From NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory:
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
1. Has Global Warming Affected Hurricane or Tropical Cyclone Activity?
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
Last Revised: Mar. 17, 2017
A. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
- Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?
- What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?
In this review, we address these questions in the context of published research findings. We will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:
- It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
- There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
- Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
In figure 1 which they provide below, note in panel (a) and (b) how the how high resolution model projections (green) are so much lower around 2100 than 24 other climate models. This suggests that even 80 years into the future, the PDI of tropical storms wont be outside of present observed natural variations
Vecchi et al. 2008 (PDF)
…
Synthesis and Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.
Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.
The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to these projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the entire report here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
h/t to Larry Kummer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable…”
Yes. And space aliens may already be here, but have ways of either blending in, or making themselves invisible. And don’t get me started on the Loch Ness monster.
Catastrophic Undetectable Global Warming!
Wow looks like the cold wind of funding cuts is blowing down their collars. This almost sounds like a realistic assessment.
“This almost sounds like a realistic assessment.”
Maybe we have a Trump effect going on here.
Observations show they are semi-correct, all that is missing is an admission that hurricanes have decreased during the present period. If it really has warmed worth noting and it is due to us, then that warming would appear to be what brought on the trend, using the same logic that links warming and CO2 percentages. Just watch them “paint themselves into a corner”.
Climate isn’t detectable. It’s an after the fact mental construct of weather.
Andrew
Weather is a mental construct.
[so is climate -mod]
Weather is a mental construct.
====
Absolutely it is…..when they didn’t get the results they wanted, they said “it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.”….it’s premature? after over 40 years?
NO…..they didn’t like the results they got…… they found a detectable change and didn’t like it…..that global ACE is at an all time record low
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ACE-Global-2015.png
40 years? Closer to 70 since the big run up in CO2 started. 150 years if you measure to when the temperatures started increasing.
I’d say weather is observable. Climate isn’t.
Andrew
Mark, here’s their elephant in the room…
“”It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.””
If they are claiming that global warming makes it warmer and warmer makes more stronger hurricanes…
What ACE shows it that in spite of all the adjustments…..temps have gone down
ACE shows a very hard to ignore “noticeable effect”…..just not the one they want
“Weather is a mental construct.”
Two days ago our weathermen predicted hail last night. I parked my car under a tree. We got hail right on schedule. The car didn’t get damaged. Can you do that with climate science?
Andrew, climate is very detectable, you just have to stand to the south of a north bound bull long enough, and Algore will eventually appear as brown climate
“Steven Mosher April 5, 2017 at 9:56 am
Weather is a mental construct.”
For humans, *EVERYTHING* is a mental construct.
“Bad Andrew April 5, 2017 at 9:22 am
Climate isn’t detectable.”
Climate is the average of 30 years of weather and thus completely made up.
Steven Mosher
In n earlier post you claimed that allowing for CO2 radiative warming improved weather forecasts (European versus US).
Now weather is a mental construct.
Doesn’t that make CO2 radiative warming also a mental construct?
“I’d say weather is observable. Climate isn’t.”
Changing arguments? You think observeables are the only real things?
They old tree falling in the forest problem.
think Andrew,, you lost this debate over at Lucia’s many years ago.
It’s time to hand over the data to Elizabeth Warren. She’s known for building stories for speeches out of data she’s not an expert with, for a fee of course.
Naw. Al Franken is just the ticket. Slurred speech, goggles, sweat and all.
Everyone of their “Conclusions” begins with an editorial statement:
“and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming” [unproven] at best they “contribute”.
All the others preface “Anthropogenic warming will cause, will lead to, is likely… ”
This presumes a cause has been determined and is akin to asking “Have you stopped beating your wife?” to which there is no viable answer if the wife beatings do not exist in the first place.
premature to conclude
human activity may have
not yet confidently modeled
better than even odds
increase by a substantial fraction
will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged
Wow, that really nails it down then, huh?
It’s NEW, it’s IMPROVED, it’s OLD FASHIONED. It turns a sandwich into a banquet! It mows your lawn. Step Right Up.
MR, how did you know I’m a rabid Tom Waits fan? Made my day!
I need a cold woman to go with my warm beer.
NOAA just said they can’t predict the weather (climate)……….
funnier……even using the F A K E adjusted temp history…..they still couldn’t
…this is getting really lame
Why do they always feel the need to spit out pseudo science by weasel words like this: “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled”?
It’s equivalent with saying stupid things like “invisible pink unicorns may be ready to kill us all but we cannot measure them because of observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled”.
And what is that stupid thing about confidence? If I would ‘confidently model’ an invisible pink unicorn, it will pop out into existence? WTF? Confidence cannot do magic and transform reality. Leave it out of argumentation. The scientific method is very different.
“We already arrived at the conclusion. The evidence is sure to show up any time now.”
.
.
.
… aaaaany time now….
+1.. very funny comment, and an evaluation I completely agree with!
Adrian Roman
April 5, 2017 at 9:14 am
Why do they always feel the need to spit out pseudo science by weasel words like this: “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled”?
>>>>
That’s just the usual diclaimer. For not getting dedectet and outcast as a climate denier.
Cause the minstry of truth is watching…
‘invisible pink unicorns’, you’ve got me worried. I’d never thought of that before. I won’t sleep for weeks now, dreaming of pink unicorns. One of the biggest threats facing humanity. 🙂
Think of them as almost omnipotent and very malevolent beings. They could wipe out humanity in one second! How is the climate change threat looking compared with this? We must act now before it’s too late!
Naah, the projected increase in hurricanes is due to the witches placing a curse on Trump, and getting the curse wrong/s
Confidence is the invisible mortar that holds their hopeless pile of rubble together.
Lame weasel speak!!
Translation:
We don’t know!
We can’t predict!
We can not identify any portion of weather attribution.
Our models stink!
But! We believe!
Oh yes, we believe!
Donations accepted for the departing CAGW religious advocates.
Man must believe in something. The AGW religion is the substitute for the existing religion with faith in God. Therefore, the Pope in Rom also attempts to assimilate this religion, as the Catholic Church has done for thousands of years. The chances for this are also quite good, that in the “religions” will be a mix and instead of the Easter bunny and the Christmas crib soon “Earth hour” and “small pink windmills” as “Relics of the faith shall serve”. In the past: When the golden times of the medieval warming period was over, the climate, the crops, the mood and hunger of the people became worse, witches had to be the cause of these difficulties. We are on a climatic upheaval, people are this time as good as they have not been for a long time, we can see only threats from some imminent famine and wars in countries that are far from our attention. In the sense of faith, we are invoking disasters and apocalypses that are to meet us in the future. Like them in the Old Testament when the folk danced around the golden calf. Only nowadays falsification of history is no longer so simple. Not only a few write today a book or a chronicle, but the media and insights are many in number. It is therefore to be hoped that man is faced with another evolutionary step: the end of the prayer is prefabricated
Didling with computer model projections doesn’t count as ‘research’…
Do the results reported in this study pass the common sense test? I say, “no.”
1) “… neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.”
2) “We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”
So, “the data says that there is no connection, but we conclude the data is wrong.”
That is almost too insane to comprehend. You even have to go one step beyond the data to conclude that “it is likely to be carbon dioxide which did not cause the increase in tropical cyclone strength that we do not see increasing.”
Why not conclude that the reduction of whales is strongly correlated to the lack of tropical cyclone activity? (As long as we are making up correlations which don’t exist.)
Point 1 is for numbers in the Atlantic. Point 2 is for intensity and rainfall globally. No contradiction at all.
“That is almost too insane to comprehend.” It is odd, if not insane, that you have not seen the differences in the subjects of the two points.
From your comments on other matters it appears that you are are intelligent and well informed. Don’t let your prejudice blind you in this instance.
The point is that both points 1 and 2 are provably wrong, not that they contradict.
What you’re saying is that “Atlantic cyclone intensity is showing no trend; therefore it is likely that global cyclone intensity increases due to climate change.” — Is that right? You don’t see a flaw in that logic?
(FYI — that is not what it says. From the report; “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity, [therefore] … Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average.”)
In other words, they see “no trend in Atlantic or global cyclone intensity, but the model says differently. Therefore, nature is likely wrong.”
Iorcanbonda.
“What you’re saying is that “Atlantic cyclone intensity is showing no trend; therefore it is likely that global cyclone intensity increases due to climate change.” — Is that right? You don’t see a flaw in that logic?”
I see the issue. We are interpreting this differently. I see the two conclusions as unrelated, you see the second as a conclusion from the first statement.
If they concluded that global intensity and rainfall were going to increase BECAUSE there was no trend in Atlantic hurricane frequency then you would have a point. However, that is such an absurd conclusion that it never even crossed my mind. This reveals something of our respective prejudices. You think that a stupid conclusion is the most likely, I think it is so unlikely it never occurs to me.
We cannot know who is right without looking at the original, so lets do that.
We see that the discussion if the global situation is in a separate section and used different sources, such as:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0129.1
They say “A review of existing studies, including the ones cited above, lead us to conclude that it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”
So I think we can safely say the evidence for increased cyclone intensity and rainfall is not BECAUSE there is not trend. The “therefore” in your statement is unwaranted. It is more correct to say ““Atlantic cyclone intensity is showing no trend; AND it is likely that global cyclone intensity increases due to climate change.”
Iorcanbonda. Had a long waffly response, but it seems to have vanished. In summary, the use of “therefore” in your statement is incorrect. They use different evidence to conclude the global picture.
That [therefore] is entirely your own invention. The two conclusions are separate bullet points and there is not reason to think that the second is a consequence of the first.
Seaice1, you are wrong. They are clearly using the trends in Atlantic and global hurricane activity as an input to that conclusion. It’s only one input, but the only other input is model predictions.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
For instance, in their report, they write:
In other words, if their models are correct they should already have seen an increase in the measures of Atlantic hurricane activity. They compare a number of different data sources (including Landsea’s 2008 report) and determine (note: this is pretty long, but I don’t want you to accuse me of oversimplifying it.)
Also, FWIW, the “therefore” is not mine. In the synthesis for Atlantic hurricanes, they state:
The paper then goes on to discuss the global hurricane information.
In other words — you are presenting your own wishful thinking that my simplification was wrong.
Iorcanbonda. See if you can spot the difference between these two quotes.
1) Therefore… it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. … We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”
2) “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity, [therefore] … Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average.”
To help I have highlighted the key word.
The second is what you wrote, the first is what they wrote. The meanings are very different. They never said the second conclusion was derived from the first.
Seaice1 You’re being pedantic. They are both wrong. Seeing data which does not support the model, the logical conclusion would be to refine the model. Your second “quote” is just as ridiculous as the first. You seem to ignore the “we also conclude” statement as though it is not connected to the first. (To me “therfore” = “we conclude”.)
Either one of those two statements are ridiculous. Particularly with the stated goal of the paper —
This is their hypothesis that the longer term data should support a change (if not, then the hypothesis is not supported). That’s how hypothesis tests work.
In other words, I’m reading the context of the paper and seeing them bow to political pressure. (BTW — the long waffly answer is back. I will say that I did not read it before I responded to the short, non-waffly answer.)
Pointing out something that totally changes the meaning is not pedantry.
I am reminded of the cartoon where the kid draws a pirate’s treasure map complete with an “[X] Marks the Spot” right in his own back yard, and is then mystified why there’s no treasure to be found when he tries to dig it up.
There named storms and hurricanes last year that got the butchers thumb treatment to push them over the wind speed thresholds? If the standards are flexible, what good are the charts???
Memo to Gore Inc. and opportunistic research bias at FSU.
Is this not a tragedy? If the missing heat is a tragedy, isn’t the missing hurricane energy also a tragedy?
It is surely a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
David, they just said in over 42 years they still can’t find a global warming fingerprint….and yes, that’s a tragedy
We presently cannot demonstrate that human activities have increase hurricane activity, but we will be sure to blame all hurricanes on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming just as soon as we start having hurricanes again.
“It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).”
Translation – We have no empirical evidence that AGW has caused any changes in hurricane activity. Is spite of the lack of any empirical evidence, We can strongly predict with confidence that AGW is the cause of all future increases in hurricane activity
Meanwhile, global hurricane activity is, at best, no worse than it has ever been, and probably less.
But it’s bound to pick up soon. Scientifically speaking.
Q: What are you afraid of?
A: The unknown!!
Q: Why
A: It’s gonna be bad!!
Q: What can we do about it?
A: Cripple the dynamics of Capitalism, return to the Dark Ages.
The largest and longest lasting cyclone known is the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. Granted there is energy from Jupiter running around, but global warming isn’t.
They forgot to mention that none of the storms have begun spinning backwards as in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth graphics. Or maybe human activity is going to cause such intense storms that they flip over. If it could happen in Gore studios it must be true.
He was looking at it upsidedown.
“That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled”?
In the words of George Carlin:
“The Center for Disease Control has discovered a new disease which has
no symptoms. It is impossible to detect, and there is no known cure.
Fortunately, no cases have been reported thus far.”
How come the official title is “The Centers for Disease Control”? Isn’t that an oxymoron? (I.e., how can there be more than one “center”? If the buildings are dispersed around the country, why not call it “The Network (or Organization) for Disease Control”?
The title is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are more than one such, for there is one in MD and one in GA, at least.
Just more modeling. Do they have any models that have actually worked, even in hindcasting?
I like the way the keep lightly skipping over that their climate models show either no change or FEWER tropical cyclones in a ‘warmer world’ scenario. If the overall number of storms decrease and there is only a slight intensity (2-11%) increase then the overall potential for damage could be less. There a number of loss models which could be run to compare present day damage loss due to tropical cyclones versus a ‘warmer world’ regime. Why not run them and see if there is a benefit in a ‘warmer world’?
https://www4.cis.fiu.edu/hurricaneloss/
Has anyone else noticed that they stop their observed PDI values in 2007? They basically stopped the data at a high point which would have included the major hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. Why would NOAA not have data extending to the more recent past? Of course they have that data. But I would hazard the guess that the trend since 2007 is one that returns towards the mean and does not support the climate model projections . . . .
That maybe so, but the original report was done in 2008. They haven’t gotten around to updating the figures though they’ve updated the text. As Charles Krauthammer says, Don’t attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence.
It is not incompetence but inadequate funding. If the latest such study was done in 2008 we cannot blame the writers of the review. We obviously need more funding to produce a similar study based on today’s data.
Same old story: send us more money so we can publish more nonsense.
2008…Obama and the democrats increased funding for NOAA
seaice1 is beyond parody.
On the other hand, just wait for the new budget reductions to roll through the government and academic bureaucracies. Betcha the top guys don’t get hit as hard as the little guys. Of course, without the administration chunk from the grants for marginal work by the drones, academic big wigs might be looking at early retirement, at best.
“In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.”
Sounds like the nebulous statements of a ‘psychic’ or an ‘astrologer’, doesn’t it? Billion$ of dollar$ spent on ‘climate model$’ and climate $cience…. and that’s the best prediction they can come up with? Such vague ‘predictions’ make the strongest case for discontinued funding of NOAA climate modeling/research and priority funding on near term weather modeling, prediction, and communication.
We need to reliably know what the weather will be today and for the next week. We can’t afford billion$ wasted on uncertifiable, unreliable climate models with demonstrated no predictive value.
“We need to reliably know what the weather will be today and for the next week.”
That’s a good one. On Monday the BBC reported the weather in my part of Kent (UK) to be wet all day Tuesday and overcast all day Wednesday (today). It was blazing sunshine on both days.
If the climatologists or weather forecasters could get a simple thing like a weeks forecasting even close to accurate, we might believe future prediction of climate 100 years hence……..well OK, two weeks hence.
Dear HoScot,
Please get with the program. What you experienced was weather which is subject to chaotic variations which cannot be modelled. However climate is pure and immutable and can be modelled by infaliably by an increase in CO2 from 350 parts per million ( 0.00035%) to 400 parts per million ( 0.0004%) without any effects of solar activity, orbital variation, volcanic eruptions etc.
/Sarc off
P.s the Met Office often change the forecast as a day progresses. Where I am it was supposed to be cloudy this afternoon in The a.m forecast. By mid afternoon it was forecast to be sunny till late evening. Maybe they looked out of the window, but it is not a forecasting service.
Yeah, science is hard.
To bad they aren’t doing science.
Now we are back to calling it “Global Warming?” I thought the current correct term (for Global Warming) was “Climate Change.”
Jim
Jim, I think both of those are trigger words…
Maybe something more benign and medical sounding for the snowflakes…..ICS
Irritable Climate Syndrome
Comes from the same orifice as Irritable Bowel Syndrome you mean?
“Irritable climate syndrome” is when the weather doesn’t cooperate with your scare stories and that gives you the sh!ts.
Cant tell if there has been an effect on the press releases yet, it seems so because its being projected out further and each release doesnt end with we are all going to die….
Yes the rubber stamps are gone and the stampers are off to the rubber rooms at advocacy groups and faculty posts.