From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Hurricane Helene has brought out the usual claims that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful, a belief fed by disinformation in the media.
I have even seen a remarkably silly comment by somebody today that they when they look at report of Helene, they can see climate change happening.
Two simple pieces of fact show this to be nonsense.
First of all, official data shows there is been no increasing trend in the number of global major hurricanes, ie the most powerful ones:
https://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Secondly NOAA clearly stated earlier this year that there has been no strong evidence of century scale increasing trends in US landfalling hurricanes or major ones; nor in the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity in the wider Atlantic basin:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
None of this matters. The Green Blob will claim all hurricanes are the wrath of Gaia, and we must reform our wicked ways.
All we peasants need are sturdy sandals, while the green blob uses FF every day, that is what they want.
Don’t forget the insect snack box, with your daily 900 calorie limit, if you’re lucky.
Important news.
I would fully expect an increase in peak wind speeds for the simple reason that we take far more direct readings. Gone are the days of hurricane hunters who might fly into the storm only a couple of times or perhaps even turn back due to turbulence. Prior to modern methods the chance of missing peak wind speeds was far more likely.
As far as I can tell, EVERY single windspeed number reported from a hurricane is MODELLED from other measured data.
Hurricane intensity is based on 1 minute average wind speed at an altitude of 10 meters. However, that is never actually measured! The parachute dropsondes give a vertical profile of wind speed and pressure along the drop path.
That is then combined with the flight level data to provide the “reported” wind speed.
“NOAA’s WP-3D Orions are also equipped with lower fuselage (LF) and tail Doppler radar (TDR) systems. Mounted to the belly of the aircraft, the LF radar scans the storm horizontally while the TDR scans vertically. Together, these systems provide researchers and forecasters an MRI-like look at the storm, allowing them to see all the different layers and internal structure from within the storm.”
That is then combined with the drop sonde data to provide the “reported” wind speed. Prior to the advent of doppler radars, there was no way for the Hurricane Hunter aircraft to know where the strongest winds aloft were located, other than the basic principles of hurricane storm dynamics.
In recent years, they are certainly capable of spotting the strongest winds and collecting flight level and drop sonde data from these areas. That almost certainly has to bias modern hurricanes to higher recorded “peak intensity” compared to historical storms.
The HH aircraft now also use Stepdown Frequency Microwave Radiometers to measure the amount of sea foam created from the winds right at the ocean surface. I know of no other systems that gathered this type of information prior to the use of the SFMR technology. They do use this data in their calculation of surface winds at 10 meters, but I have no idea how this could possibly be calibrated to the reported numbers from historical hurricanes?
1.) I believe any agency that gets funding to research a “problem” is very likely to put their thumb on the scale to inflate that problem.
2.) I believe most of the “scientific” federal agencies are primarily staffed with CAGW “true believers”. There is a reason that most scientific research uses the “double blind” method if possible. Even if these staffers do not permit their conscious bias to influence their modelling, it is nearly impossible for humans to eliminate the influence of their unconscious bias to affect subjective calculations.
I guess they’re putting the Orions to good use, since the Poseidens came out.
The Orions are so old that you can’t bounce them anymore. I’m not sure that flying through a hurricane is less stressful. When we flew through just one thunderstorm, it would really knock us around. Although, we flew through some clear-air-turbulence in the Tri-Cities area of Washington state, and that really knock us about–things broke loose in the plane.
The economic shadowstats site purports to measure US government statistics by using the same methodology which was originally employed. When compared to current statistics, such as Inflation, the results are eye opening to the say least.
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-cpi.gif
Perhaps biased higher peak intensities, perhaps not.
Definitely a different instrumentation will give different results.
I thought the SF scale was based on sustained winds, not peak winds.
century-scale data for a thing best tracked by satellite?
“Sputnik 1 (/ˈspʌtnɪk, ˈspʊtnɪk/, Russian: Спутник-1, Satellite 1) was the first artificial Earth satellite. It was launched into an elliptical low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957 as part of the Soviet space program. It sent a radio signal back to Earth for three weeks before its three silver-zinc batteries became depleted. Aerodynamic drag caused it to fall back into the atmosphere on 4 January 1958”
Following the link provided and selecting the same metric (Cat. 3+ Hurricanes) I downloaded the same data used in the chart and simply added a linear trendline.
So the answer is a pretty clear “yes”.
You should really do a statistical analysis rather than post a picture. Is there a significant time trend? My problem is that I don’t trust the data sources. Helene was not a Cat 4 storm when it came ashore. This is clear by all of the land-based weather stations. The buoy data tells the same story. NOAA is not exactly an unbiased source of data. They have been cooking the temperature data for decades.
I let Excel do the statistical analysis using its LINEST function.
You should try it.
Not sure; but there is certainly a ‘best estimate’ increasing trend, as shown by the clear upward slope. So, whether statistically significant or not, the answer to the question “Are hurricanes getting stronger?” using the author’s own data source, is still a clear “yes”.
Just because you draw a line doesn’t mean it has any significance. You should provide the statistics that show your picture means anything other than noise. This is very basic stuff that you don’t seem to understand.
“Just because you draw a line doesn’t mean it has any significance.”
Read what he actually did.
Quite. It just means there’s an obvious increasing trend in the data.
Blame statistics.
Christopher Monckton, on two occasions so far, has dined out for lengthy periods here on a much shorter linear trend that was flat and he was carried shoulder high!
The ruler monkeys are back, a bit early though.
And be sure to follow the rules about normal distribution of the data when you do. Otherwise the results are meaningless and a waste of time.
Since you’ve excluded all hurricanes from your trend analysis and only used CAT3 or greater, you do not have a normal distribution of hurricanes.
You’d need to take that up with Microsoft Excel, which calculates a clear increasing trend in the data provided by the author.
Maybe you can set them straight?
Clearly indicates a ZERO trend in the last 30 years.
Please explain how human CO2 does that…
…or remain, forever, a mindless monkey.
The data show Accumulated Cyclone Energy is decreasing about 2% per year.
Always moving the goalposts.
The question here is, are there more powerful (specifically Cat 3+) hurricanes. And the answer from data is, yes.
The IPCC expectation is that there will be fewer hurricanes overall.
Fungal spore shows it did not understand doonman’s comment…
Very funny ! 🙂
I can enter random, meaningless numbers into Excel at anytime, just as a monkey would do.
You are claiming that ignoring Math rules are the programmers fault?
Math is a set of rules that must be followed. When you do not follow them, any result is a waste of time and effort and has no meaning.
Since you cant understand this as evidenced by your post, your opinions have no meaning.
Going through life spouting nonsense is no way to live, but you seem to excel at it.
Samo, samo. The chance that the number of Cat 3 hurricanes/year was flat/down is ~1.6%. The expected value increase over the time period is ~1/8 more Cat 3 hurricanes/year.
Cat 3 hurricane days are also increasing, ARO ~0.33 days/year. But that stat is not quite as durable. There is nearly an 8% chance that that trend is flat/down.
Is the last metric, accumulated cyclonic energy for all hurricanes, or for Cat 3 only? Since they plainly labeled 2 other parameters as Cat 3, I’m guessing all. That parameter has a ~57% chance of decreasing over time, meaning 43% increasing, meaning it’s statistically insignificant. But if you believe that that parameter is decreasing over time, then that means more, longer lasting, strong hurricanes, and the rest of them weaker. IOW, more variability, stronger power peaks.
Now, since the trend is pretty much ZERO since 1993, explain how human CO2 could possibly be having any effect.
ACE is actually trending DOWN since 1993 (30 year climate period)
Cat 3 Hurricane days is also trending DOWN since 1993.
Explain how human CO2 does that. (and try not to make us all laugh)
“Now, since the trend is pretty much ZERO since 1993, explain how human CO2 could possibly be having any effect.”
Which “trend”? Not the one in this post.
“ACE is actually trending DOWN since 1993 (30 year climate period)”
ACE has no significant statistical trend.
“Cat 3 Hurricane days is also trending DOWN since 1993.”
True. Too bad the post was since 1980 – a longer, more physically/statistically significant period. For that period, the trend had a ~92% chance of increasing. OTOH, for your shorter, cherry picked time period, there is a lower, ~75% chance that that trend is actually down.
“Explain how human CO2 does that. (and try not to make us all laugh)”
Not part of my post. Only that the trend of more, longer lasting, Cat 3 hurricanes, is consonant with what we expect from increasing atmospheric [CO2].
Oh dear blob shows he is incapable of calculating a trend.. Sad !!
Then ADMITS there is no evidence of human causation.. hilarious.
A true monkey if ever there was one.
He’s another dyed-in-the-wool carbomaniac.
If you plot (Accumulated Cyclone Energy)/(No, Hurricane Days), it crashes after 1990.
This seems to mean less energy per day = weaker storms overall since 1990.
As air temperature has increased most rapidly after 1980, this seems to confirm Lindzen’s comment that a warmer world is a less stormy world.
“ is
consonantconsistent with what we expect from increasing atmospheric [CO2].” (assuming that is what you meant to type)Except it is NOT.
There is step in 1990, then ZERO TREND since.
The ZERO TREND for 30 years is absolutely consistent with CO2 having ZERO EFFECT.
How else would you explain it.? Still waiting
Hey, Cliffie Clavin:
consonant:
“in agreement or harmony with.
“the findings are consonant with other research”
“”ACE has no significant statistical trend.”
ROFLMAO.. So no evidence of CO2 effects.
Thanks blobbo !! 🙂
“more variability, stronger power peaks.
Utter BS. !! With absolutely zero anything to back it up.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy is an interesting check of the claim increase in strength. I just know you’ll want to plot and post that.
As always, shifting the goalposts. The posts says the number of strong hurricanes not increasing. It is wrong. They have increased, as expected by IPCC and scientists.
They also expect that the number of hurricanes generally will decrease. That has also been happening:
The nett result for ACE is a wash.
So you are continuing to say there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of any human CO2 effect
Thanks Nick.
Misleading as usual, Nick.
ACE is decreasing while number of storms is increasing, so the intensity per storm is declining.
This means the number of strong storms is declining, Fewer Cat 4&5 more Cat 3.
The total number of hurricanes (Cat 1-5) is decreasing.
“You should really do a statistical analysis rather than post a picture. Is there a significant time trend?”
OK, here is the R stats analysis. Positive trend, significant at the 95% level.
And here is the R graph:
Now, since the trend is pretty much ZERO since 1993, explain how human CO2 could possibly be having any effect.
Or are you saying human CO2 caused the step up from 1900-1993, and has done absolutely NOTHING since.
A classic example of cherry-picking the data, Nick. What you’ve said is perfectly correct, of course, but also completely meaningless and perfectly illustrates how data can be used to make a very misleading claim. I could do exactly the same from 1994 — 30 years ago — and show a completely different, but equally correct story.
In truth, the data reveals no definitive trend either way. Claiming otherwise is nonsense — and I suspect you know that. Any scientist worth their salt wouldn’t say otherwise.
Nick almost certainly knows that..
He is disingenuous .. as always.
Still waiting for an explanation of how human CO2 causes a flat trend for the last 30 years. 😉
Do you think any of the trend monkeys will have one ? 😉
Who cherry-picked? TFN and I both analysed the period of the graph headlined here.
If you go back to 1994, you still get a positive trend, about 0.04/year. The shorter period is no longer significant, but the value is statistically consistent with the analysis of the longer term.
So you now ADMIT that there is no trend since 1993,
And even the most blind monkey can see the step up around 1990, that the whole trend calculation relies on.. Nick can see it, but is choosing to be ignorant and disingenuous.
And Nick has now he has zero evidence of human causation.
Thanks Nick !!
And if you start just after the step, in 1991, you actually get a slightly NEGATIVE trend..
Still waiting for evidence or explanation of how a large increase in atmospheric CO2 could cause a ZERO TREND in +3 hurricanes in the last 30 years, and a downward trend in ACE over 30 years
Surely one of the chimps can respond. 😉
“If you go back to 1994, you still get a positive trend, about 0.04/year.”
I don’t. I get a microscopic negative trend, dominated by it’s standard error. There’s a ~51% chance that it is decreasing, 49% chance that it is increasing. Useless for our purposes, which is why either starting at 1993 or 1994 is much worse, both physically and statistically, than at 1980.
All ignoring the fact that we are testing the obvious bogusity of Mr. Homewood’s claim…
Yes, you’re right. I counted wrong and went back to 1995. Surprising that it makes such a difference.
Again, we note Nick’s absolute inability to show any human causation
I don’t think these climate clowns realise what a massive asset they are to the REALIST side..
They have absolutely zero argument to back up the fallacy of AGW..
Trivial. The only reason I even mentioned it was that I had perfect agreement with your (and presumably TFN’s) earlier values.
Not surprising at all.
Ignoring the obvious step up in 1990, you mean.
Still waiting for evidence of human causation for the step, and then the zero trend for 30 years…
Suddenly gone quiet ???? 😉
Nick,
You seem to be assuming that a linear least squares fit is related to what happens in nature. Do you have any evidence that leads you to suspect that the number of events will change over time in a linear fashion? Or do you agree that now and then there are breaks in patterns like the 1975 global climate shift that might make a linear fit somewhat academic?
Geoff S?
Geoff,
The claim was that there is no increasing trend. There was.
YAWN!
Still RUNNING AWAY from any CO2 causation..
That is because you know there has been no trend in the last 30 years, and just that step change in 1990 that the whole trend calculation rests on.
——
In the total absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems Nick has shown that…
… human released CO2 has ABSOLUTELY ZERO EFFECT ON HURRICANES.
Thanks NIck 🙂
Nick’s response to Geoff highlights the need for Paul Homewood to be particularly careful with how he writes his articles. He should avoid using the word ‘trend.’ A more appropriate way to phrase it would have been something like ‘nothing out of the ordinary.’
While most people understand Paul’s main point, opportunists like Nick Stokes will seize any chance to nitpick.
Steve McIntyre noted years ago that one must be microscopically correct when publishing work that falsifies the consensus.
Any bitty mistake is blown up into a major scandal, used to discredit both the entire analysis and the reputation of the author.
“A more appropriate way to phrase it would have been something like ‘nothing out of the ordinary.’”
Yes, you can make a fuzzy statement which avoids quantification and so can’t be tested. But then it has little meaning.
“But then it has little meaning.”
Just like your nit-picking whimpering.
And still no evidence of CO2 causing the ZERO TREND for the last 30 years.
So funny watching you slithering around in avoidance. 🙂
Not in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, which is the most revealing trend.
Nick,
Every group of points has a trend when analyzed this way.
It can be increasing, decreasing or zero.
Sometimes it needs to be considered in relation to its uncertainty and to the matter of interest, which is often what caused the points to have particular values.
Paul Homeward is not explicit. He might have meant “no trend within a wide uncertainty range.”
The interest does not end with a display of mathematical exactitude.
Geoff S
So what do you think he meant?
I think he meant there was absolutely no evidence of any human CO2 effect on hurricanes.
Wouldn’t you agree. !!
> Geoff S?
Good question.
Nick, I notice you corrected yourself later. I do a huge amount of statistical modelling and could tell just by looking at the graph that the trend is down from 1994 — how you could claim otherwise is VERY revealing.
A lot of confirmation bias is clearly at work here — you’re seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there. This happens a lot in climate ‘science’. Torture the data enough and you’ll get the answer you want. It really is a very sad situation.
> I do a huge amount of statistical modelling
Yeah, and I’m a ninja.
Thing is, Nick knows enough to realise it is only the lower values before 1990 that are causing the trend.. right Nick 😉
That means that he must realise that human causation has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Right Nick.. 😉
Excellent, Nick.
A chart showing a statistically significant increase in Cat. 3+ hurricanes is used as the first illustration in a post asking, apparently sceptically, “Are hurricanes getting stronger”
Where else would you get entertainment like this on the web?
Slurping Stokes, how revolting is this.
Still waiting for an explanation of how human CO2 causes a flat trend for the last 30 years.
Waiting , waiting.. don’t FAIL as always.
We get entertainment from reading your scientifically ignorant slap-stick comedy attempts at rational posts.
Your plot only implies they’re getting more numerous. It says nothing about whether they’re getting stronger.
It isn’t TFN’s plot. It is Paul Homewood’s plot (with trendline added). Paul correctly sees that if the number of Cat3+ are increasing, and the total number is not increasing as fast, then they are an increasing proportion – ie hurricanes are getting stronger.
Not increasing over a “climate” period of 30 years.
Please explain how CO2 caused the step change in 1990 then ZERO TREND thereafter.
ACE is DECREASING, Hurricanes are NOT getting stronger.
There has been no worsening of Hurricanes
See how the graph the trend monkeys are using starts at a low trough in the global data.
Even the IPCC admits there is “low-confidence” in intensity, frequency or duration.
Observations show absolutely nothing happening.
If anything there is a negative correlation between cyclone numbers and CO2 increase.
Cats, 1,2,3 are all decreasing , and even the cat4+ was higher in the late 1930s
If ACE is decreasing — as it is — while the number of storms is increasing — as they are — then hurricanes are getting weaker.
The number of storms is decreasing:
Nothing is more important in climate pseudoscience than the linear regression line versus time!
Another ruler monkey.
Rookie XL gives exactly the same results
A monkey refuses to see the step up around the 1990. Uses it to create trend.
A monkey refuses to admit to zero trend in 30 years.
A monkey has absolutely no evidence of any human causation for the zero trend.
The real question: why do the ruler monkeys and carbomaniacs need hurricanes to be getting stronger?
They seize onto every possible catastrophic weather event and claim it is super-powered by climate change. Could propaganda get any more obvious?
So, Nick, are you comfortable believing that at the time of Christ’s birth there were -233 hurricanes measuring Cat3 or greater?
It is Paul Homewood who said:
“official data shows there is been no increasing trend in the number of global major hurricanes”
And that is wrong. It is a statement about 1980-2023.
YAWN
Still running away from any human CO2 causation.
Stop digging, you look like a fool, Nick.
My point, Nick, is that Paul, you and others are relying on a ‘model’ that explicitly uses time as the unique cause of Cat3 hurricanes, which, as I’ve pointed out, yields preposterous results.
Perhaps regressing Cat3 hurricanes against CO2 or CO2 and time might be more meaningful, but I’m skeptical.
Why 1988?
Do measure hurricanes more often and differently than 10, 20, 30…50+ years ago?
You’d need to ask Paul Homewood, who wrote the article and chose the data.
Flat trend for 30 years (the official “climate ” period).
Human causation?? We are waiting. 😉
But we all know you have none..
NailBiter ran away from the question, what a shock.
That would be “ToeNailBiter”.. always with foot-in-mouth disease.
The plot starts in 1980, effectively at the beginning of the satellite era.
Good start. Now, properly evaluate Mr. Homewood’s claim.
See the above.
Climate period is 30 years…. Trend is ZERO for the last 30 years.
Or are you saying human CO2 only affected hurricanes around 1990-1993 causing a step up.
Over the 30 year period, ACE is decreasing.
Please explain how CO2 can cause that.
Even if Cat3 and above are actually globally increasing, if Man’s CO2 (from fossil fuels) can’t be shown to be the cause, there is no Manmade cause therefore there is no excuse to control Man.
Mann’s “The Cause” is not worth the cost in money and loss of freedoms.
And believe it or not, 2024 still has a decent chance of setting the low for the record.
Notice how the trend monkeys continue to yap mindlessly, up above..
But run away from answering a simple question of human causation.
Is always the way. !! 😉
Think I have found the cause of the 1990 step change. 😉
Climate Change Became Politicized in the 1990s | TIME
So…. 30 years – being one official ”climate data point” shows no trend meaning one of 2 things..
1/ That 30 years is not enough time to evaluate any trend in the climate at all rendering that metric meaningless and all such 30 year claims meaningless. (oops)
Or 2/ That 30 years is enough to show a trend in the climate and there is no trend in tropical cyclones at all.
The Final Nail, bigoilbob, Stokes…. which one is it? Please advise.
I have follow up questions, Lol.
The eval was done to test Mr. Homewood’s claim. Not true. The rest, by the usual suspects here is just embarrassed feces throwing.
None of the periods used is long enough to illustrate *climate* trends, particularly with respect to tropical cyclone activity which sports decadal and multi-decadal variation.
One thing that is for sure. None of it is driven by atmospheric CO2 levels.
A recent ocean sediment study showed that Atlantic tropical cyclone activity was MORE ACTIVE THAN TODAY DURING THE ‘LITTLE ICE AGE.’
The “warmer climate causes bad weather” or “warmer climate makes bad weather worse” narratives are illogical, anti-scientific nonsense. There is absolutely no scientific basis for such claims, they are pure propaganda to drive the Eco-Fascist agenda.
What were they doing 200 years ago? 500? 2000? We have such a myopic view of “climate”.
Glad to see you’re interested in quantitative analysis TFN.
Now plot and fit the Accumulated Cyclone Energy over the same period, and post that here, too, will you? Thanks.
The parameter seems to be for all hurricanes. It’s expected trend value is down, but with no statistical durability. So, more, longer Cat 3’s, which do the cubic damage. Less energy from less powerful hurricanes. Consonant with warming predicts…
It wouldn’t make sense for all parameters to be Cat 3+ except ACE.
ACE is more likely for the same Cat 3+ range of storms. That means less energy per storm.
Richard Lindzen pointed out decades ago that storm intensity is driven by the equator-pole thermal gradient. A warmer world means a shallower gradient. That, in turn, means less intense storms.
The folks who say warming will produce more intense hurricanes have it exactly backwards.
“It wouldn’t make sense for all parameters to be Cat 3+ except ACE.”
Nope. ACE for all hurricanes would be just as important. And other parameters for Cat 3’s were so labeled. It is nonsensical to imagine that a hurricane category with a floor of intensity, with the annual number and duration of them trending up over time, would have a flat/diminishing annual ACE over the same period.
You obviously have important pockets of intelligence, so this is just consonant with more Dan Kahan denial. Not a shrink, so I don’t know if you can see what you are doing, to “win”, or are subconsciously blocking out inconvenient thoughts.
Bigger pic, this is just another WUWT post, based on a false claim. Complete with the spasmodic defenses of “nitpicking”, “you’re missing the larger points” and on and on. They all channel the paraphrase of best Sephus Purcell line from “Matewan”:
[Sometimes you just gotta’ tell a little lie to get the real truth out]
You’re a real piece of work, blob.
Do people cause hurricanes, blob?
You’re right. The other columns are all hurricanes and the Cat3+ are broken out. The ACE is all hurricanes.
So it one subtracts Cat3+ from all hurricanes the trend is rising, indicating, more weak storms.
Also, if one divides ACE by total Hurricane days, the slope is strongly negative, again indicating storms are weakening with time,
Likewise, ACE/Hurricane is a weakly declining trend.
Your pseudo-psychological analysis is ludicrous and self-serving.
Gotta take all of that back, except the part about your personal remarks being ludicrous and self-serving.
I had inverted the y-axis for some previous work and neglected to change it back to ascending order.
So, everything that I wrote is descending is in fact ascending.
Apologies to all I have misled.
https://www.google.com/search?q=emily+litella+never+mind&sca_esv=d0b803cd6a659de4&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS855US855&sxsrf=ADLYWIKMDUShVvZ76NX9QpRci5PB1o5EJg%3A1727817789937&ei=PWj8ZpP6OKjJptQP8_7O6Q4&oq=snl+nevermind+gif&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEXNubCBuZXZlcm1pbmQgZ2lmKgIIADIKEAAYsAMY1gQYRzIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR0iGJlAAWABwAXgBkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEByAEAmAIBoAIGmAMAiAYBkAYCkgcBMaAHAA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:91fa47f7,vid:OjYoNL4g5Vg,st:0
More graceful than usual with you, Bob.
> So, everything that I wrote is descending
There’s a “con” missing.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
Only a fool thinks that smaller temperature differentials means more violent weather.
“It wouldn’t make sense for all parameters to be Cat 3+ except ACE.”
Here’s the definition of ACE, as used in Mr. Homewood’s data set
https://tropical.colostate.edu/forecasting.html
Got to faq 7 – What is Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)
Accumulated cyclone energy is calculated by summing the square of the maximum sustained winds of each tropical cyclone (in knots (sp)) every six hours when the system sis classified as tropical or subtropical. The resulting sum is then divided by 10,000.
Bold mine
Either Dan Kahan blockage at work, or Sephus Purcell strikes again…
You should also have bolded summing.
Why? The bold was to draw attention to the set of hurricanes added up. Each of them.
“used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.
“each battery is in a separate compartment”
bold mine…
‘Each’ is categorically unspecified.
Climate is 30 years. That chart is 52 years.
“Hurricane Helene has brought out the usual claims that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful, a belief fed by disinformation in the media.”
And it nonsense. But at the same time we’re seeing crushing hurricanes ramping up now on the Atlantic, it is freakishly hot here in Colorado for this time of year. Our forecast temperatures for the first week of October would be above average even for July. We’re already in a drought. All of this has the hallmarks of La Niña, but what’s so strange is that we’re barely in a La Niña episode of ENSO. Ever since that Tonga eruption blasted so much water vapor into the stratosphere, Northern Hemisphere weather has been tweaking crazy, to put it mildly…
Look! They are getting stronger! I promise! It’s true! Especially in 2005 and once in the 20th century!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hurricane-landfalls-us
The ‘Labor Day’ hurricane that hit Florida in September 1935 was massively more powerful than Helene. Helene only just scrapes into the top ten worst Florida hurricanes.
That’s what the media should report, but they don’t and won’t. I want these media rats jailed for what they are doing (or rather, not doing). Trouble is, I don’t want any law that could put them in jail, because it would obviously be used to jail everyone else instead. Things are in a really bad state!
“ Helene only just scrapes into the top ten worst Florida hurricanes.”
And the question is, by what measurement?
Actual strength of the storm or the damage done?
How did the Native Americans measure hurricanes?
Do any of those measurement records still exist?
But the worst effects of Helene have been in N Carolina not Florida, the one that’s expected to hit central Florida in a couple of days might be more of a problem there.
Pardon my meteorological ignorance, but what are the measurement input units/values of recorded characteristics that render a hurricane event “strong / stronger / strongest”?
(I mean, we’re not talking here about one of those competitions where the performances are judged by panels of experienced appreciators of the skills and presentations, like say – figure skating).
The traditional metric is sustained windspeed at 2 meters just outside the eyewall.
Tropical storm 39-73 mph. Cat 1 74-95. Cat 2 96-110. Majors are Cat3-5. Cat 3 11-129. Cat 4 130-156. Cat 5 >156.
A lot of the natter about Helene wasn’t Cat 4 is because wind speed drops off quickly with distance from the eyewall (figure skater spin effect), which especially for stronger hurricanes is typically quite small (maybe 10-15 miles across). Rare to have a good ground measurement at the eyewall. So the two accepted alternatives are dropsonde measurement from a hurricane hunter, or inference from doppler radar.
Based on those numbers there is currently a Cat 2 in the Gulf of Alaska.
“Rare to have a good ground measurement at the eyewall. So the two accepted alternatives are dropsonde measurement from a hurricane hunter, or inference from doppler radar.”
How long have we had either? It was only after WW2 that we began flying P-61 Black Widows into thunderstorms to measure them!
How many hurricanes formed and fizzled out at sea without being detected by a passing ship before air travel and satellites?
How can they claim they are more frequent or stronger now than a similar time period in the past?
Well, more than just P-61s. My late father was the XO of the 409th Typhoon Chasers flying off Guam 1948-late 1950, the very early days of hurricane research and just after he got (courtesy Air Force) his double masters in meteorology and weather radar.
I was born on Guam.
They flew modified B29s. Bomb bay outfitted for dropsondes and crude weather radar. Plane modified with extended range fuel tanks. 24 hour missions. Came back once landing with the tail twisted 16 degrees from true. That B29 got scrapped for parts.
I was only aware of https://www.weather.gov/iln/ThunderstormProject , which was, as the name implies about studying thunderstorms.
I had no knowledge of the early attempts to fly into hurricanes to study them.
Thanks.
Fun aside, cause I just looked it up. We were devastated in October 2005 by Wilma, which hit Florida very fast west to east as a Cat 3. The eye passed over Broward County, where Fort Lauderdale is on the east/ south dirty side. Our building grounds took 18 months to recover. We were fine, although survived an unforgettable Wilma night.
But before hitting Florida, Wilma strengthened into a CAT 5 with the lowest barometric pressure ever measured (inferred strongest hurricane ever measured. At its Cat 5 peak, Wilma’s eye was just 2.7 miles across and the dropsonde measured eye pressure was just 888.
Wilma must have taken all the “climate change” out of the system because there was a 10+ year drought of major (Cat. 3, 4 & 5) hurricanes hitting the CONUS after she blew through.
Thanks Rud.
Not trying for a NickPick here (ok I probably am 🙁 ), but what distance metric would be used for “just outside the eyewall“?.
Whadya mean ? They’ve doubled since 2021!
/s
On September 6, 1622, the Spanish ship Atocha was sank by a no name hurricane….in the Florida Keys….it left Havana harbor on a pleasant sunny day not knowing what lurked over the horizon…..so far $450 million in treasure.
The Spanish Armada?
The Divine Wind?
“see climate change happening”
They obviously have God like vision. /s
And Greta Thunderstorm can see CO2.
Greta can smell CO2, so its no surprise that people can see climate change happening.
In fact, I saw it today. The leaves on all my fruit trees are turning yellow.
Mine too!
This must be a global event?
Let’s “average” the yellowness of our leaves at this time and strike a value we can project for the next 30 years so we have a standard of “yellowness” to track.
Do you want to fill out the grant application or should I?
“This must be a global event?”
Sorry, not happening down here.
All my citrus are flowering very nicely. 🙂
And the stone fruit trees next door are full of blossom.
A denialist!!!
And we haven’t even got a grant to
invent research a paper yet.Sorry, didn’t mean to affect your chance of getting a climate trough grant 😉
Me bad. 🙁
Nah, it’s only hemispheric. Just like “global” warming. 😅🤣😂
“Are Hurricanes Getting Stronger?” No. Next stupid question.
Just quit driving, flying, heating with natural gas, eating red meat, and consuming products made from fossil fuel derivatives and watch hurricane intensity not only fall to manageable levels but also cease being a problem in the first place.
But you know absolutely that THEY WON’T !
Their whole existence relies on access to reliable energy from FOSSIL FUELS. !
Modern health care could never “go back to paper straws”, among many, many other things.
Richard Lindzen pointed out decades ago, that storm intensity is driven by the equator-pole thermal gradient. In a warmer world, the gradient flattens. A flatter gradient means less intense storms.
The alarmists have it backwards. “Global warming” should reduce storm intensity.
The person who said s/he could see climate change happening reminds me of Greta Thunberg, who once claimed she could see the CO₂ accumulating in the atmosphere.
That is for mid-latitude baroclinic storms.
TCs and Hurricanes are NOT baroclinic – they form in a barotropic atmosphere which is omnipresent over the tropical oceans.
They gain their energy from the release of LH of condensation, and not from forced uplift due baroclinicity and vorticity.
Basic Meteorology.
Hurricanes are heat engines and require a heat source and a heat sink. The heat source are warm tropical waters. The heat sink are upper level winds. These winds must be just right. If they are too weak, the storm cannot vent properly. If they are too strong, the storm is disrupted. A warmer atmosphere does not make these storms stronger–just the opposite.
“A warmer atmosphere does not make these storms stronger–just the opposite.”
Obviously all things must be equal aside the greater LH release aloft.
You are aware of the Clausius Clapeyron relation?
And the concep of CAPE?
Sorry, but your “just the opposite” is just the opposite.
The removal of the energy aloft in TCs is via the warm core (opposite of mid-latitude storms – they are cold) causing divergence (they spiral out anticyclonically).
The energy that TCs have to vent comes from the LH of condensation.
Which increases because the WV content gained is higher from wamer ocean SSTs
Mid-latitude storms are largely governed by via the extent of baroclinicity and vorticity. The divergence aloft is caused by the JS forming troughs and vorticity (cyclonic spin) and the LH release has a lesser effect on the magnitude of deepening.
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/home/micro-articles/hurricane#:~:text=This%20release%20of%20latent%20heat,%2C%20rotation%2C%20and%20wind%20speeds.
“Through surface evaporation, warm sea surface temperatures serve as the main fuel source for hurricane formation. Easterly waves force warm, moist air to rise, creating clouds and thunderstorms. As the warm, moist air rises and produces clouds and precipitation, it releases latent heat through condensation of the rising water vapor molecules. This release of latent heat causes warming aloft making the air pressure higher and causing air to move outwards, or diverge away from the storm. This, in turn, causes the surface pressure to lower, enhancing convergence of air into the storm at the surface, increased evaporation, rotation, and wind speeds. “
I have flown P-3s through thunderstorms. If you want to push CAPE, then tell me how that improves my survival? Ice buildup on my windscreen, props glowing from Saint Elmo’s fire (at night), static on the radios, and ice everywhere.
“Clausius Clapeyron”
So you’re saying that you knew John Kennedy, and I’m no John Kennedy?
I flew P-3s on active duty and in the reserves. When the outside air temp was low, our engines were horsepower limited. In the tropics, our engines were TIT (turbine inlet temperature) limited. In other words, when it was cold, the engines produced their rated power–when it was warm, the engines did not produce their rated power.
I’ve flow recips and turbo-props. I have pilot friends who fly jets. We all agree–cold air: powerful engines; warm air: not so much.
Any heat engine must follow the same requirement. So in a warmer world, heat engines (hurricanes) won’t be as strong.
“A warmer atmosphere does not make these storms stronger–just the opposite.”
Which explains why these storms have been getting weaker as CO2 increases.
Basic data. !
Basic falshood via moving the goalpost.
SSTs have been warming ….
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/05/what-you-need-to-know-about-record-breaking-heat-in-the-atlantic/sst-comparison/
“About 67% of the tropical Atlantic experienced record or near-record warm sea surface temperature anomalies in late May 2005 using 1981-2024 records, a notably smaller extent than May 2024. The Atlantic Main Development Region (area outlined by the black boxes above) is the warmest on record (since 1981) going into a hurricane season.”
And Hurricanes have been decreasing.
Get over it.
Yes, Solar energy will increase SSTs… who knew !!
No evidence anything humans do will have any effect on SSTs though.
And no evidence anything humans do has any effect on Hurricanes.
Not the point of my post.
As I said a move of goalpost.
We all know your prediliction for denial and diversion Oxy.
Since 1981,.
FYI, 1981 was at the very end of the “new ice age” scare.
The coldest period since the much warmer 1930s,40s was 1979
Thank goodness it started to get warmer, rather than continuing to get colder.
“Basic falsehood via moving the goalpost.”
No need to title your comments..
We expect nothing else from you.
Watever you say.
It doesn’t matter a jot.
SSTs are poorly constrained prior to 2005.
It is already warm enough to spawn TS development and has been since 1981, but there are other weather factors that aid or hinder their development which YOU are ignoring thus your argument is always incomplete and in the long run useless.
Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, I’ve said this for years. In a colder less-flat world, these storms should be much stronger. The weather is all about variance.
Mid-latirude baroclinic storms, yes.
But not TC’s.
TC’s are decreasing as the SSTs get warmer and CO2 increases.
Oxy:
You post a graph that correlates “Landfalling US Hurricanes vs Atmospheric CO2 concentration”.
So, they only count if they hit the good ol’ US of A?
The vast majority dont …..
Hint: ACE is a compilaion of all TCs Atantic and Pacific.
Also: another effect of increasing SSTs and therefore WV /precipitable water content in TCs and Hurricanes is flooding:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29379-1
“The 2020 North Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record, causing heavy rains, strong storm surges, and high winds. Human activities continue to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in an increase of more than 1 °C in the global average surface temperature in 2020 compared to 1850. This increase in temperature led to increases in sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic basin of 0.4–0.9 °C during the 2020 hurricane season. Here we show that 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 observed storms that are at least tropical storm strength (>18 m/s) by 10 and 5%, respectively. When focusing on hurricane strength storms (>33 m/s), extreme 3-hourly rainfall rates and extreme 3-day accumulated rainfall amounts increase by 11 and 8%, respectively.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Carbomaniacs think people cause hurricanes!
Only a yellow-paper rag like Nature would publish garbage like this.
“we construct the initial and boundary conditions defining this counterfactual world by altering observed 2020 conditions by a simulated anthropogenic warming fingerprint from …The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble”
Climate models have no prescriptive value. They cannot provide any reliable attribution.
The flux perturbation from GHGs, 0.035 W/m² annually since 1979, is about 100-fold smaller than the model lower limit of tropospheric thermal flux resolution.
Climate modelers seem to have no understanding of calibration, resolution, or physical uncertainty. They invariably neglect them all.
There’s no way to know whether CO₂ is having any effect on the climate at all, apart from general greening and improved agricultural yields.
The climate is warming since the end of the LIA, but that cannot be attributed to human gas emissions. The climate itself remains within natural variability.
An illustration of how much better our abilities to observe tropical storms have become.
Aka meaningless.
Herr Goebbels is smiling from hell.
His disciples are the Eco-Nazis of today, implanting propaganda into the minds of the gullible, the clueless, and those who are inattentive.