Observed increases in North Atlantic tropical cyclone peak intensification rates

This new paper in Nature Scientific Reports claims to identify a trend in hurricane intensification so significant that it’s utterly absurd that hurricane forecasters and modelers wouldn’t have noticed and identified it previously. This triggers an intense bright red bullshit detector.

As others to dig into this study we’ll likely see the flawed reasoning that was applied to tease out its conclusion. It’s outside my wheelhouse to do so. When the smoke clears it will be just one more example of how Nature mag has flushed what little credibility it had down the toilet.

[Update since I scheduled this article. Ryan Maue has weighed in on X (formerly Twitter).]

Here is the Abstract and Introduction.

Abstract

Quickly intensifying tropical cyclones (TCs) are exceptionally hazardous for Atlantic coastlines. An analysis of observed maximum changes in wind speed for Atlantic TCs from 1971 to 2020 indicates that TC intensification rates have already changed as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet and oceans. Mean maximum TC intensification rates are up to 28.7% greater in a modern era (2001–2020) compared to a historical era (1971–1990). In the modern era, it is about as likely for TCs to intensify by at least 50 kts in 24 h, and more likely for TCs to intensify by at least 20 kts within 24 h than it was for TCs to intensify by these amounts in 36 h in the historical era. Finally, the number of TCs that intensify from a Category 1 hurricane (or weaker) into a major hurricane within 36 h has more than doubled in the modern era relative to the historical era. Significance tests suggest that it would have been statistically impossible to observe the number of TCs that intensified in this way during the modern era if rates of intensification had not changed from the historical era.

Introduction

Tropical cyclones (TCs) are the most damaging natural hazard to regularly impact the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts1,2,3,4. From 2012 to 2022, over 160 “billion-dollar” weather and climate disasters impacted the U.S; 24 of these events were TCs, including the six costliest disasters on record during this time5. Many of the most damaging TCs to impact the U.S. in recent years have been notable for the speed at which they have intensified. For instance, Hurricane Maria (2017), the climate disaster with the highest death toll since 1980, and the 4th highest economic cost in the last four decades, strengthened from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale in just over 48 hours5,6,7. Hurricanes Harvey (2017), Ian (2022), Sandy (2012), Ida (2021), and Irma (2017), the five other costliest U.S. weather and climate disasters in the last decade, all similarly strengthened rapidly, with most evolving from tropical storms to major hurricanes (Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale or greater) in under three days5,8,9,10,11,12.

The fastest TC intensification rates often occur in areas of unusually warm upper ocean and sea surface temperatures (SSTs)13,14,15,16. These warm waters serve as a critical energy source for the strengthening storms which act as heat engines, transporting excess warmth from the oceans and atmosphere in the tropics to higher latitudes17. As anthropogenic emissions have warmed the planet, the world’s oceans have warmed at the surface, where average temperatures have increased ~ 0.88 °C from 1850–1900 to 2011–202018. The rate at which ocean surfaces have warmed has also accelerated, with 0.60 °C of this warming occurring since 198018. Considering the role of warm upper ocean water and SSTs in the fastest TC intensification rates13,14,15,16, it is reasonable to expect that we may observe an increase in TC intensification rates that coincides with warming ocean temperatures in recent decades19,20,21,22,23,24. Given the highly-damaging nature of many TCs that intensify rapidly, and the operational and forecasting challenges posed by TCs that intensify most quickly25,26, there is an urgent need to better understand how intensification rates of TCs may already have changed in a warming climate.

Various past studies have sought to understand how rapid intensification of TCs may evolve in a warmer climate, including work focused on understanding how intensification events that occur within certain regions or fall above a certain threshold may change over time22,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. For example, Ref.33 examined intensification trends in landfalling TCs in East and Southeast Asia, and found that a 12–15% increase in the intensity of such storms at landfall was primarily due to an increase in the rate at which they intensified. In the Atlantic basin, multiple studies have sought to understand how TC intensification rates have changed near major coastlines. For instance, Ref.22 found that there was an increased likelihood for TCs to intensify quickly near the U.S. coast during times when basin-wide conditions were generally less favorable for such intensification events. Also focusing on intensification near U.S. coastlines, Ref.28 found that although the mean 24-h intensification rate of TCs increased by 1.2 kts/6 h near the U.S. Atlantic coast from 1979 to 2018, no similar increase was observed along the U.S. Gulf coast. Using a similar focus region, Ref.32 found that, when considering U.S. landfalling TCs, there was a tendency for TCs that intensified rapidly in the 24 h prior to landfall to decay more slowly after landfall.

Elsewhere in the Atlantic, Ref.27 notes that in the central and eastern tropical Atlantic, the 95th percentile of 24-h TC intensity changes increased at 3.8 kts per decade from 1986 to 2015. Using the same threshold of the 95th percentile of 24-h intensity changes to define rapid intensification, Ref.30 suggest that it is possible to detect an anthropogenic-related increase in Atlantic TC rapid intensification rates. Adopting a slightly different threshold of 30 kts/24 h to define rapid intensification, Ref.29 identify no trend in TC rapid intensification tied to warming from 1950 to 2014, but do note key spatial and temporal patterns in rapid intensification events in the Atlantic.

This study adds to the considerable previous research efforts described above by developing a broader assessment of overall basin-wide changes in the magnitude of peak Atlantic TC intensification rates. This work focuses on the Atlantic basin as a whole, rather than a subset of storms that occur in a specific portion of the basin. Furthermore, no arbitrary thresholds of intensification are used in this study to classify a TC rapid intensification event—instead, the work fills a key knowledge gap by assessing overall changes to the peak intensification rates achieved by all TCs across 12-, 24- and 36-h windows during the 5 decades spanning from 1971 to 2020. Results indicate broad increases to observed TC intensification rates over the past 50 years. These findings illustrate a vital need to not only work towards climate mitigation to limit future warming and thus additional changes in TC intensification rates, but also for emergency preparedness plans and resilience measures that will allow our coastlines to adapt to TCs that have already begun to exhibit increased rates of strengthening.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42669-y
5 16 votes
Article Rating
40 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
October 19, 2023 10:09 pm

How much of this intensification increase is due to measuring hurricane intensity at great altitude instead of historic ground level readings…where we live and where our buildings are most affected???
Wind speeds at 10,000′ above MSL only affect aircraft and do no property damage.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 20, 2023 1:43 am

The correct question is “how much of this intensification is due to data torture and statistical malfeasance?”. The answer: all of it.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 20, 2023 6:29 am

All wind speeds in the HURDAT2 (the database used by the study’s author) are estimates by the hurricane specialist based on satellite, aircraft obs, and surface readings. All estimates are reduced to the 10 meter reference level. However, only the surface readings after landfall are actually measured at or near that level. The aircraft measurements in the early part of the study’s period were estimated by eyeballing the ocean surface. Later an 90% reduction of flight-level winds were used. In the last time period the Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer would measure surface winds via ocean surface emissivity and then an adjustment made to bring it to 10 meters. Consistency in wind estimates over the entire time period is HUGE caution flag.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 20, 2023 9:31 am

As an example, Hurricane Norma south of Cabo is listed as Cat3 and has wind speeds near that at 700hPa or about 10,000′. However, Ventusky https://www.ventusky.com/?p=19.640;-109.200;9&l=wind-10m shows max wind speeds at the 10m level to be 68mph.
Ventusky does show Wind Gusts https://www.ventusky.com/?p=19.640;-109.200;9&l=gust at near Cat3 speed but isn’t Hurricane intensity measured by Sustained Winds?

October 19, 2023 10:24 pm

The number of deaths due to Hurricanes has dropped. Katrina which was third was the only one in the top 20 that is in this century. https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/articles/deadliest-us-hurricanes

Simon
Reply to  scvblwxq
October 19, 2023 10:35 pm

The number of deaths due to Hurricanes has dropped. “
There could be a number of reasons for that….. but I’m picking intensification wont be one of them.

Reply to  Simon
October 20, 2023 1:35 am

That really is a totally meaningless comment. !

Simon
Reply to  bnice2000
October 20, 2023 4:18 pm

It is if you are not smart enough to work it out.

Reply to  Simon
October 23, 2023 1:08 pm

Your comment was dead on arrival as you didn’t say anything that was measurable.

Bryan A
Reply to  Simon
October 20, 2023 9:34 am

That is probably the Most truthful and least informative comment you’ve ever contributed to any thread here

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 20, 2023 9:35 am

👏

Capt Jeff
Reply to  scvblwxq
October 19, 2023 11:00 pm

And Katrina was the beginning of the longest period of no major hurricanes making landfall on the US east coast in history. What’s the bet that didn’t make it into the paper.

Reply to  Capt Jeff
October 20, 2023 3:46 am

Yes, the United States went 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the United States after Hurricane Katrina landed in 2005.

And what about this year? NOAA started off saying we were going to have an above average hurricane season (the standard prediction for NOAA every year), and then they have had to revise their forecast to a “near normal” hurricane season, and from the way it looks, they are going to need to revise it again to a “below normal” hurricane season.

So NOAA isn’t real good at predicting hurricanes. The CO2 monster gets in the way of their thinking straight

Mr David Guy-Johnson
October 19, 2023 10:54 pm

Charlatans like the authors of this paper will eventually destroy the credibility of the scientific method. That would be disastrous for humankind.

MarkW
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 20, 2023 12:30 pm

Look at the number of people who completely reject the use of models. All because the alarmists badly misuse the climate models.

Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2023 4:13 pm

G’Day Mark,

All because the alarmists badly misuse the climate models.”

The model(s) used for Covid 19 didn’t exactly help either.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Mr David Guy-Johnson
October 20, 2023 7:44 am

The scientific method has fallen out of common use among the CAGW crowd as with several other branches of science. All are fast destroying the credibility of science in general.

Capt Jeff
October 19, 2023 10:57 pm

Sandy the “super storm” got elevated to a costly hurricane despite fading into a tropical storm prior to making landfall and causing all the damage.
But when you have a conclusion that needs data, what the heck.

Reply to  Capt Jeff
October 20, 2023 3:50 am

Sandy had help. A very large storm came out of Canada at the time Sandy was in the area and the two storms combined over New York which is the reason the storm was so strong. CO2 had nothing to do with it, despite the climate alarmists claims to the contrary.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 20, 2023 12:32 pm

If you look at the historical record that area gets hit by a big storm like Sandy every 100 to 150 years.

strativarius
October 20, 2023 12:53 am

I’ve noticed the quick intensification of ludicrous claims….

Reply to  strativarius
October 20, 2023 3:52 am

Excellent comment! So true! The climate change hysteria has been turned up to 11.

Ron Long
October 20, 2023 2:48 am

Looks like Group Think is the new scientific process. Then distort the new scientific process with WOKE adjustment, give everyone a Participation Trophy, and destroy the cultural advance humans have enjoyed since termination of the last glacial phase of the Ice Age we live in. I need a drink for my breakfast.

Walter Sobchak
October 20, 2023 3:22 am

It is October 20. there are only 10 days left in the 2023 Atlantic Hurricane season. There have been very few storms in October and they have all blown themselves out in the central Atlantic. There is only one right now TS Tammy east of the Leeward Islands and headed north into the central Atlantic.

Nothing more to report. Fall out. Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 20, 2023 3:56 am

There is one tropical storm off Mexico right now (marked):

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-96.55,34.34,403/loc=-108.711,19.559

According to our local weather guy, it is supposed to come up into the central U.S. and give us some good, needed rain here in a few more days.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 20, 2023 4:39 am

Hurricane season runs through Nov 30th.

“The fastest TC intensification rates often occur in areas of unusually warm upper ocean and sea surface temperatures (SSTs)13,14,15,16. These warm waters serve as a critical energy source for the strengthening storms which act as heat engines,”

Hurricanes need warm water at depth. The atmosphere does not warm the ocean water to depth. That is up to the Sun.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 20, 2023 2:56 pm

It’s interesting to see how much heat has been removed from the ocean after the hurricane passes.

Hurricanes are Heat Pumps.

October 20, 2023 3:49 am

Interesting that Marina operators in the Outer Hebrides think that over the last 5 years winter storms have been less strong than before.

Do you believe the guys on the ground or the climate scientists?

Mr.
October 20, 2023 5:34 am

All based on tortured data & numeric constructs again?

October 20, 2023 6:20 am

There have been several exchanges about this paper on a tropical storm research mailing list, most pointing out the problems with this paper. Whoever were the peer reviewers for this paper really fell down on the job.
I noticed that the author used wind speed change as their criterion for Rapid Intensification. But there were great methodilogical changes in how wind speed was estimated over this period. A better metric would have been changes in central pressure. When I ran the numbers for CP on the HURDAT2 database over the study period, I calculated the maximum deepening and filling rates for each TC in the period in mb/hr, and then averaged those maximum rates. These are the numbers.
                 Storms        Deepening (mb/hr)              Filling (mb/hr)
                          6hr    12h     24h     36h     6hr    12h     24h     36h
From 1971 – 1990 ( 20 years)
            Average   343   -0.05   -0.02   -0.04   -0.03    0.08    0.05    0.03    0.01   
From 1986 – 2005 ( 20 years)
            Average   309   -0.06   -0.05   -0.03   -0.03    0.09    0.05    0.03    0.03   
From 2001 – 2020 ( 20 years)
            Average   351   -0.05   -0.06   -0.04   -0.03    0.04    0.03    0.04    0.04   

At the risk of invoking Bud Light “Same deepening, less filling.”

Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 20, 2023 7:24 am

Peer reviewers are not what they once were. They are little more than spellcheckers these days, as long as the paper is accepted as ideologically sound by the publisher, of course.

Reply to  Richard Page
October 20, 2023 8:46 am

And some journals, such as PNAS, use “pal review”. This is where they let the authors specify who they want as reviewers. Supposedly this is to ensure that reviewers are qualified in the particular field of study. But, of course, the authors will select ‘pals’ who agree with their premise and won’t look behind the curtain.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 20, 2023 7:25 am

Well Nature has to keep pretending it is the premier scientific magazine it once was 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 20, 2023 12:36 pm

The job of peer reviewers is to block any paper that threatens the global warming consensus.

MarkW
October 20, 2023 12:25 pm

I love the way, all alarmists start with the assumption that the only thing that has changed between whatever historical period they choose, and now, is CO2.

Are we in a different ENSO environment? Who cares.
Are we in a different AMO phase? Who cares.

If there is something different, it must be CO2 whut done it.

October 20, 2023 12:55 pm

As anthropogenic emissions have warmed the planet, the world’s oceans have warmed at the surface

They keep claiming that the atmosphere warms the oceans without any evidence, data or methods. As I recall, saying something over and over again does not make it true.

October 20, 2023 12:58 pm

I read all the comments, no sign of Stokes et al.

October 20, 2023 4:25 pm

How long ago did the claim of CAGW rear it’s ugly head? (Or just AGW if you prefer.)
When have they ever presented hard evidence that identifies and separates any “A” from natural variation?
Never.
When have they ever presented any hard evidence that identifies and separates any intensification at all let alone that it was caused by “A” and not natural variation?
Never.