Analysis: Hurricanes Have Not Gotten More Intense, Frequent Over Past 170 Years

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 10. October 2021

In the latest climate and energy video by German site Die kalte Sonne, media claims of increasingly stronger and frequent hurricanes are examined closely and reach the conclusion: “Over the past 170 years, hurricanes have not occurred more frequently or gotten more intense.”

In the wake of hurricane Ida, a number of mainstream media outlets, like German ZDF, blared that hurricanes have gotten worse over the recent decades – due to global warming. But that statement has been found to be driven more by alarmism and activism, and not based on data.

New paper by Vecchi et al

Citing a new paper by Vecchi et al, 2021, appearing in the journal NatureChanges in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century, the authors found: “The homogenized basin-wide HU and MH record does not show strong evidence of a century-scale increase in either MH frequency or MH/HU ratio associated with the century-scale, greenhouse-gas-induced warming of the planet.”

Hurricane recording before satellite observation started in 1972 was based on eye witness observation, meaning a number of hurricanes before 1972 never got recorded. After adjusting, the authors came up with the following chart:

Source: Nature

The adjusted median frequency for major hurricanes was higher in the 1920s and 1950s than after 2000.

Nothing unusual today

The authors suggest that hurricane frequency is in large part modulated by the natural Atlantic oceanic variability:

After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. We suggest internal (e.g., Atlantic multidecadal) climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.”

Despite the 1°C global warming seen since the mid 18th century, hurricane intensity and frequency remained well with the range of natural variability and have not trended upwards. “If anything, it’s a decrease,” reports Die kalte Sonne.

5 21 votes
Article Rating
116 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 11, 2021 6:07 am

That still leaves them droughts, tornados, forest fires… and locusts.

richard
Reply to  Dave
October 11, 2021 6:33 am

Tornadoes-
 
“With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years”
 
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

2hotel9
Reply to  richard
October 11, 2021 6:49 am

A lot of times multiple reports of the same tornado are listed as separate tornados.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  richard
October 11, 2021 8:37 am

comment image

Screenshot 2021-10-11 at 10-35-20 This day in history June 8, 2020-Violent tornadoes - MarketForum.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  richard
October 11, 2021 10:50 am

These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports.”

I’m not sure the author of this has *ever* lived in the Central Plains, from ND to TX. Lot’s of tornadoes happen that never get reported by people. The unoccupied area in this area of the US is HUGE!

I personally have seen a tornado out on the western KS plains that I doubt anyone but me saw. I didn’t report it. Didn’t know how at the time. Unless a farmer found some destroyed crops a tornado may never be noticed and even then the damage might as easily be attributed to straight line winds from a storm front as to a tornado.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 12, 2021 7:16 am

People that live in congested urban areas simply have zero conception of how big the world they live in actually is.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 7:18 am

Also, such things as tornadoes are transient and often short-lived phenomena, which occur in the middle of big rain events, often in the middle of the night…on top of the fact that they often occur in the middle of nowhere.

Ron Long
Reply to  Dave
October 11, 2021 7:32 am

Droughts? My brother lives in western Oregon, and he has not watered his lawn, which continues to be green, for three weeks, yet Western Oregon is “officially” in Severe Drought. This is another example of the woke left weaponizing everything to support their agenda.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 8:06 am

The pattern you describe is a variant of Murphy’s Law, known as the “Round Up the Usual Suspects Law.” e.g. Everything that can be blamed on someone WILL be blamed on someone — the scapegoats we love to hate.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
October 11, 2021 12:36 pm

“Round Up the Usual Suspects Law.” e.g. Everything that can be blamed on someone WILL be blamed on someone

The trouble is, poor old CO2 is the only suspect they ever interview. Everything gets pinned on this poor guy.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
lee
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
October 11, 2021 8:06 pm

In the military it is known as “March in the Guilty Bastard(s)”

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 8:46 am

We have had a drought year on the western canadian prairies, never fun as wetter is better.
Just as warmer is always better.

But they are prairies and not forests specifically because of long term dry conditions.
Quite easy to pick out the signal change between wet and dry over centuries.

Not that this prevents the usual trolls claiming this is AGW.

Meanwhile we had the nicest summer in a decade, only got a ki!!Ing frost 3 days ago
Except for wildfire smoke it was a pleasant summer

DonM
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 6:32 pm

I watered my lawn about 10 times this year.

Green and needs mowed

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ron Long
October 12, 2021 7:59 am

There are different sorts of moisture deficits that are lumped together under the catchall phrase, “drought”.

Long term precipitation deficit over a wide area is one sort, soil moisture (the amount in the top inches to a foot or two of the ground), and reservoir levels, river and stream flow volumes, still another.

Grass does not grow or die depending on long term rainfall deficits, but people that manage water supplies and reservoir levels pay close attention to this parameter.

Someone engaged in agriculture cannot look simply at the amount of moisture top few inches of the soil, although that is really all that matter for turf grass.

Even how one cares for one’s lawn makes a huge difference in how green the grass is, how well it withstands lack of rainfall, etc. Every guide to lawn care will instruct to water deeply and infrequently, and in what amount (in terms of inches of water), how often and how much to cut the grass, and how high to leave it. And yet most people never pay any attention whatsoever to such instructions, even though it is well known this is how one has the healthiest and most drought resistant grass.

So, while it may be true that drought reports are simply wrong, it may also be that the reports are simply of a different way of measuring rainfall and moisture than you are.
Or it may be that the particular area where you are living is not representative of the region as a whole, let alone an entire large state.
Or it may be that the reports you are referring to are from local or regional or even national media that are simply relaying false information…fake news.
It is not necessarily the case though that any one of these are what is actually going on…I only mean to point out that the term “drought” does not mean everyone has a dead lawn in the entire state.

The agencies that keep track of droughts, water supplies, and soil moisture and such, have several completely different ways of measuring and reporting what is commonly conflated as constituting a drought or lack thereof.
On top of that, reports are often not updated in as timely a fashion from one area to another. It is common to see adjacent counties in one place or another as having a severe drought on one side of a line and an excess of water on the other side.

There are very often large areas of the US that have a significant difference in the short term and long term measurements of precipitation and soil moisture.
Some long term deficits never get undone, even by a huge flood: The intervening dry years between heavy rain events simply accumulate more deficit than ever gets “made up” by subsequent rainfall.

There are a huge number of ways to consider what a drought is, and different perspectives, such as agricultural vs meteorological, for example.

In addition to rain and snow fall, temperature mush also be considered, and a multitude of map types give perspective on this.
Of course, media outlets are rarely interesting in telling long boring stories, because they operate on the principle of “If it bleeds it leads”, not what is factually true and intricately detailed.

As usual, the best place to get info is directly from the source of such data, although here too there are many ways to consider what is the “source” of data.

In any case, here is a link to the source I look at most often, and a image of the short term and long term drought indices:
U.S. Climate Division Weekly Palmer Drought Indices from nClimDiv | Drought.gov

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/tools/edb/sbfinal.gif

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/tools/edb/lbfinal.gif

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 8:05 am

The images did not post as such, so here I am posting them one at a time from my hard drive.
Short term:

Short term drought 101021.gif
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 8:05 am

And long term:

Long term drought 101021.gif
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 8:10 am

Palmer severity index:

palmer severity 101021.gif
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 8:12 am

Crop Moisture Index. Notice far less areas show deficit:

Crop Moisture 101021.gif
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 12, 2021 8:21 am

Even something seemingly simple like the amount of precip in the past 30 days has many ways to measure it, and the maps can look strikingly different.
One can always find one may that looks really bad and anther that looks less bad, just like one can find maps that look OK and one that measures the same thing that looks great.
Note that media are 100% uninterested in telling about things that are going fine…which is one reason so many people think the whole world is continually in a crisis…they are simply unable to consider that the news they get is filtered to only report where and when something bad occurs.
Here is the link to maps of rainfall:
Climate Prediction Center – Global Monsoons: North American Precipitation (noaa.gov)
In this look at precip over the past 30 days, reported as a % of normal (which means average and they should say so…average may be the one amount of rain that never falls, so what the hell is normal?), it can be seen that areas of below normal are very close to and in places adjacent with, areas of above normal:

30 day percent of normal.gif
Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Duane
Reply to  Dave
October 11, 2021 8:05 am

Lions and tigers and bears, o my!

Slowroll
Reply to  Dave
October 11, 2021 10:46 am

Not mention famine, plague, pestilence and war….any day now I’m sure

DrEd
Reply to  Slowroll
October 11, 2021 2:29 pm

And the sky is still falling!!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dave
October 12, 2021 7:15 am

That still leaves them droughts, tornados, forest fires… and locusts.”

It still leaves them everything, because none of the climate panicked will ever see or pay attention to factual information that contradicts the narrative playing ceaselessly inside their minds.
If these people ever were amenable to absorbing information in any sort of systematic and unbiased way, they would and could never be in the state of mind they are in.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Tom Halla
October 11, 2021 6:12 am

While adjusted data sets are usually suspect, the rationale behind this adjustment does seem valid. It is rather like the change in the count of tornadoes only detected by Doppler radar.

Derg
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 11, 2021 6:55 am

The only increase is in named storms

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Derg
October 11, 2021 10:04 am

Which in turn is because they now “name” more “storms.”

Derg
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 11, 2021 10:43 am

Bingo

Doug S
October 11, 2021 6:15 am

Oh my goodness, this is very inconvenient. Think of the damage done to the fundraising and grants if this is allowed to be shared to the masses.

bdgwx
October 11, 2021 6:24 am

Does the WUWT audience support the adjustments made in this publication?

Does the WUWT audience support the conclusion that the dip in the mid-to-late 20th century may at least be partially the result of anthropogenic aerosol emissions?

Does the WUWT audience support the position of the publication that it cannot be used as evidence against the hypothesis that greenhouse-gas-induced warming may lead to an intensification of North Atlantic hurricanes?

Stu
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 6:33 am

Given the holiday, let’s just say that atmospheric CO2 is at the highest level its been since at least Columbus’s arrival on our shores, yet we have had an exceptionally quiet hurricane season, with no Category 3 cyclones making land.

bdgwx
Reply to  Stu
October 11, 2021 7:02 am

As of 10/11/2021…

There have been 20 named storms. The average is 14.

There have been 7 hurricanes. The average is 7.

There have been 4 major hurricanes. The average is 3.

Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana as a category 4.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Ron Long
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:28 am

bdgwx, take a statistics class and get back to us.

MarkW
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 7:34 am

If he were to take a course in statistics, he would be the first “climate scientist” to ever do so.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2021 9:59 am

For the record…I’m not a climate scientist.

bdgwx
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 7:50 am

I did. This is me getting back with you. I just looked again and from what I’m seeing the number of named storms is still 20. The number of hurricanes is still 7. The number of major hurricanes is still 4. And finally Hurricane Ida still made landfall as a category 4. Are you seeing something different?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 8:20 am

He wasn’t contesting your numbers. He was pointing out how meaningless they are.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2021 9:43 am

The numbers I provided are meaningful in that they challenge the claims that 1) the hurricane season is exceptionally quiet and 2) that no major hurricane has made landfall.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 8:24 am

bdgwx,

I’m looking forward to seeing your formal letter—if not full scientific article—contradicting the work of Vecchi et al [Nature, 2021], being published soon in the journal Nature.

You have your work cut out for you.

You see, that is the way that science truly works . . . not by handwaving.

bdgwx
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 11, 2021 9:45 am

I’m not challenging the Vecchi et al. 2021 publication here. I’m challenging Stu’s claim that the hurricane season has been exceptionally quiet and that there have been no major hurricane landfalls.

Editor
Reply to  Ron Long
October 11, 2021 3:56 pm

Like it or not, the numbers quoted by bgdwx appear to be correct, though the “named storms” count is meaningless. The hurricane season is not quite over, and as at Oct 11, 2021 22:01, 2021 seems to be heading for a slightly higher ACE index (610) than 2020 (584). The average ACE index 1981-2010 is 765, and for 2021 to date it is reportedly 583, so 2021 still appears to be well below average. However, 2021 is only a single year, and on its own is not very meaningful.
http://climatlas.com/tropical/

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 11, 2021 4:17 pm

Exactly. One year a trend does not make. That goes for the hyperactive 2005 and 2020 years as well.

Climate believer
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:33 am

So things have improved since 1933…

20 storms,
11 hurricanes,
6 major hurricanes, comprising two cat 5, and 5 landfalls.

651 dead.

Duane
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 8:09 am

Averages do not include century timescale data. Naming of storms is a recent thing, only starting in the 1960s … you do realize that Europeans have been tracking hurricanes in the Atlantic for the last 528 years, right? Even if they did not have the sensors to see and track storms that we have today, they know which years had worse storms and which years did not.

You do realize that the worst hurricane in US history took place 121 year ago, in Galveston, TX, right?. And that the next several worst storms occurred in the mid to late 1920s to mid-1930s? All of that, of course, long before satellite tracking, stormhunter aircraft, doppler radars, and GPS.

bdgwx
Reply to  Duane
October 11, 2021 10:02 am

That is useful and interesting information. But I don’t think it has much to do with Stu’s claim that the hurricane season has been exceptionally quiet and that no major hurricanes have made landfall.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
October 11, 2021 8:46 pm

… they know which years had worse storms and which years did not.

Yes, in the bad years, the laden galleons didn’t make it back to Spain.

anthropic
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 12, 2021 1:33 am

I blame the Dread Pirates.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 10:44 am

Named storms …lol

2hotel9
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 6:52 am

Wow, pull your head out of that bucket of coolaide and take a breath of reality. The climate is just fine, doing exactly what it has always done. Climate changes, constantly, always has and always will. Humans are not causing it and can not stop it. Accept reality and go do something meaningful and productive with your life.

Doug S
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:03 am

Just finished scanning the adjustment methods and they at least make common sense. There may be technical details that are not perfect and that would be up for debate among experts in this field. The bottom line that I took away from the adjustment methodology is that, as we progressed through the last 15 decades or so, our tools, accuracy and number of observations have improved and increased. That’s a basic fact that impacts this measurement so I’m confident the charlatans of the climate catastrophe religion will be outraged at this act of blasphemy.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doug S
October 11, 2021 7:38 am

I agree. Our observational record has systematic error in it. Those errors must be corrected to provide a proper analysis.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 9:41 am

Where can we find a list of these systematic errors in the observational record?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 11, 2021 10:25 am

Vecchi et al. 2021 discusses this in the Methods section and provides citations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 46. In a nutshell it is primarily driven by the undercount bias early in the record.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
October 12, 2021 5:07 am

Do you have a link? I couldn’t find it.

Does Vecchi discuss each change made at each weather station starting in 1850?

That’s what I’m looking for: An explanation for every change made by NOAA and NASA to the historical temperature record.

Does Vecchi do that?

Does anyone do that?

Someone must do that because it seems like those enamored of the bogus Hockey Stick chart are so sure about themselves when it comes to the bastardization of the historical temperature record. That must be based on something? Right?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2021 5:52 am

The link is provided in the blog post. You won’t information about temperature adjustments though. That’s a different topic.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
October 13, 2021 4:04 am

Sorry about that.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:18 am

Christopher Landsea also published research showing that prior the Satellite era there are storms not being counted as they didn’t reach landfall or enter shipping lanes, thus historical hurricanes are undercounted.

Wikipedia

Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project

Incompleteness of dataset

As early as 1957, it was recognized that an increasing trend in the number of tropical cyclones each season in the Atlantic Basin was at least partially tied to increasing observations and better records.[4] By analyzing the density of ship tracks over time, it has been estimated that between 1900 and 1966, an average of two storms per year are missing from HURDAT. This is mainly due to a lack of satellite imagery and lack of reconnaissance aircraft prior to 1943. An additional storm per year is likely missing prior to the advent of new technologies. These technologies include satellite-derived Quikscat winds, satellite-derived temperature profile information, and Robert Hart’s cyclone phase space diagrams, which have led to a recent increase in tropical cyclone detection. Quikscat was launched in 1999, and has been credited with allowing Chantal to be named during the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.[5] The last two help determine whether or not a low pressure area is an extratropical cyclonesubtropical cyclone, or tropical cyclone.[6]

Christopher Landsea noted that the efforts to reanalyze the Atlantic hurricane database

will not be able to recover observations of open ocean tropical cyclones that were just never taken. Researchers cannot assume that the Atlantic tropical cyclone database presents a complete depiction of frequency of events before the advent of satellite imagery in the mid-1960s. Moreover, newly available advanced tools and techniques are also contributing toward monitoring about one additional Atlantic tropical cyclone per year since 2002. Thus large, long-term ‘trends’ in tropical cyclone frequency are primarily manifestations of increased monitoring capabilities and likely not related to any real change in the climate in which they develop.[7]

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 11, 2021 7:44 am

I agree. Our observational record has systematic error in it. Those errors must be corrected to provide a proper analysis.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 1:08 pm

Will you be using remote temporal viewing to look back at all the hurricanes that were not recorded?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 12, 2021 5:13 am

That’s about the size of it.

Duane
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 11, 2021 8:12 am

Let’s put it this way, who can intelligibly argue that humans detected all of the tropical cyclones that ever occurred away from populated land areas 100 years ago, let alone 200 years ago, or 500 years ago? You don’t even have to think about it for a millisecond to know that’s balderdash.

Editor
Reply to  Duane
October 11, 2021 8:35 am

Yup there are many unknowns in the past, proxy data have typically low resolution thus all we can do is acknowledge that we have only a small database to draw from which means we really know little in what happened in the past before the Satellite era came.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:21 am

Given that there are more and more sources admitting that there is no trend in hurricane activity or strength, or a slight negative trend (indistinguishable from yearly fluctuation), then I would have to say that the idea that AGW may lead to an intensification of North Atlantic hurricanes is wrong. The idea that it might has been shown to be just alarmist waffle – time to drop it now. When even the IPCC and most major research institutes don’t support the idea, how can you still support such an untenable position?

Bob boder
Reply to  Richard Page
October 11, 2021 7:44 am

In all likely hood if there is a warming trend all types of major storm activity should go down, since there would be little extra warming along the equator and more warm towards the poles there should be less of a temperature gradient and there for less storms.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bob boder
October 11, 2021 9:03 am

If you get a sharp temperature gradient it would increase the likelihood of storms, I think. I would have expected to see more during the beginning or end of a warming or cooling phase but I’m not completely 100% on that.

DrEd
Reply to  Bob boder
October 11, 2021 2:57 pm

The data shows that the minimum temperatures have risen some, while the max temps haven’t changed much. This still raises the avg temp. However, the gradient between the max and min temps is less, and therefore, calmer weather.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
October 11, 2021 7:56 am

What do you think my position is on the matter?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Page
October 11, 2021 10:09 am

Because the “news” keeps telling them so. And because they’re stupid enough to believe it uncritically.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:32 am

I support being skeptical – what is your position?

bdgwx
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 11, 2021 7:42 am

I support being skeptical too.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 8:57 am

I support factual data. If that makes me sceptical then so be it, but one must always follow the data – to cherry pick one year out out of hundreds and use that one year to support an idea at odds with reality would be, in my view, an untenable position. Would you agree?

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
October 11, 2021 10:04 am

Yep.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 7:34 am

Adjustments back by data an logic are acceptable. To date none of the CAGW adjustments meet either standard.

You can claim anything you want, but you need facts to back up your beliefs. In regards to aerosols, the dip in hurricane activity was world wide, while aerosols were concentrated in the Northern Atlantic, a place where few hurricanes form at any time.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2021 10:14 am

It is important to note that the publication is focused only the North Atlantic basin. So while it could be true that the world follows the NA and vice versa that is not addressed in this specific publication. Furthermore, the dip you see in the graph above is not in regards to activity. The dip is in regards to the number of major hurricanes divided by the total number of hurricanes.

Ted
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 5:38 pm

The only data with a consistent methodology is for hurricane strength at landfall. That data shows a roughly 60 year sinusoidal pattern with the previous two cycles much stronger than the current one. Given that, it seems the adjustments were too conservative to be complete accurate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ted
October 12, 2021 5:18 am

“That data shows a roughly 60 year sinusoidal pattern”

That 60-year pattern keeps turning up a lot in the records, too, doesn’t it.

DonM
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 6:36 pm

This member of the audience sees it as justification that those that are saying hurricanes and other scary weather events are becoming more ‘severe’ are liars.

Why they are lying … I don’t know.

mebbe you can let me know why they feel a need to lie.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DonM
October 12, 2021 5:19 am

The liars want something.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 6:50 pm

May lead?

What kind of hypothesis is that? Sounds like conjecture to me.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 8:42 pm

Does the WUWT audience support the conclusion that the dip in the mid-to-late 20th century may at least be partially the result of anthropogenic aerosol emissions?

Why should they? AFAIK, it is accepted that warmer water may increase the intensity of a hurricane, but not necessarily be responsible for spawning more storms responsible for turning into hurricanes.

Furthermore, aerosols were most abundant in urban and industrial areas, not in the mid-Atlantic were the storms develop.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 12, 2021 5:26 am

Just like CO2, all we have for aerosols is pure speculation. There is no evidence that human-derived CO2 or human-derived aerosols are causing the Earth’s climate to change.

Back in the 1970’s, when the Human-Caused Global Cooling narrative was in vogue, I used to get very frustrated with some scientists and science publications, for making these kinds of claims without ever showing any evidence for their claims.

Back then, there was no internet, so all I could do was grind my teeth together when I would read such unscientific blather masquerading as science.

Now, I get to shout it to the world!

There’s no evidence that human-derived CO2 or human-derived aerosols are causing any noticeable changes in the Earth’s climate. NONE!

Alarmists are seeing what they want to see, not what is there.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2021 7:05 am

Why would the laws of physics be different for human CO2 molecules and aerosol particles vs natural CO2 molecules and aerosol particles?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
October 13, 2021 4:10 am

In the case of human-derived aerosols, they don’t get high enough in the atmosphere, whereas a large volcano *can* affect the temperatures because it injects large amounts of material very high in the atmosphere where it might linger for a year or two.

The case for human-caused aerosols changing the Earth’s weather is still in the same category as CO2: There is no evidence that either are causing the Earth’s climate to change.

I’m still open to evidence, but I haven’t seen any as of yet.

richard
October 11, 2021 6:32 am

Hurricanes-
 
NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dyamics Laboratory (GFDL): Leaders in Climate Model Development and Research. 
 
 
For about a decade (or even longer), GFDL has annually updated their statement on hurricanes and climate change. This excerpt from their 15 August 2019 update lists some of their negative findings about current hurricane activity.
 
“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero. In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.“-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. …
“The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s. …
“While major hurricanes show more evidence of a rising trend from the late 1800s, the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record. …
 In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.
 
 

Climate believer
Reply to  richard
October 11, 2021 6:46 am

From the EPA’s May 2021 report:

“Since 1878, about six to seven hurricanes have formed in the North Atlantic every year. Roughly two per year make landfall in the United States. The total number of hurricanes (particularly after being adjusted for improvements in observation methods) and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878.”

IPCC AR6:

“there is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics”

SxyxS
October 11, 2021 6:56 am

Reminds me of the headline of the Washington Post that was something like

“The US coast is in an unprecedent hurricane drought – and why it is a bad thing”(no matter what.Even if you admit that the prediction was 100% wrong, give it somehow a negative spin to scare people and push the agenda).

Some other experts(weather.com 2016) were not so kind
“10 reasons why the major hurricane drought is misleading ” (reason 1 – i Would instantly be cancelled and lose my job if i would admit the failure)

“US hurricane drought a matter of Luck ” climate central.org 2015

Once there used to be hurricanes that killed 200000 people(typhoon nina 1975 china)
and floods (1931 ) that killed 2 million people.
All this happened during the perfect 350 ppm co2 climate control knob.
Nowadays 200 people get killed and it’s an unprecedent record breaking Armageddon(the 0.01% co2 logic at work)
just because a bunch of parasites can make a very good living by selling fear disguised as science.

2hotel9
Reply to  SxyxS
October 11, 2021 7:02 am

just because a bunch of parasites can make a very good living by selling fear disguised as science.” And “news”, vast amounts of money to be stolen using the lying “news media”, “science” is a piker compared to them.

Steve Case
Reply to  SxyxS
October 11, 2021 8:03 am

From my file of factoids, smart remarks … etc:

The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought – why this is terrifying –
The Washington Post August 4th 2016

You’re welcome (-:

SxyxS
Reply to  Steve Case
October 11, 2021 11:58 am

Thanks.

2hotel9
October 11, 2021 6:59 am

One culprit in the spread of this disinformation is the ever morphing definition of what is and is not a hurricane/cyclone. Add to that the “news” calls every low pressure system that is named a hurricane, no matter that it is simply a low pressure system with no rotation and sustained winds well below 100 mph. Stop naming every half assed bunch of clouds over water, and while we are at it stop naming snow storms. It is all just weather, stop pushing hysterical narratives to drive leftist political agendas which are destroying our civilization.

J Mac
Reply to  2hotel9
October 11, 2021 8:48 am

M’thinks this is a case of The Tail Wagging the Dog!

Wharfplank
October 11, 2021 7:37 am

Whack-a-mole…LA Times says heat waves in the west are now more often, hotter, longer, more humid, and deadlier. Sigh

Paul Johnson
October 11, 2021 8:13 am

Dr. Neil Frank did the complementary study in the 1990’s where he discounted hurricanes that would NOT have been detected using only pre-satellite observations. He drew the same conclusions.

Peter
October 11, 2021 8:15 am

So far this year in central Florida we have been threatened by zero hurricanes. Several years ago three hurricanes attacked us from different directions.

This year the panhandle has been hit by a couple.

As far as named storms are concerned, some years ago a storm was not named until it became, or was obviously going to become very shortly, a hurricane. These days they name almost anything that looks as though it might become windy.

Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 8:44 am

“Over the past 170 years, hurricanes have not occurred more frequently …..”

That’s OK then – as they are not project to ….
So your including the “new paper by Vecchi et al, 2021”
is irrelevant as the consensus science conveyed by the IPCC agrees with you!

“A.3.4 It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has
increased over the last four decades, and the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific
reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability
alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the
frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. {8.2, 11.7, Box TS.10}”

” …… or gotten more intense.”

“In the wake of hurricane Ida, a number of mainstream media outlets, like German ZDF, blared that hurricanes have gotten worse over the recent decades – due to global warming. But that statement has been found to be driven more by alarmism and activism, and not based on data.”

Sorry, they but it appears they have become more intense via this study …..

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975

“Theoretical understanding of the thermodynamic controls on tropical cyclone (TC) wind intensity, as well as numerical simulations, implies a positive trend in TC intensity in a warming world. The global instrumental record of TC intensity, however, is known to be heterogeneous in both space and time and is generally unsuitable for global trend analysis. To address this, a homogenized data record based on satellite data was previously created for the period 1982–2009. The 28-y homogenized record exhibited increasing global TC intensity trends, but they were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Based on observed trends in the thermodynamic mean state of the tropical environment during this period, however, it was argued that the 28-y period was likely close to, but shorter than, the time required for a statistically significant positive global TC intensity trend to appear. Here the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified. Increases and trends are found in the exceedance probability and proportion of major (Saffir−Simpson categories 3 to 5) TC intensities, which is consistent with expectations based on theoretical understanding and trends identified in numerical simulations in warming scenarios. Major TCs pose, by far, the greatest threat to lives and property. Between the early and latter halves of the time period, the major TC exceedance probability increases by about 8% per decade, with a 95% CI of 2 to 15% per decade.”
comment image

Time series of fractional proportion of global major hurricane estimates to all hurricane estimates for the period 1979–2017. Each point, except the earliest, represents the data in a sequence of 3-y periods. The first data point is based on only 2 y (1979 and 1981) to avoid the years with no eastern hemisphere coverage. The linear Theil−Sen trend (black line) is significant at the 98% confidence level (Mann−Kendall P value = 0.02). The proportion increases by 25% in the 39-y period (about 6% per decade).

And these studies …..
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2792
“Intensification of landfalling typhoons over the northwest Pacific since the late 1970s”
Wei Mei & Shang-Ping Xie Nature Geoscience

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9140/meta
“Increasing trend in rapid intensification magnitude of tropical cyclones over the western North Pacific”
Jinjie Song1, Yihong Duan1 and Philip J Klotzbach

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2867-7
“Slower decay of landfalling hurricanes in a warming world”
Lin Li & Pinaki Chakraborty Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0008-6
“Increasing frequency of extremely severe cyclonic storms over the Arabian Sea”
Hiroyuki Murakami, Gabriel A. Vecchi & Seth Underwood

Last edited 1 month ago by Anthony Banton
Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 9:49 am

I have a feeling that a lot of the underlying assumptions in these analyses have already been debunked. Even if they hadn’t been, I would still have to say that with 170 years of hurricane records, just taking the most recent 35 years is probably not nearly enough. Let’s have a look at the next 35 years in comparison and draw some conclusions then, not jump in with incomplete data at best.

Climate believer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 11:54 am

Sorry, they but it appears they have become more intense …..

Some peoples “intense” is not the same as other peoples “intense”.

Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensityMan-Chi Wu, Kai-Hing Yeung, Wen-Lam Chang,

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2006EO480001

Using the tropical cyclone best track data from the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), Webster et al. [2005] found that between the two consecutive 15-year periods of 1975–1989 and 1990-2004, the percentage of typhoons in the western North Pacific meeting the definition of categories 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale has increased from 25% to 41% of all typhoons in that ocean basin.

However, an analysis of the best track data from the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) Tokyo (Japan) as well as that of the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO; Hong Kong, China) indicates that, in contrast to Webster et al.’s [2005] findings, there was no increase in western North Pacific category 4–5 typhoon activity.

Furthermore, neither RSMC-Tokyo nor HKO best track data suggest an increase in western North Pacific tropical cyclone destructiveness as measured by the potential destructive index (PDI).

https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/climatology.html

Last edited 1 month ago by Climate believer
Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 12:19 pm

Hee, hee, hee. The liars at Nature got you again, Anthony.

The long term data show no trend. What the practiced liars are showing is the approximately 35-year positive upswing of an approximately 70-year cycle. Like all the CliSciFi practitioners, they spin to convince the gullible and don’t give the full story as required to inform adults.

Why do you continue to believe proven liars, Anthony?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 1:12 pm

WTH is a “hurricane fix”, Banton?

R_G
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 11, 2021 1:30 pm

Yes, the hurricane winds are much stronger this days – see how reporter Mike Seidel was “fighting” for his life https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lcsTQmHYYQ

Shanghai Dan
October 11, 2021 10:08 am

A warming world should result in fewer storms. Winds and storms come from temperature differentials (which drive pressure changes). As the temperature starts to moderate (lows aren’t so low, highs don’t move, meaning the average moves up) we should have less severe weather events.

David Coles-Dobay
October 11, 2021 10:29 am

In my 55 years after meteorology class in grade school have noticed only an increase in hysteria over hurricanes. After living through the Buffalo blizzard of 1971, the hurricane in 1976 that wiped the campground out in Maine, the Bolixi storm surge of 1979, the Homestead Fl Catastrophe, the Marathon Fl storm surge and 20 or so other Hurricanes
The major difference has been the end of teh world style reporting that has incrementally gotten more sensational many instances of fake reporters floating in canoes or bracing against 5 mile an hour winds are readily available of the net.
When you look at water lines and coastal incursion dunes from prehistorical storms you find evidence of storms orders of magnitude greater than what the MSM waxes so prolifically over.

Slowroll
October 11, 2021 10:50 am

Why would the warmunists claim warmer climates would increase hurricanes? They are caused by temperature and pressure differentials, not uniformly warmer. Another pack of codswallop.

Richard Page
Reply to  Slowroll
October 11, 2021 11:41 am

You have to remember that most of these climate enthusiasts got a degree in a Mickey Mouse subject because useful degrees like physics or ocean dynamics was too difficult for them. Frankly if you give out meaningless degrees like peanuts then all you’re going to get are monkeys.

bdgwx
Reply to  Slowroll
October 11, 2021 12:36 pm

Tropical cyclone intensities are coupled with ocean temperatures. All other things being equal the warmer the ocean the more energy available for intensification.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 11, 2021 1:14 pm

No. Lesser temperature gradients.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 11, 2021 2:18 pm

Miller 1958, Emanuel 1986, DeMaria 1994, Holland 1995, and Blister 1998 would be some good references on this topic. There are a few MPI metrics that are relevant including Vp = A + B*e^(T-Tr), Vp = sqrt((Ck/Cd)*(Ts-Tr)/Tr*dk), and Vp = sqrt((Ck/Cd)*(Ts/Tr)*(CAPEs – CAPEb)) where T is referring to the SST in each. There is a clear and undeniable link between the temperature of the ocean and the maximum potential intensity of a tropical cyclone.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  bdgwx
October 12, 2021 4:51 am

I’m not an expert on this topic but it seems obvious to me that there is a temperature gradient factor in each of your equations.

bdgwx
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
October 12, 2021 5:47 am

There is not. You see two T’s in the equation because one is a reference temperature; not because there is a gradient.

To bed B
Reply to  bdgwx
October 12, 2021 5:04 pm

There was a controversy with an IPCC chapter on hurricanes were the experts were overridden some 15 years ago. Yes, warming does lead to stronger hurricanes, but just 1-2 mph faster gusts so far, negated by less likely to form due to wind shear.

bdgwx
Reply to  To bed B
October 12, 2021 6:06 pm

Yep. Wind shear is an incredibly important factor not only in terms of cyclogenesis, but in terms of intensity as well. All other things being equal higher shear leads to lower intensity. Another factor often ignored is the speed of movement. Slower intense cyclones have more time to overturn the ocean bringing cooler waters to the surface thus limiting intensity. It is actually this last factor that causes non-hurricane regional scale models like the NAM and HRRR to over intensify cyclones since they have no ocean overturning parameterization schemes.

To bed B
October 11, 2021 12:57 pm

“After homogenization”

Even if you like the outcome, you need to take it with a pinch of salt until you investigate further. No doubt that the raw data would be meaningless because of the effects of better observations with time.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  To bed B
October 12, 2021 5:47 am

Raw data is Observations. How do you get a better observation after the fact?

To bed B
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2021 12:37 pm

Just a plot of the raw data is what I meant. And not really meaningless. Just indicates better observations over time.

Results are the number, units and how you ended up with them. In this case, it looks like late 19th C still shows poorer reporting of hurricanes rather than I suspect that they botched the 20th C

a happy little debunker
October 11, 2021 1:12 pm

The only aspect of Hurricanes to become more intense and frequent, has been all the pearl clutching by the media and eco-mongers….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  a happy little debunker
October 12, 2021 5:49 am

Isn’t that the truth. It’s all hype.

The alarmists must be pretty upset with this hurricane season. It has given them very few opportunities to scaremonger over hurricanes this year.

gmak
October 13, 2021 5:12 am

I would imagine that basic physics / thermodynamics would predict calming (smaller and /or less frequent bad storms). If the poles warm, then the differential between the poles and the equator goes down (more or less). The smaller temperature differential leads to less energy for storms to feed on, no?

%d bloggers like this: