We finally had our first hurricane this season in the North Atlantic region: Isaias. Isaias formed on October 7 as a tropical storm in the Gulf of America, and made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane on October 10 near Destin, Florida.
Paul Homewood of Not a Lot of People Know That collects the relevant data in a post from October 11.
Homewood notes that Isaias represents the latest ever first hurricane for the North Atlantic, at least since the satellite era (1966) has provided full data:
Isaiah was the first Atlantic hurricane of the season, the latest on record. The previous record was Sep 11th in both 2002 and 2013.
So Isaias broke the previous record for latest formation of the first hurricane by almost a full month.
And besides being late, Isaias was also rather unimpressive. Homewood has full data on Isaias’ wind speeds and Category designation:
Having briefly reached Cat 3 hours before landfall, the storm weakened considerably by the time it reached the coast. NWS claim sustained winds of 105 mph, but there is no evidence for this. Surface wind measurements put the highest wind gusts at 118 mph, but sustained winds are always much lower. Gusts at Santa Rosa, for instance, peaked at 116 mph, but NWS confirm sustained winds of 91 mph, which would mean it was only a Cat 1 hurricane at landfall.
Homewood provides a link to National Hurricane Center data on the hurricane, where NHS claims that their radar measured sustained winds at landfall of 105 mph. If correct, that would put Isaias into Category 2. However, Homewood observes that the highest sustained winds as measured at any ground station were 91 mph, well within the bounds of Category 1.
Meanwhile, the hurricane season continues to progress towards its conclusion. According to the NHC page today, there are no more hurricanes at this point in the Atlantic, and “tropical cyclone activity is not expected during the next 7 days.” With each passing day this late in the season, the likelihood of another hurricane declines rapidly.
To those who have accused me of cherry-picking the North Atlantic hurricane data, I say that I was not the one who suggested that metric to test the hypothesis of “more and more severe storms and hurricanes.” The metric was selected by advocates of the hypothesis when a few strong and widely publicized storms made it appear to be a useful metric to scare the public.
Now that the North Atlantic hurricanes are a bust, let them select a new metric for themselves, and see how it turns out. Homewood’s post contains two other charts. The first is from NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. It shows simply the number of hurricanes making landfall by year in the U.S., going all the way back to 1851. Homewood has added a red line showing a 30-year running mean:
No noticeable trend there. The record year was 1886.
Another possible metric is global hurricane frequency. For that one, Homewood provides one of Ryan Mate’s charts with global data going back to 1980:
No noticeable upward trend in that one either. And then there’s the Accumulated Cyclone Energy metric, for which I provided a chart of global data in my October 4 post. That makes four proposed metrics so far, and the “more and more severe storms and hurricanes” hypothesis has failed all four of them.
But maybe advocates of the “more and more severe storms” proposition have yet another metric they would prefer. If so, name it! They won’t, because once they name their metric, they must agree that the hypothesis is falsified when the metric fails to perform as predicted.
I think that we are well past the point where the “more and more severe storms and hurricanes” hypothesis has been falsified.
There was too much bragging about no hurricanes. A few years ago there was bragging near the end of the season about none hit the mainland….a couple of weeks later a bad one hit.
So what?
Jinx joke. Pretty common among humans.
People, it’s a jinx joke. Downvoting a joke is gauche.
“Ryan Mate’s”
Perhaps you meant Ryan Maue?
It’s his Australian cousin. 😉
If you wanted to cherry pick, Australia is a textbook example to use. So much so they don’t update the graphic anymore and the page is not available through the normal website links
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cyclones/
But… But, perhaps the intensity climbed rapidly before dwindling, /sarc
Looks like the 1880-1960 period averaged quit a bit higher than all the time since 1960.
Remeber people. Cooling is caused by warming.
The absence of hurricanes is caused by the increase of hurricanes.
It’s all really simple if you’re a Dumbocrat.
You just do not understand “The Science.”
CO2 repositioned the hurricanes from the Atlantic to the Pacific, renaming them Typhoons.
/sarc
Once again, who exactly is it that is hypothesising there will be “more and more severe storms and hurricanes”?
That is not an IPCC or CMIP model projection!
The IPCC North Atlantic tropical storm forecast is for no increase in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes and possibly even a decrease.
Nor do they project an increase in the frequency of major hurricanes. What they project is an increase in the ratio of major Atlantic hurricanes to all Atlantic hurricanes.
To repeat, an increase in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, including major hurricanes, is not an IPCC or CMIP model projection.
The projection is that for those Atlantic hurricanes that do occur, a higher proportion are expected to reach ‘major’ status.
As for this year, NOAA predicted a very slow Atlantic hurricane season in 2026 because of the enormous developing El Niño in the Pacific, which it’s fair to say has exceeded earlier expectations. Again, completely ignored in the above article.
So CO2 does not impact hurricanes? Finally, we agree.
Other than to the extent that it may reduce the frequency of N Atlantic hurricanes whilst increasing the ratio of major hurricanes to all hurricanes, yes. We both agree with the IPCC, who have been saying this for decades now.
All that remains for us now is to find these mysterious ‘hypothesisers‘ who, we are told, think otherwise.
(I suspect they may turn out to be made of straw.)
You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
Hmmm? A ratio? Let major hurricanes be MH and all hurricanes be AH. Right now that stands at 0/1 = 0. I sincerely doubt that the IPCC intended for the ratio to go to zero.
Do you live under a rock? Try doing a search for “more and more severe storms and hurricanes” and see what you get.
Simple to resolve.
Search and find and link to a scientific organisation that predicted, “more and more severe storms and hurricanes” and come back.
You won’t, because there aren’t any.
So NASA and the Met Office don’t count then… and this from UChigago… ”Scientist proposes a new Category 6 for hurricanes, calculates the growing cost and impact of climate change.”
Key Officials and Statements
What the Broader UN Scientific Body ReportsThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the UN’s body for assessing climate science—concludes in its assessment reports that while the total global frequency of tropical storms may not necessarily increase (and could potentially decrease or stay stable), the proportion of storms that reach major, high-intensity categories (Category 4 and 5) is very likely to increase as ocean temperatures rise. Additionally, climate change-driven sea-level rise increases the severity of storm surges associated with hurricanes when they make landfall.
Mr. Alberts: Thanks for this, was it you who cited the WMO to Mr. Nail in the last comment string? He’s been debunked on this point, but refuses to get it. Just another refuser.
Don’t think it was me. My question to Gemini was specifically about UN officials. Expanded to activist scientist, it would likely produce a much larger response.
Yeah, I was “debunked” by a quote that exactly stated what I was saying.
That is some upside down world you guys reside in.
Did you not read?
“The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change…”
I did, but I may not have been the only one, nor can I assert I was the first.
… are not scientific forecasts.
That’s exactly what I summarised above, apart from the fact that you emboldened the wrong part.
Read it again with the correct embolding.
It says, “…the proportion of storms that reach major, high-intensity categories (Category 4 and 5) is very likely to increase as ocean temperatures rise”
It clearly says that frequency of storms is not expected to increase and may even reduce; but that those storms that do occur are more likely to reach higher intensities.
That’s exactly what I said above and in previous iterations of this ridiculous thread of articles.
You literally vindicated my argument with your quote, for which thanks.
You ignore the WMO and the WHO publications.
The IPCC is not a scientific publication, not the Summary for Policy Makers.
Amen. The IPCC is a political organization.
The subject was also about what leaders are saying. That’s why the quotes were important.
Also… “concludes in its assessment reports that while the total global frequency of tropical storms may not necessarily increase” Is not the same as won’t increase. Weasel words of great uncertainty, in other words.
Regardless. This season has shown that neither of the “scientific assessments” are very trustworthy. Could be more, could be less, could be stronger, maybe not. Yeah, let’s hang our civilizational hat on that.
Let’s suppose the data showed that hurricanes were actually becoming more frequent and more violennt. You would be crowing the successful prediction from the rooftops by now.
Maybe they will adopt landslides as a measure of man made climate change?
There are always landslides somewhere so the Monbiot practice of blaming everything on climate change, would enable the alarmists to add horrific pictures to there horrific claims.
One of the interesting points above is the over rating of categories for these storms. Seems consistently we hear just before landfall the storm is category X with sustained winds of 1xx mph. Yet when they actually arrive the measured winds are less than advertised. Yes, I understand upwelling, changes in wind shear and land interaction affect these storms. But they always seem to be over rated. Don’t get me wrong, people should evacuate or prepare when living on the coast and are in the path. They are dangerous storms.
The differences lie with how wind speeds are measured.
Video from Sabine Hossenfelder ….
“Global Warming Means Fewer Tropical Cyclones, Researchers Find”
Right after Katrina, that’s not what was predicted. Then we got an 11 year drought of major US landfalling hurricanes.
Is the Pacific above normal this year? Seems that’s where all the action is.
That darn CO2…lol
Yes, as expected during an El Niño year.
Currently the Pacific has had a total of 28 hurricanes (avg 22), 21 major (avg ~12).