Enough is Enough! Stop hyping Harvey and Irma!


Dr. Neil Frank, former Director National Hurricane Center

Over the past several weeks numerous articles suggest Harvey and Irma were the result of global warming. The concept is a warmer earth will generate stronger and wetter hurricanes. A number of people have said Irma was the most intense hurricane in the history of the Atlantic while Harvey was the wettest and both were good examples of what we can expect in the future because of global warming. What does a fact check reveal about these two hurricanes?

Irma was indeed a very powerful Cat 5 hurricane when it moved across the Leeward Islands and the 185 mph winds reported by a recon plane at 10,000 ft. were among the strongest recorded in Atlantic hurricanes. How does Irma compare to other intense Atlantic hurricanes? To answer that question, we must first look at the history of the methods used to determine the strength of a hurricane because it changed early this century.

There are two ways to determine the strength of a hurricane. One is to measure the winds with an airplane. The Air Force always flies at 10,000 ft. and empirical relationships are used to convert the 10,000 ft. winds to surface winds. The other is to drop a barometer into the eye and measure the pressure. Since there is a direct relation between the pressure and the wind, if you know one you can compute the other.

Historically, the central pressure was the predominate factor in determining the strength of a hurricane. When the Saffir/Simpson hurricane scale was developed in the early 1970s, all past hurricanes were ranked on the Saffir/Simpson hurricane scale according to their central pressure. Today that policy has changed and now hurricanes are ranked exclusively by the wind. That is why it was possible to declare Irma was the strongest hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic when the plane reported 185 mph winds. But, what does the central pressure tell us about Irma?

For those not familiar with pressure, one of the standard units of measure is millibars (mb). The normal pressure in the U.S. is usually between 1010 and 1030 mb. In the tropics if the pressure drops below 1000 mb, it generally means a Cat 1 hurricane has formed. The pressure in a major Cat 3 hurricane is usually around 950 mb and a Cat 5 occurs when the pressure is below 920 mb. When the pressure drops below 900 mb., you have a super hurricane comparable to the most intense Pacific typhoons.

How does Irma compare with other strong historical hurricanes if we use the central pressure to determine the strength rather than wind? The lowest central pressure recorded in Irma was 914 millibars. The lowest pressure ever recorded in an Atlantic hurricane was 882 mb while Wilma was in the northwest Caribbean Sea in 2005. The lowest pressure for a land falling hurricane was 892 mb when the 1935 hurricane crossed the Florida Keys. There have been 10 hurricanes with central pressures below 910 mb of which 5 were below 900 mb. Irma did not even make the top 10; therefore, it was not close to being the strongest hurricane ever observed In the Atlantic.

Now lets us turn our focus on hurricane Harvey. Harvey has been labeled the wettest hurricane in history; however, the 50 inches recorded in the hurricane is not related to global warming. The reason for the heavy rain is the hurricane stalled for 3 days and unfortunately southeast Texas is where that happened.

The amount of rain in a tropical system is not related to the strength of the wind, it depends on the forward speed of motion. Before we had sophisticated numerical models to forecast the amount of rain a system would produce, we used a simple empirical equation that gave good results. Determine the forward speed of motion and divide it into 100.

If a tropical system is moving 10 mph, expect 10 inches of rain, 20 inches for a system moving 5 mph and if the forward speed is only 2 mph be prepared for 50 inches. That is exactly what happened in Harvey. The hurricane was moving around 2 mph for 3 days and a broad band of 40 to 50 inches of rain covered a large portion of southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana.

There are numerous examples of stalled tropical systems producing excessive rains. For example, in 1979 tropical storm Claudette stalled for 2 days and generated over 40 inches in a broad area south of downtown Houston. The 42 inches that fell in 24 hours in Alvin is the record for a 24 hour rain in the U.S. A year earlier, stalled tropical Storm Amelia produced 48 inches in central Texas. In 1967 slow moving Hurricane Beulah moved into in south Texas and generated between 30 and 40 inches inland from Brownsville.

If there had been a rain gauge in the area east of the Bahamas where Hurricane Jose stalled for four days, I am sure it would have recorded over 60 inches.

The U.S. has a long history of bad hurricanes. Listed below are several noteworthy intense hurricanes that occurred in the late 1800s long before there was an increase of CO2.

The most active year for landfalling hurricanes in the lower 48 states was in 1886 when 7 hurricanes crossed the coast. Four were in Texas and two of these were major. The August Cat 4 destroyed what remained of Indianola. Indianola was a thriving sea port community on the south shore of Matagorda Bay in the mid-1850s before being nearly destroyed by a Cat 4 hurricane in 1875. They were in the process of rebuilding when the 1886 hurricane struck.

There were two Cat 4 hurricanes in 1893. The one in Louisiana killed 1800 people on a coastal island. In the second one, another 1800 died when a 16 ft. storm surge inundated Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.

The deadliest hurricane in U.S. history occurred in 1900 when a 17 ft. storm surge swept across Galveston Island killing over 10,000 people.

The 1900 hurricane was a Cat 4.

In conclusion, Harvey and Irma were typical intense Atlantic hurricanes. They both developed from African disturbances during the peak of the hurricane season. The strength of Irma as determined by central pressure was consistent with a number of other past intense hurricanes. The heavy rain in Harvey was the result of a stalled hurricane and was not caused by increased atmospheric moisture associated with global warming.

There was nothing identifiable with these two hurricanes that would justify an urgent request to support actions that would limit global warming. It is sad that those promoting these actions are so insensitive to the shredded emotions of hundreds of thousands of people in Texas, Louisiana and Florida who have just experienced nightmarish losses and now they are being blamed for causing the hurricanes because they did not support actions to reduce CO2.

Speaking of CO2, there is a very intense controversy over what is causing the earth to warm. The earth has been warming for over 150 years. That is not debatable. What is debatable is the cause. Is it CO2 as “warmest” proclaim or other natural cycles? Solar experts in Asia, the Middle East and parts of Europe believe it is the sun. Over the past 3 1/2 years they have published over 400 papers that discredit CO2 and support natural cycles of the sun. If this is true, why is there intense pressure to spend billions and billions of dollars on green energy?

So what do “warmest” want you to do? First and foremost they demand you endorse the Paris Climate Accord made in December 2015 and agreed to by 194 countries. President Trump withdrew from this agreement earlier this year and the “warmest“ are livid. The stated purpose of the plan is to reduce CO2 and develop Green Energy.

One of the objectives of the agreement is to establish a Green Climate Fund that will be distributed to developing nations to help them convert to green energy. The goal is to have $100 billion in this fund by 2020. Where is the money coming from? Approximately 45 nations have been designated donor countries which means there will be about 150 receiver nations including China.

At the original Paris meeting donor nations pledged about $10 billion of which over 80% would come from 6 nations; England, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan and the U.S.. The U.S. made the biggest pledge of $3.5 billion with the other 5 nations pledging between $1 and $1.5 billion each. To date the U.S. has sent $1 billion to the U.N. as a down payment on our pledge and the other 5 nations around $1/2 billion each. The U.N. has hired 156 employees to monitor the plan with an annual salary of $29 million.

This only the beginning. Christiana Figueres, the U.N. Chairperson of the Paris Conference said recently the Paris plan will cost $1.5 trillion over the next 3 years if every nation complied with the program.

If President Trump were to reverse his decision and once again have the U.S. participate in the Paris Accord, we would immediately owe the U.N. $2.5 billion against our pledge. Just maybe it would be better to take that money and help the 150,000 whose homes were flooded in SE Texas during Harvey.

One last comment, what is the real reason for the Paris Accord? One of the most revealing statements I have seen comes from a top official in the U.N. climate change program. Ottmar Odenhofer said ”We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”. In other words, it an international program to redistribute wealth: Whose wealth? Our wealth!


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This should be in and on every single media outlet who spouted the blatant lies about this year’s hurricanes. But it won’t be.
If only “Father of Hurricanology” Bill Gray were still with us, to add his expert voice to this statement of scientific fact.

Thomas Barlow

The weatherman, Dr. Neil Frank, is talking about local events caused by the hurricane – epiphenomena – not the actual hurricane which rose up in the eastern Atlantic and tracked for over a week across the Atlantic and up Florida, eventually receding over Georgia.
The size of these recent hurricanes were huge comparing to the past, the total perceptible water (not local rain events) was huge. Wether that water fell over land or not is irrelevant, or even if it fell at all. The sustained winds were about as strong as wind can get at sea-level, when they over the Atlantic – again, local wind events on land do not measure these hurricanes. Climate-scientists have been predicting bigger and stronger storms from anthropogenic global-warming for decades now. That’s what these are. Neil Frank is, again, only talking about local events. Not the whole animal.
In the link below here is a photo of the little Hurricane Claudette which Frank cites to make his point – only because it lingered over land for a bit longer than usual. That’s the only reason he mentioned it. Citing local events does not tell you anything about the size and power of the hurricane over its course. Claudette, and the others Neil Frank cites, were small. Sustained wind speeds for hurricanes have limits at sea-level. Irma, Maria, and Harvey were as strong as it gets for sustained speeds at some point in their lifespan.
Frank is using local epiphenomena to try to deny climate-science. These recent hurricanes MAY not be the worst on record, but nothing he cites has any relevance to that ongoing analysis. 2017 is shaping up to be the worst season on record.
‘lil ol’ Hurricane Claudette:comment image
Hurricane Irma:

Thomas Barlow

I would prefer to comment this as a main comment, not a reply, but it doesn’t work.


Once again Dr Neil, thank you for cutting thru the alarmism and presenting data to dampen the hysteria. I had always remembered Hurricane Gilbert in 1988 that stood out above and beyond others with a central pressure of 888mbars and I clearly remember the double eye wall. So I knew that at least one hurricane without even checking the record book was stronger.
I always enjoyed the way you clearly presented the tropical reports here in Houston where I still live. Glad for all that even though we’re not done , we’re on the backend of this season.


Great to have some low down facts from a knowledgeable expert on the subject of hurricanes.

The goal is to have $100 billion in this fund by 2020.

Just to be clear this is $100 billion per year every year for the rest of eternity not a total that will reach $100bn by 2020.

Michael S. Kelly

An excellent article.
I would add the following observation. The “Green” movement advocates what? “Green” in the environmental sense connotes a profusion of plant life. That requires two things: warm temperatures, and plenty of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The “Greens” oppose both. So what does Green mean?
In all of the “wealth transfer” schemes of the UN and other international crooks mostly pay the middleman, and not the poor schmuck they convince is going to be showered with money. The poor third world poster kids get showered on, all right. But the gold in that shower isn’t the kind they expected.

Michael S. Kelly

It goes without saying (which I didn’t) that Green is the color of money.


Delicately put.
And Plus a couple of shedloads!!


Exellent article.


From Philip Klotzbach ✔ @philklotzbach
September 2017 has generated the most major hurricane days (17.5) of any calendar month in the Atlantic on record.


And Sept isn’t over yet…

David A

,The deadliest hurricane in U.S. history occurred in 1900 when a 17 ft. storm surge swept across Galveston Island killing over 10,000 people.
The 1900 hurricane was a Cat 4.”
Did Harvey even produce a 10′ storm Surge. Yes, a different landing location, yet the highest land recorded wind gusts from Harvey are among the lowest of any CAT 4 in U.S. history. Likewise with Irma’s surge and land recorded winds.


After 12 years of quiet…


You say that like it mattered.
What you neglect to mention is that this record of yours only goes back about 30 years to the start of the satellite era, as prior to that many storms that did not make land fall were missed completely.
Of course telling the truth doesn’t support your agenda, which is why you never do it.
BTW, pick any arbitrary 30 day period, and you can prove anything you want.
Prior to Sept, it was a quiet season, but that doesn’t advance your agenda, so it doesn’t get mentioned either.

Pop Piasa

McL- That was all in the past- it can be adjusted away at the science elitists’ whims, in the progressive paradigm.


You really are gullible, aren’t you !!


MarkW : “… as prior to that many storms that did not make land fall were missed completely.”
He was talking about major storms, with the possible exception of the WWII period, it is unlikely that a major storm would go unnoticed.
You are right about his “calendar month” claim which is scientifically meaningless. There is a never ending list of special conditions applied to make these events seem unique or “unprecedented”.

Irma was the strongest ever hurricane to trigger in Cape Verde, make landfall on a Friday at Key West. That is “unprecedented” all of human recorded history ( well recorded hurricane history that is. ).

So what ?


Surely you are aware that the record during the period of hurricane flights and satellites isn’t comparable to the record for previous periods, such as the LIA, when we know that those hurricanes which were experienced were much more frequent and powerful.


Sixto, where is your data on these LIA hurricanes.
Please show your references.
You are just making this one up when you go to the LIA data was very poorly recorded


You could not possibly be more wrong. I make nothing up, unlike NOAA, NASA and HadCRU. Only your lack of climatological info could have led you so to impugn my veracity.
NOAA’s own experts acknowledge that hurricanes were two to three times more frequent c. AD 1700. Hence so many Spanish treasure fleet wrecks. A NOAA scientist is quoted to that effect in a film on the search for the 1715 treasure galleons lost off Florida.
We have lots of historical records of landfalling hurricanes in the LIA, the effects of which were worse than anything seen in the past 200 years.
There is also science, which shows that a colder world is a stormier world.


Sixto, 1780, they are not sure that the great hurricane was one or two., so they recorded 3 or 4 that year. The huge death toll was mainly due to three fleets of wooden ships being sunk and poorly housed plantation workers. With a major crop failure there was little in sentiment to rescue the plantation workers.
Both these would be avoided now I hope with radar and rescue ships.
Put it this way would they have survived in Barbuda and St Martin were there not supply ships
So 4 hurricanes were recorded. That is not proof of anything just that there were 4 hurricanes that made landfall and hit a lot of ships


4 hurricanes , more fequent, no
We have had 4 this autumn
We simply do not have the records to support your claim
Maybe there were more,
To quote 1780
Is meaningless, please do a comparison


Quote and tadulate your data please. Support your statement if you can.


Apparently you’re unaware that there were no satellites in 1780, so the majority of hurricanes which formed went unobserved. Only those which hit land or struck ships, of which at least one survived, would be recorded.
It’s not just the death toll that makes 1780 so historic. It’s also the damage it wreaked on land. Every structure was leveled and bark was stripped off trees over their whole length. That has never been observed since. There have been instances of bark stripping, but never to that extent.


NOAA scientists have tabulated the data, largely obtained from Central American sediments, and have concluded that LIA hurricanes were far more numerous than now.


Sixth, bark war stripped off a tree in St Martin and appeared in on of these blogs. For rests have been stripped of their bark in Europe in at least two occasions in storms a tenth of the wind power of the 1780 storm. Look up Summerset. Try some other cause not wind for stripping bark off trees


1) Caribbean trees aren’t the same as in Somerset.
2) You missed my comment about being totally stripped. And uprooted.
The Cuban expert (who fled Castro to the US) on historical hurricanes determined that the 1780 storm had sustained winds over 200 mph.


Here is an other incedence of as you call never recorded since where bark was stripped off trees.
If the site does not respond try the great storm of 9th August Oxford 1843
Sixto you need to be a bit more critical of your sources


OK, my last post here.
No, no es la verdad. Este gran hombre tiene la verdad:
I’d think it obvious that comparing bark stripping in England with bark stripping in the Caribbean is a case of apples and oranges.
I’m pretty sure that former directors of the US hurricane center and Cuban historical meteorologists are probably more familiar with hurricanes than you are, Ron, if you’re from Somerset, where hurricanes hardly ever happen.


Sixto the winds are much milder in Britain and they still uproot trees every winter. I fact trees sometime uproot with no wind
There wereally only second hand represent of these storms, reported in the European press mainly.
The storm in Oxford was well documented. There were no 200mph winds. There must be something else that strips bark off trees in a storm. There was a lot of lightning in the 1843 storm and hail. Either one can be attributed but wind no.
The stripped tree in St Martin was seen by all the world. You are therfore telling me this in the Carribean is a sign of 200mph wind then it happened with Irma. Or it was a lightning strike.
Or as in Oxford either that or hailstones.
Hailstones would account very well with the high destruction of the 1780 hurricanes. Then they don’t seem to have them in Cuba so was the meteoligist aware of their dam age potential?. But in the LIA, they would have been commener.


The recently famed tree was partially stripped, and it was rare. In 1780, they all were, all along their entire length.
Do you think that Cuban hurricane experts are idiots? Unlike mad dogs and Englishmen, they don’t go out in the midday sun.

richard verney

Per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes
Period Number of recorded storms
affecting United States
1850s 17
1860s 15
1870s 19
1880s 25
1890s 20
1900–1909 17
1910s 21
1920s 15
1930s 18
1940s 23
1950s 20
1960s 15
1970s 12
1980s 17
1990s 15
2000–2009 19
2010s 8
It would appear that the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1920s, 1940s and 1950s were more active than the period covered by the late 20th century warming.


Only your lack of climatological info could have led you so to impugn my veracity.

No, what led him to make that comment was you unsupported claims plus the self contradiction when you say records are incompatible and then make an implicit comparison by saying they were worse back then.

If you want to be taken seriously when challenged, best not to cite what some NOAA guy says during a film as your official source of your information.

David A

Nevertheless, Sixto’s comment here;
“Surely you are aware that the record during the period of hurricane flights and satellites isn’t comparable to the record for previous periods”———–””””
is logically true.
In fact it is very likely that earlier storms, monitored primarily by central pressure, ground recorded wind speeds, storm surge and observed wide spread damage, not likely storm sprung tornados damage, are significantly underestimated.
On that basis; (ground recorded wind speeds, storm surge, central air pressure and observed non tornado damage) both Harvey and Irma struggle to rise to major hurricane status, let alone CAT 4 rating. Only on the basis of central air pressure do the reach borderline major hurricane status at landfall. Based on the other three metrics they fail to reach even CAT 3.
Another factor in under rating past hurricanes, even in the era of airplane hurricane hunter flights and satellites, is the consistent improvement in such technology and the frequency of said flights. Now days the flights are more frequent and monitored 24-7 by far superior satellites, allowing real time estimates of intensity. All of thus leads to rating today’s storms higher then in the past.
Further more I would not be so quick to dismiss Sixto’s damage observation experts analysis. Yes, thousands of run of the mill storms knock down trees. However tree type, tree health, and soil conditions must be taken into account as well as how wide spread said damage is. (Likewise with bark stripping) I would guess the experts doing this have some capacity to do it well.
Given that the storm surge of Irma, from the Keys up through the entire west coast of Florida, was, AT BEST, 1/2 the MINIMUM predicted surge, and the ground recorded wind speeds were far lower then any other CAT 4 at landing hurricane I can find, and land damage was far more consistent with CAT 1 and 2, I maintain that Harvey and Irma were the weakest CAT 4s in U.S. history at landfall.
Harvey was exceptional because Harvey hovered over Houston, a subsiding city built on a swamp. Heck, Harvey’s land recorded sustained wind speeds and 3 highest recorded gusts were 30 to 42 mph below other Texas landfall CAT 4 hurricanes.
Irma was exceptional because she formed early, and had a very large wind field with a low gradient to the outer bands. ( Irma’s eye broke even before landfall, and by the time the eye was fully onshore, those Easter Florida outer bands on the east side of Irma in the NE quadrant were recording ground based winds just slightly below what was being recorded in what was left of the broken eye.)
Based on the above I maintain neither Harvey or Irma would have received CAT 4 U.S. landfall status prior to satellites and hurricane hunter flights.

Ron, By accusing Sixto of “making up” stuff reveals both your lack of historical facts and your trollish intent. Sixto is backed by numerous studies examining storm wash sediments as proxies for storm frequencies and intensity
From Nott 2016:
“The climatically controlled variability apparent in the longer-term records suggests that the true natural variability of TCs [Tropocal Cyclones] is composed of discrete periods of time with different frequency probabilities. Hence, the period between 1400 and 1650 C.E. along the N.E. USA coast must have had a higher probability of occurrence of the more extreme events than the centuries before and after. Likewise, the period from approximately 1400 to 1800 C.E. along the N.E. Australian coast also had a higher probability of occurrence of category 4 and 5 TCs making landfall than the present day. ”


Can anyone join this slugfest?
In the 1700s – Eighteenth Century – scientific instruments were not either terribly widespread nor terrifically accurate.
Temperature, pressure, wind speed – even time (until Harrison’s chronometer [see ‘Longitude’]) and so position, were not known as they are today – or even forty or fifty years ago.
On that basis, I would be very careful of criticising weather reports from those – generations ago – days.
I suggest [and absolutely cannot prove] that those making the observations that have come down to us [whether in ships’ log books or otherwise] have at least tried to be accurate and honest.
That is absolutely unprovable, I know – but I think that seafarers, certainly, will try to be clear about the conditions – notably wind and sea state – they experienced.
As best they could with the devices available to them.
With, perhaps, a “little biggin’ it up” after insurance came in – Lloyd’s of London from 1686 or 1774, with the formation, in the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill, of The Society of Lloyd’s . . .
But pretty reasonably reliable.
The Beaufort Scale was invented in about 1805, and publicised as the standard for ship’s log entries on Royal Navy vessels in the late 1830s and was adapted to non-naval use from the 1850s.
[Some copy-paste from the incredible Wiki, which even I can edit!!!]
The past is a foreign country.
HMS ‘Victory’ – Nelson’s Flagship at Trafalgar – has a displacement of 3500 tons – a little less than some Rhine barges today.
Tankers and bulkers have had displacement exceeding 400,000 tons in the last 40 years.

reallyskeptical September 25, 2017 at 5:45 pm
From Philip Klotzbach ✔ @philklotzbach
September 2017 has generated the most major hurricane days (17.5) of any calendar month in the Atlantic on record.

And Ted Williams hit the most homeruns ever in Fenway Park… So what?


Wow. Such a Middl’ing reply. So you have nothing to say.

It’s callled “an analogy.”

Matt G

Records are easily broken when they are short, limited and only occurred during big advances in technology.


If you pick an obscure enough fact you can make any year important. What the hell does major hurricane day even mean I mean in a scientific sense. I declare this year had the most horizontal black clouds ever and that is just as significant.


“Wow. Such a Middl’ing reply. So you have nothing to say.”
He is pointing out that an arbitrary period such as a human calendar month has no scientific meaning any more that a particular ballpark venue has.
Do the same calculation for ANY 30 day period in the hurricane record and see whether you still have an super interesting statistic. Then look at 28 day and 32 day periods and see whether this year is anything special.
You failure to understand his criticism just underlines your lack of understand in thinking your initial comment had any relevance.

So, since you are “really skeptical” you will now go away and calculate those stats for alternative time periods and report back with the results, be they positive or negative to your initial proposal.

… Or probably not since you would be incapable of even doing the calculation and were just parroting some BS you read on a warmist site trying to make this year look “unprecedented”.

D. J. Hawkins

Where does this number come from? I can’t seem to find any reference at NOAA’s web site.

“The concept is a warmer earth will generate stronger and wetter hurricanes”
To blame us humans for hurricanes and to blame Trump’s withdrawl from Paris, it must first be shown that a long term upward trend exists in globally averaged hurricane intensity and then it must be shown that warming in SST is driven by fossil fuel emissions. Results for the former are mixed. Results for the latter are negative (link below).
Yet all dramatic meteorological events and even non-meteorological events provide fertile ground to fire the imagination of the believers with anthropogenic doom by fossil fuel emissions. It is a sinful and despicable act that should not go unpunished.


Looking at how each month of the year is affected is interesting however, this manuscript seems deeply flawed.
Firstly sliding 30 year trends are very similar to doing a running average on the rate of change and running averages grossly distort data and even have negative lobes which invert certain frequencies.
There are two things I constantly rail against as defective methods in climatology and they is the use of running averages as a filter and the obsession with fitting linear trends. You manage to combine both.
If you are not already aware of the distortions of running means I suggest this article:
Apart from the use of the word “generational” ( an approximate and irrelevant period relating to the human reproductive cycle ) you do not explain why you chose a 30y period for the analysis. I will explain why you chose it:
The 30y trend produces an almost linear ramping profile, however changing the length of the window either up or down quickly morphs this into different profiles. This is largely an artefact of the distortions of the crappy running average processing. Try using a proper filter and this will not happen, and you won’t get these linear ramps.
Also your stated aim is to examine the correlation of regional warming to the steady rise in human emissions, ie one longer term rising variable with another longer term rising variable. Paradoxically you then remove the long term signal from both datasets by subtracting a low-pass filtered rate of change and proceed to do a detailed analysis of the residual noise and end up concluding there is no significant correlation. Hardly a surprising result.
Sorry to blast the “paper”, you seem to have put quite a bit of effort into a detailed analysis but it seems that the method you chose was deeply flawed.
Maybe if you had submitted this for peer review ( rather than “publishing” in a working paper repository ) these obvious flaws would have been pointed out … or maybe not !
consider your method peer reviewed 😉


PS cumulative emissions will not have an instantaneous effect of surface temps, there is a massive thermal inertia in the oceans, so even if there is a detectable effect of CO2 you will not find it in zero lag correlation analysis.
The negative lobes in a 30y running mean are at about 20y , you have inverted the 20y variability, further mangling the data. This may also be part of the reason that you did not get any rejections of the null hypothesis at 20y intervals.
You essentially ensure your negative result by the method you adopted.


156 employees, salaries 29 million dollars per year, means about $200,000 a year on average. Wow. I want a job like that, distributing money.


Let’s see…$29,000,000 divided by 156 is around $186,000 per person per year. I guess it really pays to be part of the big green swindling machine.

David A

They should poll the 156 employees, certainly now professionals in climate science, and dollars to donuts, they will beat the 97% consensus. Along with that they will have more then doubled the sampling number of the most cited 97% papers.


OT: Looks like the Dallas Cowboys and the Arizona Cardinals may have solved a big problem with teams taking a knee during the National Anthem.
Tonight, *before* the anthem was sung, both teams locked arms on the field, and all of them got down on their knees. The crowd was just starting to boo heavily, thinking no doubt this was a prelude to both teams dissing the flag, but then all the players stood up,with arms still locked together, and waited for the Nation Anthem to be sung, all ALL the player from both teams stood for the National Anthem.
They effectively separated their “social justice” protest from the National Anthem, and the crowd and I were very happy to see this. If all NFL teams follow this example, then this controversy about trashing the American Flag, the National Anthem, and America in general, will be over.
I prefer that they would take any demonstrations off the football field, but I can accept these gestures as long as they are not aimed at trashing the gool ole USA and it’s national anthem and flag.
I am currently watching the game and enjoying myself very much, although my favorite team the Cowboys are behind at the moment.
Somebody figured out a good compromise. Let’s hope everyone picks it up, so we can all watch football like we used to.
There is room for protest, just do it the right way, without disparaging all the institutions of the U.S in the process.


But but but but…Trump


Ok. I am not American but can someone explain to me how kneeling down is “trashing” the USA? In almost any other context kneeling would be a sign of respect.


American cultural custom is to stand for our national anthem which is usually played in salute to our flag, which itself represents the best ideals of our nation which were recorded in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Not standing, assuming you are physically able, is considered to mean you dont support that. One only need look at the Iwo Jima flag raising picture to see how many of us feel about it.
On a secondary note, having been to Europe and South America, we American s appera to show our flag way more often than others. (My sample is admittedly limited, but it is my impression. I admit i may easily be wrong on this observation. ) nonetheless, drive down many residential streets in the US, and you will see it on display in many homes and yards. Drive down business areas, and you will see the same. Its our way.

Rhoda R

In the US, one is supposed to stand with your hand over your heart during the playing of the National Anthem. Doing anything else is disrespectful of this nation, its history, its military and all the people who have served in the past. Pretty heated on both sides at this point. Even the players who stand with arms linked rather than putting their hands over their heart are protesting the Anthem.


“Ok. I am not American but can someone explain to me how kneeling down is “trashing” the USA?”
I would say that if people took a knee in protest at the playing of “God Save the Queen” in England, they would be trashing the Queen. Wouldn’t you say?
We had two American football teams play a game in England this week. The players took a knee when the U.S. national anthem was sung, but they all stood up in respect when “God Save the Qeen” was played.
Their taking a knee is the same as if they had walked up and spit on the American flag. Most Americans don’t like that kind of behavior. Some Americans, like me, get infuriated when he sees such stupidity and ignorance on dispay.
The Left’s agenda is to tear down all the institutions of the United States, and this taking a knee is just another part. Maybe not all who take a knee want to destroy American institutions, but the fellow who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is a radical Leftist who says the entire United States is oppressing him and other blacks.
The original knee taking was definetly taking a shot at the U.S., it’s institutions, and most of it’s people (I assume Kaepernick doesn’t count blacks as oppressors, but everyone else is.


Nolte: Defenders Say NFL Protests ‘Not About Disrespecting’ America — Kaepernick Disagrees
“As ratings collapse, stadiums echo with boos, and lifelong fans burn merchandise, it appears as though a brand new set of talking points went out to the sports world, a talking point that is a bald-faced, provable lie.
As the backlash grows against these spoiled millionaires, we are now being told by their defenders that the NFL protests are “not about disrespecting” America and the flag.
Here is a sample:
Lebron James:
It’s not about the disrespect of our flag and the military that’s made this world free.
Sports CEO Scott O’Neill:
I’m not sure we should make this about the flag as much as dialogue. … They’re not disrespecting the flag.
And on and on and on…
You want proof this is a lie?
How about this…
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.
Do you want to know who said that?
None other than Colin Kaepernick himself.
Contempt and disrespect for America is, according to the founder and father of these protests, the very foundation and basis of these protests.
Moreover, not standing during the National Anthem is by definition an expression of disrespect for flag and country. To argue otherwise is simply absurd, is a flat-out lie.”
end excerpt

Jeff Alberts



” Over the past 3 1/2 years they have published over 400 papers that discredit CO2 and support natural cycles of the sun.”
Really? Where are these papers does anyone have a list?

Search and ye shall find. It is surprising but true.

Clyde Spencer

I see that you are still having difficulty spelling your name.

richard verney

You might try notrickszone.
This site is very good at introducing new papers dealing with various climate topics. For example see the following link: http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.uCam31NY.dpbs


Hi Richard,
That list stops in 2012 and only lists about 100. The claim in the article above was that there were 400
papers published in the last 3 1/2 years discrediting CO2. So your link fails on both counts. Again where
are these papers?

A C Osborn

If you can’t be bothered to go through the many links on NTZ why should we bother with you at all.
Richard did say it was an Example.
In fact the last paper is a very simple take down.


A.C. Osborn,
That last paper you mention appears to be complete nonsense. Firstly it is published in what can only be described as a “vanity journal” not a proper peer reviewed journal. For instance in the same issue there is
a paper that claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine using permanent magnets. While this doesn’t mean that the paper is wrong it is a good indication that it is likely of very poor quality else why would they have published it there. Secondly as far as I can understand the paper suggests that the greenhouse effect is twice as big as previously thought and so there is more of a problem to explain than previously thought.

Eve Stevens

I am trying to find out why hurricanes are stronger when it is cooling. We did not have these strong hurricanes last year during the El Nino, when ocean waters were hot, we are having them this year after that El Nino released the oceans warmth to space. Judith Curry shows that the waters Irma formed over were 2 F lower than the optimal temperatures for a strong hurricane. I remember how bad hurricanes were in the 50’s when the planet was cooling. I don’t know what was happening with temperatures in 1780 which had the deadliest Atlantic hurricane season ever. Any idea? Quiet sun?


Hurricanes and other storms result from temperature differentials, whether equator v. poles, day v. night or air v. water. In the case of hurricanes, tropical SSTs are almost always above the threshold for hurricanes, even during the LIA and glacial intervals. What promotes hurricane formation is the differential between air T and SST. That’s why they normally form at night. So cooler air in the LIA generated more and more powerful hurricanes. That goes double for “ice ages”.
Generally, the colder a planet, the higher its wind speeds.


They for at night, don’t they for over several days? , and nights


Tropical depressions and storms start to form at night. They might then strengthen into hurricanes. Or not.


Thank you 6: I was hoping some one would point this out before I finished reading the comments.


The wrong location 6; should have been for your other previous comment, Differential temperatures.

Pop Piasa

Eve, go to https://www.weatherbell.com/ and click on premium. Watch the daily and weekly freebies like I do – you’ll get a better perspective on hurricanes (and meteorology) than now. Atlantic Hurricane development and path is also tied to western ocean/ continental US atmospheric pressure systems and West African dust extinction as well as the current SSTs. That said, the Current western Caribbean and Gulf temperatures could yet ramp up any disturbance that occurs offshore.


I watch them all, every time a new is available.

I recall reading hat upper level wind shear had something to do with the lack of storm formation last year.


I recall reading hat upper level wind shear had something to do with the lack of storm formation last year.”
Strong El Nino’s cause the reversal of the normal east to west trade winds over the Pacific. The result is more easterly winds coming in across Central America and Mexico and out over the Caribbean and Gulf and other changes in the usual wind patterns that are less conducive for Atlantic hurricane formation and development.

Pop Piasa

They waited a long time to have any real hurricanes to latch on to for propaganda purposes. They are just acting like vagrants who had to wait abnormally long for the soup line to open.


Very nice write up Dr. Frank. Thanks
So, was there also a change in reporting surface wind speed in hurricanes from 10 meters to 100 meters as some have said? I do find inconsistencies with published wind speed on recent storms with the surface based equipment observations. The Florida keys is one example where there were no 130 MPH sustained winds (not gusts) reported from land or sea based stations that I could find.
Florida should be thankful that Irma went over the very shallow Florida bay, and not off shore as was projected. That converted Irma into a half a cane from lack of TCHP due to very shallow water depth. No energy was left for the back half of that storm, and it dissipated the thunderstorms. I am thankful for that as I was in the path.


Yes, I also noticed this. Surface (10m) measurements did not support the CAT 4
classification given to Irma at landfall.

David A
james whelan

David A, I read all your comments as Irma passed alongside Cuba and then headed across to Florida and I agree with everything you said. None of the recorded sustained wind speeds at ground level got anywhere near the classifications of NHC. Indeed as it made landfall at Marco it fell immediately to ‘tropical storm’ category at ground level. And at the end of the day that is where it matters as far as damage is concerned.
I don’t know enough about it, but I strongly suspect the inferences of ground wind speed made by measurements at 50k feet or satellite modelling are just plain wrong. I suspect hurricanes in pre-satellite years should be upgraded considerably on a like for like basis.
By the way I still await an explanation from Mr Mosher of hurricane bawbag in Glasgow in 2011, that developed in the very cold north atlantic in December to produce recorded sustained wind speeds at ground level of over 100 mph ( far higher than Irma).

Dr. Frank… You ROCK!
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
by Dr. Neil Frank
A couple of your slides were from WUWT posts.  Slide #16 is one of mine… 😎
The hyping of Harvey and Irma was almost as outrageous as the assertion that Maria was following Irma’s path…comment image

Not even wrong.

Stevan Reddish

SM, If you had a point, it didn’t come through. Your post ads no value to the discussion.


Par for the course for some time now. If anything he makes less sense with each visit. It’s what comes of being an arrogant git that believes he has a point and that everyone will understand it from his ‘sharp comment’.


You always are Mosh !!

H. D. Hoese

David A–Presume the 10 foot Harvey surge was SE shore of Copano Bay, similar thing happened in Carla. If I remember correctly Dr. Frank investigated Celia in 1970 noting the damaged strips in Corpus. Hope someone investigated this one like that, FEMA guy said the state was, not sure what he meant. Tree damage picked up fast, but some will remain in larger tracts.
Leaving we saw two tripod mounted anemometers on HWY 35 N of Holiday Beach. Upon return one was not seen, one squished, not surprised. Where did these gust records come from like 125 ENE Copano Village? The live oak tree damage in Lamar looks excessive. I saw one report from there (110 SSW), but some wind damage looked like from NE quadrant.


Dr. Frank clearly shows how the academic and government climate pseudoscientists and science reporter tools make fools of themselves with these ungrounded hurricane-climate change claims. But make no mistake, the Climate toads like Mann, Dessler, Hayhoe, Trenberth, Romm, Borenstein, etc are smart enough to recognize the fallacies they spew on a naive public. That simply makes them liars and unworthy of any trust from and within the larger science community.
Joel O’Bryan, PhD

Matt G

the 185 mph winds reported by a recon plane at 10,000 ft. were among the strongest recorded in Atlantic hurricanes
That is the main problem where winds at 10,000 ft are considerably higher than at the ground. Claiming a hurricane is strongest because of recorded winds at that height is like saying the coldest temperature was recorded at 50,000 ft so it was the worst deep freeze ever.
“Just for fun,” was the answer given by Col. Joe Duckworth [source: Coleman and McCloud]. He and Lt. Ralph O’Hair, both flyboys for the Army Air Corps were among the first people to fly an airplane into a hurricane. (July 1943) A lot of historic hurricanes didn’t have measurements at 10,00 ft, so it’s really dishonest to compare them.
Therefore we are comparing 185 mph winds at 10,000 ft with 185 mph wind near ground in 1935. During 1935 the winds would had been considerable higher than 185 mph at 10,000 ft.
The Cairngorm holds the record of having the strongest gust in the UK of 173mph, registered on March 20, 1986.
Nothing that alarming occurred near the ground, although it was very windy over western Scotland.

Matt G

Should only be the first sentence in the quote.

Irma also had an SFMR indication which is an indirect surface wind measurement of 185 MPH (more acccurately 160 knots) according to the #27 forecast discussion. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/al11/al112017.discus.027.shtml?


When you control the media you control the message, propaganda, and truth. People are becoming aware of the media bias.

Mary Brown

Hurricane strikes by decade in tabular form back to 1850

The problem with binning is that it hides short term extremes. You picked year 1 of each decade, but if you had picked year 6 (just as valid, there is nothing magical about our assigned year numbers), you would have 0 major strikes from 2006 – 2015, and a large number from 1996-2005. The extremely long (12.5 years) with no major strikes has been glossed over.

‘Ottmar Odenhofer said ”We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth …’
And yet, the IPCC was able to position itself as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports and without a substantial anthropogenic effect, their transparent and regressive goal of redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations becomes impossible.
This has to be the most egregious conflict of interest I’ve ever seen whose financial consequences make Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief.



I agree.
But the New York Time, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago [anything], Times of London, London Times, Guardian et al. ad infinitum do not live in a Fact Based or Reality Based world.
So I encourage them to post their images of an Earth, bit in two, like a cookie, and Proclaim the End Of The World And Humanity and the Earth Temperature At 10,000 K, yet still Arctic sea ice … Ha ha.
Eventually when they show the image of the Washington Post Owner, sitting on a stool, on a little turd of Earth, everyone else will then look out the window and exclaim … “Hmm … not so bad!”


So Dr Frank says “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.”
Mmmm kinda leaves you wondering how impartial he is if he thinks the big guy is always gonna look after you.
And…. I’m wondering if he has any comment about the speed at which these hurricanes are developing? Seems a few in the industry are saying this last lot built very quickly.


A few in the industry? Just who would that be? The usual suspects? Okay, name them.

I Came I Saw I Left

Climate industry. The name says it all. Those few are no doubt Twitter’s Creative Climate Science Writing Guild trying to make a living and name for themselves in the industry by parroting all of the latest talking points – “fastest developing hurricanes evah!”


So where exactly did he say that Simon since its not in this article?


Google is your friend….


Sorry Simon, didnt know you were so ashamed of your post that you couldn’t or wouldn’t direct anyone to your source so as to not take something out of context. So I guess we’ll all just take you at your word because Im sure there couldnt be any form of self gratifying exaggeration in it.


Over at The Nation, Mark Hertsgaard has published a hysterical screed titled: “Climate Denialism Is Literally (sic) Killing Us.”
He bloviates: “…The tragedy of Harvey starts with the suffering of innocents like Jordyn Grace, the 3-year-old who survived the flood by clinging to the body of her drowned mother, who had prayed with her last breaths…” A disgusting and blatant appeal to emotion, in lieu of relevant data, in which the tragedy of innocents is turned into fodder for political purposes.
Hertsgaard quotes such climate experts as Seth Boringstein, Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth, plus James Hansen, famed for tampering with the Senate Building air conditioning in 1988.


MODS: there are at least three occurrences of the word “warmest” here which clearly is meant to be “warmist”. This is very likely due to the author letting doing an automatic spelling check without checking what it is replacing. Most spelling checkers do not include the term “warmist” and try to correct it.

So what do “warmest” want you to do?

this is an excellent article, shame to have it with these obvious typos.

I Came I Saw I Left

Be not dismayed. Enduring typos builds character.

Speling is nut my strong point ether bot there’s a reel easy fix. Just add warmist to your dictionary. I also had to add alarmist …

Irma was indeed a very powerful Cat 5 hurricane when it moved across the Leeward Islands and the 185 mph winds reported by a recon plane at 10,000 ft. were among the strongest recorded in Atlantic hurricanes. How does Irma compare to other intense Atlantic hurricanes?

If the idea is to evaluate scientifically the relationships between atmospheric gas composition, temperature and movement, limiting the comparison to one location on Earth seems defective. Naturally we can discuss also the politics, but then it should be identified as such. In the meanwhile
Venus. >95% CO2. Approx 880 F, 470 °C. When Venus Express arrived at the planet in 2006, average cloud-top wind speeds between latitudes 50º on either side of the equator were clocked at roughly 300 km/h. The results of two separate studies have revealed that these already remarkably rapid winds are becoming even faster, increasing to 400 km/h over the course of the mission. Source ESA. Looks like the air is pretty stale inside a greenhouse.
Earth. Approx 66 F, 19 °C . 70% N2. maximum wind gust recorded 408 km/h (113 m/s). Source World Meteorological Association.
Mars. Approx -67 F, -55 °C. >95% CO2. The winds in the strongest Martian storms top out at about 60 miles per hour, less than half the speed of some hurricane-force winds on Earth. Source NASA. <100 km/h
Uranus.Mostly H. Approx -357 F, -216 °Celsius. The winds of Uranus can blow clouds up to 560 miles per hour (900 km/h). Source space.com
Neptune. Mostly H. Approx -353 F. -214 Celsius. Winds can reach up to 1,500 miles per hour (2,400 km/h), the fastest planetary winds detected yet in the solar system. Source space.com
I’m inclined to conclude mankind is less powerful than the sun.


The dependence of air circulation on magnetic fields is visible.


Just look at the state of Puerto Rico and Tortola
Isn’t that enough to show recent hurricanes have been extreme, damaging or any other adjective you care to apply?
Why all the downplaying? And diversion by looking at scale as the US was impacted, not where they were at their worst?
And 3 damaging hurricanes at the start of the season -run of the mill?


What’s your point?
Not a single person is saying there weren’t any hurricanes or
that they were not very powerful hurricanes. The objection is
over the repeated use of the term ‘unprecedented’ and the
linkage to AGW when there isn’t a single shred of evidence to
do that. Let’s spend these TRILLIONS of dollars helping
people affected by climate related disasters and ameliorating
the impacts of future disasters. After all, we KNOW there will
be hurricane disasters in the future, regardless of whether
AGW is significant or not.


The hurricanes have been at the traditional height of the Atlantic Hurricane season Griff.
The season as currently defined runs from June 1 thru November 30th. September being the most active month most years.
11 years and 10 months with no major hurricanes striking the lower 48 is luck. Two supposed Cat 4s striking the US coast and one striking unincorporated territories of the US is of course due to climate change. Only a moron would buy that claim.

I Came I Saw I Left

I sw a drone flyover video of parts of San Juan after Maria. The degree of damage was not characteristic of a cat 4 hurricane. A lot of flooding, but very little wind damage to structures.

I Came I Saw I Left

And 3 damaging hurricanes at the start of the season -run of the mill?

Not run-of-the-mill, but certainly not unprecedented or atypical.


Griff….3 major hurricanes hit Florida in 2004


BTW Griff.
While activity in the Atlantic region is high, in all the rest of the regions of the world where tropical cyclones form and impact are very quiet. In the words of Joe Bastardi they have “shut down”. Effects of climate on severe weather are supposed to be global but alarmists, like ambulance chasing lawyers just run to where ever the problems occur.


Not the start of the season. Peak hurricane activity is the first week of Sept. And the point being made is that this has all happened before many times over in the Atlantic and around the globe. Not unprecedented. The media should know this, probably do, but hype up unprecedented and link to global warming anyway. Darwin 1974 after TC Tracey. comment image

james whelan

Griff, I refer you to the parable of the 3 little pigs. Strong wind will play havoc with poor building and poor infrastructure.
You are a fellow Brit, so I extend my question previously asked of Mr Mosher to you. Describe how CO2 had anything to do with hurricane bawbag in 2011. Describe how it formed in the cold north atlantic and how it produced recorded sustained ground level wind speeds of over 100 mph across Glasgow , far higher than those recorded at ground level during Irma or Maria. You might also comment on the small amount of damage caused and that power supplies were fully restored in 2 days. You may also like to say how and why an even stronger storm hit the central belt just a few days later in early January 2012 ( the Scots don’t talk much about this one, because it was after hogmanay and most were too ‘happy’ to notice a wee bit of wind).
I don’t hold my breath, you are far too devoted to your religion to question anything.


Griff there have been a huge number of Earthquakes and they have been extreme and damaging … so what? Repeat after me, Correlation does not imply causation next you will be praying to the great Volcano god or some goat god.


There is no correlation. As CO2 levels have risen, neither severe hurricane incidence nor global ACE has followed suit.

“And 3 damaging hurricanes at the start of the season -run of the mill?”
And what about the unprecedented 4323 day drought between major Hurricanes hitting the US? Was this also caused by CO2 emissions?
After all this time and you still can’t recognize the difference between weather and climate. No wonder your side is loosing on the science front. Given the current administrations emphasis on deprecating redistributive economics, it’s only a matter of time before the far left politics bolstering the unprecedentedly broken science driving the warmist cult implodes allowing science conforming to the laws of nature to assume its proper place superceding science conforming to a political narrative.


“And 3 damaging hurricanes at the start of the season -run of the mill?”
Making stuff up again, Skanky?
You are completely shameless.
Now go and apologise to you-know-who for publicly and maliciously attempting to damage her professional reputation.

Roger Knights

This hurricane-strength hyping, as explained in the head post, seems to plainly illustrate the untrustworthiness of mainstream institutions and spokespersons on climate-change-related information. As such, it could be used to diminish the credibility of their other alarmism on the topic. This would be a more effective persuasive tactic to the public than attacking “the science” on technical grounds.
A whole series of short (under four minutes) videos could / should be created, each dealing with a separate aspect of mainstream hyping. For example, there are these famous cases: polar bears endangered, amphibians endangered (yes, but by researchers’ contamination), butterflies endangered (phony statistics employed), pikas endangered (ditto), species endangered (yes, but not by AGW), Kilamanjaro endangered, Arctic death spiral (flat for ten years), Katrina as a harbinger of similar strikes, Australian water supplies endangered, death threats to Australian climatologists (nonexistent), ethanol as a good “green” solution, Solyndra etc. as fund-worthy, cliaims of green jobs, Himalayas endangered, low-lying islands threatened, more tornados threatened, less snow threatened, semi-tropical Britain coming soon (so plant grapes), spread of malaria threatened, the Chevy Volt will soon sell massively, China and India are going green, the Alaska pipeline as a threat to wildlife, let’s eat insects for protein, etc., etc., etc., etc. (Others can append more.)
A series of such snarky snippets, each demolishing a bite-sized instance of hysteric hyperbole, and accompanied by a catchy tune, and presented with occasional amusing touches, would have the collective effect of greatly increasing the public’s skepticism of other alarmist hype (e.g., fracking is a threat to drinking water) without directly attacking it. Anyone who is sensitive to & aware of how to influence a large audience—i.e., anyone who has a “political sense”—should instantly grasp that what I’ve just described is “a winner.” (I was the president of my student council in high school, and the landslide winner of my election, so I claim to have such a sense.) Indeed, such persons should have thought of it themselves decades ago. In particular, skeptical-oriented “think tanks” and foundations should have “got with this program” ages ago. Why haven’t they!? Wake up and fly right!!!

Roger Knights

PS: Such snippets should have a somewhat similar format, by beginning with quotations from alarmists (ideally video or audio snippets of themselves, or at least a photo of them), followed by the refutation. They should end with clickable links to relevant sources, along with an instruction to viewers to stop the video to print out or copy and paste the list somehow. (If on YouTube, this could be done in the text below the video.)
There should be a very knowledgeable rapid response team to rebut hostile comments. It should prepare extensively beforehand to locate warmists’ online defenses of their false claims—this is vital, and may be more expensive and tedious than actually creating the video.

I Came I Saw I Left

Tony Heller’s already doing an outstanding job with his videos. https://t.co/jNSTAz2NOa

Roger Knights

PPS: A key tactic in this series should be to pre-empt any effective comeback by the other side. To do that it should be conceded in advance. For instance, if only a few climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70s, that should be mentioned. If only a few predicted and end of snow in Britain, or an Arctic death spiral, etc., a similar mention should be made. Not only is this strategically wise, it’s also the right thing to do.
OTOH, it could be added that despite such alarmism being the ultimate responsibility of a few, its amplification by environmental journalists is the fault of the mainstream media and green NGOs. Even when such media use tempered language, the mere fact that they treat such claims seriously enough to give them space and prominence sends a message to readers that they should be taken seriously. The silence of the climatological community in the face of such unlikely claims tars them too.
Further, when a far-out claim has been issued by an official body (e.g., IGPOCC’s claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035) or by a key employee of such a body, that deserves to be treated as an extra reason for its condemnation.

RK, you will find most of your examples illustrated as portions of or as complete prose essays in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Roger Knights

I have your book and like it. (And I like Tony Heller’s videos.) What I’m proposing is a better way of “packaging” the information in them; i.e., putting them in a more influential format. The features I envisage are its serial nature (leaving room for additions, sequels, and updates); its brisk pace; its avoidance of complicated or borderline matters (e.g., the Hockey Stick); its use of a common light-hearted style through the series; common theme music; employment of cartoons and GIFs; an amusing narrator (Morano?), etc. Each series-snippet should be fun to watch and re-watch—e.g., they should not be too heavy-handed.

Mr Julian Forbes-Laird

Following Ryan Maue and Joe Bastardi on Twitter, seeing some of their retweeted posts from meteo colleagues, and now reading this excellent article, I get the sense that US meteorologists may be a pretty skeptical bunch. Splendid.


Depends on who they work for. Bastardi works for himself. He says it like he sees it at Weatherbell.com as does Dr. Maue currently with the CATO institute and still apparently associated Weatherbell also.
For any of you that follow the running ACE index that Dr. Maue produces it there a new link for it? Mine from weatherbell has gone dead. Is it available elsewhere?


Thank you. Though I’m not on twitter I can still read the tweets and graphics.


It’s not even being skeptic it’s being realistic look at the facts as believed by CAGW supporters. So you think you have temperatures some fractions of a degree above those for the last decade along with CO2 levels. You have the figures for hurricanes for the last decades and there was no significant problem. Then you have something that behaves like a normal system for that time of year, tracks on a normal path but is plus some value from normal.
No logical scientist would conclude that some fraction of a degree between last year and this suddenly created the plus effect unless your going to invoke the sharpest tipping point known in the natural world. If that was true we are all dead within 5 years as and you can forget about 2030 emission targets.
The fact is if there is a link between hurricanes and CAGW it is going to take decades of data to work out because the change are tiny. The public aren’t stupid and the more the CAGW fringe nutcases make these sorts of claims the more the ridiculous they look. It’s like Griff does anyone seriously believe anything he writes he has done his credibility in and there is no coming back.

“No logical scientist would conclude that some fraction of a degree between last year and this suddenly created the plus effect …”
Logical being the operative word. The problem is that politics chose sides and the intrinsic subjectivity of political ideologies has subverted climate science in such a way to make logic irrelevant.


For Griff on hurricane season. September is not the start of the season, it is the peak.


Yes, the alarmist should stop hyping up this huge hurricane season — the longest, hardest, worstest, and expensivist hurricane ever in the history of time itself! The hurricane season that broke box-office records in being the most futile reporting but the most imaginative ever reported.
Media reports and reporters? I could sh*t more talent!
It’s hardest enough that it has been the hottest hot year on over-adjusted record!
OK kiddies got the message, or not?
It’s just weather — normal, changeable, natural variable weather!

I survived hurricane Irma in Kissimmee Florida. They said we experienced category 2 winds. Yet the highest wind speeds I saw on the tv were 65 mph. As a Canadian (having never experienced a hurricane), it was scary and all, but in the end, just a bad storm. I am starting to believe the posters that are suggesting there is a huge disconnect between the radar etc. sensors and reality.

Regarding “185 mph winds reported by a recon plane at 10,000 ft.”: The #27 forecast discussion mentions SFMR readings, which are indirect measurements of surface wind over water, of 160 knots which when rounded to the nearest MPH (usual NHC practice) is 185 MPH.

Superb article!

during irma i almost got banned from a weather forum for daring to point out the “news” was FALSE and nothing but HYPE for irma…..ONE person on fox news after irma had passed tampa said paraphrasing, now we wait for the real problem that wont be here until tomorrow the 15 foot wall of water that is going to hit tampa for certain………the mods there challenged me about storm surge then deleted the posts when i explained how no storm surge EVER hits over 24 hours later.

Dr. Frank – if the
sun were responsible for modern warming,
the stratosphere would be warming.
Instead it is cooling (and, yes, after subtracting
out ozone loss). this is
a prediction
of AGW theory.
really, you should know this


Excellent article. The hysterical won’t stop to think for one minute – not their style – but some of those swept along by it might at least pause for thought and reconsider based on evidence. An analogy for the broader AGW debate, hopefully.
Just one small nit to pick. Is that a typo, stating that 1000mb in the tropics generally means a Cat1 hurricane has formed? 1000mb is more like a 45-50mph tropical storm, based on the historical record, isn’t it? About 980mb will typically be Cat1, depending on the broader synoptic pattern / radius of the pressure gradient.

Caligula Jones

C’mon, you want me to read and believe an actual expert on hurricanes, when there is enough anecdotal evidence provided by movie stars, “singers” and other pop culture “celebrities” that this is the End Times (send money to my fake charity)?


How about stop hyping Maria?
This is a current AP headline:
“Maria, again a hurricane, swirls over North Carolina beaches”
Maria is far off the outer banks and part of that area is experiencing tropical storm force winds and waves. But to read that headline one would think that Maria had struck the shores instead of it meandering off to the NE as it is.

James at 48

The NHS. The National Hysteria Center. They used to have a blog IIRC. I recall a link either on here, on Pielke Sr’s old blog or on Climate Audit. I don’t recall which.

James at 48

Found it …. IT’S ALIVE! (but clearly not updated for a few years):

Gunga Din

Look on the bright side.
The Storm Channel might finally put Katrina and Sandy to rest.
They have new events to rerun.

Thomas Barlow

The weatherman, Dr. Neil Frank, is talking about local events caused by the hurricane – epiphenomena – not the actual hurricane which rose up in the eastern Atlantic and tracked for over a week across the Atlantic and up Florida, eventually receding over Georgia.
The size of these recent hurricanes were huge comparing to the past, the total perceptible water (not local rain events) was huge. Wether that water fell over land or not is irrelevant, or even if it fell at all. The sustained winds were about as strong as wind can get at sea-level, when they over the Atlantic – again, local wind events on land do not measure these hurricanes. Climate-scientists have been predicting bigger and stronger storms from anthropogenic global-warming for decades now. That’s what these are. Neil Frank is, again, only talking about local events. Not the whole animal.
In the link below here is a photo of the little Hurricane Claudette which Frank cites to make his point – only because it lingered over land for a bit longer than usual. That’s the only reason he mentioned it. Citing local events does not tell you anything about the size and power of the hurricane over its course. Claudette, and the others Neil Frank cites, were small. Sustained wind speeds for hurricanes have limits at sea-level. Irma, Maria, and Harvey were as strong as it gets for sustained speeds at some point in their lifespan.
Frank is using local epiphenomena to try to deny climate-science. These recent hurricanes MAY not be the worst on record, but nothing he cites has any relevance to that ongoing analysis. 2017 is shaping up to be the worst season on record.
‘lil ol’ Hurricane Claudette:comment image
Hurricane Irma:

Gunga Din

Frank is using local epiphenomena to try to deny climate-science.

Dr. Frank is a real expert on hurricanes. (I’d guess he has been since before you were born.)
He’s addressing the “hype”.
Such hurricanes have happened before. They will happen again. They are natural.
Put and keep “climate-science” in quotes, then, yeah, even natures denies it.


“The size of these recent hurricanes were huge comparing to the past”
No they weren’t.
Stop making stuff up.

We can divert the HURRICANES so that it does not cause harm to the population.