Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
NOAA’s projections about the year 2024 North Atlantic Hurricane season are shown below.
We are now through the June to October part of the 2024 season with only November remaining which has a history of far fewer hurricane and tropical storm monthly occurrences.
NOAA projected that there would be an 85% chance of an “above normal” year (most people would say “above average”, but we live in the government driven climate alarmism propaganda era) with between 17 and 25 named storms occurring.
Colorado State University North Atlantic statistical data (shown below) developed from NHC “operational best tracks” indicates 15 named storms have occurred to date with only the weaker tail end of the hurricane season ahead in the month of November.
Compared to NOAA’s 85% projected chance of 17 to 25 named storms occurring we have yet to experience the lowest number of 17 let alone the highest number of 25.
The data shows a total of 10 hurricanes have occurred which is at the lower end of the NOAA projection range of 8 to 13 such storms with 4 of those in the major hurricane category which is at the very low end of the 4 to 7 NOAA projection range.
The total year to date year 2024 North Atlantic region ACE of 145.3 is above the long-term historical average ACE of 122.5 as shown below.
Comparing the year 2024 to date North Atlantic Hurricane ACE and hurricane outcomes with other years going back to 1851 (found here) we note the following results recognizing that the lower activity month of November results remain for the year 2024.
The 2024 Hurricane total ACE at end October 2024 is 145.3 with a total of 10 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes and 15 total named storms.
The years 2021 and 2023 achieved comparable North Atlantic ACE values as occurred in 2024 of 145.7 and 145.6 respectively with a total of 7 and 7 hurricanes, 4 and 3 major hurricanes and 21 and 20 named storms respectively.
There are 23 years since 1851 where the North Atlantic total hurricane ACE exceeded 150 (greater than the present year 2024 ACE value of 145.3) starting in year 1878 and ending in year 2020.
Of these 23 years 15 exceeded the year 2024 major hurricane outcome of 4 such storms. These 15 major hurricane years include major hurricane occurrences of 5, 6 and 7 major hurricane outcomes compared to year 2024 with 4 major hurricanes. These higher major hurricane year occurrences range from years 1893 to year 2020.
The record highest North Atlantic Season total ACE was in year 1933 at 258.6 with that year experiencing 6 major hurricanes resulting in that year’s ACE being 56% greater than occurred in year 2024 and 78% greater than the long term North Atlantic historical average ACE.
The Year 2024 North Atlantic Hurricane season was not particularly unique and was clearly far from being any kind of “record year” as assessed through the metrics used to evaluate and compare hurricane year outcomes.
The year 2024 Major Hurricane Helene flooding caused in Asheville, North Carolina (with that area falsely claimed as being a “climate haven” by climate extremists) that was so over hyped by climate alarmists had also been severely flooded in 1916 by Major Hurricane Number 4.
The 1916 North Atlantic hurricane season (found here) had an ACE value of 144 (compared to 145.3 for year 2024), 15 named storms (compared to 15 named storms in year 2024), 10 hurricanes (compared to 10 hurricanes in year 2024) and 5 major hurricanes (compared to 4 major hurricanes in year 2024) was basically a 108-year-old “twin” of the year 2024 hurricane season metrics.
But the real and extraordinary story about the year 2024 hurricane season year is the glaring reality that this year’s season is well below “normal” throughout the Global Northern Hemisphere.
This huge reality is simply hidden and ignored by the climate extremists and their clueless media that base their hype on only the North Atlantic season which accounts for just 21% of the total Northern Hemisphere historical season average ACE outcomes.
Provided below are data showing the year 2024 to date ACE values for the Northeast Pacific and Northwest Pacific regions which account for 74% of the Global Northern Hemisphere historical season average ACE outcomes.
Also shown below is the year 2024 Northern Hemisphere ACE outcome to date clearly demonstrating the far below “normal” outcomes (only 73% of the historical average ACE) across the globe.
It is unfortunate and pathetic that the climate extremist media works so hard concealing the clear picture provided by measured climate science data which demonstrate that the world is not facing a climate emergency.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course the reality of “below normal” will never be seen in the MSM.
I still object to the use of the word “normal” ever being used in weather and climate stories.
Control the language, control the ideas, emotions, and opinions of the uninformed.
Doubleplus ungood!
The 2005 Hurricane season:
https://www.weather.gov/tae/climate_2005review_hurricanes#:~:text=28%20named%20storms.,set%20in%20the%201954%20season.
It’s normal to experience weather, all of which is normal if it’s ever occurred at least once in he last 500 million or so years since the planet acquired an atmosphere.
In climate reporting “Normal” – note the CAP, is a defination and the use, while odd, is okay. When not capitalized it means average.
A look at what “Climate Normals” means should explain this.
Yes, I understand it has a technical meaning- like a “normal solution” in chemistry. But, the vast majority of the public doesn’t understand that- so when they see some weather event is higher or lower or worse than normal- they think it’s a terrible, abnormal situation- which is why it shouldn’t be used, IMHO.
A “normal solution” in chemistry describes a specific set of reference conditions – and is not used to describe what one should expect to see or encounter in whatever might be considered a typical or average occurrence
A normal distribution in statistics describes a specific distribution of probabilities around a mean or average value – it is not intended to mean that the occurrence all conditions or states in the universe must be according to a normal distribution, as indeed there are many other distributions used in statistics besides “normal distributions” and they are not “abnormal” nor do they represent the expected distribution.
The warmunistas as misusing the term “normal” to mislead the public.
As they do with “ocean acidification, becoming more acidic, climate heating, and even Tipping Point.” I think that the only valid Tipping Points were the cooling of the atmosphere below the boiling point of water and the evolution of photosynthetic organisms.
John, I’m not going to look up “Climate Normals” so I may be way off base with this comment (wouldn’t be the first time)…Ok, I cheated and looked it up.
If a “normal” is an average of weather, why not call it what it is, an average, then climate events are above or below average. A lot less misleading for “Normal” people.
The presumption is that any variation whatsoever from a moving 30 year average is somehow “abnormal” or should not be expected. Indeed, to the contrary, all 30 year averages are expected to vary, which is why they are “moving” averages, and they are not all time averages of all data available for analysis. Again, this is designed to mislead and shape incorrect expectations in the public.
How do you use a 30-year average in a system with a 60-year cycle.
[Hypothetical question, of course]
As scientists they should know better, because there is nothing “normal” about average. When normal is used in science and engineering, it is used in very specific applications … like a force being labeled “normal” when it is applied at a right angle to a specified surface or a specified plane.
In climate reporting, whenever they use the term “normal” they are abusing the term and using it inappropriately when what they are actually describing is “average”.
Not to mention also that average is meaningless without also specifying the observed variability in the data.
Global Northern Hemisphere Hurricane Season is Clearly Below “Normal” Despite all the Alarmist Hype focused on the North Atlantic
Sorry, but this is passé, already. The Spanish floods have taken centre stage.
The BBC is quite overcome with gothic glee…
Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse.
“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98eylqeg06o
Climate isn’t 30 years any more; it’s 30 minutes.
Well, we all must be grateful it is not 30 nanoseconds.
As if it never flooded in Spain. All rivers have flood plains- they all flood sooner or later. Build in them and you WILL get flooded.
The last comparable flood in Spain was 1957
No doubt a geologist or geographer could look at maps of the river valley and tell how often it has flooded over the centuries. The MSM never raises this issue. Perhaps in earlier centuries few people lived in the valley close to the river. It was probably mostly farmers and shepherds.
After the 1957 floods, reportedly they improved the flood defences of Valencia. In 2024, those defences worked pretty well, carrying the water past Valencia without too much damage. But then the water piled up further downstream, which is where the worst 2024 damage occurred. Hopefully they will do more defensive work now and the results will be much better in future. NB. It’s easy to blame authorities for not being perfect, but first check how much green opposition they faced (I’m not saying they did, because I haven’t checked, but history suggests it could be a factor).
https://youtu.be/KC5H9P4F5Uk?feature=shared
Stevie Ray Vaughn-Texas Flood
Story tip. Labour has opened up a new front against agriculture – besides the green crap.
Labour scrambles to meet NFU chief as farmers plot tractor protest over inheritance tax raid
MP’s need to understand the consequences of these actions which is why we are mobilising our members for a mass lobby in the coming weeks. British farmers will ask their MPs to look them in the eye and tell them whether they support this.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/politics-latest-labour-party-news-angela-rayner-lord-alli-donorgate-free-clothes-uk-politics-news
The Civil War ins Great Britain begins with a shot heard around the world.
Farmers uprising? Colonial Minutemen.
Taxes? Boston Tea Party.
The signs are clear.
Germany is on the cusp.
The USA is spiraling downward and it would be no surprise if open hostilities commenced next Wednesday. Most expect cities in flames regardless of the election results.
You should really stay away from all this online fearmongering for a while.
Ha ha!
So says the online fearmonger-in-chief here!
The Left rioted in several major cities the last time Trump was elected and did it all summer long in 2020 when George Floyd overdosed. They even set things on fire here in Salt Lake City. The entire modus operandi of the Left is to create fear and coerce violence. I hope they have overplayed their hand and the beginning of sanity has emerged, but one would have to be a fool to think the extremists won’t have a go at it if they don’t get their way this time, like the spoiled children they are.
All this….
Hurricanes are discrete events, so finding the “normal” number of them involves calculating averages of integers typically less than 26 (A-Z, don’t recall any storms named “aardvark”).
What is never reported is the variances or standard deviations of these calculations, which have to be 30-50% of the mean.
At two-sigma, the standard deviation could be almost equal to the mean.
They hide how poorly known the “normal” number really is.
You just have to take their word for it
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
My bad, duh.
The minimum statistical sample size is 100.
What’s more, the quantization of data by using Cat 1-5 misses the reality that not all Cat 3 hurricanes have identical strength.
100 is an arbitrary number. It is only minimally ‘better’ than 99. One should specify what they are trying to accomplish with specifying a minimum statistical sample size. A recent publication by the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing recommends, instead, minimums of around 20-30, which have long been used to determine when to weight averages by n versus n-1.
Typical climate science mathematics.
“The data shows a total of 10 hurricanes have occurred which is at the lower end of the NOAA projection range of 8 to 13 such storms”
Overdoing the bold font there. Seems as near the centre of the range as you can get.
LOL, the nitpicker professor is back!
Lats face it, the Media LIED and distorted the news over the Hurricane season as it ended up being below average ACE wise for the northern hemisphere.
Look over there.
Who predicted what about ACE for the NH?
You didn’t because that wouldn’t support your dumb ankle biting replies due to your being a mathematician……..
Nitpicking typography is beyond pathetic.
And exactly how wide is that “centre of the range” anyway?
What about breathless, hyperbolic typography?
“”…as near the centre of the range as you can get.””
Not even close though, Nick. If only Mother Nature would play ball, eh.
OK:
So there can be a half a hurricane, can there? (Rhetorical).
And even to the addled on here who just have to Troll Nick for some sort of imagined browny point score.
10 Is indeed “as close to the centre of the range as you can get”.
And, of course 11 is “as close to the centre of the range as you can get”.
One is below the mean and one above …. By a margin that cannot be used as a projection.
Nick said nothing about it not being in the bottom (correctly lower half – by a statistically unverifiable amount).
He said:
”seems as near the centre of the range as you can get.””
And as I have shown and is common sense when not blinded by the need to strike-back no matter what as you know the attack-dogs have your back and Nick will not retaliate.
You know I will.
/yawn/
Ditto
Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla……. Zzzzzzz……
Armageddon can’t be too far off when I find myself agreeing with you and Stokes.
It is a trivial point not worth the acrimony. Currently, the number of hurricanes is less than half that were forecast. However, they may well make it past that by the end of the month. Even so, the forecast is of poor quality. End of story.
Is 10 less that (8+13)/2?
If yes, then it is at the lower end of the projection.
‘lower end’ is a stretch by any linguistic standard.
For once I agree with the nit-picker. Largely irrelevant, but accurate nit-pick. I also saw it immediately upon reading.
I’m happy to have a go at the nit-picker, but this knee-jerk reaction to everything he posts is detrimental.
Yes, when doing integer math, the only choices one has are 10 or 11 for the mid-range value.
Come on guys, I’ve been as critical of Stokes as anyone. Yet, it only makes you feel good to down vote him when he is stating the obvious. It isn’t science! It is politics.
It wasn’t worth it because the difference was TRIVIAL!
ACE numbers in the past 25 years should never be compared with earlier ACE numbers because the earlier numbers undercounted tropical storms, before about 2000, and undercounted some non-landfalling hurricanes, before the satellite age in the mid-1970s.
ACE wild guesses for years before 1970 are worthless. Only major US landfalling hurricane counts are useful data for years from the late 1800s until about1975
Larry Hamlin does not know this because he is consistently incompetent on the subject of data analysis. Which editors here consistently fail to recognize.
Mindreader Greene is back with more deceptive crap, as it is well known that the NOAA is the one who goes back to 1851 using the ACE parameters while Dr. Maue runs this fine ACE index website that goes back to 1970.
LINK
The NOAA come in to make the ACE index as the official database:
The ACE index is an offshoot of Hurricane Destruction Potential (HDP), an index created in 1988 by William Gray and his associates at Colorado State University[4] who argued the destructiveness of a hurricane’s wind and storm surge is better related to the square of the maximum wind speed (vmax2https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/dfc1e5e1c86d09d1e2bba49de835d9b81749ca82) than simply to the maximum wind speed (vmaxhttps://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/2bf002e9839f290d34c839c00894e5ceaa6a9f5f).[4] The HDP index is calculated by squaring the estimated maximum sustained wind speeds for tropical cyclones while at hurricane strength, that is, wind speeds of at least 64 knots (≥ 119 km/h; 74 mph).[3] The squared windspeeds from six-hourly recorded intervals are then summed across an entire season.[5][4] This scale was subsequently modified in 1999 by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to include not only hurricanes but also tropical storms, that is, all cyclones while windspeeds are at least 34 knots (≥ 63 km/h; 39 mph).[3] Since the calculation was more broadly adjusted by NOAA, the index has been used in a number of different ways such as to compare individual storms, and by various agencies and researchers including the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the India Meteorological Department.[7][8] The purposes of the ACE index include to categorize how active tropical cyclone seasons were as well as to identify possible long-term trends in a certain area such as the Lesser Antilles.[9]
LINK
Your blathering completely ignores the facts about tropical storm undercounting before about 2000, and earlier minor non-landfalling hurricane undercounting before the satellite age.
The data are corrupt
It does not matter who compiles the data.
Your skills at data analysis are also weak
Poor RG…. Your skills at anything are very weak.. and your personal skills non-existent.
You are consistently incompetent… period.
LOL, still wants to make a fool of yourself I see, if you bothered to read you would know that the NOAA and Dr. Maue already knows about it which is why they acknowledged it.
Dr. Landsea posted a paper about this almost 25 years ago and discussed by Dr. Spenser at his blog.
You are a blustering little ass……
Mr. tommy: I appreciate your learned response, confirmed correct by Mr. Greene brushing off as blathering. Today, he took his “all data is garbage” pill. Tomorrow, he’ll take the pill that causes him to rely on the same data. I use him to gauge pills.
Where can I buy a gibberish decoder ring for your comment?
Never?
You make some valid points but you really can do better without employing character assassination tactics.
The author used published data in his analysis. If there are flaws in the sources of data, that is not the fault of the author.
Whether they are wild guesses or not is your opinion versus whoever you choose to debate.
That the data is on record is no less relevant that CO2 in 2880 at 275 ppm, wait 280 ppm, wait 290 ppm that is used as a incontrovert1ble benchmark, often used by you.
You also did not include the different systems employed over time to establish the hurricane category, so your analysis of his analysis is flawed.
2880 s/b 1880
Sounds like you would favor the leftist claims that there are more hurricanes now than before the 1970s. Of course, before satellites many small non-landfalling hurricanes were missed, but we must not ignore the OFFICIAL data
An of course you must also believe the global average temperature in 1850 or 1880 is correct because those are the OFFICIAL data. And the OFFICIAL margin of error is +/- 0.1 degrees C. You must believe that too?
The OFFICIAL IPCC “experts” claims CO2 x 2 will cause about +3 degrees C. of global warming. Must be true. It’s OFFICIAL
You are the one constantly following the leftist AGW-cult rhetoric, without ever being able to back your gibberish without anything remotely resembling science.
You are the one constantly pushing the “official” AGW-cult meme of CO2 caused warming nonsense….. without any empirical scientific evidence…
You are putting words in my mouth.
Classic inferiority complex.
I would rather debate the conclusions/data rather than assassinate the poster.
If that is an inferiority complex, I will proudly wear it.
Do we measure hurricanes today using the same methods and instruments than we did in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s…..
Don’t disturb RG with facts.
And it was Michael Mann and his team of incomparable team of climate scientists who predicted from 27 to 39 named hurricanes in the North Atlantic region. Got a ways to go there Mickie. And yes, they are incomparable, incomparably inept.
Delete one of my “team of.”
A comma! My kingdom for a comma!
Or an apostrophe!
There are three types of writers. Those who sprinkle commas in abundance, seemingly hoping that some may germinate and bear fruit. Those who use commas so sparingly that they may as well not exist, as if their livelihood depends upon the secret abundance of these unused commas.
Then, in its almost infinite rarity, there exist the careful and educated comma users. The ones who are able, without too much effort, of placing a sufficient number of commas in their correct positions.
Apostrophes, however, seem to have only a miniscule, and vanishingly small, number of proper users. The only punctuation less correctly used may be the semi-colon. I refuse to discuss that one!
The apostrophe comment was alluding to the alteration of a Biden transcript.
Historically, there was a Dec. 31 to Jan. 1 hurricane.
We are not out of this yet and no one can know what comes next.
I agree, the season is in the 5% side of the prediction and the legacy media need to own up to their fear mongering.
However, the hurricane “season” is defined to be from June through November. The forecast was for that period of time, not the entire year.
That is clear.
We may find a use for one more Caribbean hurricane.
At the MSG rally a couple of days ago, a comedian quipped there is a floating island of garbage out at sea and he thought it was called Puerto Rico. He was talking about the island, not the people, but that nuance was lost or ignored in the political fallout.
We all know about the floating islands of garbage found in the pacific, mostly plastic refuse, so it is possible the joke was also alluding to those.
While this probably was an inappropriate joke and maybe some could be offended by it, the immediate response was to play the race and victim cards and turn it into a political/campaign weapon.
What’s the reality?
https://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2024/10/puerto-rico-trash-problem/
Puerto Rico has a serious problem: full landfills, refuse, garbage, trash, and sewage problems are extreme and all of this is exacerbated by corruption.
Maybe, after all, the joke was not totally without a factual basis.
It is a shame the politicians did not look into this.
Puerto Rico needs help.
Maybe a hurricane can clear the island for them?
Speaking of Puerto Rico, every time I see AOC engaged in one of her inane socialist rants, or Sonia Sotomayor torturing the Constitution, I’m reminded of William Graham Sumner’s anti-imperialist essay, ‘The Conquest of the United States by Spain’.
https://fee.org/articles/the-conquest-of-the-united-states-by-spain/
Oh, there was far more. Guess you have to work overtime to explain all of that away.
While you are at it, explain tuckers daddy speech. Because that was gross.
But it’s over anyways – Arnold endorsed Kamala, and nobody wins against the Kindergarten Cop 😀
It’s awesome all the war mongers support Kamala…her greatest accomplishment is getting a dick Cheney endorsement….lol lol lol lol lol
Now where is that knucklehead Simon with his pee pee tape?
Yoo hoo… I’m here. Never said there was a pee tape. Now show us you have some evidence I did, or keep making a fool of yourself. Your choice.
But it is true I have highlight the many inappropriate connections his team had with Russia. If you didn’t understand them the first 45 times I posted them I am happy to do it again… but … surely… you are ready to move on, aren’t you?
Moron you need to find the pee pee tape.
Yawn…..And you need to find a life.
And “Moron.” Now be honest, did you think of that word on your own or is it one you hear a lot as you interact with others?
Dude you were duped by Dems. Either admit Russia colluuuusion is fake or produce that pee pee tape.
Yawn…
Paul Manafort either admitted guilt or was convicted of: illegal foreign lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians (Manafort had, in fact, been working illegally as an unregistered agent for pro-Russian interests since 2006), money laundering, tax fraud, lying to investigators, and lying under oath before a grand jury concerning his contact with a Russian associate during the 2016 campaign.
Rick Gates pled guilty to one count of conspiracy against the United States, as well as one count of making false statements to the FBI and to the Special Counsel about his status as a foreign agent for Ukraine (he was working together with Manafort on behalf of pro-Russian politicians).
George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to investigators about his contacts with two Russian nationals and a professor connected to Russia. Papadopoulos lied about having discussions with them regarding the dirt the Russians claimed to have on Hillary Clinton, as well as about Papadopoulos’s attempts to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
More?
We agree you are moron. Find that pee pee tape.
Ok Mr Fast learner..
“Richard Pinedo was convicted of selling bank account numbers to Russians who engaged in election interference.
Roger Stone was convicted of five counts of lying to Congress on matters related to the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia and the records he had of them, as well as one count of witness tampering, and one count of obstruction of a proceeding- all related to Russian election interference.
Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his connections to the Russian ambassador.”
Boy it is a lot isn’t it? Especially when you haven’t read the details for a while.
You are a moron. If you don’t admit Russia colluuuusion was fake, then dude find that pee pee tape.
So you think the examples of collusion I provided are fake? I have more.
Try explaining ANY of the Kamal’s word salad speeches.. which have absolutely zero rational content.
Why are you pushing the total destruction of the USA by the Kamal becoming president ?
Morons vote for morons; America is packed with Morons thus she has a chance to win despite her skill set doesn’t exist for the office.
“Morons vote for morons” And garbage votes for garbage. What a choice…..
You totally missed the point.
South Korea was not hit by a typhoon in 2024 — the first time in seven years. The South Korean Metrological Agency attributed the absence of typhoons to the heat dome over South Korea, which also resulted in the warmest summer ever.
I love a good heat dome
in the morning.
Feels like –
summer. ..
Perhaps you should plot a comparison between the years before internet hysteria; and the years since that took hold. It won’t be an equal sample, but it should tell you how much of all this is reporting hysteria, incorrect public perceptions and how much of it suggests that things might actually be getting worse.
Been ongoing since the early 90s.