Despite “Global Warming” Hurricanes are getting weaker and fewer in number. Why?
"Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s."
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
In 2005 we were told by the "experts" that Hurricane Katrina was a product of "Global Warming", that we should expect a greater number and greater strength of hurricanes in the future. The climate models backed up the claims of the scientists, and these statements were widely reported as facts about man’s effects on the climate.
Now the long term study is out that did study the number and strength of tropical storms and the facts are that both the number and intensity have decreased over the years since Katrina.
How did these climate models miss something as easy as this, and how were the top "Global Warming Experts" fooled by the data?
If something as simple as the number and strength of the storms are wrong, than can we accept that there is more data that is wrong that we don’t know about yet?
Should the data from "Global Warming" institutes be reviewed to separate what is opinion, emotion, political from true objective science?
Tagged with: 1970s • 3 years • amp • climate models • emotion • energy levels • global warming • hurricane katrina • hurricanes • intensity • models miss • objective science • quot • scientists • tc • tropical cyclone • Tropical Storms
Filed under: Hurricane Questions
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The likelihood that "Global Warming" has been stretched and exaggerated on behalf of a certain political agenda is extremely high. The facts that certain "scientists" have presented have no stability if they have been used by people such as Al Gore or Bush because of their political standing. They have been trying to push people a certain way to get the public to vote for them or the people they stand for. A scientist with no political standing whatsoever would be a much better candidate for research on this subject, as they have no reason to lie or warp their findings. The findings of such scientists seem to learn toward that while Global Warming does exist, it is not occurring at the rate and intensity that have been presented to the public. Also, there seems to be no proof that humans are the ones in control. Nature is most likely the one most responsible for this Global Warming as such occurrences have happened in the past without the help of humans.
In short, scientists have indeed lied to us and many of the "fact" that they present have been warped to support a certain political agenda.
the biggest problem is the so called experts are only dealing with information for the last couple hundreds of years. they do not know the climate history of the world thousands of years ago. they can only speculate. i wonder about global warming myself, i live in south louisiana and in december we had about 2 inches of snow. they are all making hypothetical conjecture on millions of bits of data that no one really understands.
A linear regression through that graph reveals an increase of ACE of about 200 over the last 30 years, R^2 about 0.12. I haven’t done it, but I suspect an analysis would also reveal a fairly strong positive correlation between ocean temperatures and ACE.
Also, 2008 was a cooler la Nina year, while 2005 was a warmer el Nino. So a drop in ACE is actually evidence for warmer temperatures increasing hurricane activity.
So a basic statistical analysis contradicts some of the claims made on the blog post. Given the silly political statements of the individual presenting this graph, you might want to question the data as well.
peter.jungman already asked about this report, but alright.
The reason for the decline since 2005 is that temperatures are less than they were then. Plus, he is including 2009 for some reason, which doesn’t make much sense to me since the hurricane season hasn’t even started yet.
The purpose of the report was just to show that natural variability from el nino cycles has a greater impact on storms than global warming. It was not to say that global warming has absolutely no effect. Indeed if you were to put a trend line from 1975 to today on that graph, it would be sloping upward. That should be pretty obvious.
Really? Having been in a hurricane this past year I took a bit of an intrest and seem to recall that this was the 3rd most costly year, this hurricane season started early, was the 4th busest since 1944 and is the only year where there wa a major hurricane every month.
There were 16 named storms, the average is 11, the prediction was 12-16.
There were 8 hurricanes, the average is about 6, the prdiction was 6-9.
There were 5 major hurricanes, the average is about 2, the prediction was 2-5.
Hurricanes and tornadoes both are more powerful when there is very cold air aloft. It helps power them because they are driven by air warmed from condensation rising. Warmer water is better for hurricanes but warmer air aloft isn’t.
The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the turbulence caused by the movement of the butterfly wing in west Africa that is the start of all Atlantic hurricanes.
Or maybe the climate change crowd will dispute your example and say the model is not correct.
Alarmists will cite La Nina to explain away fewer hurricanes, but suggest warming caused by CO2 is reponsible for more hurricanes. An honest assessment would conclude that humans are not responsible for El Ninos or La Ninas and virtually every scientist would agree. Using Katrina was a dispicable tactic that alarmists should feel shame for but I doubt you will ever hear an apology. They were clearly wrong. Bravozulu got it right. Warm air isn’t going to increase hurricane strength. You need a temperature gradient. CO2 should decrease that gradient. That is one of the dirty little lies that alarmists continuously spew.
The global warming alarmist could care less about evidence. If it doesn’t support their belief it is ignored.
They keep changing their story on hurricanes.
In 2003 and 2004, when hurricane damage was up because of an increase in coastal development, and in 2005 when hurricanes were more frequent and more powerful, and in 2006 when they thought the trend in 2005 would continue, they said global warming causes more frequent and more powerful hurricanes:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Science/story?id=923864
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-5817067-7.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
But then a funny thing happened. The trend reversed – hurricanes, as anyone not living in a cave has noticed, have since become less frequent and weaker. In reality hurricanes follow 25-30-year cycles, always have, and they thought there were a few more years left on the bad side so they “predicted” more bad hurricane seasons and said that that’s what global warming caused. A few mild seasons means the cycle has shifted and most of the next 20 will also be mild.
They don’t want to hear “hey Al, where’d the hurricanes go” for the next 20 years.
So, as if on cue, they’ve changed their story to, you guess it, hurricanes are made weaker and less frequent by…. (drum roll please)….. global warming!
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2008/01/23/claim_global_warming_decreases_hurricanes/5230/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/23/tech/main3742196.shtml
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23640879.htm
This is just another example, along with polar bear populations declining / growing, seas getting saltier / less salty, snowfall declining / increasing, and even warming versus cooling itself, the only consistency in anything the warmers have to say is this equation:
X happens, they say global warming causes X.
Y, the opposite of X, happens, they say global warming causes Y.