From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
As I pointed out in my review of hurricanes last week, comprehensive observation and measurement on hurricanes globally really only became possible in the 1980s, with the help of satellites and robust hurricane hunter aircraft.
But reliable longer term data is available for landfalling hurricanes, notably, of course, in the US.
For the last few years Roger Pielke Jr has been keeping track of Atlantic and North Pacific landfalling hurricanes. His data goes back to 1950.
He has now updated his graphs to include last year:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-tropical-cyclone-landfalls
As with US storms, there is no evidence of any long term trends, either in the frequency of hurricanes or the number of major, Cat3+ storms.
So extreme weather is, shall we say, unpredictable? Mostly like all weather, but of course, climate is different. But as we all know, the present is correct, the past is always changing.
Anything can be predicted, but in science you have to get the uncertainty right.
Which of course is a huge problem for GCM based predictions of extreme weather as the transfer of whatever they find in their model to the real world must include the potential alternative to any assumption used.
The likes of F. Otto et al. work nowhere near the required scrutiny..
Yes, weather history debunks Climate Alarmist claims about a connection between the weather and CO2.
There is no unprecedented weather, or warmth today. Weather was just as severe in the past as it is today, and it is no warmer today than it has been in the recent past. Nothing to see here!
By now it should be quite clear that the only major increase in anything has been the shrill, nay, hysterical alarmism in the media and in education. 2025 I’m sure was a bitter disappointment to the faithful having predicted…
NOAA predicts above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season
Above-average Atlantic Ocean temperatures set the stage – NOAA
NOAA and the National Weather Service are using the most advanced weather models…
But it didn’t happen. But there was one saving grace for the doom addicted; Melissa. And they jumped on it.
Climate crisis means super-strength Hurricane Melissa is ‘dangerous new reality’
Winds of Melissa’s strength are now five times more frequent due to the climate crisis, research says
Climate change increased Melissa’s maximum wind speeds by 7% and extreme rainfall by 16%, the team at World Weather Attribution, a consortium of 20 researchers from the US, UK, Sweden, Dominican Republic, Netherlands, Jamaica and Cuba, found.
…
Global heating has made the atmospheric and marine conditions behind such extreme events six times more likely. – The 6th Form Common Room
They aren’t interested in data, only what their priestly digital tea-leaf reading reveals.
This, in my opinion, is a must see:
“Climate change increased Melissa’s maximum wind speeds by 7% and extreme rainfall by 16%”
I’ll bet those percentages are well within the error bars. In other words, BS.
digital tea-leaf readings
Are like Horoscopes
Jan 17, 2026 – You may be a specialist at climate data and counterintuitive ideas, using your priestly skills in divining the true meaning of model runs. If this is true, other climate scientists have probably already told you that independent thinking is fine, but there is a moment when you have to put all that nonsense aside and remember that there really is a climate crisis.
The position of the planets today invites you to think about this.
-1
Thanks for the laugh.
I’m sorry but why is this not posted and pinned to the top of WUWT? This is amazing work…what am I missing ?
Paul Burgess: “Explaining Every Temperature Change from 1983 to 2025” | Tom Nelson Pod #365
The “unnamed 1986 hurricane” associated with the picture above the article was actually called the Cedar Keys hurricane.
This link provides some other photos/maps related to this event.
You meant 1896. No one (not in front of a camera) wore clothes like that in the late 20th Century.
I once encountered the phrase “purposefully mendacious,” and it perfectly captures the shifting hurricane narratives peddled by the climate establishment. For decades, they have operated a “revolving door” of failed alarms:
Each failed prediction is simply replaced by a new, less falsifiable metric to ensure the alarm never stops, regardless of what the actual weather does.
But not the frequency, the intensity. The IPCC tells us more storm intensity because of more heat and moisture in the ATM, but yes, less frequency because of the reduced temperature difference between the poles and the equator.
Steve, I posted my “intensity” question before I read your posting. I ran it past Copilot AI and it appears you nailed it with your report of : “…data-void” claims. We have no reliable high-resolution baseline for these metrics from the pre-satellite era…”
Great job capturing the “deceit”. I’ll be sharing excerpts of your excellent histogram on Quora.
From “more storms” to “stronger storms” to “faster storms” to “more rapidly intensifying storms” to “rainier storms” each pivot represents a retreat from measurable historical landfalls toward theoretical model-based claims that cannot be easily disproven by the past.
Model-to-Model Validation: “Attribution Science” uses one computer model to calculate a “human-caused” percentage and then uses a second model to validate it. This bypasses the need for actual historical observations.
By moving the goalposts to “Model Based Attribution Science,” the regime has moved away from empirical history entirely. They no longer need a 100-year trend to claim “victory”; they simply run a computer simulation of a storm “without humans” and tell the public the difference is the “climate change tax.”
Every subsequent phase of their deceit has been weaker. The new emerging folly of the polar shift and stalling over cities is their weakest yet. It’s such a science-free fabrication that it abandons historical data entirely in favor of “attribution modeling”—a circular logic where computer simulations are used to validate the very alarmism they were programmed to produce.
By moving the goalposts from measurable metrics like wind speed and landfall counts to the subjective behavior of individual storms, the narrative has entered the realm of the non-falsifiable. They are no longer predicting the weather; they are pathologizing it.
Thanks Steve, Very enlightening. I’ve added this to my climate facts collection. Excellent job with your example of Progressive Progress: From “more storms” to “stronger storms” to “faster storms” to “more rapidly intensifying storms” to “rainier storms” each pivot represents a retreat from measurable historical landfalls….Every subsequent phase of their deceit has been weaker.
One more.
Now, we have reached the weakest pivot of all: stalling and shifting. Having failed to prove the storms are more frequent, stronger, or faster, they now claim the weather itself has ‘forgotten’ how to move, rebranding the ancient randomness of steering currents as a new climate pathology.
It is a trail of diminishing deceit: moving from measurable global trends to unfalsifiable local anecdotes, until ‘science’ is nothing more than a simulation designed to ignore the horizon of the past.
The true irony is that if they were right about storms “stalling,” the most likely cause for that is probably extraction of energy from the wind via their beloved “wind farms,” not due to the increase in “average” temperature.
I guess hurricanes don’t watch The Weather Channel.
They don’t know what they’re supposed to do. /s
Try to tell this to the mainstream media, and they’ll suppress the facts or ignore them completely because it refutes their alarmist agenda which is likely paid for by governments and environmental organizations.
Seems to me that Melissa “rapidly gained intensity” just prior to landfall achieving a short lived Cat 5 rating. It de-intensified over land (normal) and exited onto the ocean as a Cat 3 and further de-intensified as it went on it’s merry way.
Jamaica is about 150 miles long and about 50 miles at its widest. Someone explain how the climate on one side of the island can be so radically different than on the other side.