• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Significant Overall Trend over 167 Years of Hurricane Landfall Data

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The alarmist canard about more & worse hurricanes is (once again) refuted.


Hurricane trend detection

Hurricane and major hurricane landfall counts exhibited no significant overall trend over 167 years of available data, nor did accumulated cyclone energy over the continental USA over 119 years of available data, although shorter-term trends were evident in all three datasets.
Continue reading →

Published: 11 August 2020
Craig Loehle & Erica Staehling
Natural Hazards (2020) Cite this article
Abstract

Because a change in the frequency (number/year) of hurricanes could be a result of climate change, we analyzed the historical record of Atlantic basin and US landfalling hurricanes, as well as US continental accumulated cyclone energy to evaluate issues related to trend detection.

Hurricane and major hurricane landfall counts exhibited no significant overall trend over 167 years of available data, nor did accumulated cyclone energy over the continental USA over 119 years of available data, although shorter-term trends were evident in all three datasets.

Given the χ2 distribution evinced by hurricane and major hurricane counts, we generated synthetic series to test the effect of segment length, demonstrating that shorter series were increasingly likely to exhibit spurious trends. Compared to synthetic data with the same mean, the historical all-storm data were more likely to exhibit short-term trends, providing some evidence for long-term persistence at timescales below 10 years.

Because this might be due to known climate modes, we examined the relationship between the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) and hurricane frequency in light of these short-term excursions. We found that while ratios of hurricane counts with AMO phase matched expectations, statistical tests were less clear due to noise. Over a period of 167 years, we found that an upward trend of roughly 0.7/century is sufficient to be detectable with 80% confidence over the range from 1 to 21 storms/year. Storm energy data 1900–2018 over land were also analyzed.

The trend was again zero. The pattern of spurious trends for short segments was again found. Results for AMO periods were similar to count data. Atlantic basin all storms and major storms (1950–2018) did not exhibit any trend over the whole period or after 1990. Major storms 1950–1989 exhibited a significant downward trend.

All-storm basin scale storms exhibited short-term trends matching those expected from a Poisson process. A new test for Poisson series was developed based on the 95% distribution of slopes for simulated data across a range of series lengths. Because short data series are inherently likely to yield spurious trends, care is needed when interpreting hurricane trend data.

 
The alarmist canard about more & worse hurricanes is (once again) refuted.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
[URL="
[/FONT][/COLOR]


without fossil fuels,hurricane damage would not be down and recovereis would be much harder
 
The alarmist canard about more & worse hurricanes is (once again) refuted.

Fair enough. Number of landfall events show no major trend.

What else could be impacted? What fuels hurricanes? Warm water you say? Well, we DO KNOW that the ocean is warming, so do we have to throw out "conservation of energy" as a concept?

Or, wait...let's look at the intensity of the hurricanes which ALSO tracks with water temperature!

And here we have it!

Evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger | PNAS

or this one:

How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous >> Yale Climate Connections
'Are hurricanes getting stronger?
The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”'

This is fun!
 
Fair enough. Number of landfall events show no major trend.

What else could be impacted? What fuels hurricanes? Warm water you say? Well, we DO KNOW that the ocean is warming, so do we have to throw out "conservation of energy" as a concept?

Or, wait...let's look at the intensity of the hurricanes which ALSO tracks with water temperature!

And here we have it!

Evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger | PNAS

or this one:

How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous >> Yale Climate Connections
'Are hurricanes getting stronger?
The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”'

This is fun!



[FONT=&quot]The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of...[/FONT]
Read more
[/FONT]​
 
Fair enough. Number of landfall events show no major trend.

What else could be impacted? What fuels hurricanes? Warm water you say? Well, we DO KNOW that the ocean is warming, so do we have to throw out "conservation of energy" as a concept?

Or, wait...let's look at the intensity of the hurricanes which ALSO tracks with water temperature!

And here we have it!

Evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger | PNAS

or this one:

How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous >> Yale Climate Connections
'Are hurricanes getting stronger?
The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”'

This is fun!

How about this one? I've been living in florida for over thirty years, the storms are most assuredly getting worse and I'm not even a scientist.
 
Fair enough. Number of landfall events show no major trend.

What else could be impacted? What fuels hurricanes? Warm water you say? Well, we DO KNOW that the ocean is warming, so do we have to throw out "conservation of energy" as a concept?

Or, wait...let's look at the intensity of the hurricanes which ALSO tracks with water temperature!

And here we have it!

Evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger | PNAS

or this one:

How climate change is making hurricanes more dangerous >> Yale Climate Connections
'Are hurricanes getting stronger?
The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”'

This is fun!


Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue

climatlas.com › tropical
1L0JN9d9XNyx0AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC


by SS File - ‎Related articles
... that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL. ... Dr. Ryan N. Maue. Follow @RyanMaue. Updated: Aug 15, 2020 15:01 ...


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 

[h=3]Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception[/h][FONT="][URL="https://climaterealism.com/category/extreme-weather/hurricanes/"]Hurricanes[/URL] May 21, 2020
8

[FONT="]The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of...[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=Roboto][URL="https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/highly-touted-alarmist-hurricane-study-sets-new-low-for-misleading-deception/"]Read more[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]


Wow! An "ad hominem" tour de force!!! Excellent. I can see why this is probably attractive. It starts off with a rhetorical fallacy of focusing on the writers rather than the content.

Let's look at the SECOND PARAGRAPH of this screed!

"The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion,"

So let's talk about the CONTENT.

Now, I am willing to accept the critique that the time-frame being investigated may be too short to provide meaningful data. That's a fair enough "hit", but if you actually read the PNAS article you'd see they themselves even mention that! But they go on to say: "the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified."

Also your rhetorically flawed denialist blog view of the article states that frequency has not changed...however the article it is critiquing appears to be mostly aimed at intensity not frequency!

(Forgive me, I don't have the full PNAS article since it's behind a paywall, so maybe you can look at your copy and point out the discussion of frequency. Because literally EVERYTHING I'm seeing from the PNAS website focuses on INTENSITY (which is different).

How does one quote philosophers so much but then be drawn to such fallacious "reasoning"?
 

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue

climatlas.com › tropical
1L0JN9d9XNyx0AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC


by SS File - ‎Related articles
... that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL. ... Dr. Ryan N. Maue. Follow @RyanMaue. Updated: Aug 15, 2020 15:01 ...


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.


Please read:

Frequency =/= Intensity.
 
Wow! An "ad hominem" tour de force!!! Excellent. I can see why this is probably attractive. It starts off with a rhetorical fallacy of focusing on the writers rather than the content.

Let's look at the SECOND PARAGRAPH of this screed!

"The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion,"

So let's talk about the CONTENT.

Now, I am willing to accept the critique that the time-frame being investigated may be too short to provide meaningful data. That's a fair enough "hit", but if you actually read the PNAS article you'd see they themselves even mention that! But they go on to say: "the homogenized global TC intensity record is extended to the 39-y period 1979–2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) increases are identified."

Also your rhetorically flawed denialist blog view of the article states that frequency has not changed...however the article it is critiquing appears to be mostly aimed at intensity not frequency!

(Forgive me, I don't have the full PNAS article since it's behind a paywall, so maybe you can look at your copy and point out the discussion of frequency. Because literally EVERYTHING I'm seeing from the PNAS website focuses on INTENSITY (which is different).

How does one quote philosophers so much but then be drawn to such fallacious "reasoning"?

Essentially, overall hurricane numbers declined while major storms stayed the same. Thus, a percentage increase in strong storms.

". . . Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development. . . . "
 
Essentially, overall hurricane numbers declined while major storms stayed the same. Thus, a percentage increase in strong storms.

Frequency is not the same as Intensity
 
How about this one? I've been living in florida for over thirty years, the storms are most assuredly getting worse and I'm not even a scientist.

In Floridiot also :) Don't you love it when they have these hour shows that talk about "Hurricane Awareness" True, some of it is fine but my soul sadly laughs when we hear (in Sarasota): "Pack up what you need and get out of town"
Ah..in case some of the people don't know: You can't travel very far east or west. What you can do is travel on I-75 or I-4 or I-95. Yeah, are we talking about those same highways that are parking lots in the morning and afternoon and God-forbid if there's an accident 15 miles down the road..you'll be lucky to get home in time to watch the 10 o'clock news. Plus the fact that most gas stations will be closed or out of fuel or have no power to even pump the fuel. Those "messages" on TV kind of forgot that this is not the olden days. Florida has over 20 million people now and instructing them to go someplace else (I'm afraid) is going to be the worst joke on the Floridian populace that has ever come down the pike. Especially with all the trailer parks here. If one lives toward the top of the state, fine. Down where I'm at? No thank you.
 
In Floridiot also :) Don't you love it when they have these hour shows that talk about "Hurricane Awareness" True, some of it is fine but my soul sadly laughs when we hear (in Sarasota): "Pack up what you need and get out of town"
Ah..in case some of the people don't know: You can't travel very far east or west. What you can do is travel on I-75 or I-4 or I-95. Yeah, are we talking about those same highways that are parking lots in the morning and afternoon and God-forbid if there's an accident 15 miles down the road..you'll be lucky to get home in time to watch the 10 o'clock news. Plus the fact that most gas stations will be closed or out of fuel or have no power to even pump the fuel. Those "messages" on TV kind of forgot that this is not the olden days. Florida has over 20 million people now and instructing them to go someplace else (I'm afraid) is going to be the worst joke on the Floridian populace that has ever come down the pike. Especially with all the trailer parks here. If one lives toward the top of the state, fine. Down where I'm at? No thank you.

I had a vacation in virginia the year of 2017 when we had that horrific hurricane, forget her name, it took me fourteen hours for a seven hour drive. I-95 was packed from the moment I got onto it up into south carolina. We were lucky if it was moving five miles an hour. I spend every other week in vero beach, the last storm went poof, nothing, a little wind a little rain.
 
I had a vacation in virginia the year of 2017 when we had that horrific hurricane, forget her name, it took me fourteen hours for a seven hour drive. I-95 was packed from the moment I got onto it up into south carolina. We were lucky if it was moving five miles an hour. I spend every other week in vero beach, the last storm went poof, nothing, a little wind a little rain.
In Houston, we have one weather guy who keeps a level head, he says run from the water, shelter from the wind.
My home is not in danger from storm surge, ( I am at 29 feet, and about 12 miles from the bay, and 40 miles from the gulf)
but every storm large amounts of people evacuate. After Katrina, Hurricane Rita cause a mass panic, and even people in North Houston
got on the road to Evacuate, quite a few died on the road, and the storm hit east of Houston.
Hurricane Rita - Wikipedia
Texas reported the most deaths from the hurricane, where 113 deaths were reported,
107 of which were associated with the evacuation of the Houston metropolitan area.
 
Even with Laura, Louisiana Hurricanes Have Not Increased Since 1851

August 26th, 2020

Neither Hurricane Numbers nor Intensities Have Increased in Louisiana
If we examine all of the hurricanes affecting Louisiana in the last 170 years in the National Hurricane Center’s HURDAT database (as summarized on Wikipedia) we find that there has been no long-term increase in either the number of hurricanes or their intensity since 1851.
Fig. 2. Neither the number nor intensity of hurricanes impacting Louisiana since 1851 have experienced a long-term increase, assuming major Hurricane Laura (2020) makes landfall as a Cat4 storm. Dashed lines are the linear trends.
Again, this is based upon official NOAA National Hurricane Center (NHC) statistics.
 
Even with Laura, Louisiana Hurricanes Have Not Increased Since 1851

Again, this is based upon official NOAA National Hurricane Center (NHC) statistics.

Hmmm, a data set that is local to an area on the globe.

I think the bigger question is: if the ocean is actually warming (we know it is, regardless of what we each think is the cause) why wouldn't the hurricanes/cyclones become stronger, more severe?

This is a matter of conservation of energy. Hurricanes and Cyclones are driven by water temperature in no small part, so if you put more energy into that why wouldn't hurricanes and cyclones be affected?


NOAA said:
Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) — see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.
Source: Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
 
Interesting, again, localized data and, frankly, confusing why warming of the ocean/gulf wouldn't result in changes in the storms. I tend to get hung up on the First Law of Thermodynamics, and it really stands in the way of me making a million dollars selling perpetual motion machines.

The important thing is that blogs are convinced it’s not an issue.
 
The important thing is that blogs are convinced it’s not an issue.

I wish "blogs" had been a thing when I was in grad school. It would have made everything SO MUCH EASIER!
 
Hmmm, a data set that is local to an area on the globe.

I think the bigger question is: if the ocean is actually warming (we know it is, regardless of what we each think is the cause) why wouldn't the hurricanes/cyclones become stronger, more severe?

This is a matter of conservation of energy. Hurricanes and Cyclones are driven by water temperature in no small part, so if you put more energy into that why wouldn't hurricanes and cyclones be affected?

That's certainly what the hypothesis and models predict, but it's not what the data record shows.


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.


Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue

climatlas.com › tropical





by SS File - ‎Related articles
In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE. ... The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+).
 
Interesting, again, localized data and, frankly, confusing why warming of the ocean/gulf wouldn't result in changes in the storms. I tend to get hung up on the First Law of Thermodynamics, and it really stands in the way of me making a million dollars selling perpetual motion machines.

The important thing is that blogs are convinced it’s not an issue.

What stands in your way is the data record.


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue

climatlas.com › tropical





by SS File - ‎Related articles
In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE. ... The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+).
 
Back
Top Bottom