Essay by Eric Worrall
Aussie researchers believe cyclone intensity may be rising, though their study was “too coarse” to address this question.
Global decrease in tropical cyclones identified by Australian scientists
ABC Weather / By Ben Deacon
Tropical cyclones are occurring less frequently around the world due to climate change, Australian scientists have found.
Key points:
- Researchers constructed a history of tropical cyclones around the world back to the 1850s
- They say cyclones are becoming more intense due to climate change
- Australia is experiencing about 11 per cent fewer cyclones compared to the 19th century
The team led by Savin Chand from Federation University discovered tropical cyclones were happening about 13 per cent less frequently than in the pre-industrial period.
“We have consistently found that cyclone numbers are going down around the world,” Dr Chand said.
However, the authors said their study only looked at the frequency of tropical cyclones, not their intensity, which they said was increasing due to climate change.
“As the atmosphere warms, tropical cyclones forming have more fuel for their severity,” Dr Chand said.
“Even though cyclones will get fewer, they will get more intense.”
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-28/cyclone-frequency-decline-worldwide-climate-change/101189558
The abstract of the study;
Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming
Savin S. Chand, Kevin J. E. Walsh, Suzana J. Camargo, James P. Kossin, Kevin J. Tory, Michael F. Wehner, Johnny C. L. Chan, Philip J. Klotzbach, Andrew J. Dowdy, Samuel S. Bell, Hamish A. Ramsay & Hiroyuki Murakami
Abstract
Assessing the role of anthropogenic warming from temporally inhomogeneous historical data in the presence of large natural variability is difficult and has caused conflicting conclusions on detection and attribution of tropical cyclone (TC) trends. Here, using a reconstructed long-term proxy of annual TC numbers together with high-resolution climate model experiments, we show robust declining trends in the annual number of TCs at global and regional scales during the twentieth century. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CR) dataset is used for reconstruction because, compared with other reanalyses, it assimilates only sea-level pressure fields rather than utilize all available observations in the troposphere, making it less sensitive to temporal inhomogeneities in the observations. It can also capture TC signatures from the pre-satellite era reasonably well. The declining trends found are consistent with the twentieth century weakening of the Hadley and Walker circulations, which make conditions for TC formation less favourable.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4
On cyclone intensity;
… The 20CR results and the high-resolution climate model results presented here show clear downward trends in global and regional TC numbers between the pre-industrial and the more recent climate period. The downward trend remains robust after accounting for the effects of natural climate variability and aerosol effects for the North Atlantic and basin-specific biases in the 20CR data. It is hypothesized that these changes are probably due to the twentieth century weakening of the major tropical circulations, which creates more hostile conditions for TC formation. These findings provide new insights that can inform our confidence in future projections of fewer TC numbers associated with greenhouse warming12. While the resolutions of the current reanalysis products are too coarse to make conclusions about TC intensity, general consensus from observationally based records suggest an increase in the proportion of severe storms with anthropogenic-induced warming2. Going forward, it is anticipated that continued improvement in reanalysis and climate model products and in observational datasets can help identify attributable anthropogenic climate change signals on metrics such as TC intensity and landfalling activities. …
Read more: Same link as above
The abstract of the reference 2 study on rising storm intensity;
Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I: Detection and Attribution
Thomas Knutson1, Suzana J. Camargo2, Johnny C. L. Chan3, Kerry Emanuel4, Chang-Hoi Ho5, James Kossin6, Mrutyunjay Mohapatra7, Masaki Satoh8, Masato Sugi9, Kevin Walsh10, and Liguang Wu11
Abstract
An assessment was made of whether detectable changes in tropical cyclone (TC) activity are identifiable in observations and whether any changes can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Overall, historical data suggest detectable TC activity changes in some regions associated with TC track changes, while data quality and quantity issues create greater challenges for analyses based on TC intensity and frequency. A number of specific published conclusions (case studies) about possible detectable anthropogenic influence on TCs were assessed using the conventional approach of preferentially avoiding type I errors (i.e., overstating anthropogenic influence or detection). We conclude there is at least low to medium confidence that the observed poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the western North Pacific is detectable, or highly unusual compared to expected natural variability. Opinion on the author team was divided on whether any observed TC changes demonstrate discernible anthropogenic influence, or whether any other observed changes represent detectable changes. The issue was then reframed by assessing evidence for detectable anthropogenic influence while seeking to reduce the chance of type II errors (i.e., missing or understating anthropogenic influence or detection). For this purpose, we used a much weaker “balance of evidence” criterion for assessment. This leads to a number of more speculative TC detection and/or attribution statements, which we recognize have substantial potential for being false alarms (i.e., overstating anthropogenic influence or detection) but which may be useful for risk assessment. Several examples of these alternative statements, derived using this approach, are presented in the report.
Read more: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/10/bams-d-18-0189.1.xml
“Medium confidence” of increased cyclone intensity might not mean what you think it means. The IPCC vaguely defines medium confidence to mean 33-66% probability, as likely as not, though the wording of the definition is a little ambiguous. A much clearer definition of the term “medium confidence” was the subject of climategate email 0967041809.txt, in which Climate Scientist Stephen Schneider advanced the term “Medium Confidence” as a direct replacement for the term “Inconclusive”.
From: Stephen H Schneider <redacted> To: redacted Subject: Re: THC collapse Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Thomas Stocker <redacted>, Jerry Meehl <redacted>, Timothy Carter <redacted>, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, redacted, "Stouffer, Ron" <redacted>, redacted Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way, "possible" still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK--but "quite possible" conveys medium confidence better--but then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 redacted wrote: > > > Steve, I agree with your assesement of inconclusive --- quite possible is > much better and we use 'possible' in the US National Assessment. Surveys > has shown that the term 'possible' is interpreted in this range by the > public. > > Tom > > > > > Stephen H Schneider <redacted> on 08/23/2000 03:02:33 AM > > > > To: Thomas Stocker <redacted> > > cc: Jerry Meehl <redacted>, Timothy Carter > <redacted>, redacted, > redacted, redacted, > redacted, redacted, > Tom Karl/NCDC, redacted, > redacted, redacted, > "Stouffer, Ron" <redacted> > > > > Subject: Re: THC collapse > > > > > > > > > > Hello all. I appreciate the improvement in the table from WG 1, > particularly the inclusion of symmetrical confidence levels--but please > get rid of the ridiculous "inconclusive" for the .34 to .66 subjective > probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay > persons--read decisionmakers--since that probability range represents > medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like "quite > possible" is closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well > to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be > misinterpreted on the outside. I also appreciate the addition of > increasing huricane intensities with warming moving out of the catch all > less than .66 category it was in the SOD. > I do have some concerns with the THC issue as dealt with here--echoing > the comments of Tim Carter and Thomas Stocker. I fully agree that the > likelihood of a complete collapse in the THC by 2100 is very remote, but > to leave it at that is very misleading to policymakers given than there is > both empirical and modeling evidence that such events can be triggered by > phenomena in one century, but the occurrence of the event may be delayed > a century or two more. Given also that the likelihood of a collapse > depends on several uncertain parameters--CO2 stabilization level, CO2 > buildup rate, climate sensitivity, hydrological sensitivity and initial > THC overturning rates, it is inconceivable to me that we could be 99% sure > of anything--implied by the "exceptionally unlikely" label--given the > plausibility of an unhappy combo of climate sensitivity, slower than > current A/OGCMs initial THC strength and more rapid CO2 increase > scenarios. Also, if 21st century actions could trigger 22nd century > irreversible consequences, it would be irresponsible of us to not mention > this possibility in a footnote at least, and not to simply let the matter > rest with a very low likelihood of a collapse wholly within the 21st > century. So my view is to add a footnote to this effect and be sure to > convey the many paramenters that are uncertain which determine the > likelihood of this event. > Thanks again for the good work on this improtant table. Cheers, Steve > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Thomas Stocker wrote: > > > DEar Jerry, Tim and Ron et al > > > > I agree that an abrupt collapse - abrupt meaning within less than a > decade, say > > - has not been simulated by any climate model (3D and intermediate > complexity) > > in response to increasing CO2. Some models do show for longer > integrations a > > complete collapse that occurs within about 100-150 years. If you put that > into > > context of the apparent stability of THC during the last 10,000 years or > so, > > this is pretty "abrupt". > > > > Following up on the discussion regarding THC collapse, I think the > statement Ron > > apparently added to Ch9 needs to be made more specific. In order to keep > Ch7 and > > Ch9 consistent, I propose to Ron the following revision: > > > > "It seems that the likelihood of a collapse of the THC by year 2100 is > less > > than previously thought in the SAR based on the AOGCM results to date." > > > > There is really no model basis to extend this statement beyond 2100 as > evidenced > > by the figures that we show in TAR. There are many models that now run up > to > > 2060, some up to 2100, but very few longer. > > > > Also I should add for your information, that we add to Ch7 a sentence: > > > > "Models with reduced THC appear to be more susceptible for a > > shutdown." > > > > Models indicate that the THC becomes more susceptible to collapse if > previously > > reduced (GFDL results by Tziperman, Science 97 and JPO 99). This is > important as > > "collapse unlikely by 2100" should not tempt people to conclude that THC > > collapse is hence not an issue. The contrary is true: reduction means > > destabilisation. > > > > Best regards > > > > thomas > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Thomas Stocker > > Climate and Environmental Physics redacted > > Physics Institute, University of Bern phone: redacted > > Sidlerstrasse 5 NEW fax: redacted > > 3012 Bern, Switzerland http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------ > Stephen H. Schneider > Dept. of Biological Sciences > Stanford University > Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. > > Tel: redacted > Fax: redacted > redacted > > > > > ------ Stephen H. Schneider Dept. of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. Tel: redacted Fax: redacted redacted
And of course, there is the obvious question; If conditions are less favourable to cyclone formation, why do the storms which do form have to be more intense? Wouldn’t climatically unfavourable conditions tend to retard the formation and peak intensity of those cyclones which do appear? Why not a rise in crop friendly low to moderate intensity rainfall events?
The thermodynamic and atmospheric water cycle books must balance, but there seems no compelling reason to assume that balance has to come in the form of a rise in world wrecking extreme weather events.
This is one of those studies that has been done multiple times, and each time the same conclusion. They are not increasing in either number or intensity. https://phzoe.com/2021/05/21/atlantic-hurricanes-trend/
Oh yeah, that’s a good one. Thank you! This one is global:
http://phzoe.com/2021/06/19/global-hurricane-hours/
Climate Change caused storm levels to stay the same ! Send more money!
Dodgy, you don’t seem to understand that it is because of all the money spent on climate change that things are ok or getting better. Had we not spent it, we would have been blown of the planet by now, or broiled.
I get it: Invent a catastrophic event, get money, claim the problem is solved, get a Nobel (money), rinse repeat
No wonder I’ll never be a climate scientist, I have integrity
Since tropic region temperatures are near constant and sub-tropics have apparently warned up a bit, temperature differential has gone down so it should the intensity of the storms generated.
Also, tropical cyclones are driven by vertical temperature differences. If the mid-to-upper troposphere heats more than the surface then there is less potential driving force for a hurricane to exploit.
I agree with both of you.
I would also like their model to determine the change in winds aloft due to “global warming”, AND how they determined the controlling factors.
Because if there is significant wind shear at the top of the hurricane, then there are no hurricanes greater than Cat 2.
No, that’s NOT how barotropic cyclones work. You are confusing them with baroclinic cyclones which DO work off thermal gradients & jet stream divergence to create & energize them.
That “study” is nonsense
Hurrican detection has greatly improved in the satellite age since the 1970s
Post 1970 count comparison with pre-1970s counts are irrelevant.
Agreed, but wasn’t it more like the 1980s before full weather satellite coverage was in place?
Dang, and they can’t hide this one in the deep oceans like other temperature issues.
Study one thing (cyclone frequency) and predict something else (cyclone intensity). OK, I studied Geology but I am prepared to offer Gynocology examinations (certain restrictions apply). I hope my wife doesn’t see this.
Did the Earth move for you, too?…
I’m neither a geologist nor a gynaecologist but I have dug around in a few crevices in my time
“If conditions are less favourable to cyclone formation, why do the storms which do form have to be more intense?”
Water temperature is directly related to intensity for tropical systems. Factors that would inhibit formation in the presence of very warm water are wind sheer, pressure aloft and dry air in the vacinity. If the atmospheric regulators are suppressing formation, the water will continue to warm. When the atmospheric conditions finally turn favorable to formation, the system will be over warmer waters than there would have been had there been more systems previously transferring the heat out of the waters.
Probably not very well explained but I hope you get my drift.
Yeah sorry but not so simple as that. Like all violent weather, it is temperature DIFFERENTIALS, as in sea surface vs. upper atmosphere, that make storms ‘more intense.’
And based on all their CO2 is what done it bullshit the upper atmosphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface, I seem to recall…
I recall about 5 years ago a storm approaching the Carolinas and they were whipping themselves into a froth about how the storm was going to pass into warmer waters that were supposedly going to intensify it as it made landfall.
Instead, it fizzled as it entered the warmer waters and hit the coast.
What do you think they said about THAT?! Nothing – crickets.
Did you even read past the first line I wrote?
“However, the authors said their study only looked at the frequency of tropical cyclones, not their intensity, which they said was increasing due to climate change“.
If their study did not look at intensity they have no business making that claim
True – but they have to get the work published somehow.
Typical ignorant reasoning by more dreary warmunists. The heat from any “global warming” such as it is (and it is negligible) does not come from the atmosphere, but from the oceans. The atmosphere traps or stores no energy – the atmosphere merely conveys absorbed and released oceanic heat energy from the tropics to the poles. Tropical cyclones are merely an effect of energy transference.
Oceans can store and cause the transport of solar energy at thousands of times the energy storage rate of the atmosphere.
1) Oceans cover 70% of the world’s surface.
2) The mass of the world’s oceans is 1.4 x 10 to the 21st kg, while the mass of the world’s atmosphere is 5.15 x 10 to the 18th. The oceans are 272 times more massive than the atmosphere
3) The specific heat content of seawater is 4,184 J/kg deg C, while the specific heat content of air is 740 J/kg deg C. Meaning the oceans absorb more than 5.6 times as much energy per one deg C of temperature change per kg.
Given the above, oceans absorb and store 1,537 times as much solar energy as the atmosphere for every degree of temperature change.
The land surface also stores far more heat than the atmosphere. The specific heat of land varies from 2,000 J/kg deg C for rock to 1,500 for wet sand to 830 for vegetated or dry land surfaces – call it 1,200 on average. The mass of the land surface is indeterminate, but if limited to the upper 100 m depth below surface, the land area is 5.1 x 10 to the 14th square meters x 0.3 = 1.53 x 10 to the 14th square meters. To 100 m depth, the volume of the land surface layer is 1.53 x 10 to the 16th square meters. The density of rock is 1,700 kg/cubic meter. So the mass of the surface layer to 100 m depth is 2.6 x 10 to the 19th kg.
That comes to a result where the land surface stores of heat stored by the land surface as compared to the atmosphere is 8 times as much. That is in addition to the heat stored in the oceans.
It’s the oceans, mostly, with some capacity added by land heat storage, that completely overwhelms the ability of the atmosphere to retain and transfer solar heat energy – by a factor of well more than 1,500 to 1.
The oceans are what heat or cool the atmosphere, not the other way around.
DuhWayne,
It’s true that the oceans store far more heat than the atmosphere and thus lag the atmosphere in warming. That’s why the oceans keep the atmosphere cool in the summer and keep the atmosphere warmer in the winter. A marine climate has less extreme temperatures in both winter and summer than an inland climate.
Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that the “climate crisis” is a scam, but the rest of your post is pure bunk. Without the atmosphere, the land and ocean would radiate their heat to space unimpeded. Ever used a “space blanket”? It’s an extremely thin piece of aluminized mylar that weighs almost nothing and has no heat capacity. It works (and works very well) by both reducing convection (air can’t freely circulate through the mylar) and by reducing radiative heat transfer from your body to the cold environment (that’s why it’s aluminized). The atmosphere also reduces the rate that the earth loses energy to space, thus keeping the planet warmer. It does so by greenhouse gasses absorbing a portion of the radiation and reemitting half of it back to the surface. Water vapor is, by far, the largest contributor.
Where climate alarmists go wrong is not with the greenhouse effectiveness of CO2, that’s well known. A doubling of CO2 from the current concentration (415 to 830 ppm) would add just over one degree C. That’s so small that without precise thermometers it would never be known. The alarmists assume that there will be nonlinear effects that will cause more water vapor causing the greenhouse contribution of water vapor to go up. That isn’t happening. You know why? The atmosphere is a very dynamic place where cold fronts meet warm fronts causing the extra water vapor to rain out. Orographic lifting also causes rain. Instead of a nonlinear warming effect, the amount of rain slightly increases. That’s already been seen.
Increasing CO2 will cause warming but it’s going to be very small. And that’s a good thing in most places. It’s highly unlikely that we will ever double the CO2 concentration too, we’ll run out of fossil fuels before that could happen. No crisis.
“A marine climate has less extreme temperatures in both winter and summer than an inland climate.”
I can attest to that. I spent 8 years living on the north coast of California. Days went up to 65deg while nights dropped to 55deg. I loved it as there were rare exceptions!
The notion that doubling CO2 will make the average temperature go up is a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL effect, which is dependent on the foundational assumption “all other things held equal.”
“All other things” are NOT held equal, the “feedbacks” are, on balance, negative, offsetting feedbacks, and the end result is you can’t differentiate the supposed “effect” of CO2 on temperature from ZERO.
Which is what observations support.
That T cyclones are fewer than a century ago is an observation. That this is due ‘climate change’ (ie from CO2 rise) is an unsupported statement. The study did not attempt determine a cause. That cyclones may be (which means may or not be0) stronger, is pure genuflection to to the consensus gatekeepers at the journals. Nevertheless, the beginning of walkback is palpable.
“While the resolutions of the current reanalysis products are too coarse to make conclusions about TC intensity, general consensus from observationally based records suggest an increase in the proportion of severe storms with anthropogenic-induced warming2.”
The records do not support that contention but in fact support the opposite.
A couple of examples.
Joe Bastardi in his last Saturday Summary noted that
The US has not been hit by a June hurricane in over 30 years and it’s looking like that streak is going to continue. The last time the US was hit by a major hurricane (CAT 3,4, or 5) in June was when Audrey came ashore just east of Port Authur, TX June 27, 1957. She was a strong CAT 3 and a real killer.
Tony Heller took us on a trip in his wayback machine to look at Hurricanes that struck the US during revolutionary times.
Revolutionary War Hurricanes | Real Climate Science
One should remember that the US revolution occurred toward the end of the LIA which is considered to run from about 1,300 until 1850.
Then there is the fact that storms require contrasts of temperatures and pressures and those are naturally less when the temperatures in the tropics are closer to the temperatures at the poles.
Radar loop of Audrey
Track of Audery
The CAGW acolytes find a way to walk both sides of the warming-cooling causes argument. Oddly enough, rather than getting to being 50% right, they get it wrong, flip or flop.
Maybe if they just stuck to the weather and never mind trying to forecast CO2 driven global climate.
This would actually be the expected result, based on physics. Since the increasing temperatures are driven by higher lows, and the same highs, the diurnal differential is shrinking, meaning less potential energy in the system.
Storms SHOULD reduce in severity and number as the diurnal temperature difference shrinks.
Not necessarily. There is usually sufficient energy in the tropical atmosphere to sustain a major hurricane, but other conditions may inhibit formation or strengthening that keep a disturbance from reaching that potential. There are computer model projections (I know, I know) which simulate that with a warmer atmosphere, wind shear might be higher over TC formation regions. The simplified notion that having more energy in the atmosphere MUST mean more and stronger storms is a crock, full to the brim.
More “energy” – lol. What the hell is that supposed to mean?! A higher ‘average’ temperature hardly equates to “energy” of the variety that would feed either storm formation OR intensity.
Quite the reverse, in fact.
This is completely OT but I think it is news that should be news being discussed on this forum and time is short before we see the ruling.
One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday’s abortion ruling | Fox News
The ruling on this has the potential to put a stake right through the heart of the administrative state trying to regulate the use of Fossil Fuels out of existence and severely hurt the objectives of the left and the Oligarchs here, .
Our local radio talking head said he expects them to rule in WV vs EPA. Should be interesting if it goes the way of WV.
I don’t see any way to rule other than in West Virginia’s favor. The Clean Air Act and its amendments passed by Congress have never added CO2 to the 6 criteria air pollutants that the EPA is authorized to regulate: ground-level ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. If Congress didn’t give them authority, they don’t have it. Period. That’s the way the U.S. government works. Ah, the beauty of a written Constitution. Sorry, Brits. Even though the EPA clearly has no authority to regulate CO2 because it was never granted by Congress, expect this to be a 6-3 or 5-4 decision as the Court’s leftists tie themselves in knots to aid and abet the unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable, and tyrannical administrative state (because their agenda is so unpopular that they can’t accomplish it by democratic means).
In another story about this study (Grauniad I think), a couple of other climate academics were out of the blocks immediately to say the findings were bunkum.
I don’t know how they found the time & resources to complete a comprehensive study to arrive at such counter-conclusions so quickly, but that’s the wonderful world of climate “science” these days 🙁
Perhaps based on the data from pervious studies?
If previous studies always trumped new studies, the celestial bodies would still be orbiting the earth.
It’s more likely the Guardian roped in the usual suspects for a quote from “scientists”
Cyclones are just a thing of the past…
Much amusement, but what is causing Hadley and Walker to weaken?
‘The declining trends found are consistent with the twentieth century weakening of the Hadley and Walker circulations, which make conditions for TC formation less favourable.’
Cyclones cannot become any more intense – they are all already running flat out with all the stops pulled.
Reason being ‘drag’
The intensity of a storm depends on its wind speeds and the energy content or deliverable power is calculated as according to the square of the wind speed.
The classi ‘half-emm-vee-squared formula‘
But the work that the storm does on whatever it psses over flows the same formula as wind turbines abide by.
i.e. The energy extracted (the damage it does to things) follows a Cube Law
Of course cube-law graphs follow much steeper trajectories than square-law graphs and The Cyclone always finds itself operating between those 2 (rapidly converging as wind speed rises) lines of the graph
And it quite incapable of going beyond the intersection point – else it finds itself expending more energy than it’s creating.
And for that exact same reason, cyclones can not get any larger – as doing so means the centre must accelerate else the structure all falls apart.
And the centre cannot accelerate for the Cube vs Square reason
Cyclones can try to accelerate and frequently do, but when it does it trips itself up, the eyewall collapses and it has to build a new larger one to maintain structure.
Basically it shifts down a gear = The Beginning Of The End
Pretty basic high school mechanics and folks peddling windmills as The Solution to Climate really should know better
There are two other factors you did not mention that are important to accurately gauge the true strength of a storm. Size matters! Size of the area of the most intense winds around the eye wall and overall size of the storm itself.
The larger those two things are the more severe a storm will be. Larger storms in general create more storm surge and storm surge is the real killer in the vast majority of cases.
BTW those two factors are why the use of the Saffir-Simpson scale alone is an inadequate metric for gauging the true intensity of a storm. The size of the wind fields must be considered to get a real handle on it.
THE THREE RULES OF LEFTISM
If anything is bad, it was caused by climate change.
If anything needs fixing, start with more windmills and solar panels
Leftists ruin everything they touch.
FIXING LRFTISM
Deport all leftists to Bulgaria
No proof, but a number of our team members think TC intensities could increase.
If “Medium Confidence” is a “direct replacement for the term “Inconclusive”, then “Low Confidence” must mean “Definitely trends the other way”
“As the atmosphere warms, tropical cyclones forming have more fuel for their severity,” Dr Chand said.
Dr. Chand is either clueless about cyclone formation or purposely misleading his public. A warmer atmosphere has zero effect on the severity of cyclones, which are fueled by the temperature difference between the warm ocean surface and the cooler atmosphere above it. The bigger the temperature difference the more powerful the cyclone. It’s basic meteorology. If the atmosphere warms and reduces the temperature difference between it and the ocean surface, the number and severity of cyclones declines.
The posted article refers to natural tropical cyclones, however the number of “synthetic tropical cyclones” is another story:
Risk of risk of intense tropical cyclones will double by 2050
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2022/04/tropical-cyclone-increase.page
I have first hand experience living through tropical cyclone events, however, I have never been hit with a synthetic one. So, one of the questions we should ask about these things in the future, before making a decision to stay or evacuate, is whether it is a natural or synthetic cyclone?
PS: Amazing what our government spends our money on. (sigh)
I recall at the time of Yasi in 2011 there was discussion on WUWT of evidence of Queensland Cyclones pre European settlement that we significantly stronger than Mahina in 1899, which is considered to be the most intense ever recordrd in the Southern Hemisphere
What blew the kauri trees over in northland swamps 40 K years ago the ones they now dig out of the above mentioned swamps
And elves and fairies are becoming very rare, though when you meet one, their magic is much more impressive.
To those researchers I would say: In god we trust, all others bring data.
Since they aren’t god, and haven’t brought any data to show that cyclones are increasing in strength, their opinion (speculation) about the subject is no more informative than anybody else’s.