Media Baffled…”WHERE Have All The Cyclones Gone?”…Pacific Near “Quietest Season On Record”!

Dr. Ryan Maue here reports at Twitter that although the Atlantic hurricane season “is going gangbusters“, the Pacific is in fact seeing “one of quietest Typhoon seasons on record“.

Last month in the media, amid the aftermath of Harvey and Irma, the public heard a long stream of hysterical reports claiming that the tropical storms were sure sure signs of man-made climate change.

Yet, according to Dr. Maue, the globe has seen significantly below average cyclone activity, despite the near record hurricane activity observed in the Atlantic this season.

Chart above shows cyclone activity globally being well below normal in a year awash with media hurricane hysteria. Status: October 10, 2017. Source:

Though the North Atlantic is running at 240% of normal, the entire northern hemisphere is near normal at 98%. Astonishing is the fact that Southern Hemisphere cyclonic activity is near record-breaking low of 47%.

Globally the figure is mere 86%. This is an embarrassment and highly baffling to the media and climate alarmists, who have recently been giving false impressions of “unprecedented” storm activity this year.

“WHERE have all the cyclones gone?”

Even the Australian news site here asks: “WHERE have all the cyclones gone?

Scientists are puzzled as to how global warming is having the opposite effect on storms from what is often claimed.

Dr. Maue’s following chart shows that the overall hurricane trend has been downward over the past quarter century:

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. Source:

Record-low Southern Hemisphere

In his last chart chart at the above website, shown is how the southern hemisphere has been trending down to a near record low.

In fact the abstract of a recent peer-reviewed paper appearing at the Geophysical Research Letters, confirms the trends, writing (emphasis added):

In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”

Reckless media neglect

This is information and data that alarmist climate scientists like Dr. Michael E. Mann or media such as the AP’s Seth Borenstein apparently recklessly neglected to examine before making hysterical statements to the public.


75 responses to “Media Baffled…”WHERE Have All The Cyclones Gone?”…Pacific Near “Quietest Season On Record”!”

  1. ClimateOtter

    I’m sure seb can provide a whole plethora of charts indicating otherwise. Right, seb?

  2. AlecM

    Attantic storms are caused by its ~1 K fall in temperature (a result of increased radiant exitance, lower evaporation as SST falls.).

    The Pacific is still warm.

  3. Ron Clutz

    According to Joe D’Aleo, ENSO shifts the wind regimes, favoring Pacific storms during El Nino conditions and Atlantic storms when La Nina forms. His explanation is here:

  4. Ric Werme

    ACE data presented to four decimal places, seven significant figures. Give me a break (and a slide rule). A unit of 1 is close to the difference in wind speed of a single 6 hour reading of 101 knots and 100 knots!

    0.0001 is the difference between calm and 1 knot.

    Ryan Maue should know better….

    1. John F. Hultquist

      Since the introduction of FORTRAN IID, the presentation of extra silly digits has exploded. One of the more interesting examples comes on charts with equations with 8 (2.51834561) or so such numbers. Many people do not know how to control the output and so just reproduce what they get.
      They are lazy.
      Can we make them learn how to use a slide rule?

      1. tom0mason

        Ric Werme & John F. Hultquist,

        The most spurious thing is saying “seven significant figures” as their only significance is in being there. 4 or 5 figures are more than enough depending on what further mathematical processing is required.
        With noisy sources of data excessively defining the precision only adds to the accuracy of our uncertainty, not the accuracy of the measurement.

  5. wert

    “Dr. Maue’s following chart shows that the overall hurricane trend has been downward over the past quarter century”

    I’m not sure what it shows. In my opinion it shows pretty much no change to talk about.

    Some fluctuation and no consistent trend. If you want to say more, you need statistics, more than just a trend since an arbitrary year.

  6. Modelle: Auf kühlen September folgt ein kühler und nasser Oktober 2017 – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] […]

  7. Consensus Science

    Harvey set a rainfall record.
    Irma set a cat-5 duration record.

    You’re just cherrypicking irrelevant information.
    Deniers are so desperate.

    1. clipe

      You’re the one that is just cherrypicking irrelevant information.

      Prodigious Precipitation

      Harvey delivered much more. What made Harvey unique was that it did not go anywhere (really) after landfall. With no large-scale steering patterns present, Harvey essentially stalled over southeastern Texas. In the 96 hours following landfall, Harvey’s advance averaged just 5 mph (slower than some people walk) and did not follow a straight line—as the crow flies it moved at half that speed.

      Not Unprecedented

      Many may recall Allison in 2001 (Figure 1). That storm made landfall with only tropical storm–strength winds, but it affected the same area that Harvey did—depositing 40 inches of precipitation. Before Harvey, Amelia in 1978 was the wettest tropical cyclone on record in the U.S., depositing 48 inches in west central Texas. Amelia was even weaker than Allison—barely a tropical storm for all but 12–18 hours before making landfall on the Texas Coast. The 48 inches of precipitation were deposited at Medina, TX, in a matter of 48 hours, 26 inches of which fell in a 12-hour period. One year later, Tropical Storm Claudette set the national 24-hour rainfall record, with 42 inches.

      Amelia and Claudette are also the two wettest tropical cyclones on record to have occurred in Texas—until Harvey. Claudette stalled for about a 24-hour period, which was the reason for the 24-hour precipitation record. The next wettest was Hurricane Easy in 1950, which affected Florida with 45 inches of rain.

      1. clipe
        1. clipe
      2. tom0mason


        Your quoted piece says “What made Harvey unique was that it did not go anywhere (really) after landfall.”

        I just want to point out that ALL storms, indeed all weather events, are unique. Nothing in our weather follows EXACTLY the same pattern.
        That is what gives the alarmists so much material to conflate spurious ’cause and effect’ scenarios, and foist them on the gullible and credulous public.

        1. clipe

          Unique is a non-word in the alarmist vocabulary. Unprecedented is what it is.

        2. clipe
          1. clipe

            Oh! It used to be ‘Environment Canada’, but now in this Trudeaupian era it’s ‘ Environment and Climate Change Canada’.

      3. Consensus Science

        Wow, clipe, thanks for listing all the storms Harvey beat!
        What was the point of that? You conceded the record. Was I claiming Harvey was the first storm to have rain? Sheesh…

        1. clipe

          I’ll repeat,

          “You’re the one that is just cherrypicking irrelevant information.”

          What’s your point?

    2. tom0mason

      Sorry ‘Consensus Science’ (that’s a joke right?)

      What has that got to do with the topic?
      “Media Baffled…”WHERE Have All The Cyclones Gone?”…Pacific Near “Quietest Season On Record”!”,

      You’re doing a full ‘look squirrel’ distraction…
      Typical of true believers, haven’t a clue about what’s going on so distract, distract, distract.

      1. Consensus Science

        Really, tom, you don’t understand the topic?
        More co2 = Warmer oceans = More extreme storms.
        Two records broken, just as climatology would predict.
        Sheesh, deniers lack critical thinking skills.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          More co2 = Warmer oceans = More extreme storms.

          So why have we had an overall reduction in the frequency and intensities of hurricanes and storms?

          Read the “consensus science” on this below, CS. Then reply with something more substantive than “Sheesh, deniers lack critical thinking skills.”

          “Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.”

          “Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. … Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

          “Our record of tropical cyclone activity reveals no significant trends in the total number of tropical cyclones (tropical storms and hurricanes) in the best sampled regions for the past 318 years. However, the total number of hurricanes in the 20th century is ∼20% lower than in previous centuries. … Long-term variations in the number of tropical cyclones do not show any evidence of increasing storm frequency and have declined a nonstatistically significant amount.”

          The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones.”

          [T]be global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend [1990-2014].”

          IPCC AR5 (2013) Working Group I, Chapter 2
          Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

          “The various SST measures only have a weak influence on TMLGP [tropical cyclones making landfall, South China] intensities. Despite the long-term warming trend in SST in the WNP, no long-term trend is observed in either the frequency or intensities of TMLGP [tropical cyclones making landfall, South China].”

          A long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.”

          All of the counts, lifespans, and accumulated cyclone energy of the late-season typhoons during the 1995–2011 epoch decreased significantly, compared with typhoons that occurred during the 1979–94 epoch.”

          There has been no trend towards an increase in the number of categories 3–5 cyclones over the last 30 years.”

          [D]ata show a decrease in the proportion of category 4-5 typhoons from 18% to 8% between the two periods of 1977-1989 and 1990-2004

          “No significant correlation was found between the typhoon activity parameters and local SST [during 1960-2003]. In other words, an increase in local SST [sea surface temperatures] does not lead to a significant change of the number of intense TCs [tropical cyclones]in the NWP, which is contrary to the results produced by many of the numerical climate models.”

          [D]uring the 40-year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply. Based on 1901-1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1961-2000 would have been 77 and 30, respectively. However,only 55 (or 71%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 19 major hurricanes (or 63% of that expected number).”

          “We conducted 228-year long, three-member ensemble simulations using a high resolution (60 km grid size) global atmosphere model, MRI-AGCM3.2, with prescribed sea surface temperature and greenhouse gases and aerosols from 1872 to 2099. We found a clear decreasing trend of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency throughout the 228 years of the simulation.”

          As of the end of the 2014 hurricane season, the US has experienced no major hurricane landfall since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, a drought that currently stands at nine years. Here, we use a stochastic tropical-cyclone model to calculate the mean waiting time for multi-year landfall droughts. We estimate that the mean time to wait for a nine-year drought is 177 years.”

          “Here we show, on the basis of a new tropical cyclone activity index (CAI), that the present low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years.”

          “[D]uring 1970−2010 … SST in the MDR [along Mexican coasts] showed a statistically significant increase of 0.57°C over the whole period, but the frequency of HUR4−5 [intense hurricanes, Category 4 and 5] did not show a significant trend, while the frequency of HUR1−5 [weak and intense hurricanes] significantly decreased (−0.95% yr−1).”

          The number of TCs [tropical cyclones] formed in the SCS [South China Sea] markedly decreased from 2003 through the early 2010s.”

          Storms and tsunamis, which may seriously endanger human society, are amongst the most devastating marine catastrophes that can occur in coastal areas. … Based on radiocarbon dating, these extreme events occurred around 5250, 4000, 3600, 3010, 2300, 1350, 650, and 80 years cal BP. No comparable events have been observed during the 20th and 21st centuries.”

          “This study examines changes in TC [tropical cyclone] activity and atmospheric conditions in the recent inactive period (1998-2011). The overall TC [tropical cyclone] activity shows a significant decrease [1960-2011]

          The linear trend in the number of severe TCs [tropical cyclones] making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TCs/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TCs/year in recent times—a 62% decline.”

          “Here we use observational data to show that global warming of the sea surface is associated with a secular increase of tropospheric vertical wind shear in the main development region (MDR) for Atlantic hurricanes. The increased wind shear coincides with a weak but robust downward trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes.”

          1. Consensus Science

            That’s a lot of cherrypicking that excludes 2017.
            yonason, what falsehoods? TWO records set.

        2. yonason

          “Two records broken,…” – Scienceless Consensus

          The only broken record here is S.C. repeating falsehoods ad nauseum.

          See here when it comes out of moderation.

        3. tom0mason

          Really Mr joke (Consensus Science)

          You don’t understand.

          What causes more storms, a larger difference between air mass temperature or the overall temperature of all air?

    3. ClimateOtter

      When you can tell us the duration record of every cat-5 storm which has EVER existed, then we will know if your claim is correct.

      In the meantime we’ve only been able to Make such records for a handful of decades. The written record of hurricanes goes back 300 years. The total history of hurricanes is tens of millions of years.

      1. Consensus Science

        Otter, absence of evidence “must” support your case. Cool trick.

        1. David Johnson

          Consensus, stop acting like a silly 6 year old kid. You are talking to grown ups here.

      2. yonason

        When my comment comes out of moderation, it will show he’s wrong, at least if we can trust Wiki-pee on that.

    4. clipe
    5. yonason

      Scienceless Consensus writes…

      Harvey set a rainfall record.
      Irma set a cat-5 duration record.

      Harvey dropped so much rain because it stayed in one place for quite a while, partly over the Gulf picking up water the whole time. That was due to weather related factors that have nothing to do with CO2. And there are many hurricanes as strong or stronger that, which live and die over the ocean and whose rainfall total can’t be measured, but may be at least as extensive. In Asia they call that a monsoon, and hope it does bring a LOT of water to get them through the dry season that follows.

      Irma (2017) was not the longest duration cat5. It was the second longest, with “Cuba” (1930) beating her by 3 hours and Allen (1980) came in 3rd, just 3 hours under Irma.

      Let’s see if he(?) can find out which jurricanes beat Irma for wind speed and for barometric pressure. I’m not going to do all of his homework for him.

      He is yet another dishonest chatbot troll with no facts, but lots of falsehoods and a nasty attitude.

      1. Consensus Science

        So your wikipedia page says “3d, 6h”. Wow! No more research necessary! Oh wait …

        “held its Category 5 strength for 72 consecutive hours before finally dropping to Category 4 status.”

        72 hours = 3d, 0h

        That’s 3 hours less than Irma.

        Nice try!!! HA HA HA

        1. Kenneth Richard


          Why are you focusing on one or two single hurricane events that happened recently? Do you think this establishes a long-term trend? The long-term trend has actually been declining…as the 30+ scientific papers shown below demonstrate.

          In 2013, Antarctica reached the lowest temperature on record, breaking the previous coldest-ever temperature from 2010:

          Antarctica records unofficial coldest temperature ever

          Should we leap to conclusions about CO2 and climate based upon the documented “coldest temperatures ever recorded”, as you have done here with hurricanes?

          What caused Antarctica’s temperatures to plummet to record low levels, CS? Was it climate change?

          1. tom0mason


            “Why are you focusing on one or two single hurricane events that happened recently?”
            Why indeed, why not focus on the Great Storm (European) of 1703? Was that one not embarrassingly large enough storm (and when CO2 was supposedly at safe levels) for the warmists?
            (see wiki or , and many other references online)
            Or why not go back further to 1588? A meteorological study of July to October 1588: the Spanish Armada storms by K.S. Douglas, H.H. Lamb and C. Loader

            Dramatic and damaging weather events litter human history, for some banal reason our joker (under the dumb pseudonym of Consensus Science*) believes only the most recent ones are significant. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

            (Michael Crichton on consensus science. … “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. )

          2. Consensus Science

            Nice Tom, I see you’ve abandoned science. You are now uaibg your imagination to say “these storms must have been worse”.

            Absence of data “must” support your case. That’s not science.

        2. yonason

          HE SAID SHE SAID

          In my comment I DID note that “if Wiki-Pee can be trusted,” as chatbot_constipated_science would have noticed if he had a functioning brain, and had actually READ what I wrote. But given how close they are, and how difficult measuring intensities can be, the differences are immaterial. The chatbot’s laughing at me is a reflection on it’s dishonesty – nothing more.

          Claiming that “Irma was almost as bad as a hurricane that occurred 87 years ago” just doesn’t have the same propaganda value against CO2, does it?

          Irma was strong, but not the the most powerful ever, with 4 greater than or equal to it in wind speed, and at least a dozen with lower barometric pressure (find it yourself, chatbot!). And them’s the facts!

          There is no justification for any implied claim that it proves that CO2 emissions are bad for the environment, when hurricanes of equal or greater intensity happened long before the trivial increases in CO2 that have been observed.

          1. Consensus Science

            How desperate you look.Also,

            “Irma sustained these 185 mph (295 km/h) winds for 37 hours, becoming the only tropical cyclone worldwide to have had winds that speed for that long, breaking the previous record of 24 hours set by Typhoon Haiyan of 2013.”

            Another record – duration of wind speed.

            The Cuba 1932 hurricane has been “reanalyzed” from ship reports. They bumped it up to be stronger.

        3. yonason

          Just one more comment.

          How does your Wiki-Pee disprove mine????

          Paraphrasing you, with embellishment, “HAHAHAHAHAHA”

          There is no material difference between the two, especially given how old that storm was, and given who the authors of Wikipedia are.

          1. Consensus Science

            Because yours lists a number, mine uses it in a sentence. Obviously you modified wikipedia just to save face. Shame on you.

          2. tom0mason


            This has now descended into a childish “mines bigger than yours!” type of argument. But then again what should be expected from a fool with a joke pseudonym name.

          3. yonason

            @tom0mason 11. October 2017 at 2:57 PM

            WOW! …wrapping my head around that slander of his…

            OK, so let me get this straight. He falsely accuses** me of editing Wiki-Pee, which I only used after holding my nose and with an added disclaimer about it’s trustworthiness, but then he wants us to take his Wiki-Pee ref seriously???!!! I mean, if he’s that worried about it’s vulnerability, he shouldn’t use it, ever. I am certainly going to cease and desist from now on (not that I ever use it much as it is).

            C.S. isn’t descending into childishness, he is in free-fall!

            You know, we must be stepping on the right toes for them to send over a clown like C.S. to harass us. We need to keep it up!

            ** For anyone not familiar with how they operate, falsely accusing others of what they are often guilty of is a standard leftist tactic they use to distract others from their own lapses in ethics. That, and the straw men and red herrings etc., etc., is really getting old.

            I’m taking the pledge. NO MORE WIKIPEDIA!

            I’m going away for a long Holiday week-end. I can’t wait to see the fun you’ll have had with him by the time I get back, Sunday-ish.

          4. Consensus Science

            Sour grapes. Rather than admit to being wrong, you accuse wikipedia and others of using bad tactics (called being right).

            Noone forced you to use a wikipedia table entry with no sources.

          5. tom0mason

            yonason, no that is not my point.

            I was just trying to highlight how much ‘he said. she said’ ‘mines bigger than yours’ childishness our joker enjoys.
            “C.S. isn’t descending into childishness, he is in free-fall!” , yes and liking it as it hijacks the whole thread if not the blog.


            Personally I’d like to get back to the subject of the blog and Pacific storm numbers, and not argue at all about that one Atlantic storm.


          6. yonason

            @tom0mason 11. October 2017 at 9:55 PM |

            yonason, no that is not my point.

            I was just trying to highlight how much ‘he said. she said’ ‘mines bigger than yours’ childishness our joker enjoys.

            I know. I was adding my complaint to your astute observation. Sorry. I should have been more clear about that.

        4. David Johnson

          Please go and lie down in a darkened room for a spell. You really are showing yourself up and I feel really sorry for you

  8. Steven Fraser

    What rainfall record? Not the most persistent, not the most in a location… Oh, the most in Houston. Talk about a cherry-pick.

    Do a little reading about Hurricane Flora, 1963, that dumped more than 100 inches of rain on Santiago de Cuba.

    And, while you are at it, the storms that fed the Mississippi flood of 1927 are worthy of your study.

    Sometimes, records are broken. But this year is not exceptional in that regard, not when it comes to count and intensity of Hurricanes worldwide.

    1. Consensus Science

      Santiago de Cuba is in a valley. A valley! Do you know what that is? I doubt it. No, not just Houston, the whole contiguous 48 states. Houston is flat, not a valley.

      1. tom0mason

        Consensus Science,
        Consensus science? Do you know what that is? —

        NOT SCIENCE!


    2. yonason

      C.S. is one nasty POS.

      One might think that anyone as wrong as C.S. would have a bit more humility, but then it is a leftist warmist troll, so I guess not. (NOTE – Harvey dropped 40-61 inches of rain, for comparison.)

      1. Consensus Science

        ouch, straight for ad homs. Yes, Harvey dropped 40-61 inches of rain on a plain, meanwhile you found a couple of ditches in a valley that obviously got deeply flooded.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Consensus Science: “ouch, straight for ad homs.”


          1. tom0mason

            Mr. Joke CS, is not bright enough to know what the problem is.
            “What did I lie about? Harvey did not set record for most rain in the contiguous 48 states, just like I said? Show me evidence. It is you who is the low-life liar.”

            Show you the evidence — NO because THAT is NOT the topic.

            Getting back to the topic, as the PACIFIC storm got fewer the Sea-Ice in Antarctica is “doing just fine.”
            Seems to me we were hearing a lot about it just six months ago when it broke off a tiny bit.

        2. tom0mason

          Consensus Science: “ouch, straight for ad homs.”

          Are you now learning?
          Maybe not as you still have that joke Consensus Science pseudonym. How can anyone take you seriously with such a joke name. Honestly what a twerp.

        3. yonason

          C.S. was mistaken? uh, was grossly careless? actually, lied about Harvey. When someone is a low life, it is not an ad hom to say they are.

          FYI – ad hom is an attempt to discredit information provided by ignoring it and attacking the person. However, when one first shows the information doesn’t support the opinion, and all indications are that the opinion is deliberately deceitful, then calling the source of that information a lying troll is perfectly justified. In fact, I would be remiss if I didn’t.

          Feel free to keep swinging wildly and looking the fool you are.

          Oh, and have a nice weekend.

          1. Consensus Science

            What did I lie about? Harvey did not set record for most rain in the contiguous 48 states, just like I said? Show me evidence. It is you who is the low-life liar.

          2. tom0mason

            ” What did I lie about? … blah, blah, bla…”

            It’s the PACIFIC for this thread!

            Your irritating ranting is just that. Empty unscientific noise.

  9. tom0mason

    The youngsters today want everything, and want it now.

    So now you want storms in the Pacific and the Atlantic, well Nature says ‘No!’.

    So stop having a tantrum, no means no!

  10. Derek Colman

    It’s easy to explain. The climate is a chaos system. In a chaos system events arise completely randomly with no pattern at all. Humans have a natural tendency to put things in order and believe that everything has an explanation. For instance early humans believed a thunder storm meant the gods were angry with them. The need for an explanation is very powerful. That is why humans have great difficulty in coming to terms with chaos.

  11. The Hottest End of the World Evah! | WeatherAction News

    […] […]

  12. clipe
  13. yonason

    Sometimes, Pierre, it is helpful to have timely posting of comments.

    Thanks in advance.

  14. Bitter&twisted

    Is Consensus Science SebastianH in another guise?
    Whatever he/she needs to keep taking their medication.

    1. tom0mason

      I defer to Michael Crichton on consensus science. … “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.”

      I suspect that behind the pseudonym ‘Consensus Science’ is really an anti-scientific ‘true believer’ in the magic of CO2 joker.

      1. Consensus Science


        If all scientists agree, then it’s not true?
        What? You are insane.

        1. Consensus Science

          Gravity makes things fall. If all scientists agree, then it must be wrong, right?

        2. tom0mason

          So now you are a specialist in psychology and can
          divine sanity from what people write?

          Ah, no it’s just yet another childish ad hominem by someone sporting a stupid pseudonym.

          If it’s a consensus it is NOT science it’s just a belief.

          1. Consensus Science

            You mouth off slogans.

            Science and Consensus are not mutually exclusive.

            Only cranks that can’t get majority of scientists to agree would say such self-serving things.

  15. tom0mason

    Another comment straight to spam?

  16. Pacific Nears "Quietest Cyclone Season On Record!" | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  17. sunsettommy

    Wow, I see that a loudmouthed troll sure posted a lot of words,but with little substance. He focus on three storms all in the Atlantic sphere of the world,while the topic is about a very quiet year in the PACIFIC.

    He ignored the many published science papers, Kenneth posted,Ignored that there was a TWELVE YEAR drought of Category 3+ making landfall and doesn’t acknowledge drenching rains of tropical storms.He ignored the ACE index too.

    He was also basically off topic anyway since the title of the post was this:

    “Media Baffled…”WHERE Have All The Cyclones Gone?”…Pacific Near “Quietest Season On Record”!”

    But the troll babbles about Atlantic storms,COMPLETELY ignoring that the REST OF THE OCEAN BASINS was below average this year.×381.png

    Only the North Atlantic was above average.

    The TROLL was NEVER on topic,never made a valid point based on the topic.

    1. tom0mason

      Yep a real distraction feast by the troll, living with the mistaken belief that science needs consensus.

    2. Pethefin

      Could you please stop feeding the new anti-science troll? This troll is obviously not worth the effort.

      1. sunsettommy

        The Troll posted again,with nothing of value.

        Ignored the downtrend evidence,ignored the down trending ACE index,ignores the 12 year break of Category 3+ storms hitting American coast.

        From the article the Troll ignored,

        “Dr. Ryan Maue here reports at Twitter that although the Atlantic hurricane season “is going gangbusters“, the Pacific is in fact seeing “one of quietest Typhoon seasons on record“.

        Last month in the media, amid the aftermath of Harvey and Irma, the public heard a long stream of hysterical reports claiming that the tropical storms were sure sure signs of man-made climate change.

        Yet, according to Dr. Maue, the globe has seen significantly below average cyclone activity, despite the near record hurricane activity observed in the Atlantic this season.”

        Acknowledged the busy Atlantic season,but rest of the world below average.

        Yet skeptics are being called deniers,by this loudmouth …….., snicker.

        He needs to go away as he offers nothing of value to debate with here.

    3. Consensus Science

      Science deniers always want to focus on where they can be right, so they miss the big picture. We got an average of 1.5 big storms between two oceans.

  18. tom0mason

    Of course the big problem AGW advocates have with the Pacific basin is that ring of fire and the estimated 1-3 million volcanoes bubbling CO2 and sulfur gases into the Pacific ocean.
    Underwater pools and lakes of liquid CO2 have been recorded by researchers and scientists since 1990 to the present day. Also of note is that aquatic life still persists around these sulfur and CO2 outpourings, seemingly unaffected by them, … oh dear… bang goes another AGW advocate’s theory about ocean acidification!

    Also of note is that the second most erupted gas on the planet next to steam has a significant magmatic source in which it is preferentially fractionated towards the surface. On the scale of atmospheric composition, the isotopic composition of volcanogenic CO2 is effectively indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2 due to the complete lack of statistically significant carbon isotope determinations for each of the contributing volcanic and tectonic provinces. Moreover, molar oxidation estimates cannot be used to constrain volcanogenic CO2 output because such estimates neglect the fact that carbon is not the only abundant element on the planet that preferentially combines with oxygen. It is only through emission monitoring taken in statistically significant empirical samples for each volcanic province that we may calculate a scientific estimate of total worldwide volcanic CO2 emission and perhaps, with statistically significant carbon isotope data for each volcanic province, we may one day be able to distinguish volcanic and industrial CO2 contributions in the atmosphere.

    Then there are the very words expressed by Charles Keeling in his 1979 paper, these provide his own admission that insufficient information was available regarding Carbon isotopes in the ocean waters.
    Quoting from Keeling:
    “The oceanic data are seen to be too meager as yet to help settle the question of biospheric response to man’s activities.”
    So by isotopic analysis alone we can not be sure how much human made fossil fuel derived CO2 is in the oceans or atmosphere as volcanic CO2 is the confounding factor.

    So liquid CO2 form puddles and lakes from underwater volcanoes, underwater volcanic rocks and ‘underwater smokers’, infusing the surrounding waters with maximum amounts of dissolved CO2. Yet even with generous helping of highly acidifying sulfur compounds, shellfish and crustaceans still live ok, fish still swim close by. All these nasty gases and they still can not acidify the ocean! Oh dear that must hurt the alarmists.

    And in keeping with the general theme here I’ll cite no sources for information.
    I’ll leave it for the trolls to explode into a fit of “It’s not true” without even checking the veracity of what’s been written.

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