Sorry, Nature, Associated Press, etc., Climate Change Is Not Making Hurricanes ‘Wetter’

By H. Sterling Burnett -April 14, 2022

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

Dozens of corporate media outlets published stories claiming anthropogenic climate change caused 2020’s hurricane season to be “wetter,” with more rain falling in shorter periods of time than would have occurred naturally. Data indicates this is false. The stories were all based on a single “attribution,” study in Nature Communications. The study is impossible to verify since it is based on computer models simulations of the past and future, not measurements of past rainfall amounts over the time period specified in the study.

The New York Times, the Associated Press (AP), CNN, the Washington Post, and ABC News, are among dozens of corporate and trade media outlets, that published stories in recent days highlighting the reported results of a single study published in Nature Communications which claims to be able to attribute higher rainfall totals that fell during the active 2020 hurricane season to human caused climate change.

According to the authors of the study, titled “Attribution of 2020 hurricane season extreme rainfall to human-induced climate change,” “human-induced climate change increased the extreme 3-hourly storm rainfall rates and extreme 3-day accumulated rainfall amounts during the full 2020 hurricane season for … hurricane strength storms … by 11 and 8%, respectively.”

The AP’s coverage of the study was typical of the corporate media’s reports in general. In a story, titled “Pouring it on: Climate change made 2020 hurricanes rainier,” writer Seth Borenstein said, “Climate change made the record-smashing deadly 2020 Atlantic hurricane season noticeably wetter, a new study says. And it will likely make this season rainier, too, scientists said.”

All that’s missing from the media’s coverage of the report is context and hard data.

Concerning context, the attributed increase in excess rainfall from hurricanes during the 2020 season reported in the Nature study is based solely on computer model simulations, including simulations hindcasting the amounts of rainfall that would have been expected to occur during past hurricane seasons with and absent human enhanced greenhouse gas emissions. Three hour rainfall rates and accumulated 3 day rainfall totals weren’t measured for past hurricanes, and although comparable data from more recent hurricane seasons was available, it wasn’t used as a basis of comparison either.

Instead of data, the researchers used The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble, consisting of multiple models and numerous model runs (simulations) for hurricanes dating back to 1850. These hindcasts were built on numerous assumptions including limited solar impact on climate, assumptions about past sea surface temperatures, and estimates of carbon dioxide concentrations. They ignored all other natural and human factors that might impact temperatures and global and regional climate changes. Then, using the extreme Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) to simulate carbon dioxides forcing on temperatures, they ran their models to produce estimates of what rainfall totals would have counterfactually been in the past and in 2020, with and absent human greenhouse emissions. They then compared the counterfactual results to the rainfall amounts measured during the 2020 hurricane season, and attributed the difference to human activities.

This is an extreme instance of the computer science and mathematics concept, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

That general circulation climate models have serious failings is widely known. There is a significant debate concerning what factors influence global temperatures, as well as, for any particular factor, what direction and to what extent they influence temperatures. Those who have developed climate models admit they don’t understand the role that clouds or large scale ocean circulation patterns play in driving climate change, for example. As a result of this and other currently little understood factors which influence temperatures, rainfall patterns, and the like, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Climate Sensitivity, mainstream calculations for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide range from eight-tenths of a degree Celsius warming to almost 6 degrees C of warming by 2100.

As discussed in a Climate Realism post, here, two recent peer reviewed studies found a large degree of bias towards warmer projections, and that the CMIP5 models warm 4 to 5 times faster than actual observed temperature data. McKitrick and Christy (2020) write in “Persuasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” that “[W]e see no improvement between the CMIP5 and the CMIP6 models.”

Indeed, in July 2021 the journal Science published an article noting “climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model developers themselves, believe are implausibly fast.

The researchers then compounded their error of relying on admittedly flawed computer models as a basis for attributing changes in hurricane rainfall patterns by using the most extreme climate scenario generated by those models, RCP8.5. Research demonstrates the world hasn’t been on the RCP8.5 path, since before it was first generated by climate models. More recently, Climate Realism highlighted two scientific papers demonstrating that RCP8.5 future climate scenarios can’t occur. There simply isn’t enough fossil fuel in existence on the planet to make it happen.

The attribution claims made in Nature Communications are also not supported by available hurricane data. Despite 2020 being an active hurricane season, long-term data show no increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic.

As pointed out in Climate Realismhere, data assembled by Ryan Maue, Ph.D., formerly the chief scientist the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shows Accumulated Cyclone Energy from hurricanes in the United States has not increased, as shown in Figure 1 below. Nor, as Figure 2 shows, has the number of major hurricanes striking the United States increased.

Indeed, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, NOAA’s records show the United States recently went through its longest period in recorded history without a major, Class 3 or above, hurricane strike, and America also recently experienced its fewest total hurricanes in any eight-year period. Repeated reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also indicate it has found no evidence human activities are changing hurricane patterns. In its 2018 interim report, the IPCC stated there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences” (Emphasis mine). Similarly, in its AR6 WG1 report, released in August 2021, the IPCC wrote, “[i]dentifying past trends in TC [tropical storm] metrics remains a challenge.” The IPCC went on to say it could not conclude hurricane trends had changed or that it could attribute any effect on hurricanes to human activities. So much for any claim that science shows human caused climate change is supercharging storms in the North Atlantic.

In the end, virtual worlds aren’t real worlds. With the current limited state of knowledge, attribution studies are sideshow carnival crystal ball gazing, tea leave reading stuff, not serious scientific research. Watts Up With That has published multiple papers examining the inherent weaknesses and failings of climate “attribution” studies.

Basing claims of past and future hurricane rainfall amounts on computer models which don’t even accurately replicate past or present temperatures or temperature trends, the most basic projection they make, is foolish. Compounding that error by using a climate scenario that is actually impossible, is even worse. Neither factor should have instilled enough confidence in mainstream media outlets to tout the alarming rainfall claims made in this single Nature Communications study, absent outside verification. Available data provide no support for the claim that climate change is causing hurricanes to become more frequent, more powerful, or that it is causing them to dump more rainfall. Even the IPCC says so.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, most recently as a senior fellow in charge of NCPA’s environmental policy program. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 15, 2022 6:13 am

Anyone using RCP8.5 knows they are lying.

jeffery p
April 15, 2022 6:13 am

People roll their eyes when you call climate change a fraud or a scam, but here is the proof. Nobody measured anything. “Scientists” used models and announced the results as if facts and data were involved. As phony as the Gorn costume on Star Trek TOS.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  jeffery p
April 15, 2022 9:42 am

The Gorn isn’t real?
WTF

Richard Page
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 15, 2022 12:54 pm

It’s all right – what it looked like doesn’t matter. That it identified as a Gorn is the most important thing! sarc

H.R.
April 15, 2022 6:19 am

They had data. They didn’t use the data, they used models.

We paid for the data, and we paid for the models.

Maybe I’m just a dumbass. I don’t claim to understand Governomics, but I suspect one of those two payouts was a waste.

Steve Case
April 15, 2022 6:30 am

The New York Times, the Associated Press (AP), CNN, the Washington Post, and ABC News, are among dozens of corporate and trade media outlets, that published stories in recent days highlighting the reported results of a single study published in Nature Communications which claims to be able to attribute higher rainfall totals that fell during the active 2020 hurricane season to human caused climate change.
_____________________________________________________________

And probably National Public Radio (NPR) that my favorite liberal listens to and will no doubt lap and slurp up like your favorite monkey at the local zoo laps up its own vomit.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Case
John Garrett
Reply to  Steve Case
April 15, 2022 8:31 am

NPR is among the worst offenders. Decades ago, it was a reliable source of unbiased news and information. It has been hijacked by activists and has become a primary source and distributor of deliberate and intentionally biased climate reporting.

NPR has violated every tenet of journalistic ethics and integrity. In its current state, it is a national disgrace.

Steve Case
Reply to  John Garrett
April 15, 2022 8:50 am

Scientific American is another one that has been infiltrated.

H.R.
Reply to  John Garrett
April 16, 2022 5:56 am

John Garrett: Decades ago, it was a reliable source of unbiased news and information.”


Are you sure about that? Maybe it is you who has changed.

I know I went along more or less trusting the news institutions. Then I started noticing things that didn’t add up or that I knew were just plain wrong. I caught onto the opinion polls and that they were conducted and published to shape public opinion, not reflect public opinion.

I’m just asking you because I started catching onto the propaganda and lies mostly due to the CAGW caterwauling. Then I started noticing it was the same in other areas of the ‘news’. Then I realized it had been going on a lot longer than I was aware of.

Now the media propaganda is so obvious that any thinking person has recognized that MSM journalism is completely dead The ‘feelz’ people have yet to catch on.

So are you sure it’s not that they were more subtle then and you were a bit more naive then? I’m just asking you to think back a bit is all.

rhb2
Reply to  Steve Case
April 16, 2022 2:27 pm

Not too long ago the WSJ published an article reporting a press release that the Associated Press has accepted millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation and several other lesser known foundations to ‘support coverage of climate change’. You can bet that the AP will not be reporting anything in the future (as if it ever did in the past) that those foundations might dislike. My local newspaper gets its climate coverage from the AP and I suggested it would be appropriate to publish that press release. No response.

rhb2
Reply to  rhb2
April 16, 2022 2:33 pm

Found a link:
https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2022/ap-announces-sweeping-climate-journalism-initiative

Notice that mention of the funding for this effort is far down the release.

Duane
April 15, 2022 6:52 am

Aside from the fact that using a fantacised model to make claims about actual empirical measurements is obviously invalid on its face … the entire notion of a “wetter hurricane” is meaningless to actual human beings. All hurricanes are by definition extreme weather events. They vary in size, speed, path, peak and sustained wind speeds, the size and definition of the eye, the amount and distribution and extent of storm surge, and any stalling due to steering high pressure systems, the kind of terrain they pass over (low and flat or high and steep) and of course the depth, intensity and duration of precipitation.

It is only the highly chaotic combination of all those factors, and many more, that result in a site specific set of impacts. To focus on any one thing – the depth or volume of rainfall (never mind the intensity and duration and areal distribution) and claim that it is controlled by an infinitesimal change in a claimed “global temperature increase” of 1.09 deg C over the previous 172 years – as if there even is such a thing – is simply piling bullshit onto bullshit onto bullshit onto bullshit and calling it a “firm foundation of understanding.”

This kind of thinking is nothing but stupid cubed.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Duane
April 15, 2022 9:44 am

Why go so easy on them?
It’s not stupidity it’s premeditated fraud

fretslider
April 15, 2022 6:55 am

According to griff the unchanged patterns of rainfall in the UK have made the UK 6% wetter.

I just cannot suspend my disbelief

Peta of Newark
Reply to  fretslider
April 15, 2022 9:38 am

We do really rather wanna tread carefully on that one.
By refence to the 20 year record on my ‘little flock’ of Wunderground stations, annual rainfall over England (just England) is on a 10mm per year rising trend over that timespan.
And that applies almost equally to both the Eastern and Western sides – despite the Western side being on a cooling trend and the Eastern on a warming trend.

More reserach is needed methinks, I need to get some Met Office numbers for that timeframe.

Thing is, I cannot see how Wunderground can fiddle their data as they broadcast it, continuous and real-time, at 5 minute intervals all across the interwebz whereas the Met Office can never be described as ‘real time’ in any matter of climate concern

(Oh God, have I just coined the next Buzz Phrase?)

PS edit to add blindingly obvious realisation…
… the extra rain over the UK (England) is caused by extra dust coming from across The Pond.
Do the dust and rain-clouds somehow ‘keep themselves to themselves until they are forced to mix as the hit the UK?

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 15, 2022 1:05 pm

Let’s just say that I still have issues with a lot of the figures the Met Office uses, however the recent transfer of older records to digital format has revealed that the rainfall in the 1830-50’s for the UK was heavier than we have now so probably just a cyclical thing. It might be well worth checking out those older records to put the current conditions into context.

rah
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 16, 2022 3:27 am

Ha! Ten years ago the UK Environment Secretary was warning drought may be permanent in the UK.
Ten Years Of Permanent Drought In The UK | Real Climate Science

Pauleta
April 15, 2022 7:06 am

Nature is garbage, Nature Communications even worse.

bdgwx
April 15, 2022 7:10 am

Mr. Burnett,

I see a discrepancy with the graphic of major US landfalling hurricanes. The graphic shows 1 in 2020, but there were actually two: Laura as a category 4 on Aug 27th and Zeta as a category 3 on October 28th. I only checked 2020 so I cannot comment on the validity of the others at this time. [1].

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Meab
Reply to  bdgwx
April 15, 2022 9:51 am

BadWaxJob,

While Hurricane Zeta reached Cat 3 over the Gulf of Mexico it did not make landfall as a Cat 3. The maximum recorded steady wind at landfall reported by an official weather station was 88 mph, a Cat 1, not a major Hurricane. There was a measurement of 94 mph at a nearby unofficial station – still Cat 1. Other stations in Louisiana reported tropical storm level winds.

bdgwx
Reply to  Meab
April 15, 2022 10:39 am

Hurricane Zeta was definitely a category 3 at landfall. You can review the official report here.

meab
Reply to  bdgwx
April 15, 2022 11:52 am

Do you even read the stuff you post, BadWaxJob?

Quoting: “The strongest wind report received from a near-standard height was from the public in Golden Meadow, Louisiana at 2139 UTC – a sustained wind of 82 kt. 82 kt is 94 mph. That’s CAT 1. THAT’S WHAT I WROTE.

The 100kt ESTIMATE from the report is from a dropsonde with UNCERTAIN correction factors – IT WAS NOT MEASURED.

Quoting AGAIN: “It is also important to emphasize that NHC’s intensity analysis uncertainty is about +/- 10%, and the atypical structure of Zeta’s inner core at and prior to landfall also contributed to the uncertainty in this case.” That means their estimate is a CAT 2 to Cat 3.

The report says they’re uncertain but you say “definitely”? LIAR.

Remember what I told you, BadWaxJob. By telling whoppers, just like this one, you destroyed your credibility. So, if you happen to stumble upon the truth, it’s unlikely that anyone is going to believe you. That’s why I checked up on your claim, because you’re untrustworthy.

Let’s summarize: you lied again.

bdgwx
Reply to  meab
April 15, 2022 1:04 pm

meab said: “Do you even read the stuff you post, BadWaxJob?”

Yes. I read the stuff that I post. That’s why I know Hurricane Zeta was category 3. It literally says it in the official report.

Zeta rapidly intensified into a category 3 hurricane just before landfall in southeastern Louisiana.

meab said: “Quoting: “The strongest wind report received from a near-standard height was from the public in Golden Meadow, Louisiana at 2139 UTC – a sustained wind of 82 kt. 82 kt is 94 mph. That’s CAT 1. THAT’S WHAT I WROTE.”

The Saffir-Simpson scale is not based on ground station reports. It is based on maximum sustained winds near the surface anywhere inside the closed circulation of the cyclone. An 82 kt wind at Golden Meadow does not mean the maximum wind was 82 kt. In fact, land stations are rarely used to assess maximum sustained winds since the land surface slows down the wind considerably in the vicinity of the station due to friction. For that reason they are considered poor data points for estimating maximum sustained winds.

meab said: “The 100kt ESTIMATE from the report is from a dropsonde with UNCERTAIN correction factors”

That is not correct. The official report describes two dropsondes. One at 1840Z and one at 2042Z. The one at 1840Z measured 110 kts at 150m while the one 2042Z measured 971mb at 11 kts of wind. The 100 kt measurement came primarily from the WSR-88D observations between 2030Z and 2100Z. Peak intensity was observed at 2042Z of 133 kts at 8500 ft which typically corresponds to 110 kts at the surface. A further 10 kts was reduced in this particular case due to the atypical vertical profile of the cyclone yielding the 100 kt estimate.

meab said: “– IT WAS NOT MEASURED.”

Yes it was. That 100 kt estimate is based on WSR-88D measurements and corroborated by SFMR, aircraft, dropsonde, and ADT measurements. The report discusses all of these.

meab said: “Quoting AGAIN: “It is also important to emphasize that NHC’s intensity analysis uncertainty is about +/- 10%, and the atypical structure of Zeta’s inner core at and prior to landfall also contributed to the uncertainty in this case.” That means their estimate is a CAT 2 to Cat 3.”

Their assignment is category 3. Literally. It is the sentence right before you the quote. And they do not assign multiple categories at the same time. Category 3 is assigned because 100 kt is the best available estimate.

meab said: “The report says they’re uncertain but you say “definitely”? LIAR.”

I stand by what I said. The official report says it was a category 3 at landfall. Literally.

We can certainly debate that 100 kt estimate and its uncertainty. What we cannot debate is the official assignment of category 3. Of course, based on the available data any reasonable estimate is going to land on 100 kt which is why it appears in the official report for 21Z just like how they do it for all other hurricanes and advisory times.

meab said: “Remember what I told you, BadWaxJob. By telling whoppers, just like this one, you destroyed your credibility.”

You mean like when I tried to explain that the Loracca & Axford 2021 defined 0 ka as being anchored on 1950 like how everyone else in science does it and which you repeatedly argued was false? You mean like that? You can call me a liar all you want. It does not change the fact that 0 ka in that Loracca & Axford 2021 publication is 1950 and Hurricane Zeta was assigned category 3 status. I stand by what I said in both cases whether you accept it or not. And I’m not going to diminish my credibility by misrepresenting Loracca & Axford and the NHC no matter how much you want me to.

meab
Reply to  bdgwx
April 15, 2022 4:09 pm

Once AGAIN, BadWaxJob, you’ve proven yourself to be a lying ignoranus (not misspelled).

  1. The Saffir-Simpson scale is the ONE-MINUTE sustained winds at 10 m height. That’s about 30 feet. It’s in the region where the ground drag slows the wind. You know how I know? I’m a pilot and cross-winds slow down as you descend on approach. The gradient height, the height at which ground drag starts to affect the wind over flat land is about 300m. It’s even higher than that over a city. The actual wind profile on descent is a function of many things that are quite variable.
  2. There has NEVER been a dropsonde that spent a minute at 30 feet. EVER. They are forced to estimate the 10m wind speed from the profile as the dropsonde descends, but that introduces errors. They have calibrated dropsonde measurements against ground-based measurements under some conditions but the report clearly states that hurricane Zeta was atypical so their error is larger than usual.
  3. The dropsonde at 1840 was BEFORE Zeta made landfall. That dropsonde resulted in a 90-95 kt estimate – that’s Category 2.
  4. The 1840 dropsonde corrected for the pressure drop that happened after the dropsonde resulted in a 95kt wind estimate. They made a mistake concluding that the ~5 kt increase caused Zeta to cross the border from Cat 2 to Cat 3. It doesn’t but you fell for that.
  5. Their Cat 3 estimate comes from 700 mbar flight level RADAR estimates corrected for surface drag with a generic correction factor.
  6. The bottom line is that the report concludes that their estimate is uncertain. You said it was “definite”. You lied.
  7. You’re fecklessly trying to get out of the hole you dug for yourself by using weasel words. The conclusions of the paper regarding the comparison of glacier proxy measurements to modern measurements refers to the current time. While 0 ka does refer to 1950, that’s NOT the time that they used in their comparisons.

You’re lying. We all know. You know it too. The big question is “Why are you lying?”

rah
Reply to  meab
April 15, 2022 5:04 pm

You’re lying. We all know. You know it too. The big question is “Why are you lying?”

Because he is not smart enough to know he is in over his head and certainly so lazy that he won’t look up the definition for the very terms he uses.

Perhaps he needs spoon fed. Many of this type do:
Microsoft Word – SSHWS-final-addendum.docx (noaa.gov)

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 categorization based on the hurricane’s intensity at the indicated time. The scale – originally developed by wind engineer Herb Saffir and meteorologist Bob Simpson – has been an excellent tool for alerting the public about the possible impacts of various intensity hurricanes1 . The scale provides examples of the type of damage and impacts in the United States associated with winds of the indicated intensity. In general, damage rises by about a factor of four for every category increase2 . The maximum sustained surface wind speed (peak 1-minute wind at the standard meteorological observation height of 10 m [33 ft] over unobstructed exposure) associated with the cyclone is the determining factor in the scale. (Note that sustained winds can be stronger in hilly or mountainous terrain – such as the over the Appalachians or over much of Puerto Rico – compared with that experienced over flat terrain3 .) The historical examples provided in each of the categories correspond with the observed or estimated maximum wind speeds from the hurricane experienced at the location indicated. These do not necessarily correspond with the peak intensity reached by the system during its lifetime. It is also important to note that peak 1-minute winds in hurricane are believed to diminish by one category within a short distance, perhaps a kilometer [~ half a mile] of the coastline4 .

bdgwx
Reply to  rah
April 15, 2022 7:23 pm

That document, the NHC report, and what I said are all consistent. Note that the document says 96-112 kts is a category 3 hurricane. Hurricane Zeta winds were 100 kts at landfall. It also says “Note: A “major” hurricane is one classified as a Category 3 or higher.” That means Hurricane Zeta was a major hurricane at landfall. Hurricane Laura was the other that occurred in 2020 for a total of 2; not 1.

bdgwx
Reply to  meab
April 15, 2022 7:16 pm

The entirety of your post is deflections, diversions, strawman, or things no one is challenging. And I’m still not lying. Hurricane Zeta is still a major hurricane and there is still 2 major hurricanes that occurred in 2020. That is still fact whether you agree with it or not.

Don’t take any of this the wrong way. I’m not picking on you here. I’m just trying to let the WUWT audience know about an egregious mistake in the article. It is not personal. I don’t want you or anyone else to walk away from their computer angry or frustrated because Hurricane Zeta was the 2nd category 3+ at landfall in 2020.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
April 16, 2022 2:51 am

“I’m just trying to let the WUWT audience know about an egregious mistake in the article.”

Egregious? I don’t think so. Even if one major hurricane was missed by a few mph, and I don’t think you have made your case that it was missed, it’s not what I would describe as “egregious”, i.e, “outstandingly bad, or shocking”.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 16, 2022 6:39 am

TA said: “I don’t think you have made your case that it was missed.”

Let’s take this step by step.

How many major hurricanes does the graphic show for 2020?

Meab
Reply to  bdgwx
April 16, 2022 9:19 am

The trouble for you, Badwaxjob, is that anyone can read the false statements you made and see for themselves that you are a liar. Things like hurricane wind speeds aren’t measured near the ground, two dropsondes after groundfall, Cat 3 from the dropsonde measurements, definitely Cat 3, the current glacier observations refer to 1950, are ALL lies.

You don’t seem to recognize when you’ve been caught in a lie. I don’t say this lightly, because it’s a very serious thing, but you should seek mental health care. The inability to be able to recognize that you’re lying is a hallmark of serious mental health problems like schizophrenia.

bdgwx
Reply to  Meab
April 16, 2022 12:00 pm

meab said: “Things like hurricane wind speeds aren’t measured near the ground”

Strawman. I never said that. What I said is “The Saffir-Simpson scale is not based on ground station reports. It is based on maximum sustained winds near the surface anywhere inside the closed circulation of the cyclone.”.

meab said: ” two dropsondes after groundfall”

Strawman. I never said that. What I said is “The official report describes two dropsondes. One at 1840Z and one at 2042Z. The one at 1840Z measured 110 kts at 150m while the one 2042Z measured 971mb at 11 kts of wind.”

meab said: “Cat 3 from the dropsonde measurements”

Strawman. I never said that. What I said is “The 100 kt measurement came primarily from the WSR-88D observations between 2030Z and 2100Z. Peak intensity was observed at 2042Z of 133 kts at 8500 ft which typically corresponds to 110 kts at the surface. A further 10 kts was reduced in this particular case due to the atypical vertical profile of the cyclone yielding the 100 kt estimate.”

meab said: “the current glacier observations refer to 1950”

Strawman. I never said that. What I said is “the Loracca & Axford 2021 defined 0 ka as being anchored on 1950 like how everyone else in science does it.”

And I continue to standby by my original post in which I said “The graphic shows 1 in 2020, but there were actually two: Laura as a category 4 on Aug 27th and Zeta as a category 3 on October 28th.”

Here is what it will take to convince me that I am mistaken. You need to provide evidence that the official report here of Hurricane Zeta is a forgery or that it was amended after May 10, 2021 with a downgrade to category 2 or lower that I just didn’t see. If you can’t show that then I have no choice but to dismiss your claim that Zeta was a category 1 hurricane at landfall.

Pillage Idiot
April 15, 2022 7:19 am

Hurricane movement is largely controlled by low-level winds and the winds at the surface. (If there are strong high-level winds, then the hurricane is sheared and destroyed.)

Harvey broke the precipitation records when it sat over Houston and didn’t move.

MY physics model says that, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

A lot of windmills existed between the jet stream far to the north of Houston and Hurricane Harvey’s location.

ALL of those windmills extracted energy from the surface winds.

How much did the windmills reduce the surface-steering currents that would have pushed Harvey off of Houston and mitigated the flooding rains?

duane
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
April 15, 2022 9:15 am

Actually it is high pressure systems, how strong they are, and where they are located, that control where a hurricane travels. A hurricane is a low pressure system, and it cannot go where high pressure predominates. Think of high pressure systems as big rocks in a fast moving stream – the stream is forced to go around the rock, and cannot flow through the rock. A small rock, or no rocks, and the stream goes where it wishes, even to outside the river banks.

bdgwx
Reply to  duane
April 15, 2022 9:47 am

It’s complicated. You aren’t wrong. It’s just that high pressure systems are a significant driver of the steering winds. Other things drive the steering winds as well though. The cyclone moves with the mean flow in a layer of the atmosphere. The layer that matters the most starts pretty low around 850 mb or so and increases with height as the intensity of the cyclone increases. This accounts for maybe 90% of the motion. The other 10% is the beta drift effect. Both size and intensity of the cyclone contribute to the beta drift effect.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
April 15, 2022 2:17 pm

CO2 rises and rises and there are not more hurricanes nor are they getting stronger.

bdgwx
Reply to  Derg
April 16, 2022 6:41 am

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that because there are not more hurricanes nor are they getting stronger then that necessarily means they cannot possibly be steered by the mean winds or the beta drift effect?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  duane
April 15, 2022 9:48 am

Yes
The big 2013 flood in calgary was caused by a low trapped against the mountains by a large high pressure further out over the prairies and the jets stream.

Our “1000 year flood”, but then that fall the UofC published a study that said this was only the 5th biggest flood in the Bow River basin in the previous 130 years.
Oops

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
April 15, 2022 9:43 am

High high level winds do cut off the top & IIRC, La Ninas tend to do that & keep storms from driving
up the Gulf. Just asking- We were always told the high pressure systems that would “deflect”
hurricanes to keep their paths further east. Without those highs, they would keep driving forward.
Are those surface winds reducing the intensity of the highs- reducing pressure differential? Or was
that just wrong?

OOPS- Duane posted after my page loaded.

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
MGC
April 15, 2022 7:46 am

Yet another totally dishonest distortion of the data from the liars at WUWT.

The author of this particular screed examines only a few cherry picked snippets of data while disingenuously ignoring the most relevant pieces of data, like the simple dataset referenced below, which clearly demonstrates (sans computer modelling) a decades long increasing trend of extreme precipitation events.

So typical of WUWT, and so disappointing to see, per the comments section, blindly naive readers still falling hook, line, and sinker for WUWT’s pathetically dishonest, routinely lying anti-science nonsense.

Extremes in 1-Day Precipitation, Contiguous U.S. 1910-2021:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/4

DMacKenzie
Reply to  MGC
April 15, 2022 8:03 am

Go to site….pick some other appropriate graph….see it is quite in line with approximately 7% increase per degree of global warming, but who cares if the rainfall is 6.5” instead of 6” when mother nature already varies the rainfall from 2” to 10” ? Factor in the increased number of stations between 1910 and today that would proportionally show “extremes” and your “cherry pick” of the item that is up by 40% is on seriously thin statistical ice….

duane
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 15, 2022 10:23 am

Correct.

Besides, the relationship of “extreme” events from an engineering data perspective is very different from what the warmunists and NOAA try to make it sound.

A storm return period of 100 years is commonly used in the US to define flood elevations for occupied structures, used to determine minimum first floor elevations to avoid any flooding (typically set at 1.0 ft above the water surface elevation from the 100 year event at some specified duration, such as 24 hours to 48 hours). This is the standard used for setting flood insurance rates in the US, and for defining what you can build where such as in a flood plain or along the seacoast.

But as the return period increases, the increase in precipitation does not increase proportionally but at a negative logarithmic rate.

So for MIami, for instance, the 100 year 24 hour storm produces a total of 14.4 inches of precipitation. But the 200 year event at the same duration produces only 16.7 inches of precip – a 16% increase though the probability was cut in half. The 500 year storm produces only 20 inches of precip – a mere 39% increase over the 100 year storm, despite the probability in any given year being reduced by 4/5ths.

For engineering purposes – the stuff that actually matters to people – it takes something less probable than a 100 year event to be considered “extreme”, even though the actual impact of such “extreme” events is not really that much, all things considered. If your house was built to a 100 year standard, but if you are really unlucky and get hit with the 200 year storm in your watershed, you may get a few inches of floodwater on your first floor, which is certainly an expensive inconvenience but not life threatening … it’s not like getting hit with a tsunami that carries your house and your family away as the warmunists threaten us.

duane
Reply to  duane
April 15, 2022 10:30 am

Also – the smaller the watershed the higher the extreme precipitation because all parts of the watershed contribute to its outflow with a shorter duration, with watersheds of only a few acres having much larger 100 year and 500 year storm precip than large watersheds of tens or hundreds of square miles, where it takes a lot longer for all parts of the watershed to contribute to flow.

So for instance in the Houston hurricane last decade that produced reports of really high precipitation – upwards of 30+ inches – those were measured only in extremely limited areas. Across the entire watershed that includes Houston, the average of all precip stations reporting was far lower, not much worse than a more typical hurricane would produce. So a small number of homeowners got flooded very badly, but most Houston area homeowners did not.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  duane
April 15, 2022 10:44 am

As you say, the 200 year is usually only 10% more than the 100yr. And then a good engineer will add a foot or more to the height of the berm. The real problem is that someone uphill diverts floodwater into your design catchment area, maybe 30 years later, and nobody checks…result…disaster that the local inept planning commission blames on CC…..

jeffery p
Reply to  MGC
April 15, 2022 8:17 am

This article by Mr. Burnett is about fraudulent claims based on speculative computer models. When we want to talk about fraudulent claims from the NOAA, please post your response again.

HOyt Clagwell
Reply to  MGC
April 15, 2022 9:20 am

“…which clearly demonstrates (sans computer modelling) a decades long increasing trend of extreme precipitation events.”

Look more closely MGC. That graph shows a decades long decreasing trend in precipitation from 1910 to 1960. Wasn’t global warming happening then? Please explain.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  HOyt Clagwell
April 15, 2022 10:16 am

I used to see a high-precipitation line graph of large precipitation events (may have been
multi-day, __” minimum). It looked like a reverse check-mark bottoming in ’61. In 1915,
it was ~15% higher than a century later. Have you ever seen that particular graph?
Thanks

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
bigoilbob
Reply to  HOyt Clagwell
April 15, 2022 10:24 am

Wasn’t global warming happening then? “

Relatively little, compared to, say 1980-present. This is why MGC’s data shows a 1910-1960 trend of ~ -0.16%/year. But during the period of real increase in atmospheric [CO2], previously referenced, the trend turned around, increasing by ~0.47%/year.

Both trends are fairly durable. The chance of the 1910-1960 trend being positive is ~0.64%. But the chance of the 1980-present trend being negative is ~ 0.00013%.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 15, 2022 10:43 am

IIRC, the periods were 1910-1941 warming; 1941-1978 cooling; 1978- ? warming
The periods are: falling, falling/rising, rising. To me, there’s no correlation between
warming, cooling & precipitation events.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 15, 2022 11:02 am

I responded to HOyt Clagwell, who referenced the 1910-1960 period. The undeniable correlation is between AGW cumulative forcings and the extreme(s) trend(s).

FYI, the data trends from your first 2 periods are statistically insignificant. In particular, the period from 1941-1978 shows a drop of ~0.059%/year, but the chance that is actually increasing is nearly 24%.

Your 1979-present trend is about the same as the 1980-present trend that I previously referenced. Both in it’s magnitude and in it’s relatively robust statistical durability.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2022 3:30 am

Cumulative forcings 😉

duane
Reply to  MGC
April 15, 2022 9:28 am

Jesus you’re dense as well as obnoxious. You are the absolute last person in the world to be complaining about “anti-science nonsense” when that is explicitly what you are spouting in your comment here.

The graph you linked to is based upon an entirely made up “climate extreme index” that consists of a whole bunch of entirely unrelated data sets, including so called “extreme” – by the way that’s an extremely prejudicial term that does NOT agree with standard weather data nomenclature, using “much below normal” and “much above normal” – both of which are undefined mush – bullshit – terms. “Normal” is not a scientific term because every weather event and data point ever experienced on this planet is normal for this planet. Statistically speaking, real science is based upon things like mean and median values, standard deviations, and various kinds of statistical distribution depending upon what is being measured, and ALWAYS ASSUMES ONE IS DEALING WITH THE SAME UNDERLYING POPULATION. If one is combining so-called “extreme temperatures” (both higher than “normal” and lower than “normal”) with extreme precipitation, you can only do that in a made up bullshit “index” as NOAA clearly did in your linked figure..

Here’s the thing – anytime anyone creates what they call an “index” it means they are talking bullshit. An “index” is what you do when you attempt to mash together data from UNLIKE POPULATIONS and then pretend you are dealing with statistics, which you are not.

Like the old “misery index” that was used by politicians back in 1980 to combine the inflation rate with the unemployment rate. Sounds great as a political soundbite, but it was always meaningless, because it attempted to combine UNALIKE UNDERLYING POPULATIONS.

By the way, to hydrologists, the only “extreme” weather events have much longer return periods than the 100 year storm event (i.e., a 1% chance of occurring in any year), typically using the 500 year return period to define “extremes”. Whereas your bullshit NOAA analysis considers any event with a 20% chance of occurring – the upper 10th percentile plus the lower 10th percentile – as “extreme”, WHICH IS UTTER NONSENSE. In virtually all scientific and engineering analyses the representative statistic is taken as the one that has a 95% confidence level that the stat represents the underlying population. I have never seen anything other than a bullshit warmunist mish mash claim that the 80% confidence level represents reality.

Talk about moving the goalposts to get the desired bullshit answer they wanted to produce!

Last edited 1 month ago by duane
bigoilbob
Reply to  duane
April 15, 2022 10:26 am

Your definition of “extreme” might conveniently differ. But the increased modern trend(s) would show up no matter how hard you tried to bias the data.

Mr.
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 15, 2022 2:10 pm

OK, let’s start applying a veneer of nuance to what “extreme” means in the context of weather events.

I reckon there need to be additional classifications as follows –

  1. very slightly extreme
  2. a bit more extreme
  3. noticeably extreme now
  4. time to worry extreme
  5. where’s my car keys extreme
  6. we’re all gonna die extreme
bigoilbob
Reply to  Mr.
April 15, 2022 9:19 pm

Why “classify” data that has already been quantified? Feel free to goal post move with a hearty “BFD!”. But the trends are both disturbing and immutable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2022 3:13 am

“immutable”

That’s funny.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 16, 2022 4:19 am

Look it up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 17, 2022 4:47 am

I did. That’s why I laughed.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 17, 2022 5:37 am

Pray elucidate. The fata is indeed immutable.

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2022 4:41 am

We are all gonna die it’s immutable .. oh well party time.

See that is the problem with you CAGW mob even if anyone believes you there is no plan out in our lifetime.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
bigoilbob
Reply to  LdB
April 17, 2022 5:39 am

We are all gonna die it’s immutable .. oh well party time.”

Channeling the line of thought, “Almost everyone who’s ever lved has died. So, why in the world do we have those burdensome regulations on murder?”

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 16, 2022 3:31 am

extreme 😉

Meab
Reply to  MGC
April 15, 2022 9:32 am

Are you the same MGC who used to post lies on Yahoo! (before Yahoo terminated comments because they were getting too many comments that challenged their false narrative)? The same idiot who posted that global warming would cause fresh water to become a scarce resource followed almost immediately by a post that claimed global warming would cause us to be inundated with rain? That idiot?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Meab
April 15, 2022 9:51 am

I think you answered your own question.

Mark BLR
Reply to  MGC
April 16, 2022 3:20 am

The author of this particular screed examines only a few cherry picked snippets of data while disingenuously ignoring the most relevant pieces of data, like …

How about comparing CONUS temperatures — because “climate change” = “an increase in average temperatures” — against your “extreme precipitation” numbers on decadal timescales ?

NB : ClimDiv temperature data for CONUS available from the following link.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/ann/12

Yes, there is a good correlation from (roughly) 1962 to “now” (annualised data is available to 2021).

Before 1962 though ? … Not so much …

CONUS_Temps-v-Precip_1912-2021.png
Kip Hansen(@kiphansen2)
Editor
April 15, 2022 7:48 am

The author’s already know that Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) is absurd and non-physical (meaning not possible in the real world). ANY model run using it is just “wrong”. Who said so? Gavin Schmidt.

John Garrett
April 15, 2022 8:28 am

The ignorance of the general population on the subject of “climate change” is terrifying.

They are being fed a steady, daily diet of information that is intentionally and deliberately inaccurate. The malefactors of the climate propaganda span a range from gullible fools who are paid to regurgitate misinformation to cynical latent authoritarians who have infiltrated and hijacked the institutions society has charged with the advance and increase of knowledge.

2hotel9
April 15, 2022 9:19 am

So, they just made up a bunch of crap and published it. Nothing even closely related to reality. Par for the course.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  2hotel9
April 16, 2022 3:16 am

Yes, this is standard alarmist propaganda: Presenting fantasy as reality.

fretslider
April 15, 2022 9:49 am

It’s total bolleaux

Or should that be modelled bolleaux?

Yes it should.

Andy Pattullo
April 15, 2022 10:32 am

Hurricanes may not be getter wetter, but the undies of climate attribution wing-nuts are literally saturated. There is something about being able to create the outcome you seek without actually doing any science that ruins perfectly good sphincters.

rah
April 15, 2022 11:48 am

Well Mikey is at it again. This time in political punditry:
Michael Mann Says Democrats Are Winning | Real Climate Science

ih_fan
Reply to  rah
April 15, 2022 1:43 pm

Mickey McMann sure knows how to cherry pick data, doesn’t he?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

rah
Reply to  ih_fan
April 15, 2022 3:06 pm

He’s an expert on everything from Polar Bears to Politics to hurricanes. A Legend in his own mind.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ih_fan
April 16, 2022 3:29 am

“Mickey McMann sure knows how to cherry pick data, doesn’t he?”

Yes, he does! He has a lot of experience at it.

I wonder if Mann really believes the Democrats are ahead, or is he just promoting another hoax, like the Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change hoax he has been promoting for years?

See you in November, Mike.

Too bad we can’t settle the climate change hoax as easily.

Chris Nisbet
April 15, 2022 2:39 pm

Here in NZ our MSM continually tells us that extreme weather is more likely and will be more damaging, and they seem to have an endless supply of experts to assure is it’s true.
They never bother to show us any data to accompany the stories, and there doesn’t seem to be even a single scientist who disagrees with these declarations. They certainly don’t make it into these stories.
Your average trusting citizen listening to this could be forgiven for thinking extreme weather is getting worse.

How can we get to a place where decent science wins out over this situation where models apparently show us more than actual data? Do we have to convince Elon Musk to buy all the institutions that publish science papers?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
April 16, 2022 3:47 am

“Your average trusting citizen listening to this could be forgiven for thinking extreme weather is getting worse.”

Definitely.

Ninety percent or more of our worldwide Media is caught up in promoting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative/hoax. They have a vested interest in it being true if only because they themselves have been promoting the idea and would look pretty stupid when the curtain is drawn back. So they push it as hard as they can.

They blow up every weather event all out of proportion and give it a human cause. They literally have no evidence CO2 is doing anything they claim it is doing to the atmosphere that would be harmful to humans, yet they declare these things are happening, and your average citizen is going to have a hard time sorting all this out.

I have a hard time sorting all this out sometimes, too. That’s why I come to WUWT because invariably the subject will come up and there will be one or more knowledgeable people who will explain all the nuances, which, so far, all end up showing there is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life.

We are living in a Perfect Storm of Human-caused Climate Change propaganda. All of Society’s voices of authority are promoting this climate change meme, for one reason or another. It’s a study in human brainwashing.

To all the Voices of Authority: There is NO evidence that CO2 is harmful to humans or the Earth. If you think there is, you have been fooled and are living in a false reality, and you are leading the people who depend on you down the Road to Ruin with your efforts to control a CO2 climate crisis that does not exist.

We need about a decade of cooling to snap these alarmist people out of their climate change delusion. That may be the only thing that will break the Spell.

Mike Maguire
April 15, 2022 6:22 pm

Tribalism on issues, including science like this is continuing to get greater and greater weighting and critical thinking gets less and less weighting.

One side greatly exaggerates things that are really happening related to climate change/global warming, sometimes by a factor of 3 or 4+ and the other side’s response, SOMETIMES is to say it’s not happening at all.

I’ve been an operational meteorologist for more than 40 years and the laws of physics/meteorology have NOT changed related to this topic.
Warmer air CAN hold more moisture…..around 7% more H2O per 1 deg C.
Air masses over warmer water hold more moisture/have more precipitable water. Weather systems, whether hurricanes or otherwise in warmer environments, all other variables held constant, except for the ability for the air to hold more moisture(with direct access/tapping the moisture)……….will produce more rain.

This may not always be true in land areas distant from oceans (where the dew point depression-difference between the air temp and dp temp matters more) but it sure is over an ocean with an indisputable direct causation of hurricanes yielding higher rainfall amounts because of a warmer ocean/air temp above.

Hurricanes are warm core storms over water of at least 26C/79F. A saturated lapse rate insures latent heat will be released at a maximum rate. The heat hurricanes generate is from the condensation of water vapor as it convectively rises around the eye wall. The lapse rate must be unstable around the eyewall to insure rising parcels of air will continue to rise and condense water vapor. The warmer the ocean temperature and environment in the hurricane is…….the more moisture can be condensed out……….all other factors held constant.

Not an opinion. That is the meteorology/physics.

Also, the reduction of the meridional temperature gradient plays a complicated role here too outside of this.
Warming the higher latitudes actually reduces the need of the planet to exhaust excessive heat in the tropics compared to the cooler temperatures at higher latitudes.
It can also weaken jet streams that form along those gradients. This in turn can lead to changes in the favor-ability of the environment (less sheer) and potentially slow down the movement along a hurricanes track.
That one is more complicated but the causation contribution from warmer oceans/warmer air in hurricanes to heavier rains is crystal clear.

Also, with the higher latitudes warming MUCH more than the lower latitudes, the amount of increase in temperatures in the tropics is LESS THAN 1 deg C, meaning that the extra moisture available in a saturated parcel is LESS THAN 7%.

I found this animation to depict it nicely:
https://brilliantmaps.com/global-warming-latitudes/

So the 2020 hurricanes, that had to abide by these rock solid laws of physics and meteorology MUST HAVE had more rain than they would have compared to if the oceans were cooler, all other variables being equal.

The question is “how much more?”

The actual report states this:
Human-caused climate change made the entire season — 30 named storms — drop 5-8% more rain. During the 14 storms that reached hurricane status the rainfall was 8-11% heavier, according to the study in Tuesday’s Nature Communications.

The media, greatly embellished with the descriptive verbiage and significance.
CNN, for instance, reported this story(link in the article above) using this for their title:
The climate crisis is supercharging rainfall in hurricanes, scientists report
5% more rain actually seems very reasonable to me. That would mean 30 inches of rain before global warming would result in 31.5 inches of rain after global warming.
11% seems pretty high but that would be 33.3 inches of rain instead of 30 inches.

However, the way to address BS/exaggerations of science in a story to one extreme is not to BS in the opposite direction in an attempt to make them look more wrong.

Just state the true science and agree with what it supports and call them out on the unsupported exaggerating.

This is the correct way to apply authentic science, without letting politics or cognitive bias get in the way.

Heavier rains, actually are one of the few negatives associated with the current climate optimum, from the increase in beneficial CO2 in which climate science was hijacked and even climate history was rewritten to get rid of previous, similar warmings in the past.

There are dozens of anti science, DISinformation narratives related to the FAKE climate crisis on the greening planet.
Many are completely manufactured, many are greatly exaggerated but some are actually close to being true. This study is closer to being true than not, even if CNN and other sources tried to make it scarier and worse.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 16, 2022 4:10 am

https://www.seatemperatu.re/seas-and-oceans/gulf-of-mexico/

Today’s Gulf of Mexico water temperatures:

Cuba’s water temperature is 79F to 81F

United States Gulf water temperature is 68F to 74F

Florida’s water temperature is 68F to 77F

Louisiana’s gulf water temperaure is 70F

Mexico’s Gulf water temperature is 72F to 81F

end except

What I’m wondering is how does CO2 cause such divergent temperatures in the ocean?

Are Gulf of Mexico temperatures any higher today than in the past? I have seen the Hockey Stick version, but of course, I don’t believe the Hockey Stick version. I think temperatures were just as warm in the recent past as they are today, going by unmodified regional temperature charts, and in the Gulf of Mexico the temperatures can vary quite a bit from one location to another during hurricane season, so I don’t see CO2 driving anything when it comes to hurricanes.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 17, 2022 11:29 am

Temperatures in the oceans have been very slowly increasing by all objective measures.
Taking a snap shot of current temperature readings in the GOM shows natural variation at this point in time(April 2022)………..nothing more than that.
If you are trying to say that there’s a 9 deg F difference in the water temperature in the GOM at this moment and CO2 didn’t cause it then………..OK, of course it didn’t cause it. So what?

Natural variation and chaos still vastly dominates weather and oceans have natural cycles that change much slower and last MUCH longer than weather.

But we are superimposing X amount of warming on the entire system because of greenhouse gas(and other warming).

The article relates to that added warmth in the system(especially the oceans, which retain almost all the heat).

Hurricanes will still form in chaotic fashion based on natural variability/factors but when you add X amount of additional warmth to the system, the result is more rains overall(from the average) when you keep all the other variables constant.

You don’t even need to agree that the extra heat came from CO2 but if you disagree with the above………you are going completely against basic meteorological principles rooted in proven physics/science.

Tom Abbott
April 16, 2022 2:37 am

From the article: “Basing claims of past and future hurricane rainfall amounts on computer models which don’t even accurately replicate past or present temperatures or temperature trends, the most basic projection they make, is foolish. Compounding that error by using a climate scenario that is actually impossible, is even worse. Neither factor should have instilled enough confidence in mainstream media outlets to tout the alarming rainfall claims made in this single Nature Communications study, absent outside verification.”

I don’t think main stream media outlets do any fact checking when it comes to climate change alarmism. If they are given a story like this one, they run with it as fast as they can, no fact checking required. They just rely on the fact that it was published in Nature Communications. For climate change propagandists, that’s good enough. That gives them what they need to continue to lie to people and scare them about CO2 and the Earth’s climate.

Derg
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 16, 2022 3:34 am

This ^

April 16, 2022 10:40 am

Incidence of major hurricanes landfalling on the US has random noise being a big factor because the number of these storms is small. Note that 2006-2016 had an exceptional 11 year lack of major hurricanes landfalling the US, while landfalling major hurricanes account for only a small minority of rainfall from tropical cyclones in the US. The 24 hour rainfall record for anywhere in the US was set in 1979 by Claudette, which was only a tropical storm. Meanwhile, warming of the waters that these storms feed on increases the amount of water vapor that these storms have to work with, although by a somewhat smaller percentage than the percentage increases claimed by this study to have happened.

David Walker
April 16, 2022 11:49 am

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.

~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)

Last edited 1 month ago by David Walker
%d bloggers like this: