30 peer reviewed studies show no connection between climate change and hurricanes

This list is useful for refuting those misguided people that insist that there was a climate component to hurricane Mathew. There’s also my earlier refutation titled: Why trying to link hurricane Matthew to “climate change” is just political hype.

Here is the list of papers:

No Trend Or Reduced Intensity Of Landfalling Hurricanes With Warming

Perrie et al., 2010

The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones.”

Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015

“[T]be global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend [1990-2014].”

Zhang et al., 2012

The various SST measures only have a weak influence on TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China] intensities. Despite the long-term warming trend in SST in the WNP, no long-term trend is observed in either the frequency or intensities of TMLGP[tropical cyclones making landfall, South China].”

Landsea et al., 1996

A long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.”

Hsu et al., 2014

All of the counts, lifespans, and accumulated cyclone energy of the late-season typhoons during the 1995–2011 epoch decreased significantly, compared with typhoons that occurred during the 1979–94 epoch.”

Hoarau et al., 2012

There has been no trend towards an increase in the number of categories 3–5 cyclones over the last 30 years.”

Chang et al., 2016

“Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.”

Wu et al., 2006

[D]ata show a decrease in the proportion of category 4-5 typhoons from 18% to 8% between the two periods of 1977-1989 and 1990-2004(Table 1; intensity estimates in terms of sustained maximum winds first became available in RSMC-Tokyo best track data in 1977).”

Chan and Liu, 2004

No significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST [during 1960-2003]. In other words,an increase in local SST [sea surface temperatures] does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs [tropical cyclones]in the NWP, which is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models.”

Zarzycki, 2016

“Multi-member ensembles show that the overall number of TCs [tropical cyclones] generated by the model is reduced by 5-9% when allowing for two-way air-sea interactions. TC [tropical cyclones] intensity is greatly impacted; the strongest 1% of all TCs are 20-30 hPa (4-8 m s−1) weaker and the number of simulated Category 4 and 5 TCs [tropical cyclones] are reduced by 65% in slab ocean configurations. Reductions in [tropical cyclone] intensity are in line with published thermodynamic theory.”

Blake and Landsea, 2011

[D]uring the 40-year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply.  Based on 1901-1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during  the period 1961-2000 would have been 77 and 30, respectively. However,only 55 (or 71%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 19 major hurricanes (or 63% of that expected number).”

Sanchez and Cavazos, 2014

“[D]uring 1970−2010SST in the MDR [along Mexican coasts]showed a statistically significant increase of 0.57°C over the whole period, butthe frequency of HUR4−5 [intense hurricanes, Category 4 and 5] did not show a significant trend, while the frequency of HUR1−5 [weak and intense hurricanes] significantly decreased (−0.95% yr−1).”

Free et al., 2004

“Long-term changes in the intensity of tropical cyclones are of considerable interest because of concern that greenhouse warming may increase storm damage. The PI [potential intensity of tropical cyclones] calculated using radiosonde data at 14 tropical island locations shows only small, statistically insignificant trends from 1980 to 1995 and from 1975 to 1995.  … Between 1975 and 1980, however, while SSTs rose, PI[potential intensity] decreased, illustrating the hazards of predicting changes in hurricane intensity from projected SST changes alone.”

Nott and Hayne, 2001

Our estimate of the frequency of such ‘super-cyclones’ [wind speeds in excess of 182 kilometers per hour] is an order of magnitude higher than that previously estimated.  … [The Great Barrier Reef] experienced at least five such storms over the past 200 years, with the area now occupied by Cairns experiencing two super-cyclones between 1800 and 1870.  The 20th century, however, was totally devoid of such [super-cyclone] storms, with only one such event (1899) since European settlement in the mid-nineteenth century.”

IPCC AR5 (2013) Working Group I, Chapter 2

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low

Reduced Frequency Of Landfalling Hurricanes With Warming

Knutson et al., 2008

“Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

Chenoweth and Divine, 2008

“Our record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no significant trends in the total number of tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes) in the best sampled regions for the past 318 years. However, the total number of hurricanes in the 20th century is 20% lower than in previous centuries. … Long-term variations in the number of tropical cyclones do not show any evidence of increasing storm frequencyand have declined a nonstatistically significant amount.”

Haig et al., 2014

Australian tropical cyclone activity lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years

“The assessment of changes in tropical cyclone activity within the context of anthropogenically influenced climate change has been limited by the short temporal resolution of the instrumental tropical cyclone record (less than 50 years). Furthermore, controversy exists regarding the robustness of the observational record, especially before 1990. Here we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years.”

Sugi and Yoshimura, 2012

“We conducted 228-year long, three-member ensemble simulations using a high resolution (60 km grid size) global atmosphere model, MRI-AGCM3.2, with prescribed sea surface temperature and greenhouse gases and aerosols from 1872 to 2099. We found a clear decreasing trend of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency throughout the 228 years of the simulation.”

Hall and Hereid, 2015

As of the end of the 2014 hurricane season, the US has experienced no major hurricane landfall since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, a drought that currently stands at nine years. Here, we use a stochastic tropical-cyclone model to calculate the mean waiting time for multi-year landfall droughts. We estimate that the mean time to wait for a nine-year drought is 177 years. We also find that the average probability of ending the drought with a major landfall in the next year is 0.39, and is independent of the drought duration, as one would expect for a Bernoulli process.”

Wang and Lee, 2008

“Here we use observational data to show that global warming of the sea surface is associated with a secular increase of tropospheric vertical wind shear in the main development region (MDR) for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased wind shear coincides with a weak butrobust downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.”

Ha and Zhong, 2015

“Results show that the SCS TC [South China Sea tropical cyclone] activity experienced an abrupt decadal decrease at around 2002/2003. Compared to the TC [tropical cyclone] activities from the early 1990s to 2002, the number of TCs [tropical cyclones] formed in the SCS markedly decreased from 2003 through the early 2010s.”

Callaghan and Power, 2011

The linear trend in the number of severe TCs [tropical cyclones] making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in recent times—a 62% decline.”

Liu and Chan, 2013

“Tropical cyclone (TC) activity over the western North Pacific (WNP) exhibits a significant interdecadal variation during 1960-2011, with two distinct active and inactive periods each. This study examines changes in TC [tropical cyclone] activity and atmospheric conditions in the recent inactive period (1998-2011). The overall TC [tropical cyclone] activity shows a significant decrease [1960-2011], which is partly related to the decadal variation of TC genesis frequency in the southeastern part of the WNP and the downward trend of TC genesis frequency in the main development region.”

Williams et al., 2016

“Bayesian age–depth models, derived from eight AMS radiocarbon dates, suggest that the frequency of typhoon strikes was 2–5 times greater from 3900 to 7800 cal. yr. BP compared to 0–3900 cal. yr. BP[calendar years before present]. Possible explanations for this variability in the typhoon record are that typhoons were more frequent and/or more intense in Southeast Asia in the mid-Holocene because of climatic changes associated with the Mid-Holocene Warm Period or that the record reflects site sensitivity changes resulting from a mid-Holocene sea-level highstand.”

Dezileau et al., 2016

Storms and tsunamis, which may seriously endanger human society, are amongst the most devastating marine catastrophes that can occur in coastal areas. Many such events are known and have been reported for the Mediterranean, a region where high-frequency occurrences of these extreme events coincides with some of the most densely populated coastal areas in the world. In a sediment core from the Mar Menor (SE Spain), we discovered eight coarse-grained layers which document marine incursions during periods of intense storm activity or tsunami events. Based on radiocarbon dating, these extreme events occurred around 5250, 4000, 3600, 3010, 2300, 1350, 650, and 80 years cal BP. No comparable events have been observed during the 20th and 21st centuries.”

IPCC AR5 (2013) Working Group I, Chapter 2

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

Cooler (Not Warmer) Sea Surface Temps Produce More Frequent, Intense Hurricanes

Sugi et al., 2015

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC [tropical cyclone] frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate.

Nott et al., 2007

“Our record demonstrates that the frequency variability of intense landfalling cyclones is greatest at centennial scale compared to seasonal and decadal oscillations[T]he period between AD 1600 to 1800 [Little Ice Age] had many more intense or hazardous cyclones impacting the site than the post AD 1800 period.”

Degear et al., 2015

“A comparison with North Atlantic and Western Mediterranean paleoclimate proxies shows that the phases of high storm activity occurred during cold periods, suggesting a climatically-controlled mechanism for the occurrence of these storm periods. … Periods of low storm activity occurred from 560 cal yr BC to 140 cal yr AD (SP9 and SP8, Roman Warm Period) and from 820 to 1230 cal yr AD (SP4, Medieval Warm Period).”

Laliberte et al., 2015

“Our work illustrates a major constraint on the large-scale global atmospheric engine: As the climate warms, the system may be unable to increase its total entropy production enough to offset the moistening inefficiencies associated with phase transitions. … On a warming Earth, the increase in perceptible water has been identified as a reason for the tropical overturning to slow down, and studies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates.

This list originally appeared on Climate Depot

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 14, 2016 1:15 pm

Then of course there’s common sense and a couple of centuries’ of data that tells us exactly the same thing.
About the only argument that alarmists have is that sea level rise makes storm surges worse. Unfortunately for them, tidal gauges prove that sea levels were rising just as fast in the early 20thC, long before any real influence from CO2
Moreover much of the “sea level rise” in the Southeast is due to the land sinking, not global warming.

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 14, 2016 3:44 pm

Now there you go again Paul, spouting facts and logic. You must know by now that that’ll never prove anything.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 14, 2016 7:22 pm

I’m not sure that citing “common sense” is one of the strongest factual arguments to apply. Neither do I think we have a couple of centuries of usable data.
With very few exceptions all these papers follow that the usual “trend” obsession of climatology. One day they will work out drawing a straight line through any and all data is not the most informative way to do science.
There does seem to some quite strong correlation between SST and ACE in the N. Atlantic but hurricane activity falls through the floor in the recent warmest part of the record, so any attempt to draw a simplistic linear relationship will fail.
Two or three papers in that list also note this recent decline.
Despite the questionable reliability of the period it looks like that same thing happened in the previous ‘warming hiatus’ in the middle of the 20th century.comment image
Maybe hurricanes don’t like ‘plateaux’ conditions any more than alarmists do.

One thing is clear, when the warmest part of the record shows shows marked drop in activity and a >10y drought of major US landfalls its time to stop drawing straight lines.


Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 14, 2016 7:30 pm

If the previous warm period is a guide, ACE may start to pick up again as AMO leaves the ‘plateau’ and moves into its cooling phase. So far “global warming” seems to be preventing that from happening. 😉

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 15, 2016 5:12 am

Greg G
What I wonder is how someone can make a graph like the one you have presented and believe it to be an accurate representation of the real world. How can pre satellite era counts and measurements be considered directly comparable to those taken prior to our ability to monitor the entire surface of the tropics and remotely take detailed measurements at all levels of a tropical cyclone during it’s life span? Even during the relatively short era since aircraft started using dropsondes to take measurements of some of the storms the technology used in the dropsondes has improved greatly. Several times during WW II the US Navy was blindsided by previously undetected and very powerful Typhoons. How many other Tyhoons went totally undetected is anyones guess. And yet you present a graph here which purports to be an accurate representation of total ACE for the N. Atlantic all the way back to the era of sailing ships and paddle wheelers as if it is an accurate representation?

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 15, 2016 6:32 am

RAH, those are good points , which is why emphasised the unreliability of the WWII era data, but if you want answers to those questions and a better understanding of the reliability of the North Atlantic data set maintained by the rigorous Chris Landsea, I suggest to take the trouble of reading the article concerning the graph which I provided a link to. It provides links to relevant papers and documentation.
Chris Landsea was of the opinion ( personal communication ) that the WWII dip could be a real effect and he knows this data better than anyone.
If after taking the time read the article you have some informed questions about the extent to which it represents the “real world”, please ask.
One of the interesting things about this comparison is that it shows that there is a common periodicity of about 9.1y . This is what is commonly confused with an 11y solar signal by people willing to ignore when it goes out of phase. 9.1y is probably a lunar tidal effect on ocean circulation and merits investigation to understand the natural variations.
Of course, if you are happy just to dismiss a graph because you don’t like the look of it, you are free to do so without wasting time on the sciency bits that require intellectual effort and reading.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 15, 2016 6:58 am

Dear GregG,
Teaching can be frustrating, however, I think, perhaps, you are misreading the tone of RAH’s genuine and thoughtful questions.
I would think that the “sciency bits” would include the accuracy and reliability of the data. As RAH so politely pointed out.
Re: the “common sense” you despised with a mild sneer above, here’s an example of it for you to consider….


. And if you say, “Oh, but that wasn’t just “common sense” operating,” well, then, dear Greg, neither was it merely common sense on the part of others, for their conclusions are based on the same facts upon which yours are.
If you are trying to teach non-tech people (and that is a big reason for WUWT’s existence), insulting us only makes learning harder. It also gives the impression (impression, not saying this is so) that you are unsure about your own views. Why else strike such a defensive (and offensive, too, I will add) attitude?
Try imitating Bob Tisdale.
Finally, thank you for sharing your insights. You are obviously well-informed and technically adept.
Your student in the back row,

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 15, 2016 8:16 am

Thanks for your thoughts Janice. I was a little tetchy perhaps because of the perceived attitude of the comment.

What I wonder is how someone can make a graph like the one you have presented and believe it to be an accurate representation of the real world.

I took the trouble to do this analysis and write it up formally and provided a link to that with the graph so that people read what it was about and see why I “believe” it to represent something about the “real world” and to see a discussion about the quality and reliability of the data used.
RAH’s dismissive , posting from the hip comment, raised many good questions but which were already addressed had he bothered to click on the link.
85% of posts here are one off rants/vents with no connection to any other comments. Another 10% are fairly lightweight comments with less than 5s of reflection as was the case here.
Occasionally, there is a little communication and forethought. Thanks for making the effort to be in that latter category.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 15, 2016 8:43 am

“If you are trying to teach non-tech people … ”
I’m not trying to teach non-tech people, I don’t have the patience to be a teacher ( as you have astutely observed 😉 ). I’m presenting scientific analysis. Some people may find that informative and educate themselves.
Hopefully that will help inform the (non-)debate and demonstrate that there is more to science and timer-series analysis that endless trend-fitting.
thanks again.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 16, 2016 5:49 am

Greg, whose ‘linear’ you want to refer to.
Then proud leaving the reader with your
Acronym Definition
ACE Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme
ACE Angiotensin Converting Enzyme
ACE Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (University of Waterloo’s Chemistry Department)
ACE American Cinema Editors
is way less professional than any Kleintierzüchterverein want perform.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 16, 2016 5:57 am

everyone has to be an insider
“ACE” = Accumulated Cyclone Energy – An index that combines the numbers of systems, how long they existed and how intense they became. It is calculated by squaring the maximum sustained surface wind in the system every six hours that the cyclone is a Named Storm and summing it up for the season. It is expressed in 104 kt2.
really doesn’t spare time for common sense.

george e. smith
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 14, 2016 3:49 pm

Well hurricanes are just weather so how could they be linked to climate ??
The mid Atlantic Ocean is NOT going to remember for 30 years, and then decide that another hurricane is needed.
Climatists need to recognize that NOTHING in the physical universe, besides climatists and other statisticians (which is what they all are) can or does respond in ANY way to the average; or ANY other statistical algorithmic result of any detectable physical variable.
For one thing, they cannot even know what that average or other statistic is, or was, until after it is long gone, so how would they know when to respond to something that is not even determinable at the time it is supposed to happen.
Climate is the long term integral of weather. It is the consequence of everything weather wise that has previously happened. And NO; it is NOT some average value multiplied by some time interval.
Hurricanes happen simply because they can happen. And they don’t happen until they can happen. That is the definition of can and can’t. Things that can happen do happen, and they happen as soon as they can happen down to sub atto-seconds of time.
Things that can’t happen don’t happen; not ever. That’s what can’t means.
When the next hurricane can happen, it will happen, and you can take my word for that.
Statistics is just mathematics; and a very restrictive kind of mathematics. It is restricted only to sets of already exactly known numbers. There is no such thing as statistics of variables. Only finite data sets of finite real numbers that are already known. And since those numbers are already known, the set contains all the information that is carried by that set of numbers.
And since the algorithms of statistical mathematics work equally well for ANY finite data set of finite real known numbers, it cannot establish any relationship between any , or any subset of the already known numbers in the data set. It is not required that any two or more of the already known finite real numbers in the data set, are related to each other in any fashion whether known or unknown. Nor can the algorithm establish the existence of any prior relationship between any such subset.
So it truly is numerical Origami. The results are entirely a consequence of the algorithm, and not of the numbers.
It is the nature of the art of mathematics that people from time to time can and do make up entirely new mathematical concepts and disciplines, for whatever application or just amusement they wish.
The pugilistic “sports” of “boxing” and “wrestling” have long histories, as have the Asian arts of Judo, Karate, Tae kwan do etc.
Evidently boredom with such well established pass times has recently given rise to a new algorithm, called “mixed martial arts”, which is apparently a composite of several priorally known pugilisms.
I’m sure the conjurors of this new form of masochistic violence contrived a set of “axioms” to define the properties, and presumably to ensure the survival of the participants, so they can entertain again at some later time, after sufficiently recovering from their wounds.
I’m sure the Octopus Clamp is still a forbidden submission hold for MMA, but that’s the way it goes. You have to limit the mayhem to ensure the continuance of the entertainment.
So it is pretty much the same with Statistics. Well I already gave my axioms for the new branch of “Statistics of Complex Numbers.” I haven’t seen any peer reviewed papers yet citing any interesting new results from complex number statistics.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 14, 2016 4:44 pm

Too bad common sense and data do not make the news.
The oligarchs have decided that CAGW/CC is the means to their one world order ends and their compliant media dare not report otherwise.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 15, 2016 12:55 pm

Greg G
Let us just address one assumption in this paper that I know is not correct to start.
“War-time ACE is very low and probably reflects some degree of under-sampling in that period.”
First off during war time all kinds of metrological data becomes even more important than in peace time. During WW II the weather and state of the seas across the North Atlantic (and elsewhere) was monitored more not less than during the proceeding years of peace.
The greatest disruption of shipping in the North Atlantic was The Battle of the Atlantic, a battle in which weather and the state of the seas were vital information. Information so important that Airmen and Seamen from both sides in the conflict risked their lives daily to make their observations.
Winston Churchill said “… the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril”. The information was vital to the survival of shipping and thus the survival of Britain. The data was equally important to the Germans for their submarine operations as witnessed by the fact that the initial breaking of the German Naval enigma code occurred due to the seizure of the materials from German weather ships. .
The US alone had six weather ships working in the N. Atlantic from mid 1942 until the end of the war. The UK and Canada also has their weather ships working those seas. Additionally all of those allies flew weather observation flights on regular schedules.
Though the majority of ships were concentrated in convoys their routing varied a great deal as they worked to avoid the Wolf Packs of U-boats. And there were still many ships sailing independently from Neutral nations and Allied ships which were deemed fast enough to sail independently.
And during from the middle of 1943 on there were more ships than would have been sailing during peace time. During 1944 and 1945 the US produced more ships than the rest of the worlds nations combined.
And don’t assume that all this just applies to the temperate regions of the Atlantic. Supplies of oil from S. America to the US were vital. And the British ran convoys around Africa to get their supplies to their Army in N. Africa when it became too dangerous to do so through the Med. And the U-boats went after them.

October 14, 2016 1:18 pm

But there was one FSU study or statement backing up Al Gore when it was timely. Timing of course is everything when political science and debate is involved. That is worth more than 30 peer reviewed studies.

John Hardy
October 14, 2016 1:30 pm

Very useful collateral – many thanks for taking the trouble to compile it

October 14, 2016 1:38 pm
Reply to  clipe
October 15, 2016 7:58 am

Correct. It was posted on the morning of 10 October, and then copied and re-posted at CD without attribution in the afternoon.

Reply to  kenneth_richard
October 15, 2016 10:36 am

That’s not very nice, nor is it fair. Will contact CD on this.

Mumbles McGuirck
October 14, 2016 1:43 pm

There were a couple of studies by James O’Brien et al that indicated that hurricane activity in a cooler world (pre-19th C) was more active. I cannot lay my hands on the citation, however. Tried several searches, but now I can’t find it.
Any way, the take away is that warmer climate doesn’t necessarily mean ‘bigger, worser storms”.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 16, 2016 1:56 am

Very difficult to show that.
Such a study would depend on very incomplete records and various biological and geological proxies
This may be what you’re referring to…..

Tom Halla
October 14, 2016 1:43 pm

Claiming the exact oppositite of reality does not faze a true believer–war is peace. . .

October 14, 2016 2:04 pm

From Sugi et al 2015:
“Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood”
How can that be…the high-resolution models project lower frequency, but we don’t understand why the model are coming up with that? Not very reassuring.

george e. smith
Reply to  Sauterne
October 14, 2016 4:28 pm

Of course the mechanism is known.
The results are caused by the models. What is it about modeling that these people do not understand ??
You construct a model: anyone is allowed to do that. You run the model: that’s generally called the simulation, and the results tell you what YOUR MODEL can do.
How easy is that and so easy to understand. you model defines what it can do and what it will do as soon as it can.
Where the train is running off the rails is in the silly assumption that the real universe gives a rip about your models. It doesn’t give a hoot.
Sometimes a model closely approximates what the real world does quite closely
For example in the October 2016 issue of Physics Today; a journal about Physics today, there is a statement that the theory of quantum electrodynamics; part of the standard model of particle physics predicts the value of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron to TEN (10) significant figures.
Now who even knew you could measure ANYTHING to one part in 10^10.
For that matter, who even knew (most don’t) that the electron even has a magnetic dipole moment. My crummy Handbook of Physics gives the value …. 9.2847701 x 10^-24 joule per tesla with an error of 0.34 ppm. Well that isn’t even good to seve significant digits so that tells you how out of date I am.
No the article in PT does NOT state the value to the ten significant digits the author asserts. Which goes to show why you should never fall in love with anything in a science journal article. What could be more important for the reader to know than that value to ten significant digits, which to me means the number of digits to which the number is known with the possibility that the last digit is in error by +/- one.
So for me, whenever I use the magnetic dipole moment of the electron in a calculation I’m only going to rely on six digits; not ten, since I don’t even have ten digits for it.
I have NO explanation as to why a supposedly elementary particle with NO substructure even has a magnetic dipole moment.
But then it seems that the charge of an electron is a mathematical point charge, while the electron itself is infinite in extent, and occupies all of space, although with a low proability for some places. But then what do I know. Apparently not much, well to ten significant digits.
Well I do know that the “Cadmium Red line” has a wavelength of 6438.4696 angstrom units, or at least it did when Michelson measured it.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 14, 2016 6:35 pm

But pi is calculated to a million places after the decimal. Are there no other physical calculations that could fall between the 5 places or so familiar to us and that million?
I do not know.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 15, 2016 10:49 am

I think that for most calculations involving pi, 8 places is adequate accuracy.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
October 15, 2016 10:58 am

Well Geoff, Pi does have an exact value, so why not use that.
Pi = – sqrt (-1) x Ln(-1)
So now you don’t need to use a million digits.

October 14, 2016 2:23 pm

The most disgusting things about hurricanes is the glee with which the press trips over themselves to ‘blame’ hurricanes on climate change. With Matthew, they did not even wait for the debris to clear.

tom s
Reply to  lorcanbonda
October 16, 2016 7:43 am

And this on top of 11yr hiatus. So just 1 moderately strong hurricane to affect the USA in 11yrs is grabbed by the idiots in the press and AGW’ers as proof of, what? Damn them!!

Bryan A
October 14, 2016 2:26 pm

It really only stands to reason that cooler climates produce heavier precipitation as would be evidenced by the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Just how much precipitation is required over what period of time in order to produce a sheet of ice thet is a mile thick over the now more temperate areas of North America.
Building massive sheets of Ice require 2 things, an ample supply of Cold Temperatures and an ample supply of atmospheric moisture

October 14, 2016 2:39 pm

The number of Atlantic hurricanes seems to peak near the bottom of the AMO. Sadly, we do not have enough data to determine ACE adequately on the bottom of the previous AMO cycle.

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 15, 2016 8:49 am

“The number of Atlantic hurricanes seems to peak near the bottom of the AMO.”
Really? I think the graph in my comment above shows the exact opposite. What is curious is why ACE falls through the floor in the recent, warmest part of the record.

Reply to  GregG
October 15, 2016 6:11 pm

Yes it has been warmer, but where and at what time of the year ??
The period from 2005 onward. Break it up into 3 – 5 year periods

Reply to  GregG
October 15, 2016 6:15 pm

Only the NH

October 14, 2016 2:59 pm

Recorded sustained wind speeds measured by surface anemometers show that Mathew was not a hurricane after it left the Bahamas. Before that, Mathew did show category 1 sustained winds from NDBC buoy 42058 north to Haiti and the Bahamas. The claims by the NHC during the storm were consistently 40 knots higher than wind speeds recorded by surface based anemometers. The wind speed records are available for checking at any time, also, photos of damage and video reports during the storm show typical tropical storm winds. Ask anyone in Florida, the winds were NOT hurricane winds, almost all the damage was due to rain and flooding, which has nothing to do with how hurricanes are defined by the Saffir-Simpson wind scale.
The same thing has been happening for years. At the time of Hermine, NHC stated winds were 20 knots higher than actual recorded wind speeds from off-shore buoys that were in the direct path of the center of the storm. This has been happening since about 2009 or 2010, the NHC consistently states that winds estimated from aircraft and models are at least 10 knots higher than actual wind speeds being measured at the same time by anemometers at surface weather stations and buoys.

Reply to  bw
October 15, 2016 3:53 am

They did that with Irene too, despite this site’s protests. They’re afraid the public will be complacent otherwise.

tom s
Reply to  bw
October 16, 2016 7:48 am

As a practicing operational meteorologist I concur. The NHC ALWAYS seems to be giving stronger winds than are being observed at the sfc. Probably because they rely on the above sfc winds as observed by dropsondes and hunter aircraft. Plus they have a meme that all govt institutions have and that is to sell AGW.

October 14, 2016 3:04 pm

And, let’s face it, IPCC itself (in 2012) stated that they didn’t expect global warming to influence our weather like that for a couple of decades at least.

Jeff Alberts
October 14, 2016 3:32 pm

“This list is useful for refuting those misguided people that insist that there was a climate component to hurricane Mathew”
Sloppy writing. Are you saying climate has nothing to do with hurricanes?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 14, 2016 3:53 pm

If you cannot understand the point of the article, you are beyond help.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 14, 2016 4:44 pm
Janice Moore
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 14, 2016 5:09 pm

(on Anthony’s behalf): No.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 15, 2016 6:14 pm

I am presuming that your response was to Jeff Alberts. If so – Why not

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2016 9:22 am

Ozone, to keep us on track, here:
J. Alberts: Are you saying that climate has nothing to do with hurricanes?
J. Moore: No.
Ozone: Why not?
J. Moore: The reason (I assume) Anthony is not saying that climate has nothing to do with hurricanes is that to say so would be unscientific. “Nothing” is far too extreme a term for a scientist to use in this context.
There is no one climate of the earth, but climate zones. For instance, the zone I am currently living in, Marine West Coast, is found in only two (IIRC) regions of the world (western Washington State, USA and western Germany). Natural variation includes shifts in the average temperature over the years. When one zone becomes relatively warm and another relatively cold, there is an increased temperature gradient. This gradient can cause an increase in such things as cyclones or typhoons like the one that just affected the west coast of the United States. (See this fine comment by Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist, on that here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/15/de-hyping-the-pacific-northwest-typhoon-packing-150-mph-winds-formerly-known-as-songa/#comment-2319960 )
Good for you to ask a question to find out “why.” I hope that my non-tech answer was at least a little bit helpful. For better information — look up WUWT (or other sites’) articles and learn! 🙂

October 14, 2016 3:50 pm

Media Matters has completely refuted this list of “peer reviewed” papers by discredited “scientists.”

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 14, 2016 4:30 pm

It was a joke. They always use “refuted” and “discredited,” though.

Reply to  MfK
October 14, 2016 6:00 pm

Ha ha! I thought it was the DeSmogblog article that linked these scientists to Exxon and/or Russian hackers.

Reply to  chilemike
October 15, 2016 3:36 pm

There really was one? Wow, I guess the warmongers have “progressed” to the point where satire isn’t possible.

October 14, 2016 4:00 pm

More interesting is to ask a Proponent/Alarmist if we manage to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to say 350ppm, will that mean there will be more, less intense storms? No more CAT 4 or 5s? After all the ocean and air will be less warm without the excessive CO2… I usually get a test pattern look. That or they argue that there will always be CAT4 and 5 storms due to variability. So any current CAT4 and 5 storms are not…?

Janice Moore
October 14, 2016 5:10 pm

Thank you, SO MUCH, Anthony, for taking the time to create this wonderful resource! Thanks for sharing it with us. THIS is what WUWT is all about! 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 14, 2016 7:02 pm

Very timely post
Only yesterday I watched a CSIRO ( Australian scientific research organisation) Youtube video “explaining” climate change and the research
the organisation is doing on that subject
One of the presenters was Dr David Karoly
a promiment local alarmist.
He was quite explicit in saying:-
“Increased ghg will / has led to more atmospheric water vapour which will result
in hurricanes/cyclones fewer in number but of greater intensity”
The numerous articles listed on the post based on analysis of observations support the first comment of fewer cyclonic etc events but refute his claim that they will be of higher intensity.

October 14, 2016 5:32 pm

Great posting!! In the vain of Paul Homewood and good ol S. Goddard and no Tricks zone. Maybe time for all of us lukewarmers to be considering become certified deniers of AGW nonsense

Joel O’Bryan
October 14, 2016 7:59 pm

The crux of the matter is that the peer-reviewed articles AW references do not matter to the CargoCultists.
They (the Climatist cultists) will keep redesigning their bamboo headsets and adjusting their jungle cleared runways waiting for the cargo planes to return with wonderous foods and goods from the outside world.
IOW, there is a linkage between your SUV/pickup truck/cheap electricity and that Cat 3 hurricane in the Atlantic….. and there is no convincing them otherwise, and that linkage is the evil CO2 pollution you spew.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 14, 2016 8:41 pm

Yes, Joel, yes, sadly, you are correct. They want to be fooled.
There is that one in a hundred, though, reading WUWT and who is still thinking. Still learning. And, thanks to the caring scientists (and others) of WUWT, those poor, shivering, believers in The Great Pumpkin, will come inside where the light leads them, where it is warm and where truth and love (of humanity) are.
Lucy (Lucia) and Linus in the Great Pumpkin
(this video dedicated to TomJ 🙂 )

Those are the ones, the Linuses who finally, wearily, admit AGW was a crock, who make all that Anthony does, all that the moderat0rs deal with (!), all the hours and hours spent writing articles and comments by so many fine minds, here, worth it.
Sadly, most of the Cult of Sustainability will remain outside, lost in the pumpkin patch, gloomily contemplating how many months the planet has left to live. Truth will triumph without them. Thanks to the WUWTers, one or two or twenty or two hundred thousand more Linuses will walk with their heads high, smiling!, hearts light, reveling in the knowledge that human CO2 emissions are nothing to worry about, happily shouting, “FREEDOM ROCKS!”
And, thankfully, this (just to apply the above to the U.S. — other nations are also rapidly reaching that same point) IS still a Republic and those in charge of making wise decisions are reaching critical mass for: permanent rejection of AGW sc@ms (like wind and solar — heh, heh, HEH!).

October 14, 2016 8:14 pm

That’s an good selection of papers.
What’s needed is a matrix.
1. Metric ( frequency, intensity, landfalling, ACE etc)
2. Time periods ( 1990-2014, past 30 years, etc)
3. Result No trend, small tend, decrease, etc
4. Publication date
5. Title
Column1 Column 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6
Publication Date Title Authors Period Studied Metric Result
That would be a handy little grid to have.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 15, 2016 10:13 am

You’re good with accumulating data Steven, why don’t you do it?

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 15, 2016 6:28 pm

Busy with other things

Mike Maguire
October 14, 2016 8:55 pm

Outstanding work Anthony!

Joel O’Bryan
October 14, 2016 8:57 pm

Agree Janice. The simplest of questions to the Climate Charlatans will expose their deception:
Did Cat 4-5 hurricanes happen at 300 ppm CO2? before human-released CO2 became significant?
The climatists and climate cultists depend on the naive ignorance of the masses to push their message of control. Websites like AW’s here will one day be cited by historians as to why the climate cult failed. Thank you AW.

October 14, 2016 9:06 pm

Very handy to counter thar classic bit of ‘logic’ we so often see:
1.In theory warm oceans should make hurricanes worse.
2. Look, here is a hurricane coming along now!
3. Thus, we have clear proof of point 1

October 15, 2016 12:06 am

My layman understanding is that for a warming world the polar regions will WARM. This will cause a reduction in global wind speeds and a reduction in hurricanes and cyclones.
In a cooling world the polar regions will COOL, this is relative to equatorial regions, and GLOBAL WIND SPEEDS WILL INCREASE.
This is wonderful ‘evidence’ for the warmists who will claim “Told you hurricanes will get worse.” Which sadly is the correct forecast for a cooling world.

Frederik Michiels
October 15, 2016 1:42 am

problem is the most inhibiting factor is always left out: wind shear
you can have 60°C ocean surface temps if there is too much windshear, no tropical cyclone will form.
that’s why i never believed the “warmer SST, more storm” – theory

October 15, 2016 5:41 am

What is that object at about 2 o’clock from the eye of the storm in the image

Janice Moore
Reply to  ARW
October 15, 2016 7:12 am

Well, ARW, that’s an uncommon, but regular, phenomenon known as a UHIC.
😉 hic

October 15, 2016 7:55 am

Actually, this list originally appeared on notrickszone, and then ClimateDepot re-posted it without attribution. That’s why the ClimateDepot post has the “leftover” wording re: “Sutter and Mann” at the top, which are referenced in the original article appearing in notrickszone on the morning of 10 October.

Janice Moore
Reply to  kenneth_richard
October 16, 2016 9:30 am

Just to let you know that this reader saw your correction, Mr. Richard, I’m writing here. Failure to properly cite sources/attribution of authorship has been a WUWT foible. WUWT is such a COOL site, but, that is one aspect that could use a minor tweak.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 16, 2016 1:31 pm

Just to clarify (who knows why, lol): I made a mistake in thinking that Anthony authored the list (but that it first appeared elsewhere than WUWT). It was my fault for not going to the link to look for the actual author, but, it would be nice if the citation/source/author credit could be complete right here on the WUWT page, e.g., “List compiled by Mister Wonderful, originally published on A Certain Site (20xx).”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights