Hurricane Alarmists Take Blow As New Study Pours Cold Water On Human Impact

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

PIK takes a blow: stronger hurricanes cannot be explained by higher CO2

By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Image: NASA (public domain)

Whenever the hurricane season in the Caribbean begins, the whole world and the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wait for a strong storm, as it presents the ideal opportunity to sell climate change, as was the case in September 2017 when Potsdam’s Neueste Nachrichten (PNN) daily reported with reference to the PIK’s Anders Levermann:

Global warming provides energy for stronger tropical storms
According to Potsdam climate researchers, the impact of the current tropical cyclones can be attributed to climate change. Burning coal, oil and gas increases the temperature of the planet and thus provides energy for ever stronger tropical storms, explained Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Unfortunately, physics here is very clear: hurricanes draw their destructive energy from the warmth of the ocean. The water temperatures in the region are too high. Climate change does not cause these storms, but it can “make their consequences worse.”

Will the intensity of hurricanes increase with climate change? Can this be detected today, as Levermann concludes so trivially? This is not the case, say researchers around Lory Trenary from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. They investigated climate models and re-analyses and found no connection with the drive by greenhouse gases, especially CO2.

The long-term trends 1958-2005 were ultimately contradictory and not valid. An attribution of hurricane intensity to climate change is still not possible. In the introduction to their current work, they also mention Levermann’s argument: “Warmer ocean-more severe storms! After a detailed analysis, however, they come to the following conclusion:

These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings.”

Already in the past there was disagreement among atmospheric researchers about the influence of anthropogenic forcing on hurricane intensity. Levermann did not bother with this last year either, because as a researcher he is undoubtedly informed about the various topics. So the only reason for spreading the false claim remains the climate siren character of the PIK and others.

Here is the abstract from the work of Trenary et al., which appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters on March 4, 2019:

Are mid‐20th century forced changes in North Atlantic hurricane potential intensity detectable?

Abstract: The impact of anthropogenic forcings on tropical North Atlantic hurricane potential intensity (PI) is evaluated in CMIP5 models for the period 1958‐2005. Eleven models are examined, but only seven models have a forced response that is distinguishable from internal variability. The use of discriminant analysis to optimize detectability does not yield a clear, common climate change signal. Of the seven models with a significant response, one has a negative linear trend while two have a positive linear trend. The trend in PI is not even consistent among reanalyses, although this difference is not statistically significant because of large uncertainties. Furthermore, estimates of PI internal variability have significantly different variances among different reanalysis products. These disagreements between models, reanalysis products, and between models and reanalyses, in conjunction with relatively large uncertainties, highlight the difficulty of detecting and attributing observed changes in North Atlantic hurricane potential intensity.

Plain Language Summary: Observed temperature has been steadily increasing over the last century and much of this warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. Theoretically, the maximum intensity (or potential intensity) a hurricane can achieve depends strongly upon sea surface temperature, with warmer temperatures producing stronger storms. From this perspective, we might expect that the warming surface temperatures are driving observable changes in hurricane intensity. To this end, we analyze climate model experiments to determine if the observed changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity can be attributed to human related emissions over the period 1958‐2005. Of the eleven models analyzed, we find that only seven predict that hurricane potential intensity has changed in response to greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions. The change in potential intensity differs across models, with one model predicting a decreasing trend in North Atlantic hurricane potential intensity, while two models predict an increasing trend in potential intensity. Different reanalysis datasets are likewise inconsistent. These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings. It is possible that as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, an unequivocal forced response in North Atlantic potential intensity may emerge in the future.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

13 responses to “Hurricane Alarmists Take Blow As New Study Pours Cold Water On Human Impact”

  1. Yonason

    “This is not the case, say researchers around Lory Trenary from George Manson University in Fairfax Virginia.” – Pierre

    That should be George Mason University.

  2. Yonason

    Something they have to write to get past pal reviewers, with my correction.

    “Observed temperature has been steadily increasing over the last century and much of this warming can be [has been] attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.” – quote from article

    Most people here know that (1) the overall temp increase is due, at least in part, to data mishandling and unreasonable estimates; and that (2) human greenhouse emissions most likely contribute a much tinier fraction of the total increase than is assumed by the doomsday pessimists.

  3. Svend Ferdinandsen

    “Will the intensity of hurricanes increase with climate change?”
    They always fail to mention what kind of climate change that will make the difference.Climate change could be anything, but what exactly would make hurricanes more violent.

  4. Yonason

    No room to post this in “Contact,” so I’m posting it here.

    Is this as good a result as it appears to be?
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/conservative-populist-party-wins-salzburg-elections-for-the-first-time-since-world-war-ii/

    1. tom0mason

      Yonason,
      And right on cue SebastianH uses his hysterical entitlement.

  5. SebastianH

    So … is using models to “prove a point” ok now? Or are they still not representing reality and therefore shouldn’t be used for anything but bashing their very existence? I am confused.

    By quoting this:

    Plain Language Summary: Observed temperature has been steadily increasing over the last century and much of this warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. Theoretically, the maximum intensity (or potential intensity) a hurricane can achieve depends strongly upon sea surface temperature, with warmer temperatures producing stronger storms. From this perspective, we might expect that the warming surface temperatures are driving observable changes in hurricane intensity.

    Do you finally agree with the observation then that a) temperature has been steadily increasing, b) much of this warming can be attributed to GHG emissions and c) maximum storm intensity depends upon sea surface temperature?

    I’d say the majority of papers listed here (95000+) would agree with c … do you?
    https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=sea+surface+temperature+hurricane+intensity&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    This is an old one, maybe the relationship changed in the meantime?
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007%3C1324:SSTATM%3E2.0.CO%3B2 (Demaria/Kaplan 1994)

  6. Yonason

    It’s nice they were able to show that even the models couldn’t predict what reality isn’t showing any evidence of.

    ““There’s no statistical change over a 130-year period. Since 1970, the number of hurricanes globally is flat. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the hurricane intensity is going to change dramatically.”
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/noaa-nhc-scientist-dont-link-hurricanes-global-warming/amp/

    Of course, SebastianH is entitled to be as hysterical as he pleases. Just because reality doesn’t correspond to the theories he thinks he understands is no reason for us to deny him his paranoid fantasies, as long as he doesn’t try to shove them down our throats. He has “issues,” after all.

    1. SebastianH

      The entitlement is entirely yours, Yonason. There are many studies that found that max energy of tropical storms correlates with sea surface temperature, just as one would expect.

      But go on and imagine that there is no evidence of this connection in reality and use language like “paranoid fantasies”, “hysterical”, “shove them down our throats” to emphasize that you feel threatened by reality. I have no problem with that 😉

      I feel exactly like Dilbert in that comic strip whenever I read one of your comments. Zero content, only attacking the messenger, lots of silly sources and self references. Don’t you get tired from doing that all the time?

      1. Yonason

        ”There are many studies that found that max energy of tropical storms correlates with sea surface temperature, just as one would expect.” – SebH

        1 – Give links to a few.

        2 – Sadly, for you, what you expect to happen, based on your simplistic beliefs, turns out not to be what is happening. I.e., your theory is not supported by the data. That’s science-speak for YOU ARE WRONG!

        “ Despite an SST rise of nearly 0.5°C since 1970 and a global surface temperature rise of around 0.65°C[4], there’s simply no warming-related trend in tropical cyclone power:”
        https://www.cato.org/blog/recent-hurricane-activity-perspective

        So, I repeat. You are wrong, as usual,

        NTZ has posted on hurricane intensities before. Here’s just one article from back in 2016.
        http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/10/scientific-consensus-30-papers-global-warming-leads-to-less-intense-less-frequent-hurricanes/

        Get with the program, Sebastian. If your narrative doesn’t agree with reality, trade your old narrative in on one that works.

  7. sasquatch

    If it ain’t an ice-free Arctic by 2014, it is increased intensity of hurricanes. It it isn’t one thing, it’s another. It’s always something and it is always humans making matters worse, doesn’t matter what it is, climate change that will be catastrophic, more emissions from fossil fuels will cause forcing.

    The fake greens are the very best users of fossil fuels. They’re buying 2025 oil futures on the COMEX, they’re going to be rich, going to make some money.

    Crying wolf wears out in the long run.

    Never mind the fact that 20 million tons of coal and one hundred million barrels of oil are consumed each day, should be some catastrophic global warming followed by huge climate change, all because of those fossil fuels being burned night and day, and humans are the only animal that can do that, they’re to blame and at fault.

    Never mind that fossil fuels are used to keep you alive and helps you survive, can’t count that.

    Minnesotans found out what counts as a power source when the temps are -28 Fahrenheit. It was coal-fired power plants that had the base-load to power homes during the arctic weather conditions, not solar and wind.

    Good to know, next time, all will be more grateful that coal can tote the bale and lift the barge. Coal is stored energy, fixed carbon, hydrocarbons, an organic battery. What it can do is provide plenty of power so you don’t have to freeze to death. Staying alive is what counts, not paying through the nose for renewables because somebody cried enough to get their way, that would be Enron.

    Driessen: Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

    “Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.”

    https://leadinglightenergy.com/driessen-stop-the-anti-climate-science-totalitarians/

    10 Major Hurricanes In Early American History

    “Modern science has taken much of the mystery out of hurricanes. Meteorologists watch these massive storms form, check satellite images, computer models and other info then forecast with uncanny accuracy where they will strike and their strength at landfall. In fact, scientists have a fairly accurate record of these tropical cyclones dating back to 1851, thanks to records in the National Hurricane Center’s North Atlantic hurricane database (or HURDAT). But what about the storms before then? Scientists have pored over old newspapers, ships’ logs, diaries and other data to piece together a record of historic hurricanes. For many minor hurricanes, the information is very sketchy, with widely differing accounts, but the records are more in agreement on the major storms. Following is a look, in chronological order, at 10 notable hurricanes that struck the United States from 1700 to 1850.”

    10. “Treasure Fleet” Hurricane of 1715

    “Michael Chenowith, a researcher who produced an exhaustive study of historic hurricanes for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has determined there were 375 Atlantic hurricanes between 1700 and 1850. Among the earliest and certainly one of the costliest is a hurricane that struck off Florida’s east coast in 1715. A fleet of 11 Spanish ships heavily laden with gold, silver and other valuables from the New World encountered a hurricane late on July 30. The ships sank near present-day Vero Beach, and more than 1,000 men perished at sea or of exposure, thirst or hunger after reaching shore. Although the Spanish soon mounted a massive recovery effort for the treasure, much of it remained lost at sea until the 1950s, when an Ohio man stumbled across some old coins on the beach, did some research, and discovered the story. A licensed salvage company, 1715 Fleet – Queens Jewels, LLC estimates that today, almost 300 years later, more than $500 million in treasure remains unrecovered.”

    Some areas of Arctic sea ice have surpassed the median ice edge.

    Plenty of snow out there, not going away that fast.

  8. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #352 | Watts Up With That?
  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #352 - Sciencetells

Leave a Reply

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