Spiegel Journalist Calls Claims By Scientists That Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger “Sad”

Germany’s centre-left online weekly Die Zeit recently blared that Hurricane Matthew was “the strongest in 10 years“, and cited a scientist from the alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).


Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski. Image cropped at Twitter.

The climate alarmist Die Zeit of course wants to have its readers believe that Matthew and all its destruction are because of climate change. To tell us why Matthew was “so strong”, Die Zeit journalist Alina Schadwinkel interviewed PIK scientist and Columbia University professor Anders Levermann.

Levermann implores that climate is a non-chaotic system

First Levermann tells Die Zeit how in order for a hurricane to form, it needs warm sea surfaces and the right atmospheric conditions. Strangely Levermenn then seems to be confused about what the nature of the climate system really is:

Unlike the climate, weather is chaotic and we do not know the entire atmosphere.” […] A forecast beyond three days is an enormous meteorological success.”

Here he seems to want to tell us that climate is not a chaotic system! One has to wonder if he really knows what he is talking about.

Much remains poorly understood

On El Niño’s impact on hurricanes, Levermann concedes that much remains poorly understood regarding the Pacific equatorial oceanic phenomenon, saying that “in El-Niño years there are less hurricanes. Why that is so also remains unclear.”

Stronger storms in the future due to warming

When asked if hurricanes will become more frequent in the future because of climate change, Levermann tells Die Zeit that they don’t know, but adds: “When such a storm occurs, it will be stronger because global warming provides more energy for the storm.”

Spiegel science journalist (and trained geologist) Axel Bojanowski reacted at Twitter to the claims made in the Levermann interview at Die Zeit, tweeting:

Sad that some climate scientists are claiming that hurricanes are getting stronger because of climate change.”

Moreover, Levermann also says that hurricanes cannot be ruled out for Europe in the future, and that they likely will form outside of the regular hurricane season as well!


16 responses to “Spiegel Journalist Calls Claims By Scientists That Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger “Sad””

  1. Bloke down the pub

    Cagw theory predicts polar amplification of warming. As major storms are powered by the differential in temps between the poles and the equator cagw actually predicts that hurricanes will become less intense. If the alarmists wanted, they could use the lack of hurricanes making landfall in US as proof of their theory. That is obviously not scary enough and undermines the catastrophic part of cagw theory so instead they tie themselves in knots trying to make out that it’s worse than we thought.

    1. David Johnson

      Spot on!

      1. Annie

        I’ve been wondering why the alarmists haven’t made something of that too. It obviously goes against the grain of their wanting to scare people; the usual ‘Fear, Control and Taxes’ stuff.

    2. John F. Hultquist

      by the differential in temps between the poles and the equator

      Mid-Lat storms, say in the middle of North America, that is true.

      Tropical cyclones form under different circumstances:

      Still, I believe CAGW is bs.

    3. gallopingcamel

      You have it right. Global Warming (if it was happening) would reduce the power of storms generally as they depend on temperature gradients that are diminished as the poles warm three times faster than low latitudes.

      For people who deny the scientific basis there is plenty of historical evidence. Only seven hundred years ago the climate was much cooler than today which caused all kinds of extreme weather:

  2. Der Spiegel calls Scientists That Claim Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger “Sad” - Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at […]

  3. Curious George

    Climate change is EXTREMELY dangerous. It brought us PIK already.

    1. yonason

      …and all the other loons, like Michael Mann and Jim Hansen.

      Yes, it is very dangerous, for exactly the reason you give!

  4. Annie

    Hurricanes in Europe, eh? I remember well the 1987 hurricane in England. We were living in a house in southern England which had windows on opposite sides of our bedroom. There were violent winds on one side followed by an eerie calm, followed by violent wind on the other side. Next day showed huge devastation of trees…Sevenoaks in Kent became Oneoak.

    I also remember vast swathes of forest toppled in Germany, although I can’t remember the date for that. It was years ago though.

    There is nothing new in this world.

  5. DirkH

    Climate might just be non-chaotic in the low frequency range *IFF* if it is dominated/controlled by a cyclical system.

    The ONLY candidate for that is solar cycles.

    In other German News: Volkswagen, punished by Diesel cheating scandal and demands by all German Bundestag parties to outlaw all Diesel and gasoline cars in 2030 (THIS is NOT a joke!), develops Great Leap Forward: the wind turbine powered car. Photo.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      I don’t think that one will go. Here are some other ideas:

      1. tom0mason

        Or maybe the supercar of tomorrow today —

        or the prototype solar electric VW Beetle developed abroad —

    2. tom0mason
  6. Green Sand

    Also don’t forget the Mercedes AA Class

  7. yonason

    “Levermann implores that climate is a non-chaotic system” – from article

    Levermann is an idiot.

  8. gallopingcamel

    This excellent blog showed how Florida suffered six major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher) in seven years during the seventies.

    I live on the “Space Coast” where Frances was ripping roofs off in 2004. Since 2005 there has not been a major hurricane making landfall in Florida. Over 4,000 days without a hurricane landfall!

    As hurricanes are political here, Hillary Clinton has enlisted Al Gore to fire up the millennials in Florida. Given that Clinton can’t draw a crowd of more than 500 people, she is taking a risk……………..suppose Al Gore draws Trump scale crowds of 10,000+?

    Maybe Al Gore should replace Hillary on the top of the ticket.

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