NOAA: “No Compelling Evidence” Behind Claims Of More Hurricane Landfalls!

Despite all the signals being sent from every direction suggesting global warming is leading to more frequent and intense hurricanes, even the warmist NOAA is forced to confess that this has not been the long-term case.

About the claims of more hurricanes? Well, the NOAA says: wait another 30 to 50 years!

Sorry alarmists, but the data simply just don’t show it. That#s what the NOAA concludes.

We climate realists/non-alarmists suggest you come to terms with that inconvenient fact and learn to live with this good news.

But don’t despair too much. The NOAA insists that an increase “should” happen – later in the second half of the century.

Hat-tip: Dr. Ryan Maue at Twitter

What follows is the NOAA Part E Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming from Section 2, which is on long-term trends in number of storms (emphasis added).

E. Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.)

However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average.

In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, tropical cyclone surge levels should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5.

The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature.”

The NOAA also provides a chart of hurricane activity that goes back to 1850 (but ends at 2006):

Nothing beyond natural variability and climate cycles is detectable, the NOAA concludes. Readers should note that there was not one single major hurricane land fall in the US from 2006 – 2016. Chart NOAA.

No “compelling evidence”

Part B of Section 2 of the NOAA’s Global Warming and Hurricanes – An Overview of Current Research Results comes to the conclusion:

While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these recent increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”

14 responses to “NOAA: “No Compelling Evidence” Behind Claims Of More Hurricane Landfalls!”

  1. Brian G Valentine

    Glad to see NOAA has turned around a little bit.

    NOAA under Jane Lubchenco was as much a “government scientific” entity as was the Soviet Ministry of Culture

  2. spike55

    “the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming”

    The GHE is barely even “a notion”.

    It only exists in models, and has never been shown empirically to actually cause any warming at all.

    The GHE is really just a bad naming farce/fallacy.

    They should be calling it the “gravity thermal effect”, which is totally unaffected by the amount of atmospheric CO2

    https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/thermal-gradients-on-planetary-bodies-and-the-molar-mass-ideal-gas-law.pdf

    1. Brian G Valentine

      Well, there is compelling evidence that CO2 in the air causes paranoid schizophrenia

      1. SebastianH

        Well, there is compelling evidence that CO2 in the air causes paranoid schizophrenia

        Nah, the pseudoskeptic mind seems to be affected by the usual lack of oxygen thing …

        1. spike55

          Poor seb, you really are a MASSIVE FAILURE at trolling, aren’t you

          That is your ONLY purpose here, come on ADMIT IT.

          All you have managed to do is waste everybody’s space and time, achieving NOTHING, in fact,going backwards with every post.

          If you have any other purpose, it has been a pathetic failure..

          1. SebastianH

            Reply
            Poor seb, you really are a MASSIVE FAILURE at trolling, aren’t you

            That is your ONLY purpose here, come on ADMIT IT.

            Spike55, don’t you find it comical when you reply like this and accuse someone of trolling at the same time?

            You are the master troll here after all.

            If you have any other purpose, it has been a pathetic failure..

            I am so badly hurt by your childish replies and they really make me think about my life decisions … crying now /sarcasm

  3. spike55

    Another interesting paper.

    http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf

    I particularly like their conclusion

    The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous
    scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a
    ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.

    1. Brian G Valentine

      The excellent mathematician Gerhard Kramm has pointed out that there is no definition of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” that does not lead to a contradiction to another definition of it – and there are at least 12 of these.

      This was evidently all too confusing to the nominal PhD Physical Chemist Angela Merkel, who decided that German industry was not worth the cost of am academic argument

    2. SebastianH

      I love how you guys come up with the same nonsense papers over and over … this isn’t new, spike55.

      Remember? http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/01/3-chemists-conclude-co2-greenhouse-effect-is-unreal-violates-laws-of-physics-thermodynamics/

      Back in the day, Kenneth included Nikolov and Zeller into this non-scientific mix of “proofs” of the non-existing GHE. It was fun to read and Kenneth and you didn’t change a bit from back then … still the same stubborn anti-science view of the world while imagining the “real” science is on your side of the argument 😉

      None of their “rebuttals” to varying GHE definitions has any merit. You probably think I need evidence or something to be able to say that, but well … it’s you, so just go with it. Write a troll reply instead of thinking about how lousy a paper like that is, I know you can’t resist.

      Brian,

      there is no definition of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” that does not lead to a contradiction to another definition of it

      Please demonstrate! For us non-pseudoskeptics the definition of the GHE isn’t contradicting anything. A “paper” that tries to refute its existence by going off on the glasshouse definition or by grossly misunderstanding the blanket analogy is pure nonsense and I wonder if there was any peer review involved at all 😉

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Back in the day, Kenneth included Nikolov and Zeller into this non-scientific mix of “proofs” of the non-existing GHE.

        There is no such thing as “proof” here. The basis for the assumption that natural “equilibrium” (280 ppm) CO2 provides 7.2 K of heat to the planet (Krauter, 2007, Boersema and Reijnders, 2009) is rooted in nothing more than modeling and presumption.

        I’ve asked you this question before, and you failed to respond. I’ll try it again.

        Considering the surface temperature of Venus is set by the intense 92 bar atmospheric pressure at 735 K, but then when the atmospheric pressure drops to 45 bar at Venus’ highest point (Maxwell Montes), the surface temperature drops by -80 K to 655 K, why do you nonetheless believe these atmospheric pressure values are not determinative in setting the surface temperature gradients on Venus, but instead, the CO2 greenhouse effect is?

        https://www.universetoday.com/22551/venus-compared-to-earth/
        “Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).”

        For us non-pseudoskeptics the definition of the GHE isn’t contradicting anything.

        Kramm and Dlugi, 2011
        https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.0883.pdf
        “In this paper we discuss the meaning of feedback parameter, greenhouse effect and transient climate response usually related to the globally averaged energy balance model of Schneider and Mass. After scrutinizing this model and the corresponding planetary radiation balance we state that (a) the this globally averaged energy balance model is flawed by unsuitable physical considerations, (b) the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is fraught by the inappropriate assumption of a uniform surface temperature, the so-called radiative equilibrium temperature of about 255 K, and (c) the effect of the radiative anthropogenic forcing, considered as a perturbation to the natural system, is much smaller than the uncertainty involved in the solution of the model of Schneider and Mass. This uncertainty is mainly related to the empirical constants suggested by various authors and used for predicting the emission of infrared radiation by the Earth’s skin. Furthermore, after inserting the absorption of solar radiation by atmospheric constituents and the exchange of sensible and latent heat between the Earth and the atmosphere into the model of Schneider and Mass the surface temperatures become appreciably lesser than the radiative equilibrium temperature. Moreover, neither the model of Schneider and Mass nor the Dines-type two-layer energy balance model for the Earth-atmosphere system, both contain the planetary radiation balance for an Earth in the absence of an atmosphere as an asymptotic solution, do not provide evidence for the existence of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect if realistic empirical data are used.”

        Scientists agree that the “greenhouse effect” exists, but it’s primarily a function of atmospheric pressure/density, not gases like CO2.


        Miatello, 2012
        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a93/cbe437f1d747eab5f3ebed984751d8a0d45a.pdf
        “In an isolated global atmospheric system as that of Earth, in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cosmic vacuum, heat is transmitted only in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the thermal and conductive properties of different components, such as ocean waters, soils, and atmospheric gases, and the atmospheric adiabatic [pressure] gradient. The same conditions apply to planets having huge atmospheric masses, such as Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, whose surfaces and/or cores are heated only by a Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, gravitational compression of gases, according to their mass/density, as well as the impedance of their opaque atmospheres to solar radiation. In the case of Earth’s atmosphere with relatively high rarefaction and transparency and an active water cycle, which does not exist on Venus, Saturn, or Jupiter, the main factors influencing heat transfer are irradiance related to solar cycles and the water cycle, including evaporation, rain, snow, and ice, that regulates alteration of the atmospheric gradient from dry to humid. Therefore, the so-called “greenhouse effect” and pseudo-mechanisms, such as “backradiation,” have no scientific basis and are contradicted by all laws of physics and thermodynamics, including calorimetry, yields of atmospheric gases’ thermodynamic cycles, entropy, heat flows to the Earth’s surface, wave mechanics, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.”

        Jelbring, 2003
        http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
        THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS
        “Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE [the greenhouse effect] can be explained as mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that the bulk part of a planetary GE [greenhouse effect] depends on its atmospheric surface mass density. Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere”

      2. spike55

        Seb RANTS yet again puts forward ZERO EVIDENCE

        NOBODY CARES if you don’t like actual real science seb

        You have proven time and time again that are basically DEVOID of actual scientific knowledge.

        There is NO EVIDENCE that the GHE exists in any of the anti-science , anti-physics ways you won’t even try to explain yourself.

        Your little fantasy “mechanism” roflmao.

        http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf

        and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with [the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics], it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.

      3. Brian G Valentine

        Sebastian the presenter answers your issue here

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpF-OXHJwBc

        from 43 minutes ff.

        If you don’t believe him, tell us why he is wrong

  4. Svend Ferdinandsen

    This is a strange escape clause: no support to the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

    I thaught it was the warming versus hurricanes in itself and not the cause of the warming that was investigated.

    How to decide the part of CO2 induced warming.

  5. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #329 | Watts Up With That?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close