Global Warming and Hurricanes – NOAA says no measurable effect yet

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

Figure 1: Two different statistical models of Atlantic hurricane activity vs sea surface temperature (SST). The upper panel statistically models hurricane activity based on “local” tropical Atlantic SST, while the bottom panel statistically models hurricane activity based on tropical Atlantic SST relative to SST averaged over the remainder of the tropics.Both comparisons with historical data and future projections using this approach are shown. See Vecchi et al. 2008 for details.

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

Advertisements

169 thoughts on “Global Warming and Hurricanes – NOAA says no measurable effect yet

  1. “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.

      • 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”.

      • 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

      • 40 years? Closer to 70 since the big run up in CO2 started. 150 years if you measure to when the temperatures started increasing.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  2. 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?

    • funnier……even using the F A K E adjusted temp history…..they still couldn’t

      …this is getting really lame

  3. 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….

    • 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!

  4. Naah, the projected increase in hurricanes is due to the witches placing a curse on Trump, and getting the curse wrong/s

  5. Confidence is the invisible mortar that holds their hopeless pile of rubble together.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

      • 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 writes, “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:

        “To gain more insight on this problem, we have attempted to analyze much longer (> 100 yr) records of Atlantic hurricane activity. If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in Atlantic hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have produced a long-term rise in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.”

        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.)

        “The situation for Atlantic hurricane long-term records is summarized in Figure 4. While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease. The unadjusted hurricane count record (blue curve) shows a significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the early 1900s. However, when adjusted with an estimate of storms that stayed at sea and were likely “missed” in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1800s (red curve). While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.“(emphasis is their’s)

        Also, FWIW, the “therefore” is not mine. In the synthesis for Atlantic hurricanes, they state:

        “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. … 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.”

        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 —

        “If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in Atlantic hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have produced a long-term rise in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.”

        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.)

  8. 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.

  9. 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???

    • David, they just said in over 42 years they still can’t find a global warming fingerprint….and yes, that’s a tragedy

  10. 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.

  11. “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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. “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”?

  16. 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/

  17. 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.

      • 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.

  18. “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.

    • Jim, I think both of those are trigger words…
      Maybe something more benign and medical sounding for the snowflakes…..ICS

      Irritable Climate Syndrome

      • “Irritable climate syndrome” is when the weather doesn’t cooperate with your scare stories and that gives you the sh!ts.

  19. 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.

  20. “It is premature to conclude… ” Shows which was the confirmation-bias-driven science is headed, doesn’t it?

  21. We shoud not rant too much over this study.

    In short: They are rowing back. Carefully.

    And at the end they can say: “We always were not shure about catastrophical global warming. Just check our studies…”

    So be still my heart and be happy.

    • An astute observation.

      But yet is to come the back slapping for them having changed the direction of global catastrophe by telling us all “It’s the wind farms that dun it”.

      It’s coming soon.

    • Of course there are in terms of fitness for purpose an infinity of studies claiming a virtual infinity of things so nothing can be concluded here.

  22. The laws of thermodynamics imply that increased greenhouse gasses should REDUCE cyclone energy. Specifically, the second law states that the energy for heat engines comes from temperature DIFFERENCES, not just from high temperatures. In the case of tropical cyclones it’s the water being warmer than the air that supplies the energy.

    But the air won’t be getting as cold as quickly in the fall, so the energy for tropical cyclones should be reduced (first order effect, anyway). This is counter-intuitive to folks who don’t know physics, but it’s why refrigerators consume electricity instead of produce it, and why tornadoes tend to be associated with cold-fronts.

    • Frederick,

      thank you for that. Probably the clearest explanation of the causes of hurricanes I have ever seen. Nor is it counter intuitive, slowly pour hot water into a clear glass of cold water, held up to the light, and your explanation is obvious.

      I’m not a scientist therefore I appreciate illustrations of science being delivered in layman’s terms. I also happen to believe it’s a scientist’s job to do just that.

    • BUT…..with all the heat being ‘trapped’ in the HOT SPOT, then the differences between the tropical home of the Hot Spot, and that of the poles, would be greater….therefore greater movement of air masses = more storms or whatever type.

      Oh…hang on, just looked at more data….it was hidden somewhere – right next to some with-held emails….seems there is NO Hot Spot…therefore no increase in temperature differences…..therefore no engine for increasing the storm scenario.

      hmmm….maybe I should become a scientist, and apply for a few $$$$’s from somewhere.

    • >>
      The laws of thermodynamics imply that increased greenhouse gasses should REDUCE cyclone energy.
      <<

      Any pilot will tell you this. I’m a retired P-3 pilot. When it’s cold the engines are more powerful than when it’s hot. All heat engines, even weather ones, follow the same rules. Tropical storms are more powerful, because there’s more energy available. A warmer atmosphere should reduce the amount of energy available to do work. Storms in a warmer world should be less violent for the same reason.

      Jim

      • Yep. Correct.
        However a warm/hot engine produces more ‘power’ with colder intake temperatures and or more air.
        Nitros Oxide = Colder
        Turbo = more air
        But I think we agree on the storm front/issue. ;)

    • In addition, the additional mass of H2O laden air will be more difficult to raise up to the shear required to get a tropical cyclone in motion. It’s not much — but every one degree means 9% more water.

  23. Al Gore used a hurricane as the signature image of his movie. That was right after a series of particularly destructive hurricanes made landfall in the U.S. Of course the Gore effect kicked in and the Atlantic entered a hurricane drought.

    Considering the time that has passed and funding provided you would think they would have something by now. Well they did. They found out that Al Gore is a slick politician who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  24. Looking at both graphs in Figure 1, can we please apply the statistical five-year downscaling to all climate model output?

  25. What about Michael Mann’s paper on Extreme Events caused by GW aka CC ? Will he archive his data? I thought the IPCC science was ‘settled ‘ I’m in a real miuddle now and need help.

    • Mann’s new extremes paper is all models. There is therefore no actual data to archive. Model outputs are not data except in a post normal climate science sense where comparing model outputs is called an experiment rather than computer gaming.

  26. I has understood that the scientists at NOAA were involved in a hoax to persuade everyone that global warming as worse than we thought. Yet here we have a study suggesting it might not be as bad as we thought.

    This leads to only two logical conclusions. the NOAA are liars and cannot be trusted, so we must dismiss this evidence as worthless.
    Or the NOAA is accurately reporting the results of the best science and we must accept the rest of their output on that basis.

    My vote is on the latter.

    • I’d have thought it was obvious. Your dichotomy is false on its face.

      The leadership of NOAA, now conveniently retired, blatantly and shamelessly cooked the “surface temperature” books before Paris in order to bust the “Pause”. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t now some researchers at NOAA who aren’t totally corrupt slaves of their political masters.

      Besides which, there is a new sheriff in town.

      • So are we going to accept everything the NOAA and the other agencies put out now as reliable? We can expect the truth now we have a new sheriff?

        The thing about the sea temperatures before Paris – I assume you are talking about the work that has since been confirmed by other researchers (Hausfather et al), using different methods.

        So what you mean is that the good study which has since been independently confirmed, but you think was shamelessly cooked- that is was deliberately falsified. That is a very brave allegation in the absence of any evidence. Bear in mind that Bates specifically stated that the data was not “cooked” but simply did not meet his standards for archival quality. You are on very shaky ground. Do you have one shred of evidence that the data was cooked?

      • Like most warmist, seaice can’t handle the complexities of the real world.
        So it has to create false dichotomies in order to simplify the world enough for it’s simple mind to comprehend.
        Either everything NOAA does can’t be trusted, or everything NOAA does can’t be questioned.
        No middle ground permitted.
        BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?

      • As for me, I’ll accept work that is in keeping with the scientific method, and reject packs of lies like Karl’s “pause-busting”, unjustified, blatant manipulation.

      • Mark,

        IMO it’s pretty easy to distinguish real science from politically-motivated activism.

      • So we can accept that the NOAA is not totally corrupt then. We have no grounds for doubting everything it produces. It is good to get at least that admission. I see no evidence for the “cooked” allegation.

      • I have read the posts. I know that none of them offer any evidence of deliberate falsifying of the data.

        If you have some fresh evidence please post it here.

      • “So are we going to accept everything the NOAA and the other agencies put out now as reliable?”

        We accept that NOAA can’t attribute human causes to the weather or climate of the Earth. We accept that because that’s what skeptics believe, and if NOAA wants to get onboard this train, we are happy to have them.

      • Latitude – I don’t think that graph is from Karl15.
        TA – are you saying that you will accept only conclusions that fit your current beliefs, whatever the evidence?

      • “TA – are you saying that you will accept only conclusions that fit your current beliefs, whatever the evidence?”

        I would be kind of foolish not to accept something I agree with, wouldn’t I? That doesn’t mean I ignore the evidence, it means I think the evidence (or lack thereof) supports my position.

        If NOAA wants to confirm my position that human activity can’t be attributed to climate change, I am more than happy to accept their position because it is my position. They are agreeing with me. They should do more of that.

    • Have you noticed that those of us who said that Arctic sea ice extent would get back into the 2SD normal zone this month are looking prescient? As opposed to Griff, who asserted that there was “sure” to be a new record summer sea ice extent low, simply because the winter maximum was low.

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

      For seven of the past nine days, Arctic sea ice extent has grown, so that it’s now back to where it was between March 22 and 23. It’s headed for the normal zone. At present rate, would enter it within ten days to two weeks, give or take. Weather might change in the Arctic, of course.

      • I would leave claims of prescience until the outcome actually happens. The extent is still quite a way from the 2sd level.

        It is also an unusual way to put it – the normal zone.

        Griff was chancing his arm. A new summer low might occur, but the annual variation is far too great to be certain of any singe year. If we were to assume no trend since 2007 then odds of a record low next season would be maybe 10:1. I will give odds of 5:1 to any takers.

      • Engarpia,

        In the graph which I linked and all other such NOAA sea ice charts, the gray-shaded normal zone is two standard deviations. Had you bothered to look, you could have read it right there on the chart.

        Please look before leaping.

      • Seaice,

        It was not I but Griff who claimed prescient certainty at the 100% SS level.

        Others and I pointed out to him that sea ice extent might very well do what it appears to be in the process of doing, rather than staying below the normal zone all melt season.

        The trend since 2005 in Arctic sea ice extent is up. With a triple bottom put in in 2007, 2012 and 2016, the way to bet is up, but few phenomena are certain in climate, contrary to Griff’s delusions of competence.

      • You are correct Gloateus when you say the gray shaded area is 2 standard deviations. However, you obviously are ignorant of what 2 standard deviations means. It does not mean “normal zone” and nowhere on that interactive chart does it mention “normal zone.” I suggest you review the contents of the link I provided for you before continuing.

      • Engarpia,

        NOAA, NASA and groups which study sea ice refer to the shaded area as the normal zone.

      • Gloateus, I searched the the NASA page and the NOAA/NCDC page and there is no mention of “normal zone”

      • Engarpia,

        There are lots of them. You didn’t look very hard. I knew they were there because I read NASA and NOAA ice and SST material often.

        They also refer to the “normal range” and the “gray zone”.

      • Gloateus, again, I searched both the NASA page and the NOAA/NCDC page from the links you provided, and there was no “normal range” and there was no “gray zone” on either of them.

      • Engarpia,

        Both use “normal” in exactly the way I said they do. Why do you waste so much time? Why didn’t you just search for those terms? There are lots of hits.

        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-compared-new-normal

        “Sea ice extent graphs showing recent years compared to the 1979-2000 average (left) and 1981-2010 (right). Some years (2005, 2013) that would have been “out of bounds” for the old normal now appear in the normal range (gray shading).”

      • Finally you post a link that contains the term “normal rage” …..good….. (took a lot of proding on my part.) But more importantly I need to see a link that contains the term “normal zone.” PS, you have no clue what “normal” means…because believe it or not, the distribution you’ve shown is not “normal.” Please keep posting, because it’s fun to play with someone that doesn’t have a clue how statistics works.

      • Engarpia,

        I know better than you what “normal” means. I taught statistical genetics to undergrads at one of the best universities in the world.

        But as I keep showing you, I use it with regard to sea ice the same way as NASA and NOAA do. All the links I provided show the term “normal” used in that way, whether with “range”, “shades” or “zone”.

        https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/old_%26new_baseline_610.jpg?itok=pVUj51Fm

        Your objection was to my use of the term, but it’s the same as NASA and NOAA use it, contrary to your false assertion out of total ignorance.

        I suggest you get a life.

      • Wow…..so, since you are so well versed in “statistics”….we can play a game….. Go to the interactive Arctic sea ice chart: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ Now, use it to find out when was the last time the sea ice minimum was above “average” ( in the Aug to Nov time frame….answer is 2001 )
        ….
        Now if the mesured sea ice minimum was a true normally distributed item, what do you think is the probability of the sea ice extent being below average 15 years in a row.

        My calculations say 0.00003

        What say you? (HINT: what is prob of fair coin getting 15 heads in a row?)

        Also I forgot to mention that there is a significant difference between the 1979-2000 average and the 1981-2010 average ……which makes the “grey zone” a moving target…..agree?

      • PS Gloateus, when I was a student in undergrad math classes, it was easy to wind up the professors and make them chase their tails just like I’m doing to you. Don’t try using “appeal to authority” on me, cause you’ll lose.

      • engarpia: “Now if the mesured sea ice minimum was a true normally distributed item, what do you think is the probability of the sea ice extent being below average 15 years in a row.”

        It’s not “normally distributed”, not even close. Why would you even bring up something so silly?

      • Gloateus,
        “The trend since 2005 in Arctic sea ice extent is up. With a triple bottom put in in 2007, 2012 and 2016, the way to bet is up,”

        It is possible that it will turn out to be up. Personally I think it more likely that it will continue down, but we can’t know for sure yet.

        However, I am confident enough in my prediction that am willing to bet on it. So far nobody here has had the confidence to bet on their predictions, which makes me think they may not really believe it.

        I offered a compromise between quick results and reasonable smoothing based on last 3 year average minimum Arctic sea ice extent and next 3 years. Over 3 years, if the trend is up this would have a better than evens chance of showing itself, and only 3 years to wait.

        So you will be taking me up on earlier offer then?

        My original offer was based on 2013,14 and 15 average minimum extent being more than 16, 17 and 18 average minimum extent. We now have only 18 months to wait, but the offer is recorded so was made without any knowledge of events since then. If the trend since 2005 is up that should be a pretty sure bet for you.

        How about it?

    • Option 3) They know they are caught, so they are trying to walk back to a defensible position.

      • +100
        MarkW, you are a wise person indeed. I’m sure this is said and thought by many.
        How often has it been seen now, that reports from numerous origins, seems to have tempered their reports/findings.
        Coincidence?
        Me thinks …not!

      • The senior bureaucrats just need to hang on until retirement. The younger bureaucrats will follow which way the wind is blowing, in hopes of hanging on.

        We really need to be able to fire federal bureaucrats. Shutting down GISS and shipping Gavin off to Nome to collect data instead of invent “data” in NYC might make him and his fellow unindicted co-conspirators consider early retirement.

    • Seaice, what NOAA is pretending to report is not science and is contrary to the facts which are that cyclones and hurricanes are on the decline. And yet NOAA does not even mention the reality of the decline.

  27. Of course there is a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity and global tropical cyclone activity, but they just haven’t adjusted the data yet to align with CAGW assumptions.

    • Yes SoM, and you can bet London to a brick that the recent cyclone Debbie will be recorded as a CAT4 when it was only a single weather station which ever recorded more than CAT2.

  28. In which any last vestige of “science” is removed from “climate science:”

    “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.”

    “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.”

    If you can’t scientifically detect any correlation between warming and hurricane strength, precisely what is the scientific basis for the conclusion that there is a likelihood that future warming will cause hurricanes to become stronger? Oh, I see now – it’s in the next sentence: “In our view, there are better than even odds . . .”

    So now the climate “scientists” seem to be openly inserting their opinions as a substitute for the scientific method. All you need is a hypothesis, and when the data doesn’t back it up, you go ahead and acknowledge that fact but just put a comma and the word “yet” at the end of the sentence, then pretend that your gut instinct is what really matters instead of cold, hard data.

    • >>
      In which any last vestige of “science” is removed from “climate science:”
      <<

      Like jumbo shrimp, freezer burn, and honest politician, “climate science” is an oxymoron.

      Jim

      • I’m not sure I’d go as far as to broadly say that “climate science” is an oxymoron, but “scientific consensus” and “scientific opinion” are certainly each an oxymoron.

  29. Meanwhile, here in the Pacific, we just had a major Cyclone, since blamed (of course) on Global Warming.

    What is not mentioned is the recent dearth of cyclones here, and the fact that this was called Debbie, ie only the fourth this season (which is nearly at an end).

    The last one that hit where I am was Yassi (iirc), ie the 25th of the season, and that was 6 or 7 years ago and definitely worse.

    They will bang on about the floods caused by Debbie, which have been severe, but when they say the floods are the worst for ‘x’ years (65 was the greatest interval, I think), that tells you that it has all happened before, and worse!

    But, of course, Debbie is solid proof of CAGW.

    * sigh *

    • Quite so Jerome. I note the recent picture in Rockhampton with people standing in front of a flood depth indicator. The picture showed that the predicted flood depths were around the same level as three previous floods the most recent of which was 2011. It also showed greater flood levels higher up.

      Unprecedented does not mean what alarmists appear to think it does.

  30. They haven’t come up with a measurement fiddle that will pass skeptics like Jim Steele. Not that it isn’t being worked on.

    Now didn’t Mann just testify to Congress about natural disasters? Mr. 97 percent called Pielke Jr. a liar for saying what this study reports. Mann should be called back with Pielke Jr.

  31. Warmer world = milder storms, retracting deserts, more CO2. Colder world = more violent storms, expanding deserts, less CO2. This is what the physics and climate record say. This is because nearly all of the warming and cooling occurs at high latitudes.

  32. So by “failed to find an increase”, they are probably missing that there’s possibly a decline. It’s the polar areas that are warming (so far), and thus the delta temperature is smaller. Basic adiabatic equations mean that storms should decline.

  33. Meanwhile Mickey M is searching for the ‘Hot Spot’ at the north pole in an effort to vindicate his abysmal performance with his ‘Hokey Shtick’ malarky at the House hearing on Science etc’ last week. Along with his mates Trenberth and Tunney he makes a ‘pigs ear’ of that venture as well.

  34. Look at it this way:

    Climate is always the result of an analysis. The idea of climate doesn’t even enter the imagination unless you have recorded weather history or remembrances available to consider.

    There is no device for climate like there is a thermometer or barometer or a rain bucket that measures weather events.

    Climate is an after the fact mental exercise. If someone talks about a climate system that is separate from the weather system, be assured that no such thing exists, other than in that persons imagination, so you have to be careful about what is real and observable and what is strictly a mental exercise.

    Andrew

  35. “For humans, *EVERYTHING* is a mental construct.”

    This is wrong. The weather is there. We can measure what it does. Stand out in the rain. We make make mental constructions about it, if we want. Climate isn’t there. It’s strictly the result of an analysis of weather.

    Andrew

  36. “Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.

    Wow… That’s gotta be the first time any one of them has ever mentioned, much less considered natural variability. Maybe they are starting to run a bit scared of losing the gravy train. The whole purpose of the “hockey stick” was to prove that there was no natural variability, at least non noticeable.

  37. 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.

    Pardon me, but “The Mann” make the claim before Congress that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s testimony about there being no increase in the frequency of weather catastrophes, despite the CAGA meme, was wrong because he had said he was “dropping out” of the whole “climate science” circus a year or two ago? Mann said something to the effect that “more research” has been done since then that shows he was wrong. Mann then did not follow up by saying about the frequency has increasing, which is what Dr. Roger Pielke Jr had said, but rather that this “New Research” showed these less frequent weather events are worse now than they would have been because of the real Man’s CO2 emissions.
    Would those doing these studies have said that had a $Green$ Hockey Stick been dangled in front of them?
    But maybe I misunderstood something he said.

  38. “but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.”
    Of course.

  39. Have any of you attended GFDL seminars, or even seen their papers, in the past decade or two? I have. Many years ago GFDL was a vaunted and respected research organization, but IMO GFDL has devolved into a morass of politicized young activists over the decades. You could see the change when the “old” guys gave way to the 70s- and 80s-educated group, and it has accelerated as the younger generation has moved into research positions and even prominence. One could say the same for GISS, UCAR, PMEL, etc., but these changes to our labs and research institutions just mirror the changes to society in general. Sorry to bring politics into it, but it’s sad that the politics have infested the science, and seeing these seminars and papers drives the point home to me, as many seminars I sat through approached the status of junk science. This paper is an example of that. My take-away from many, if not most, of these seminars was that group think and confirmation bias dominated the culture at GFDL. The same could be said about the academic institutions at which these researchers were “educated.” as well as the supporting infrastructure, such as the AMS. There is no easy answer to address these institutionalized problems, which is why it should be expected that they are not going away soon, and which is why, again IMO, the CAGW industry will be with us for many, many years.

    • Just the opposite. A hurricane is a heat engine that sucks the heat from the warm surface water and convects it upward where it condenses and falls as rain. The kinetic energy of all that the falling rain causes more wind rotating around the eye, which causes the heat from the surface water to be picked up more quickly, and so forth, creating positive feedback. What drives this heat engine is the temperature differential between the air at the surface and the air aloft. When hurricanes move over warmer water they strengthen since the temperature differential between the top and bottom of the hurricane increases. That’s why climate scientists predict that as ocean temperatures rise, hurricane strength should increase.

      I think this is far too simplistic, since with CO2-caused global warming you’re looking at the temporal change in temperatures instead of just the spatial difference. If the air aloft warms more than the air at the surface, which you would think would be what would happen since it is the composition of the air that is driving global warming, I would think that over time hurricane strength should decrease, but this is not because of warmer water – it’s despite the warmer water,

Comments are closed.