At Twitter physical scientist Ned Nikolov informs us of a 2015 paper that “finds NO trend in global Tropical Cyclone Activity between the decade 1965-1974 and the present. Hence, warming has NOT affected hurricane activity for the past 45 yrs! ”
The paper’s abstract:
The ACE index is used to compare tropical cyclone activity worldwide among seven decades from 1945 to 2014. Some increase in tropical cyclone activity is found relative to the earliest decades. No trend is found after the decade 1965-1974. A comparison of the six cyclone basins in the study shows that the Western Pacific Basin is the most active basin and the North Indian Basin the least. The advantages of using a general linear model for trend analysis are described.”
“Essentially zero” correlation over past 140 years
In a separate tweet, Nikolov examines the scientific evidence behind all the speculation & claims have been made by both the media and some scientists about an alleged connection between human industrial growth and hurricane activity over the past 100+ years.
Here’s what he found:
Nikolov writes that the correlation between annual carbon emissions and accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) for the past 140 years is “essentially zero”.
He also looked at three other hurricane characteristics, namely intensity, number and duration:
Here he summarizes that there is “no significant trends in the intensity, number and duration of hurricanes in the North Atlantic over the past 140 years”.
The physical scientist also cites a recent 2017 paper to summarize that long-term hurricane activity in the North Atlantic is “best explained by zonal trade wind speed over Caribbean Sea & tropical Atlantic, not CO2“.
Photo Nikolov above: Twitter.
12 responses to “140-Year Data Show Correlation Between CO2 Emissions And Cyclone Energy “Essentially Near Zero”!”
Thank you for featuring our research. For more details about our new climate-science paradigm, please visit these Twitter Moments:
1. Reconsidering the Role of CO2 in Climate Change
2. Foundations of Climate Theory Challenged by New Research
Nikolov is obviously a “fossil-fuel funded denier” paid to confuse the climate alarmist faithful with inconvenient facts.
That’s how the “consensus” will portray/smear him.
Should’nt the comparison be between cyclone energy and CO2? There is a threshold function here to creating additional cyclones. Under the threshold, no new ones but more powerful ones.
@Doug Proctor 27. September 2017 at 5:29 PM
If you reread it, this time less superficially, you might see that he also writes that there are… “…no significant trends in the INTENSITY, …”
Or are you unaware that energy and intensity are synonyms?
Am I right in having the impression that over the last year or so, more qualified people are breaking silence and publicly debunking the CAGW claims? Is there, finally, a movement?
A crime has been committed in New York and a detective has invented the theory that you did it. This theory either is true or false. In order to prove his case, the detective begins to gather evidence. He predicts that you must have been that fatal day in NY and you were. Because the crime was committed with a knife he predicts that you must have at least one functional hand and you have.
At a certain moment the detective has an overwhelming amount of confirmations but only you know the truth: the theory still may be false and in that case we have a false theory implying an overwhelming amount of true consequences. Perhaps it is difficult to believe that the false theory that you committed the crime correctly predicts that you were in NY, but it does.
This is what the AGW crowd has done and still does, gathering evidence that will never prove their case. Perhaps AGW is true but we have as a principle that a true theory cannot have false consequences. So the detective has among his many predictions that you must have been fully conscious on that day. We the help of testimonies of doctors you may make it plausible that after a traffic accident you were adopted in a NY hospital and stayed unconscious on an intensive care unit on the crime day. You have an alibi.
AGW predicts a tropospheric hot spot. That spot does not exist. Therefore AGW is false. This CO2 alibi is already known for years showing that most climate scientists are bad detectives. A bad detective is not interested in the truth. He only wants to score and get you behind the bars no matter what you did. He ignores your alibi and goes on with gathering worthless evidence in favor of a worthless consensus. I agree with Jeff that some good detectives finally arrived on the scene.
reminds me of the book I am reading “The Girl Who Played with Fire” by Steig Larsson. The detectives jump to conclusions without proper investigation. (also a good tale of Swedish life just before all the immigrants)
Jeff, I think you might be right.
Now that the political climate of “Climate Change” has shifted, more “closet” skeptics will likely come out. There was a suppression of dissenting voices about the climate issue in the Federal Gov. during the Obama era. This is now lifted, and we need a redirection of funds from fruitless CO2-oriented research towards solar-centered one. I’m not sure if such a shift will occur, or the funding will simply be cut and made unavailable for any type of climate research. I’m afraid the latter may be more likely to happen … 🙂
Since Trump was elected it has become fashionable to be a skeptic. Duane Thresher is a good example:
These people have practiced and continue to practice malleable science and have doubtful morals, driven primarily by the need to make a living, their science changes with the political winds.
Meanwhile there are those with so much invested in the belief like Michael Mann and Peter Wadhams that their science would remain constant even if earth freezes over.
Bottom line in a single sentence is:
There is no correlation between atmospheric Co2 and ACE.
This is certainly true of the satellite and radar era and most likely correct for the times before that for which we have limited information. The fact is one has to question the ACE estimates for all the time before Satellites, Radar, and the hurricane hunters came into existence. The simple fact is that storms, even huge typhoons, went undetected during WW II as witnessed by the fact that more than once US navy ships and twice fleets were blind sided by powerful typhoons. History makes it clear that before WW II the ability to detect and quantify tropical cyclones was even poorer than it was during WW II.
So the modern record of incidence and intensity is most certainly inflated compared to the time prior to the development of the technologies that allow remote detection.
Same thing holds true for tornadoes.
Can’t find a loophole to slam yourself thru on this one, seb?
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]