last night that as soon as the hurricane touched land, the eye disintegrated !!!


Marcus, I think most of saw that unless you were watching CNN MSNBC etc, to me it actually collapsed even before it hit the coast and it was really, really fast in it’s collapse.

Bruce Cobb

With the COP21 gabfest looming, Warmunists desperately need a big weather disaster they can label as “partly due to climate change”. Looks like Patricia hasn’t filled the bill. Tough luck for them.

They’ll have to hold their breath for a polar bear attack in Churchill!

David Ball

You may enjoy this polarbearscience;


The sick pathetic parasites look forward with glee to any weather event that can kill people.


Way back in 2006 this issue was the subject of a heated debate between Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science and America’s most prominent hurricane scientist) and Prof. Judith Curry. Looks like Dr. Gray was right and Dr. Curry was wrong.
From a Wall St. Journal story dated Feb. 2, 2006:
“It’s not rocket science,” says Dr. Curry, who says the researchers counted the number of Category 4 or 5 storms, or those with sustained wind speeds of at least 131 mph. They found that the total number of storms world-wide stayed fairly constant, but the number of intense ones had doubled since 1970. About two weeks after Katrina barreled into the Gulf Coast as a Category 3 storm, an article by Drs. Curry, Webster and Holland laid out their conclusion in the journal Science. They say the rise in ocean temperatures isn’t related to natural causes and appears to be associated with global warming, most likely related to a rise in greenhouse gases.”
I wonder if Dr. Curry has changed her mind in considering the facts presented in this post?

Pamela Gray

Has she posted since then about hurricanes? Written a post on her blog about it? Did you try to research this on your own or are you hoping someone else will in your stead? Or maybe you are serving up a batch of spin?
Step up to the plate and answer your own question.


I check her blog sometimes from links here on WUWT. The best part of the article I linked to was the quote from Dr. Grey:
“Dr. Gray has said on his Web site and has testified to Congress that recent storms’ intensity wasn’t fueled by human-induced global warming. Natural factors, he says, such as the presence of upper-air currents that can bat storms from side to side, helped steer them ashore and thus made them more destructive. Dr. Gray believes the current era of high activity will eventually end as a result of changes in salinity and currents in the Atlantic. Sometime in the next decade or two, he predicts, the earth will enter a cooling period, as it did in the 1950s.”
Looks to me like Dr. Gray nailed this. Let’s remember Dr. Curry’s main thesis is now is Natural Variability and uncertainty but back then she was singing a different tune. She flipped to skeptic after Climategate and has become quite famous (or infamous depending on which side you’re on) since then. I really would like to see her retract her previous papers or at least update her research to match current observations.


She is attacked every day now because she has become a ” DENIER ” !!!!!

David Ball

Apparently “deneir” means “one who asks questions”. lol


That’s what we *used* to call a scientist.

Bill Illis

Curry posted her paper on ClimateAudit at the time (when there was a post about the lack of strengthening of hurricanes as predicted). Curry was trying to say that the paper was very objective and didn’t find as much strengthening as other climate scientists predicted. Look, we can be very objective.
But it was really about trying to show the “skeptics” that hurricanes were actually increasing. Many of the posters found fault with the methodology and Currie may have taken notice.
Then Currie started a continuing dialogue with Steve McIntyre, and even invited him to speak to her class. The exposure to the other side and continuing interactions with Steve started her down the other path. She is now an objective scientist (which means that is what she really was all along but had been indoctrinated on the other side).
The full complete story would be very interesting.


Bill, you and I remember Curry’s early days at Climate Audit very differently. In particular I find “didn’t find as much strengthening as other climate scientists predicted” to be a bizarre description of the Webster et al result from 2005, which in fact claimed an increase when models would predict such a small change it would be impossible to detect as yet.
Landsea and Klotzbach have revisted that paper after ten years. The increase they documented stopped after 1990 (actually earlier from what I can tell) so yeah, Dr. Gray’s position has been vindicated. As far as I know Curry hasn’t changed her position but doesn’t talk much about Tropical Cyclones anymore.


I suspect that was prior to her close association with Michael Mann…. in interlude which convinced her that AGW “science” wasn’t really science at all. She was still drinking the AGW koolaid at the time. Difference is she learned to call a spade a spade whereas most haven’t.


From the failed predictions files, I believe Trenberth wrote a lengthy feature article for SciAm right after Katrina. I no longer have that issue, since I purged my library of their nonsense long ago, but I think it presented the relationship as trivial: global warming meant higher SSTs, which would provide more energy to drive tropical storms to hurricanes, and hurricanes to Frankenstorms. If anyone has that issue then it would make an interesting case study for how useless it is for scientists try to use “basic physics” to explain complex atmospheric phenomena.
I’d also point out that we’re almost certain to hear the word “unprecendented” in connection with Hurricane Patricia. It only took me about 5 minutes to find information on Hurricane Linda (1997) which was powerful enough to wipe out land-based meteorological instruments and prevent accurate information about its intensity from being collected. Dvorak estimates were around 900 MB and 185 MPH winds, which would make Linda a bit weaker than Patricia, but a study published in 2003 suggested that those estimates were probably conservative and that conditions would support a maximum strength of 880 MB. The rapid intensification of Patricia is almost certainly going to be cited as evidence of climate change, so it’s important to note that Linda followed a very similar development path.

OK John, Patricia had a recorded minimum pressure of 879mbar, which is lower even than your ‘adjusted’ pressure for Linda.

See - owe to Rich

And was that 879mb measured at sea level, or inferred from a hurricane hunting aircraft? How do we know that it is a fair comparison?
Anyway, a hurricane is as a hurricane does, and fortunately Pat didn’t do much damage.


You’re going to hang your hat on a 1 mbar difference in pressure? Do you have any idea of the typical scatter in the wind-pressure relationship? 880 to 879 is a statistical dead heat.


Typhoon Tip (1979) – min. central pressure = 870mb. Patricia broke Wilma’s Western Hemisphere record — barely — but we’ve reached 36 years and counting, with a ways still to go to reach a new world record.


Well, I think it’s going to be a lot less now that Patricia dropped to a depression before even hitting land with an initial death toll of 0

Check out Weatherbell’s hurricane forecast for 2016-2018.


Some scientists were asked to determine whether all numbers were prime or not.
The mathematician replied, “2 is prime, 2+1 = 3 is prime, therefore all numbers are prime by induction.”
The computer scientist replied, “2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime…..”
The climate scientist replied, “2 is prime, 3 is prime, 4 is uh, is, um.. just weather, 5 is prime, 6 is just weather again, 7 is prime…… clearly the trend is that all numbers are prime.”


Question / speculation:
I was taught back in the 70s that hurricanes were heat-transfer engines (bad wording, sorry). In other words, a climate-feedback mechanism, which pulls latent heat off the oceans and pumps it out into space.
I bring that up because there was a recent paper claiming we would have Less hurricanes due to ‘man-made’ climate change- but more Powerful ones would occur. And this year we’ve had a number of powerful hurricanes in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
Here’s where I see they are right, but for the Wrong reasons:
El-Ninos tend(?) to kill off hurricane formation. But the accumulation of energy goes on. Eventually, the feedback mechanism (hurricanes) balances out by pushing through that ‘boundary’ caused by the El-Nino, creating a much more powerful (but short-term) hurricane, which pumps the latent heat up into the Stratosphere. And from there, into space.
Badly worded I know but I am literally running to get out the door. Am I wrong?

Pamela Gray

El Nino’s do not accumulate energy, they bring heat already in the oceans to the surface through a reduction in mixing brought about through a relaxation of surface wind, and then evaporate it away into the atmosphere. Which is the opposite of accumulation. El Nino’s get rid of stored energy, La Nina’s accumulate it.


Well of course, Pamela. We all know little boys exert LOTS of energy, while little girls tend to let it store up! Jeeeezzz. We did you get your schooling??? :):)


Pamela, that is Not what I was asking and it is certainly NOT what I was suggesting. And now I Do have to run.

El Nino only enhances a tropical storm that forms above or crosses into the warmer surface waters (i.e., those explained by Pamela Gray). However, in the Atlantic the shift in high-level winds that typically accompanies an El Nino tends to drive storms away from the North American coast and can also disrupt a storm’s energy accumulation.
Even in the complete absence of tropical cyclones, non-cyclonic convection, currents, etc. continue to operate so it is not a given that energy accumulates in the system (beyond the solar gain in the Pacific described as La Nina) during years without large storms.


El Nino decreases Tropical Cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin. it has the opposite effect in the Eastern Pacific Basin. The overall global effect is mixed.
Tropical Cyclones are big storm systems but probably not a substantial enough fraction of overall convective and latent heat transfer between the ocean and the atmopsphere to have the potential to be a climate feedback of meaningful magnitude by themselves.
To put that another way, there’ s lots of weather. Tropical Cyclones are big and threatening from a human perspective, but the other weather systems out number them by at least two orders of magnitude.

Richard G

I see 42 Hurricanes since 1/1/15, so looks to be near average. ACE is shown to be 144% of average. Last year the ACE looked to be 91% of average. The majority of the additional ACE this year is from the Eastern North Pacific. Globally excluding this basin, the ACE is near average.
If El Nino’s release accumulated energy from the ocean, that would make sense as all the additional ACE is being recorded in the Eastern North Pacific where the El Nino is taking place.


oppppps should be where…:):)

The Original Mike M

Look at all the hyperbole that has just preceded ‘Hurricane Patricia’ that then collapsed on hitting land. Gnashing of teeth and wailing from the warmists who were all hoping to blame a major disaster on CO2. Once again their fuss turns into a fart against a Force Nine.


Fox News is reporting ” not even a broken window ” in Puerto Vallarta !!!! Hillarious !!


Hilarious failure that is….

Whereas if you look somewhere near where it made landfall there’s a different story:

Eric H

Sorry there Phil. but if you actually look at all of the pictures posted all of the “damage” consisted of a large amount of tree debris, some tile roof damage, and a few downed power lines… I didn’t see a SINGLE broken window in any of the pictures…
BTW the video included with the story was all about flooding in Texas.

the story was all about flooding in Texas
hell’s bells. a few years back all we heard about was the permanent drought in Texas. that the rains would never return. now a storm comes along, dumps a bit of rain on poor old Texas and all we hear about is the floods.
Man up Texas. What the hell happened to you? Have you been overrun with pansies? What a bunch of pantie waists. You want to see rain? Come up to BC, November clear through to October. You will see rain. That stuff you get in Texas, it ain’t real rain. It is frigging drizzle.


Texas only gets drizzle and deluges.
Gentle and beneficial rains are a thing of the past.
The kids will not know what “regular” rain is.


Unfortunately, that was not the case with Hurricane Sandy. The “fuss and hyperbole” helps to reduce fatalities by getting people to take these storms seriously.


“fuss and hyperbole” = CRY WOLF; pay attention to me/my cause.
If they keep saying there is a tremendous danger when there is not much of a danger, then eventually less people will take the warnings seriously.
“Honest unbiased information” = “helps to reduce”…damage

I guess Mexico doesn’t count?

Bruce Cobb

Depends what you are counting, and why.


uno dos, one two tres cuatro …
Matty told Hatty …


“I guess Mexico doesn’t count?”
As part of the US?
What are you, from a sanctuary city?

The point of the article is the US has not been hit by a severe hurricane in 10 years, but if the scope is expanded to North America then a record breaking hurricane just hit this week. I find your remark to be rude.


Yup, rudeness rarely helps. It comes in a variety of styles and we should all aspire to root it out. Forgive when it happens and be the example we seek.
Takes alot of work for us emotional humans.



I find your response thin skinned.
This ain’t whiffle ball.
Get over it.
BTW, Mexico is not part of the US, and is not part of North America.
(Geographically, not geologically speaking. Climatology is a branch of physical geography.)
There is a separate place called Central America.
Again, get over it.
Sorry if you feelings got hurt.
Too bad you ain’t cuter or I would offer to kiss and make up.

Village Idiot

“As of today, October 24th, it has been 3652 days (including leap years) or a decade (10 years) since the US has been hit by a Category 3 or greater hurricane……..Each day forward will be a new record in this decade long hurricane drought period.”
‘Drought period’…to me that has a negative connotation.
I’m no expert, but the US not being hit by a Category 3 or greater hurricane is a good thing, right?


It is a good thing. It’s also evidence of the failure of yet another global warming prediction.

Bruce Cobb

It’s good for humans, but bad for Warmists. Doesn’t fit with their ideology.

Jeff Alberts

As far as nature is concerned, it’s neither good nor bad, it just is. Good for people and infrastructure I suppose, so maybe they should call it a lull instead of a drought.


Its more like a pause, plateau or hiatus.


Yes, Mr. Idiot, it is a good thing.
Which is why you will never hear about it from a warmista.
Just like we never hear about any of the failed predictions after they go by the wayside.
BTW… melting ice at the poles, warming Earth, increasing CO2, earlier Spring…all are good things.
Please get the message out to your fellow warmista brethren.


“BTW… melting ice at the poles, warming Earth, increasing CO2, earlier Spring…all are good things. Please get the message out to your fellow warmista brethren.”
2 cents worth of opinion
The most valuable thing a mass movement (grass rooter) brings to the table is passion. Their passion is mostly born of a feeling of dissatisfaction. Identify what they are dissatisfied about and offer a new solution. Provide tangible show and tell that it works and they follow.
Flipping around what they “know” as being bad to being “good” is, as you can imagine, a shock to the system that rarely works. That approach can work but it typically involves total subjegation similar to replacing Japan’s imperial rule after a lost annihilation.


Did you forget the pertinent details of who the warmistas are, how this started, and why it is perpetuating?
I did not.

Coeur de Lion

Agree with horselover above – watched Patricia with interest and had a smile when it went from Cat 5 to 2 very suddenly. But I did note with interest that the warmist BBC didn;t trumpet ‘global wwrming’ anywhere that I listened too. Perhaps so many of us compliained when a Royal Society no less spokesman lied to John Humphries about Cyclone Pam


Is it possible they ” adjusted ” the wind speeds to make it look like a cat 5 ??? It seemed to grow and then shrink pretty damn fast !!!

Richard M

I suspect the wind speeds were all satellite estimates. I don’t think there were any actual measurements so they could pretty say anything they wanted.


The wind speeds were not satellite estimates, they flew a hurricane hunter plane into the storm and measured wind speeds of 200 mph or more.

measured wind speeds of 200 mph or more
I was driving my car on the freeway, stuck a wind meter out my window, and damned if the wind wasn’t blowing more than 100 mph. It was like driving in a hurricane. The guy ahead of me turned on his windshield washers, and I could barely see for the blinding rain.
What with the dog in the back with his head out the window and his ears flapping like they were I could barely hold the car on the road. I finally got the car turned around and going in the opposite direction, but it was no use. the wind was blowing just as strong in the other direction.

Retired Engineer Jim

Auntie Bebe’s newsreader was reporting that it was “the most powerful storm ever”. A meteorologist was next to him and she stated that it “was among the most 5 powerful storms recorded.” He ignored her and kept on with “the most powerful storm” bit. This was at 1800 PDT last evening, after Patricia had made landfall.


If the central pressure was indeed 880 mb when measured by a dropsonde, I would prefer to not be anywhere near it.


A dropsonde released into the eye measured a sea-level pressure of
894 mb with 25 kt of wind. Adjusting this pressure for the surface
winds (i.e. the drop did not land into the actual center of the eye)
gives an estimated minimum central pressure of 892 mb, which breaks
the record for the lowest pressure of an east Pacific hurricane.
Some fluctuations in intensity are likely today due to eyewall
replacements, but Patricia should maintain category 5 status through


Classic global warming theory says warming means fewer violent storms as the polar/tropical heat differential is reduced. They haven’t mentioned this lately tho. Instead they say the opposite for no apparent reason.

See - owe to Rich

October 24, 2015 at 9:24 am
If the central pressure was indeed 880 mb when measured by a dropsonde, I would prefer to not be anywhere near it.
— Hello; I never saw the National Hurricane centre mention dropsondes – it was all inferred from planes flying well above sea level (naturally).
Even so, I’m prepared to believe it was a genuine Category 5 out to sea, even if not a record. I think it would be interesting to explore the annals for how fast any other Cat 5 has dissipated. Patricia was probably unprecedented in this respect 🙂


The hurricane hunters always drop radiosondes.


Very well done article as usual. Then you conclude …
“How long will it be before the media stops pushing the meme of “more hurricanes due to global warming”? Perhaps never, because as we all know the news cycle maxim: “if it bleeds, it leads” ”
My team and I track an awful lot of “information” that hits the world on specific issues. It’s daunting, but still fun.
It should also be no surprise to you that things that are boring are ignored. Exaggeration, half truth, calls to the most, biggest, super duper events/circumstances are what attract the attention of human squirrels. And it’s everywhere. A young but exceptionally creative peer mentions that what the world needs is a drama mama meter attached to their mobile device (increasingly what people use). At least give people a chance to know that their easy hook button is being triggerred.

John M Reynolds

You wrote that “the [Days Between] graphs have been updated by WUWT,” but the second was not updated and still shows less than 3600 for Florida. — John M Reynolds


I was at lunch with several colleagues yesterday and we were talking about hurricane Patricia. At that time it was being called the most powerful hurricane ever recorded. I pointed out that it was a smallish in size and looked like it would not strike a populated area and that the coverage was way overblown.
Blank looks.
“Well, we can expect storms like this with global warming”, someone said.
Not necessarily so, I replied, there has been no increase in hurricanes over the past 50 years.
Uncomfortable silence….. I changed the subject.

Bruce Cobb

You spoiled their whinge-fest! Last time they’ll invite you to lunch.


Unless you pay for them.
Like CAGW, really.

Jeff Alberts

Could have been silence because they felt sorry for the “den*er”, and didn’t want to hurt his feelings.


@ Grant, look at it this way, for them TGIF and they could hide for 2 days.


Pacific islanders should pay heed. Their best days was during the Medieval time.

Around a.d. 1300 the entire Pacific Basin (continental Pacific Rim and oceanic Pacific Islands) was affected by comparatively rapid cooling and sea-level fall, and possibly increased storminess, that caused massive and enduring changes to Pacific environments and societies. For most Pacific societies, adapted to the warmer, drier, and more stable climates of the preceding Medieval Climate Anomaly (a.d. 750–1250), the effects of this A.D. 1300 Event were profoundly disruptive, largely because of the reduction in food resources available in coastal zones attributable to the 70–80-centimeter sea-level fall. This disruption was manifested by the outbreak of persistent conflict, shifts in settlements from coasts to refugia inland or on unoccupied offshore islands, changes in subsistence strategies, and an abrupt end to long-distance cross-ocean interaction during the ensuing Little Ice Age (a.d. 1350–1800). The A.D. 1300 Event provides a good example of the disruptive potential for human societies of abrupt, short-lived climate changes.

Bubba Cow

read this and wished you had added some words for others – it is very useful to understanding how this lunacy is taking hold with regressive extremists:
** “There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification. **


Regarding the title of Tidwell’s book. “The Ravaging Tide”.
I am certainly feeling the effects of such a tide. A ravaging tide of bullcrap.
Even Al Gore is looking distinctly ravaged these days. Ravaged by the burden of his own lying.
Eventually, the tide of lies erodes the capacity of the mind for rational thought and of the heart for joy.
And so this guy Tidwell predicts New Orleans style events all along the Atlantic and Gulf coast.
So speaking as a complete outsider, I see two major ingredients in the New Orleans flood, 1. New Orleans has sunk by 2m since it was effectively drained, 2. The Levees were inadequate and failed.
In that sense, we can assert an anthropogenic cause. Anthropogenic Coastal Sinking.
And yet these idiots choose to misdirect the public mind toward focusing on an average sea level rise which may be between 2mm-3.4mm per year. And with no possible means of attributing any of that rise to human causes.
in addition they hand wave and suggest that such storms are on the rise – even though data and graphs are widely available showing that no such trend exists.
I refuse to believe that they are SO stupid that they believe their own stupid lies.
If I tell a person here in the UK, that the US has just experienced the longest period without a Cat3+ landfall, then in most cases they will either 1. not believe me or 2. question where I obtained this clearly biased data.
Since such inconvenient truths are never mentioned by the UK mainstream TV channels.
I suggest to them that counting ZERO hurricanes should not be all that difficult.
But, most people prefer to cling to their brainwashing.
It’s the FOG OF GORE.

I suggest to them that counting ZERO hurricanes should not be all that difficult.

Love it!

Mike the Morlock

You could also try this, ask them to name one. They of course will say Sandy, then point out that it was not a cat 3; and the U.S. coast gets cat 1s and remnants normally. Growing up close to the Connecticut coast it was rare NOT to get storm surges. I remember the “eye” of the 1985 hurricane as it passed over us. Exhilarating!!


Al Gore and the media cannot be wrong, it’s been settled by consensus, by-passing the messy science stuff required to prove something. Warmer Ocean surface temps must cause more hurricanes and of greater intensity even if they don’t.
Regardless, what is the fuss – hurricanes are good for wind farms which Gore and his buddies must be invested in, even if they are not.

Poor Yorek

Camille (From Wikipedia): “A reconnaissance flight indicated a pressure of 901 millibars (26.6 inHg),[36] but this pressure was later corrected in 1969 by researchers to 919 mb (27.14 inHg).[6] The wind speed of Camille can only be approximated, as no meteorological equipment survived the extreme conditions at landfall, but Camille is estimated to have had sustained winds of 190 miles per hour (310 km/h) at landfall, with gusts exceeding 230 miles per hour (370 km/h).[6][36] ” References internal to the Wiki article.
From NHC/NAOA re Patricia at landfall:
Satellite images indicate that the center of the eye of Patricia
made landfall at approximately 615 PM CDT…2315 UTC…along the
coast of southwestern Mexico near Cuixmala. This position is also
about 55 miles…85 km…west-northwest of Manzanillo, Mexico. The
maximum winds were estimated to be 165 mph…270 km/h.
LOCATION…19.4N 105.0W
So as far as “at landfall” strength, Camille would appear to have been stronger (not disputing Patricia’s extremely low pressure some hours before landfall).


When exactly did the science books ever declare that it was impossible to have a huricane in the South Atlantic?

Michael Jankowski

Gore and the warmistas are not breathing a sigh of relief. They’re upset that Patricia wasn’t catastrophic.

George E. Conant

I was thinking hurricanes are effectively cooling the warm seas below them , releasing the stored energy to the air and out to space…so it stands to reason that 2005 saw record number of hurricane in the Atlantic during the peak of tropical Atlantic warmth, which appears to coincide with the step change in global temps after the 1998 el nino spike. The Atlantic appears to be in a cooling phase (from what I been reading here at WUWT) and the Pacific has a fine el nino going on, coincidentally we are seeing a high number of Pacific cyclones forming and thus venting heat to space…. with so many cyclones cooling the Pacific and low solar activity might the combined effect send the Pacific into a serious cooling trend? Any thoughts just how fast such a cooling will emerge? And what might colder Pacific and Atlantic oceans portend to the lower troposphere temps?

Alan Robertson

Those scenarios would mean climate change, you see. We’re doomed and it’s our fault. Pay up.


I do not understand the scale on the “Days Between Hurricanes” graph. The period is five years until 1976. Am I missing something?

Richard M

The x-axis is a count of major hurricanes (not a year), the y-axis is the number of years till the next major hurricane.


Of course – duh! Thanks very much.

Richard M

We may be seeing the El Nino peaking right now rather than the normal time (early in a year). The warmer waters have been fueling more Pacific storms while creating wind shear to prevent Atlantic storms. This also appeared to happen in 1987 which was another big year for storms in the Pacific. In 1988 we had a La Nina that started early in the year. It will be interesting to see if this pattern is repeated.

Richard M

I should also mention this appeared to cause less warming in the SH which would suppress the normal global jump we see during an El Nino.

Just Steve

. .Hilarious !!!

A must read – the comments too!

comment image

Just Steve

A good question from Steve Milloy at Junk Science:
To any warmist… what would the max wind speed of #Patricia be if CO2 levels were at 0.035% instead of 0.04%? And how do you know?

richard verney

Obviously, there is s strong El Nino in progress, but since that is a natural event and not caused by CO2, it should be ignored for the purposes of answering your question.
I expect that Bob, in one of his monthly updates, may tell us how the ocean surface temperature under the path of the hurricane has changed these past 30 or so years, although personally, I give little credence to SST data prior to ARGO, so I suspect that there is no quality data available with which to even begin to answer the question posed by you.

Just Steve

While we may enjoy the same first name, I am not Steve Milloy. And, while I have learned a great many things from your posts Richard, this question is not, I believe, intended to be answered .
Milloy is simply throwing the CO2 meme back in the warmunistas face…they say increased CO2 causes everything from harsher weather to hangnails, he asks for them to simply answer what any first year science student should know has NO answer.. I would call it using absurdity to illustrate absurdity.

NZ Willy

I simply cannot believe that you are still putting that nonsensical red trend line on those “days between landfalls” bar charts. Truly, I despair sometimes.


Want some cheese to go with that whine ????

richard verney

Whilst my heart goes out to those adversely caught up by Patricia, Steve Goddard has a good article on this and one that puts the hurricane into perspective. See:
In the period prior to (alleged) manmade global warming, in 1959 (which was part of a decade that saw global cooling, well at least it did before the recent adjustments by warmists), a hurricane made landfall in approximately the same place killing 1,452 people. Such loss is tragic, but it shows that things have ever been.

Typical BS by Goddard, compares winds at Puerto Vallarta where Patricia didn’t make landfall with those from 1959 where that hurricane made landfall. Also many of the deaths caused in 1959 were caused by a mudslide which buried a village under 10 feet of mud, killing those people not wind damage.

Mike the Morlock

Phil, ever been in a “cane”?


Do you know what caused the mudslide?
Now in completely unrelated news……

Reconstruction of Prehistoric Landfall Frequencies of Catastrophic Hurricanes in Northwestern Florida from Lake Sediment Records

Storm surge and flooding are the big risks from most hurricanes. That’s one reason home insurance typically covered wind but not water damage.

This is proof of climate change.
There were a lot of big hurricanes.
Now there are not.
The climate has changed.
What will they walk about on the Weather Channel?

Steve Fraser

Anyone know of a study of correlation between El Niño events and Mexican West coat hurricanes?

Chris Lynch

The Irish broadcaster RTE has faithfully reporting Patricia as the strongest Hurricane in recorded history (Warmist code for Evah!). Hmmmmmm! If experience is anything to go by when the dust settles some more thorough investigation will ensue and lo and behold Patricia will turn out to be a lot less remarkable than the hype a la Pam. This, of course, will appear nowhere in Western mass media as usual. Unfortunately it has become far too easy for the unscrupulous to disseminate falsehoods and exaggerations thanks to the utterly disgraceful supine and unquestioning role of the media.

Chris Lynch

Apologies for typo – should read “has been”

Richard Barnett

Living in the coastal bend of the Texas gulf coast makes me hope for another 10 years of no major hurricanes. I have been thru the eye of the storm before. The eye wall is an unique experience with all of the vortexes spinning off but the best way to describe it is terrifing.


Al’s trying for a big comeback – on the “rotten ice” ticket:|carousel|dl1


all I’ve heard on Australian media & BBC this morning makes the claim Patricia was “the strongest” when it actually hit Mexico, which doesn’t seem to be the case at all.
BBC “cleverly” inserts most powerful IN THE WORLD, by using a quote from AFP.
the Beeb then lists “most powerful storms” in RECENT years, which locates them all in the CAGW years!
24 Oct: BBC 1 hour ago: Storm Patricia weakens over Mexico but risks remain
Patricia was the strongest storm ever recorded in the Americas ***when it ploughed into Mexico but has since been downgraded to a tropical depression…”For being the most powerful hurricane ***in the world, I think we came out okay,” Cristian Arias, a seafood restaurant owner in Colima state told the AFP agency…Some of the most powerful storms in ***RECENT years

Just saw a live CNN report on Patricia at Manzanillo, Mexico. The eye actually came ashore NW of Manzanillo. So far there are no reports by Mexico of any injuries or deaths. Lets hope and pray that that holds true. There are probably some areas that haven’t been surveyed yet.
Weatherbell’s, Saturday report has a good explanation/analysis of this by Joe Bastardi :
He claims that this storm will end up with 50-60 mph winds around the eastern Great Lakes later this week.
We’ll see about that…


“…the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger…” – Al Gore
Does the evidence refute Gore’s ‘clear’ science? The charts above don’t show dates or temperature. We know that there have been fewer hurricanes making landfall now. But did we have fewer hurricanes in the 30s, too, when temperatures were similarly warm?

Any thoughts just how fast such a cooling will emerge?

“Historical oceanographic observations and satellite imagery show that an intense, slowly moving hurricane may cool the sea surface by 3–6ºC.”

George E. Conant

Thank you Werner, that link was quite informative. Makes sense that cyclone induced currents would cause a lot of mixing of surface and sub-surface ocean layers. The idea of SST cooling evident is largely a result of mixing of colder more saline waters from the depths and the venting of ocean heat is a smaller contributor to the observed cooling of areas of ocean where a hurricane has just traversed. The cooler sea surface is evident pretty much immediately affected. Would be fair to note that heat stored in the oceans has quite the tempering effect, excellent read.

Al Gore and the media were wrong: U.S. Major Hurricane Drought Now One Decade and Counting

So we have a drought of hurricanes since WUWT started and since Obama became president. Should we not have a suitable name for this effect such as the WATTS EFFECT or the OBAMA EFFECT?

NZ Willy

Nah, it’s another Gore effect because the film “Inconvenient Truth” came out in 2006 with a cover illustration of hurricanes besetting the USA from all directions, and so of course there hasn’t been a single one since. Gore appears to have mastered the solipsistic arts personified by Tengu’s “Everything is my Delusion!”

Gregg Hill

What about Hurricane Ike in Sep 2008? The damage caused was severe enough for the World Meteorological Organization to retire the name.

Ter of Kona

Hurricane Ike was a very large storm in areal extent, and was a catagory 4 at one point while crossing the Atlantic Ocean. When it made landfall near Galveston, it was only a catagory 2, and therefore did not make the major hurricane list. Because it was large and slow-moving it built up a strong storm surge and did major damage to Galveston. It also did moderate damage in Houston, and continued through the central US, doing significant damage along the way.

High Treason

When I saw “Biggest Hurricane in History” in the news, the BS meter started shaking most violently. Memories of several “extreme weather events” looming being big nothings and not looking like anything spectacular on the satellite images I would swear had that BS meter almost anticipating yet another insult of blatant catastrophism.
The satellite of Patricia did not look like anything spectacular, nor did cyclone Marcia in Australia last year. The “huge weather system” off New Zealand dumped only a modest amount of snow and once again did not look like anything spectacular on the charts. The “huge” typhoons hitting China- surely a major el-Nino event (wings flapping in indignation) were pretty standard for the season. The big rain event in the US- “one in a thousand years” – I did not know they kept records that long. Once again, big but not unprecedented.
The big snow storm that was supposed to hit New York around New Year- closed everything down- fizzer. We had people there on the scene. I monitored the “major weather event” from the comfort of my computer in Australia.
Look forward to more shrill cries of weather catastrophes in the leadup to Paris. Who will bet me that every reported huge weather event reported and getting the shrill cries up in the leadup to Paris will turn out to be nothing spectacular.


So true.
Love when Enrique Peña Nieto commented he” would leave it to the scientists” to explain the hype away. A shot over the bow if there ever was one.

Re Patricia.
Meteorologists on some stations clearly and accurately distinguished between Patricia’s intensity and it’s overall strength. It was a very small hurricane in terms of actual energy, with an eye of only 15 miles. Much larger storm systems, perhaps without the wind speeds, can be far more destructive.
In 1992, the anemometer at the Hawaii Air National Guard and the Pacific Missile Range monitoring station at Kokee, Kauai, broke down after measuring and recording wind speeds of 227mph as Hurricane Iniki passed over.


Meanwhile snow has fallen in the north of Scotland:


Wrong video…never mind !!!!

David S

It is so patently clear that there is major disappointment with warmists that Patricia caused so little damage and there were zero casualties. What they had wished for was thousands dead and billions of dollars damage. I know this intuitively because as a skeptic I hope and pray that every major climactic event is always so lame in part because I actually care about people. Despite the accumulation of empirical evidence that is published on skeptical web sites the only way we can overcome these evil forces is to continue to have Mother Nature on our side.Eventually the penny will drop and this crazy AGW scam will be properly discredited and it’s grand high priests and priestesses dealt with.


comment image?oh=b0d047d63066691411016c9b7e764eef&oe=562E7D3A