Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 2, 2021.
Absolutely amazing & somewhat sad
Observations of hurricane activity apparently don’t show the right trends.
So this new paper re-invents history by using modeled historical hurricane activity to find the right trends.
Predictably, gross misinformation follows
This is where we are at in hurricane research?😐
And the MIT press release fails to accurately reflect the paper
It goes undisclosed that the author runs a consulting firm that sells modelled hurricane projections under RCP8.5
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 2, 2021.
Here is EurekAlert!’s release on the study.
Climate modeling confirms historical records showing rise in hurricane activity
New results show North Atlantic hurricanes have increased in frequency over the last 150 years.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
When forecasting how storms may change in the future, it helps to know something about their past. Judging from historical records dating back to the 1850s, hurricanes in the North Atlantic have become more frequent over the last 150 years.
However, scientists have questioned whether this upward trend is a reflection of reality, or simply an artifact of lopsided record-keeping. If 19th-century storm trackers had access to 21st-century technology, would they have recorded more storms? This inherent uncertainty has kept scientists from relying on storm records, and the patterns within them, for clues to how climate influences storms.
A new MIT study published today in Nature Communications has used climate modeling, rather than storm records, to reconstruct the history of hurricanes and tropical cyclones around the world. The study finds that North Atlantic hurricanes have indeed increased in frequency over the last 150 years, similar to what historical records have shown.
In particular, major hurricanes, and hurricanes in general, are more frequent today than in the past. And those that make landfall appear have grown more powerful, carrying more destructive potential.
Curiously, while the North Atlantic has seen an overall increase in storm activity, the same trend was not observed in the rest of the world. The study found that the frequency of tropical cyclones globally has not changed significantly in the last 150 years.
“The evidence does point, as the original historical record did, to long-term increases in North Atlantic hurricane activity, but no significant changes in global hurricane activity,” says study author Kerry Emanuel, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. “It certainly will change the interpretation of climate’s effects on hurricanes — that it’s really the regionality of the climate, and that something happened to the North Atlantic that’s different from the rest of the globe. It may have been caused by global warming, which is not necessarily globally uniform.”
The most comprehensive record of tropical cyclones is compiled in a database known as the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS). This historical record includes modern measurements from satellites and aircraft that date back to the 1940s. The database’s older records are based on reports from ships and islands that happened to be in a storm’s path. These earlier records date back to 1851, and overall the database shows an increase in North Atlantic storm activity over the last 150 years.
“Nobody disagrees that that’s what the historical record shows,” Emanuel says. “On the other hand, most sensible people don’t really trust the historical record that far back in time.”
Recently, scientists have used a statistical approach to identify storms that the historical record may have missed. To do so, they consulted all the digitally reconstructed shipping routes in the Atlantic over the last 150 years and mapped these routes over modern-day hurricane tracks. They then estimated the chance that a ship would encounter or entirely miss a hurricane’s presence. This analysis found a significant number of early storms were likely missed in the historical record. Accounting for these missed storms, they concluded that there was a chance that storm activity had not changed over the last 150 years.
But Emanuel points out that hurricane paths in the 19th century may have looked different from today’s tracks. What’s more, the scientists may have missed key shipping routes in their analysis, as older routes have not yet been digitized.
“All we know is, if there had been a change (in storm activity), it would not have been detectable, using digitized ship records,” Emanuel says “So I thought, there’s an opportunity to do better, by not using historical data at all.”
Instead, he estimated past hurricane activity using dynamical downscaling — a technique that his group developed and has applied over the last 15 years to study climate’s effect on hurricanes. The technique starts with a coarse global climate simulation and embeds within this model a finer-resolution model that simulates features as small as hurricanes. The combined models are then fed with real-world measurements of atmospheric and ocean conditions. Emanuel then scatters the realistic simulation with hurricane “seeds” and runs the simulation forward in time to see which seeds bloom into full-blown storms.
For the new study, Emanuel embedded a hurricane model into a climate “reanalysis” — a type of climate model that combines observations from the past with climate simulations to generate accurate reconstructions of past weather patterns and climate conditions. He used a particular subset of climate reanalyses that only accounts for observations collected from the surface — for instance from ships, which have recorded weather conditions and sea surface temperatures consistently since the 1850s, as opposed to from satellites, which only began systematic monitoring in the 1970s.
“We chose to use this approach to avoid any artificial trends brought about by the introduction of progressively different observations,” Emanuel explains.
He ran an embedded hurricane model on three different climate reanalyses, simulating tropical cyclones around the world over the past 150 years. Across all three models, he observed “unequivocal increases” in North Atlantic hurricane activity.
“There’s been this quite large increase in activity in the Atlantic since the mid-19th century, which I didn’t expect to see,” Emanuel says.
Within this overall rise in storm activity, he also observed a “hurricane drought” — a period during the 1970s and 80s when the number of yearly hurricanes momentarily dropped. This pause in storm activity can also be seen in historical records, and Emanuel’s group proposes a cause: sulfate aerosols, which were byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, likely set off a cascade of climate effects that cooled the North Atlantic and temporarily suppressed hurricane formation.
“The general trend over the last 150 years was increasing storm activity, interrupted by this hurricane drought,” Emanuel notes. “And at this point, we’re more confident of why there was a hurricane drought than why there is an ongoing, long-term increase in activity that began in the 19th century. That is still a mystery, and it bears on the question of how global warming might affect future Atlantic hurricanes.”
This research was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation.
Written by Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
Atlantic tropical cyclones downscaled from climate reanalyses show increasing activity over past 150 years
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of
When in data provide the wrong answers, fabricate? Not surprising.
anyone getting a series of very large icons between comments? Makes it impossible to read the thread….google attack?
Happened to me yesterday. restarted my browser and it was fine.
Chrome on my android tablet does this. The Edge browser does not.
not fabricate. A more sophisticated model in model fornication.
Climate Scientology in action!
Unfortunately, I was unable to get past
“Climate modeling confirms historical records”
For obvious reasons. This study is an exercise in computerised navel gazing. The bottom line remains: “is still a mystery”. They don’t know. Funnily enough, Hurricanes are also being hyped up in the UK press. According to the Independent:
“Another extreme hurricane season is officially over. Here’s what we learned
Atlantic Ocean saw above-average number of hurricanes in 2021, the third most active season since record-keeping began
The Atlantic Ocean still had an above-normal number of hurricanes in 2021, for the sixth year in a row. It was also the third most active season…”
And the Waffen BBC
“Though the last month has seen little tropical storm activity, all the pre-determined names have been exhausted for the second year in a row.
There were 21 named tropical storms, including seven hurricanes, four of which were major hurricanes – where wind speeds were 111mph or greater. This puts 2021 behind 2020 and 2015 – the first and second most active years.”
When you are effectively naming regular light breezes to make them seem more scary it’s no wonder you run out of names.
All you have to do is believe.
fretslider: “When you are effectively naming regular light breezes to make them seem more scary it’s no wonder you run out of names.”
Yeah, at the beginning of September, I sneezed… and they named it!
Light breezes? You mean Butterfly Flatulence don’t you??
“Blasting billowing bursting forth
with the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes.
Man, with his flaming pyre,
has conquered the wayward breezes.”
H/t The Moody Blues
I can’t get past the thought that we are now living in clown world.
Waiting impatiently for Tropical Storm Clarabell.
How about “Wind Gust Bozo”
climate science has become the Babylon Bee parody. The two are indistinguishable.
The Babylon Bee is much thought provoking and insightful than hoax studies like this! They put REAL effort and energy into their work, which most of these hoaxers leave out entirely!
One for McIntyre
Also, the two citations for the downscaling method are to Emanual
No evidence is presented showing this method is accurate
This is climate science 1:01. Start with a conclusion, work backwards. No assumption too ridiculous.
Seems like you could be a climate scientist at a major institution.
I wouldn’t demean myself!
exactly what would you expect, garbage in – garbage out.
Mathematically, It’s exactly like zooming in on an already pixelated image in attempt to read an auto license plate number, expecting what you see to be of any value.
Methods Overview — SNAP (uaf-snap.org)
Another projection instead of forecasts. Possible futures. Sets of assumptions. Manage uncertainty. It looks like a whole lot of too many mathematicians have become involved in climate science. Trying to find uses for funky GCM’s in order to justify the expenses for developing and running GCMs.
Your analogy of trying to create more pixels from a low-res picture is an apt one. Is that digit a 6, an 8, or maybe 0, or maybe a B. One site mentioned managing uncertainty. I nearly died laughing.
Downscaling: when your process is so seriously compromised you can’t even call it interpolation.
Another way to deceive the gullible public is to truncate graphs. This was illustrated in a graph of the dollar price of gas by date to show the fall in the US price. The price axis did not begin at $0 and go up to $3.415 but from $3.375 to $3.415 which shows an “apparent” fall but in reality insignificant.
see article “DCCC Mercilessly Mocked for Touting Dear Leader Biden’s Gas Price ‘Victory’“
It’s amazing anyone could say those things with a straight face.
Quick, the Biden photograph, David.
Novel approach. Probably dishonest as well.
What a bunch of horse hokey! A lot of data exists documenting hurricanes and cyclones going back hundreds of years but instead of looking at that let’s fabricate a model! The myth that models produce date has been repeated by the CAGW enthusiasts so many times that they now believe their own lies. Pathetic, surely a sign of mental illness.
My observation is that any data going back hundreds of years missed a lot of the storms now being counted today.
Yep! If anything, what little trend we have in the raw data is skewed towards “increase” – simply because we most likely didn’t record storms in the middle of the ocean that dissipated before landfall.
Meaning that – as theory would predict (due to diurnal temperature differentials lowering) – we have a lowering rate of storms.
Exactly, why should we really care about storms that don’t make landfall in populated areas or cause any property damage or loss of like?
Also, there is a tendency to call any puff of wind a “storm” and give it a name. Measuring wind speed more than two meters above the ground is dishonest as well.
The old data really only has major hurricanes that make landfall in developed areas. That can actually be extrapolated (with error bars of course). But making up data from scratch is crazy. “The computer model told us what we told it to tell us.” Wow, such great science.
I seem to have a memory that there was a LOT of work done using ships logs from “those olden days of yesteryear” to find storms that did not strike land. I cannot remember where it went. Probably did not come up with the right answer, and consigned to the memory hole.
Well, back then ships at sea were the primary observational tool for hurricane data of storms that did not hit land. Ship’s logs are usually quite detailed and they do care about hurricanes that don’t make landfall.
Compulsive reality rejection
If “Global Warming” increases something in only a small part on the earth surface, say North Atlantic, but has no measurable impact on the rest of the globe, can the word “global” be justified?
If so, why?
The first response to his tweet nails it.
Climate ‘science’ is in love with models rather than data.
Data is messy and inconvenient
— Mike Smith @USWeatherExpert
Data doesn’t give them the CO2 crisis they are looking for, so they make it up.
How about the hurricane data for this year? Landfalling hurricanes have been few and far between this year. Yet CO2 is increasing. What’s the deal with that?
The deal with that is very straightforward – a very significant increase in crop growth! For what we would be faced with otherwise, see a book with the title “The Population Bomb” by a certain university professor.
” Observations of hurricane activity apparently don’t show the right trends ”
Nature is conspiring to subvert the order wisely enforced by the climate change modelers.
It is time to dismiss this nature and appoint another!
I think one of the sadder things about this article is the source. MIT has truly fallen if they don’t understand that the output from models isn’t data.
Nature (the publication) now has less credibility than a comic in publishing this drivel. Very sad.
MIT is going all-in on the biggest science fabrication in history.
Kerry Emanuel is just pulling a Jussie Smollet hoax of science. The Left has decided enough un-questionning political and media support exists for the scam narrative now means their science fraud will never be exposed to the public and thus they’ll never face accountability for lying.
The climate modeling alarmists are trying to draft off the Forever Covid crowd!
They think that the reaction of the public to ChiCom-19 virus hysteria can be used to increase their prestige and status by making the same sorts of claims that the viral alarmists made to shut down economies around the world!
I will continue to hope and pray that they are wrong, and that the public is waking up to the lies perpetrated by both! Wouldn’t it be nice to see the Climastrology car follow the Covid car right into a brick wall, or off the Wile E. Coyote Memorial Cliff!
and just like that…
“MIT is going all-in on the biggest science fabrication in history.” A prime example of why, having graduated from there with a Master’s degree, I have given up donating to them.
Of course, I should have avoided donating even earlier. One optional course I elected to take in psychology turned out to be given by a convinced socialist/communist professor, which I discovered after being in class for several weeks.
At least the degree I earned got me a decent first job.
That was back when MIT still had a good reputation.
From a retired CDN beancounter, Isn’t MIT supposed to be America’s finest science institution?
Really is sad, (as others have said here), start with the conclusion then come up with malarkey science to support the conclusion
Ahh, climate science in its finest modern incarnation. Throw out the data and replace it with your assumptions.
It amazes me. Years ago, we actually threw a couple of undergrads out of the program for making up data on labs, but for peer review it is apparently de rigueur!
I guess we owe those students an apology… (do I need a /sarc?)
lol.. tempest in a teapot comes to mind..
I perfectly believe that he did model and see that trend in his computer world.
So it seems K. Emanuel ends up being one more climate scientist not knowing/understanding what R. McKitrick recently has proven about attribution from models being false.
And , where is his discussion of ACE trends ???
That might be enlightening. That’s probably why it wasn’t discussed.
Does Poe’s Law apply here ???
I thought it was normally forbidden ATL …
If not, it’s almost a confirmation of the “parody / caricature” that is the pontifical version of “Climate Science”.
– – – – –
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory.” — Richard Feynman
“There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It’s a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you ‘play’ with them !” — Richard Feynman
Almost all of Feynman’s famous quotes warning of problems in science fit perfectly as descriptions of what is wrong with Climate Science. Climate Science is a Cargo Cult Science. Just a selection:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
“If science is to progress, what we need is the ability to experiment.”
“It is important to doubt and that the doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of great value.”
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
“I don’t believe in honors – it bothers me. Honors bother: honors are epaulets; honors are uniforms.” (That one is especially for Dr M. Mann methinks)
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
“Perhaps one day we will have machines that can cope with approximate task descriptions, but in the meantime, we have to be very prissy about how we tell computers to do things.”
“We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning.”
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts”
“Don’t pay attention to “authorities,” think for yourself.”
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
And probably the most important of all:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
And how about this for a WUWT motto:
“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion”
Feynman is sorely missed, if only he were around today.
He would be canceled.
That is probably why of all the sciences, Materials Science seems to be making steady advances. New materials either meet the requirements or they don’t. There is no fence sitting with weasel words like “could” or “maybe,” and having to wait 50 years to validate the claims.
““There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It’s a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you ‘play’ with them !” — Richard Feynman”
Great quote. One I haven’t seen before.
I think part of the problem is a multi-generational shift in human thinking and practices. We are still in the phase where many, often well educated, people still tend to attribute truth and accuracy to something simply because it came out of a computer. We need to get over that.
I can’t remember who said it but I recall a quote that was approximately this “the only benefit of more powerful computers is they can give you the wrong answer more quickly “
As Briggs says, all computer models say what they are told to say.
Building rotten models that agree with desired conclusions is apparently the easy way out if you practice “science”—where conclusions are required to serve political ends. But why go to the trouble? Just announce “official state policy” on various issues. Hitler had no facts or models behind his insistence that Aryan blood was superior to others. Any scientists that dissented were stripped of their positions and tossed into concentration camps. Oh, wait! “Cancel culture” Brownshirts have already succeeded on the first part and are gearing up for the second once they achieve one party rule.
This is just a straight play from Orwell’s 1984 instruction book for the Left.
“O’Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.
‘There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,’ he said. ‘Repeat it, if you please.’
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.
“Who controls the present controls the past,” said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’”
This history re-write is fundamental to making hockey sticks to ram the climate scam down on a once free people.
When did they start using such long names for storms?
How dare he be described as a scientist? Perhaps charlatan would be a better word.
“….hurricane paths in the 19th century may have looked different from today’s tracks.”
Simple question, how do historical records always distinguish between late season storms and early season northers/noreasters? Does the exponential intensity of observations produce Eureka! I have found one?
Climate models confirm that Prof. Emmanuel has his head deeply planted in his @$$!!
If only there were some way to push these modeling morons into their computers, ala Tron!
And I always thought that the models that I worked with and dated during my fashion career were small minded and vapid! They ain’t got nothin’ on the myopia of the climate braindead!
I notice he said the records ‘may have gaps’. I would love to see what gaps he found. NOAA has a pretty good 170 year record of hurricanes.
It is a mystery worthy of solving.
Sad to see how woke Tech has become.
So many of you need to remember the teaching of Richard Feynman (also of MIT):
When your theory and the data don’t agree, your data is wrong.
That is what he said, right? Right?
” Emmanuel runs a consultancy firm that sells modelled hurricane projections under RCP 8.5″
Even the BBC, a cheerleader for global warming, knows that RCP 8.5 is “exceedingly unlikely” and quotes Zeke Hausfather thus
“we’ve been misusing the worst climate change scenario”
“. . . a consulting firm that sells modelled hurricane projections under RCP8.5 “
My belief in Leprechauns is stronger.
If the trend began in the 19th century, then is has nothing to do with increased CO2 emissions, which did not take off until the middle of the 20th century. In the middle of the 19th century, most of the world’s population lived on farms, used domestic animals for transportation, had no electricity or internal combustion engines, no aircraft.
Even if this modeling shows a trend since the mid 19th century, it has everything to do with the end of the Little Ice Age, and zilch to do with CO2
So testing the hypothesis with data calculated from the hypothesis. That’s novel, at least. Cutting-edge stuff, but of what?
The branch they are sitting on.
Fascinating that he attributed the 70’s and 80’s lull to aerosols. Aerosols, the go-to source to get any model result you want.
When the facts don’t support your conclusions, then change the facts. Let’s reimagine using computer modelling what might have been rather than what we know. This will surely prove our future predictions based on the same models will be accurate. Or not…
We are living in an clown world.
It’s not like this is new. If they can change historical temperature data with impunity why wouldn’t they change hurricane data? If cancer researchers did this they would be in jail but it appears to be standard procedure for “climate science”.
“Emanuel then scatters the realistic simulation with hurricane “seeds” and runs the simulation forward in time to see which seeds bloom into full-blown storms.”
Yeah — sure — last spring I clumsily dropped an open packet of carrot seeds in my garden, and 2021 turned out to be the biggest yield in carrots in my garden!
Models have doomed our future and now they’ve doomed are past.
This reminds me of something I saw on The Storm Channel a day or two ago.
At the end of hurricane season, one of the guys was touting the “record” number of “named” storms.
He failed to mention that in the past tropical depressions and lesser ocean disturbances weren’t given a name even before the satellite era.
In the past Hurricanes were only given names if they “earned” them.
Now even tropical depressions are named routinely.
PS The Storm Channel has recently named it’s first “Winter Storm”.
(That means it’s going snow someplace.)
But I’ve never heard them name a real winter event such as a blizzard.
“On the other hand, most sensible people don’t really trust the historical record that far back in time.”
Wow! this guy is a real condescending apparatchik.
wow, “nothing to see here, move on”. Great News!
I’m sure (a) people who live in the South East of the US are breathing a sigh of relief, and (b) the author (who lives in Colorado) is going to make a fortune in real estate transactions in the coastal communities (or, as the Economists say “put your money where your mouth is”
More mathematical onanism. If they don’t stop it, they will go blind.
Nothing like wholesale lying about past present and future.
Since the observed trend is negative, the only way to create an increasing trend historically is to eliminate hurricanes that were observed.
Newsflash: Model that assumes increasing hurricane activity shows fewer hurricanes in the past.