From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
When I looked back to check something, I discovered that my December post on the Atlantic hurricane season was blank for some reason!
So in case anybody missed it, I am reposting it below:
The Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ended on 30th November, was quieter than normal, with five hurricanes, compared to a long-term average of 7.2.
By far the most complete and robust data we have for hurricanes is for those which have hit the US coast. The US Hurricane Research Division, which is part of the Federal agency NOAA, have data going back as far as 1851. According to them, hurricane data is pretty reliable since the 1880s, when the coastline became settled.
No Atlantic hurricanes at all have hit the US this year. The graphs below offer the strongest evidence of all that there are no long-term trends, either in the frequency of hurricanes or their intensity. (Major hurricanes are Cat 3 and stronger – these show no increase either.)
This is in marked contrast to the myth regularly peddled by the BBC and others, that hurricanes are getting more powerful. It is worth pointing out in this respect that the strongest hurricane on record to hit the US was the Labor Day hurricane in 1935. The second most powerful was Camille in 1969 and the third was Andrew in 1992.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
As far as the Atlantic basin is concerned, we have only had reliable data since comprehensive satellite coverage began in the 1980s. It was even later than this that hurricane hunter aircraft became robust enough to fly into the middle of the strongest hurricanes for hours on end.
The hurricane maps for this year and 1925 show just why you cannot compare today’s data with the past. Whereas most of this year’s hurricanes meandered around in Mid-Atlantic, the only ones recorded a hundred years ago were all close to land.
There were, of course, plenty of hurricanes in 1925 which never got close to shore. We simply did not have the ability to spot them.
Even when hurricane hunter aircraft started to be deployed in the 19 40s, they were unable to fly into the most powerful hurricanes, for obvious reasons. One study in 2012 by leading hurricane scientists reviewed the ten most recent Cat 5 Atlantic hurricanes, the strongest hurricanes of all. They concluded that using technology available in the 1940s, only two would have been classified as Cat 5. (It is worth noting that two of this year’s Cat 5s peaked in the middle of the Atlantic, Erin and Humberto; both only hit those wind speeds for a few hours. Neither would have been classed as Cat 5s more than a few years ago. Nor would they have even been spotted before the 1950s).
When we look at the reliable data we do have, it is clear that there are no increasing trends in frequency or intensity. This supports the findings from US hurricanes
Even when hurricane hunter aircraft started to be deployed in the 1940s, they were unable to fly into the most powerful hurricanes, for obvious reasons. One study in 2012 by leading hurricane scientists reviewed the ten most recent Cat 5 Atlantic hurricanes, the strongest hurricanes of all. They concluded that using technology available in the 1940s, only two would have been classified as Cat 5. (It is worth noting that two of this year’s Cat 5s peaked in the middle of the Atlantic, Erin and Humberto; both only hit those wind speeds for a few hours. Neither would have been classed as Cat 5s more than a few years ago. Nor would they have even been spotted before the 1950s).
When we look at the reliable data we do have, it is clear that there are no increasing trends in frequency or intensity. This supports the findings from US hurricanes:
So, what do the actual hurricane experts in the US say?
In their annual review of Atlantic hurricanes, published earlier this year, NOAA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, stated:
There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.
We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
NOAA could not be clearer.
So why, as recently as two months ago, did the BBC weathergirl, Sarah Keith-Lucas tell BBC viewers that “the frequency of very intense hurricanes such as Melissa is increasing”?
Analysis from the WWA
The Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ended on 30th November, was quieter than normal, with five hurricanes, compared to a long-term average of 7.2, which…
“was made four times more likely by climate change, according to a study.” – Sky News (UK)
World Weather Attribution, the new game for all the family. It beats Professor Plum in the Library with the Lead Pipe…
“NOAA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, stated:”
NOAA did not state that. The page linked is clearly marked:
“This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL
Any views expressed here are the author’s and do not represent official views of NOAA or the U.S. government. “
In other words, we should ignore any and all opinions expressed by NOAA employees, even if they are from a senior scientist who is involved with forecasting, and influences the official forecasts, because he is commenting on his personal website that covers what he does in his job description.
On the other hand, an online search for “NOAA hurricane season 2025” returns one hit directly attributable to NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/media/image_download/ed71e80e-9de7-4049-84c7-c74bb3240154
In summary, the official prediction was, “NOAA’s outlook for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, …, predicts a 30% chance of a near-normal season, a 60% chance of an above-normal season, and a 10% chance of a below-normal season.” The actual number of hurricanes came in below the range for a “near-normal season.” That is, it came in with a below-normal number of hurricanes, and a notable, anomalous weak start to the 2025 season. I’m assuming that ‘normal’ would be about 7 because one can’t have 20% of a hurricane.
The above prediction can be found at https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2025-atlantic-hurricane-season
Instead of trying to make excuses for NOAA, how about using your experience to try to explain why the season was below-normal instead of the predicted above-normal?
“In other words, we should ignore any and all opinions expressed by NOAA employees, even if they are from a senior scientist who is involved with forecasting, and influences the official forecasts, because he is commenting on his personal website that covers what he does in his job description.”
Fair enough:
So this (ex) NOAA scientist the same then? …..
”Jeff Masters, Ph.D., worked as a hurricane scientist with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990. After a near-fatal flight into category 5 Hurricane Hugo, he left the Hurricane Hunters to pursue a safer passion – earning a 1997 Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology from the University of Michigan.
In 1995, he co-founded the Weather Underground, and served as its chief meteorologist and on its Board of Directors until it was sold to the Weather Company in 2012. “
He is the author of this article……
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/10/climate-change-strengthened-hurricane-melissa-making-the-storms-winds-stronger-and-the-damage-worse/
Your above thinking is exactly the same as as denizens here forever restating the Wadhams (Stupid) statement about “our children not seeing snow”
But of course that’s just fine, eh?
And the likely reason for the BBC Forecaster saying what she did is because of the 2 recent studies mentioned in the Masters article.
Otto attribution junk science.. !!
It was Viner who claimed that children wouldn’t know what snow is, Wadhams predicted the end of Arctic ice. Still, there are so many idiotic alarmist prognosticators out there that it’s understandable that you don’t know who said what.
Apparently, NOT one and the same. I was trusting that Stokes was correct and that the author of the article linked by him was was written by a NOAA employee as the URLs provided by Paul Homewood and myself all point to NOAA as the source. I did not use any names because I did not see them at the NOAA websites.
I never claimed that Masters was the author of the forecast. The link that you have provided is NOT a season forecast. It is, instead, a recap of hurricane Melissa, months after the official forecast. You are providing a strawman argument to support your position. Nice try, but no ‘seegar!’
For the record, while Jeff Masters is no longer employed by NOAA, he is still attempting to add substance to his expertise by stating in the introductions to his writings found at Yale Climate Connections, “Jeff Masters, Ph.D., worked as a hurricane scientist with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990…”
Note that at one of Master’s newsletters, [ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/which-hurricane-models-should-you-trust-in-2025/ ] he supports the NOAA forecasts: “Put your trust in the National Hurricane Center, or NHC, forecast.”
So, your champion touts himself as being a former NOAA scientist, and continues to rank their forecasts as the best. I think it is fair to say that he unofficially supports the NOAA hurricane forecasts and it was the NOAA forecast reliability that was contested by Homewood and the focus of his remarks.
Simple ethics would have demanded that Tom Knutson NOT cite his association with NOAA if indeed he wanted to express only his personal views.
But perhaps Mr. Knutson is “senior” enough to no longer consider ethics to be of any importance in his life.
Are you nuts? Simple ethics REQUIRES people who have an official position (in government or business or related professional work) that is relevant to an expression of their personal views to to state that relationship explicitly so that readers can determine if that relationship might “color” their views in some way the reader should take into account.
Then please cite the specific clause in any government or business contract that states such “ethics requirement”.
I know from personal experience that almost all employment contracts state that an employee cannot issue public statements linked to their employer without prior approval of their employer’s public affairs/information clearance office to do so.
Interesting that NOAA wish to distance themselves from the actual facts.
Why do you find that interesting..?
I would call it “par-for-the-course” 😉
Valid observation. In addition, the website was last updated Nov. 20, 2024.
It is noted that the NOAA logo is prominently displayed on the page.
The page is under NOAA: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
Furthermore, the quote that you address contains a link to a Nature publication from 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5.
The NOAA Science Fact Sheet link on the website is broken.
Congratulations Nick.
You found a legitimate nit to pick that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
“nothing to do”
The quoted text is followed by
“NOAA could not be clearer.“
Butis isn’t NOAA. That is not an irrelevant observation.
So why, as recently as two months ago, did the BBC weathergirl, Sarah Keith-Lucas tell BBC viewers that “the frequency of very intense hurricanes such as Melissa is increasing”?
Because her job counts on it?
What is the origin of, “If it bleeds, it leads.”?
The strongest historical evidence points to late‑19th‑century American yellow journalism, especially the circulation war between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. According to reporting summarized by Pepperdine Graphic, the phrase was popularized in the 1890s, during the era when Hearst aggressively sensationalized stories of violence, crime, and war to boost newspaper sales.
That period—especially around the Spanish‑American War—was notorious for lurid headlines, exaggerated stories, and a belief that shocking content was the fastest way to grab attention. “If it bleeds, it leads” captured that editorial strategy perfectly.
Copilot AI.
“And so it goes.”
Linda Ellerbee
Not to be pedantic, but the origin of “and so it goes” is Kurt Vonnegut in his iconic 1969 novel “Slaughterhouse Five”. Linda Ellerbee later picked up the phrase and made it her standard sign off.
“Remember the Maine” was a popular term that yellow press newspapers used at one time too. Although I’m not convinced many still do, or even care.
One should note that the Maine did not sink because of a hurricane.
Bottommost sentence from the above article:
“So why, as recently as two months ago, did the BBC weathergirl, Sarah Keith-Lucas tell BBC viewers that ‘the frequency of very intense hurricanes such as Melissa is increasing’?”
Gee . . . even though it may have been meant to be sarcastic, that question has this straightforward answer that has long been true: “bad news sells; good news not as much”, and today that is more true than ever, to the point of intentionally publishing/featuring fake news!
Let’s see if I can post an image of a graph made from that same NOAA All US Hurricanes page.
Should show year and category, and for what it’s worth:
Looks like all US. Class five hurricanes occurred since
1935 and most Class fours did too.
“Looks like!” How accurate do you think assessment of frequency and strength of hurricanes were before WWII?
The sea needs to get with the Climate program. After all, the Climate narrative does need help from Mother Nature once in a while. Where’s a Katrina when you need one? Sheesh!
Very nice.
The BBC’s weathergirl, Sarah Keith-Lucas, told the viewers that “the frequency of very intense hurricanes such as Melissa is increasing” because her continuing employment depended on her carrying out orders unquestioningly.
Or perhaps she was just dealing in facts?
(Remember facts, America?)
So, are you saying that there is no chance of reporting bias after the invention of Doppler radar and the launch of geostationary weather satellites (1975)?