Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 10. July 2021
Good news: a warmer, likely tamer climate, is in the future recent science shows. A new study projects no future increase in tropical storm energy.
Lots of government-funded climate scientists like claiming tropical cyclones are getting worse and that in the future we need to expect one supercharged storm after another – due to man heating the climate with carbon dioxide emissions.
But as we noted yesterday here, Zoe Phin found that hurricanes have not gone along with this dubious doomsday science over the past 25 years. Now a new study confirms things will continue that way.
Image cropped from Die kalte Sonne.
Today German site Die kalte Sonne (DkS) presents its 49th video on climate and energy, featuring tropical storm energy.
Present vs future scenario
In the segment, DkS cites a new study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters, where a team of scientists led by Philip Kreussler used three different global climate models to investigate tropical cyclone integrated kinetic energy which is closely associated with their damage potential.
No notable changes
They compared cyclone integrated kinetic energy between present conditions and a projected future climate scenario.
The results of the high resolution models left little uncertainty: “No intensification of tropical storms,” reports Die kalte Sonne.
The paper’s Plain Language Summary:
We find that an increase in horizontal model resolution results in smaller and more intense storms, but that the range of integrated kinetic energy produced by the models remains similar in both configurations. On the other hand, allowing the atmosphere and ocean to interact with each other in the models tends to reduce the size and the intensity of the storms, resulting in lower integrated kinetic energy. Comparing cyclone integrated kinetic energy between present conditions and a projected future climate scenario did not suggest notable changes between the two periods.”
But can we trust the models?
But these are just model results and climate models are mostly bogus, skeptics like to say, and so we should dismiss these tropical energy models like we dismiss climate models showing warming and doom, right? Not really. Some models seem to do a right good job and actually get compared to real observations. And when significant discrepancies are found, then the models are reworked – or just outright scrapped.
It turns out that Kreussler et al’s models fit well with what we’ve been observing over the better part of the past three decades: declining or steady total tropical storm energy. They seem to be on the right track.
Image: Dr. Ryan Maue
A colder planet or moon with an atmosphere is a stormier world.
Nicely, concisely said John – took several paragraphs to try to say the same thing!
John Tillman – you are correct. The finding that cooler is stormier was made by Klotzbach and Gray in 2008. See page 34 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237341657_FORECAST_OF_ATLANTIC_SEASONAL_HURRICANE_ACTIVITY_AUGUST_MONTHLY_ACTIVITY_AND_US_LANDFALL_STRIKE_PROBABILITY_FOR_2008 (https://tinyurl.com/y9yv86pn)
It is not necessarily the absolute temperature, it is the temperature gradient. Isn’t it?
A warming Earth would have a smaller temperature gradient from equator to pole.
Hi John
Except in El Nino. The 2015 East Pacific produced the second highest activity in the Satellite era.
Given that they don’t know what causes rapid acceleration (quote from Dr Judith Curry), they don’t know what really causes hurricanes. The contributing factors they look for are, high humidity, wind shear and SST.
The poles have a significant input, along with Equatorial SST and convection rates.
You are both right and wrong.
Kind regards
I like Zoe Phin. Always great comments
Weather events, regular or extreme, are merely the result of the unequal heating of the earths surface seeking equilibrium.
Given the unequal distribution of land and water surfaces between the hemispheres and the daily rotation of the earth on it’s axis and annually around the sun, the factors most likely to impact the equilibrium are changes in land use and particularly the ongoing construction of huge heat sinks as civilised communities expand.
Do the larger heat sinks actually become magnets drawing extreme weather events towards them?
Zoe Phil’s analysis is more granular than Ryan Marie’s, but gives the same result. Gives one ‘triangulation’ faith in observational lack of trends. Good.
I have much less comfort in the post DkS climate model support. A dead clock is still right twice a day. Once the models have been proven wrong on several aspects (I have previously posted on temperature, sea level rise, ECS, and the underlying why) the fact that they now confirm a single weather lack of extreme observation should NOT cause skeptical rejoicing. We cannot have it both ways, anymore than warmunists can.
We should uphold high logic and evidence standards. See my recently here much derided comment on any ECS below ~1.2 for an example where the perhaps well intentioned (or false flag?) but somewhat zealous posters here just gave the other side more usable ‘flat earther’ ammunition. As the now not so little girl says when the Ignoble prize winners run overtime at the annual televised awards presentations,
“Please stop.”
The point here is not that this model is right and most of the other models are wrong.
The obvious conclusion here is that the models disagree. The obvious question then is:
Which of the models are accurate and which are not?
Only the passage of time and continuing collection of data will tell.
So far virtually all of the available data say that tropical cyclones are NOT getting worse (more intense and/or more frequent), and have not gotten worse over the entire timeframes of available data.
So for now, the models that most closely produce the actual data to date should be given higher confidence than those models that cannot replicate the actual data history.
Did you mean to write “Ryan Maue” instead of “Ryan Marie”?
It’s the weekend, “Ryan Marie” may be accurate 🤣
Spell checker run amok. He also wrote “Zoe Phil”
Yes, they are right …that is to say some sceptics say models are not proof of anything. I am such a sceptic. I agree, however, that in a warming world, the reduced contrast between tropical and temperate air masses should reduce the strength of storms (heat engine analogue).
You know that the climateering folk automatically assume warming in the future. With 5 yrs of actual cooling (and counting), if, as many, including DkS, project a significant cooling period ahead, and oceans do appear to have a lot of cold water, then the increased contrast between tropical and temperate Ts point to a strengthening of storms, both hurricanes and tornadoes.
The decade of the deepest part of “The Ice Age Cometh” scare (-0.5°C from 1940 before the climateering adjusters handiwork) encompasses some of the worst Monsoon floods, hurricanes and tornadoes.
I’d like to point out (there is a few WUWT posts of mine) that while most sceptics were rejoicing about the decade pause in landfalling hurricanes in the US, I noted that the 60yr quasi-cycle turning cooler was imminent and I stated that the frequency and strength of hurricanes of the 1950s would return with vengeance and it would be wise to have a post about this possibility or we would be caught flat-footed in our complacency, just as the climateers were caught whith the decade pause in landfalling major storms. I couldn’t interest anyone in this, which shows sceptics and alarm folk have one-way filters.
You know things are bad when they couldn’t find some combination of the 97 parameters which provided the result they wanted, and they had to settle for “no change”. The cynic in me thinks this means the untweaked models said “less”, and zip zero zilch was a face-saving improvement while they keep tweaking parameters.
When your low temps increase faster than your high temps, your daily temp differential is reduced. That should reduce the energy potential in storms by quite a bit…
Plus the high temps are not increasing they are decreasing so the differential is shrinking even faster
This morning before going to work, I turned the The Storm Channel on for the “local on the eights” (which is now only twice an hour).
They popped a graphic depicting the number of “named storms” compared to the number of named storms in the past 100 years.
They failed to mention that each and every storm a hundred years weren’t named. Some only “earned” a name after they occurred. (The Labor Day hurricane of 1935, The Long Island Express of 1938, etc.) They didn’t routinely name tropical depressions that couldn’t even be detected before the satellite era!
What a deceptive and misleading graphic just to give the false impression that the climate has changed!
I guess “local on the eights” forecasts have become less important to The Storm Channel than saturating its surely shrinking audience with more “climate” propaganda and hype.
As for the “Named Storms” bullshit, don’t even get me started – talk about comparing apples to hockey pucks!
I am sure that the Climate Cabal Creativity Project are even now working on a way to spin this as “bad”.
Wait, what? The CCCP..?
“But can we trust the models?
The answer to that question is almost certainly no.
“Some models seem to do a right good job and actually get compared to real observations.”
Very likely the models are “adjusted” in order to get a good fit with historical climate. I assume these models use paramaterisation just like all the other climate models. If so, then they’re worthless, because the modellers will inevitably choose parameter values that give the best fit with past climate – a kind of Darwinian evolution, as Willis pointed out several years ago. It’s just a sophisticated form of curve-fitting, and as such has zero skill for predicting the future.
“And when significant discrepancies are found, then the models are reworked – or just outright scrapped.”
Again, by “reworking”, it probably means adjusting the parameters to get a better fit. If this is the case, then the models are worthless. Just because the models, probably by chance, predict no increase in extreme weather, doesn’t mean they are valid.
And precisely which models have been scrapped because they showed “significant discrepancies”? In the climate community it’s almost a badge of honour for their models to have no connection with reality.
Chris
Agreed.
Models are nothing more than the result of the input assumptions. “Tuning” models to achieve known (historical) results doesn’t make the models into actual simulations of the real weather or climate. They may provide some interesting academic exercises, but should never be used as a basis for policy.