Skip to content

A Busy Hurricane Season? Maybe, But It Won’t Be Due To Global Warming

July 12, 2020

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Today’s fake news from the BBC:

 

 

 image

Tropical Storm Fay brought strong winds, heavy rain and local flooding to north eastern states of the USA in the last few days.

It was the earliest "F" named storm on record and follows fast on the heels of the earliest "E" – Edouard – which formed earlier in the week.

And we may be looking at more to come. In an update to their hurricane season forecast, which includes all storms which are given a name, specialists at Colorado State University are now predicting there could be 20 named storms – up from 16 in their previous forecast. The long term average is 12.

And when it comes specifically to hurricanes – storms with winds of more than 74mph – that’s gone up too, from eight to nine. The forecast for the number of major hurricanes – Category 3 or above – stays at four.

This is the sixth consecutive year that has seen named tropical storms before the official start of the hurricane season on 1 June. Arthur and Bertha formed in May, also marking the first time since 2012 that two storms formed in that month. Cristobal, Edouard and Fay became, respectively, the earliest third, fifth and sixth named storms on record.

None of these storms became particularly large, which may have had something to do with the unusually large amounts of Saharan dust – a hurricane inhibitor – across the Atlantic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/53367575 

 

It may well be that this year will see an above average number of storms – that is what averages are all about.

But the idea that this year, and indeed recent years, are anything special is ludicrous. This is, of course, the implication from the claim that there could be 20 named storms – up from 16 in their previous forecast. The long term average is 12.

The average of 12 is based on 1968 to 2018, but in the early days it was still common to miss many short lived storms out in the middle of the Atlantic, even as recently as the 1990s.

A comparison of 1968 and 2018 shows clearly how very few mid Atlantic storms were picked up in 1968, despite the early beginnings of satellite monitoring.

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks-at-2018.png

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/DataByYearandStorm.html

 

And even when they struck the US, they were not even given names all of the time:

 imageimage

 https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/uststorms.html

 

 

The only meaningful trends that can be drawn are for US landfall storms in the last 30 years, and HURDAT data shows clearly that tropical storms and hurricanes have become much less frequent in the last decade:

 

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/uststorms.html

 

So far this summer, three tropical storms have hit the US, so there is no sign that this summer will end up being unusual.

 

The BBC article ends:

 image

 

The three factors are :

  1. A warm Atlantic
  2. Thunderstorms in Central Africa
  3. La Nina

Weasel words indeed! The actual data, of course, shows that there has been no long term trend in Atlantic hurricanes, which rather puts paid to the BBC’s climate stirring.

In the past the BBC have had to retract claims that climate change was making hurricanes worse, following my complaints. Having had their fingers burned once, they have obviously decided to be more circumspect!

15 Comments
  1. July 13, 2020 1:08 am

    “Tropical Storm Fay brought strong winds, heavy rain and local flooding to north eastern states of the USA in the last few days.
    It was the earliest “F” named storm on record and follows fast on the heels of the earliest “E” – Edouard – which formed earlier in the week”

    The theory is that agw makes tropical cyclones wetter and more destructive and the empirical test must test that hypothesis. If the theory is that agw makes tropical cyclones do what we found it doing then it is not science but a childish thrill called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

    More on tropical cyclones

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/04/agwcyclones/

  2. July 13, 2020 1:11 am

    The Obama’s got lucy.

  3. Ben Dussan permalink
    July 13, 2020 1:26 am

    A bit interesting that the maximum landfall winds have been only 60 knots in the 1851-1965, 1983-2019 periods: data clearly shows no trend of hurricanes getting “stronger”, at least based on the landfall winds.

    Someone is sort of all wet…

  4. Graeme No.3 permalink
    July 13, 2020 1:26 am

    “It was the earliest “F” named storm on record”
    WOW! How scientific. There were 3 earlier storms on that record, fortunately unnamed, so they don’t count at the BBC.
    I must admit I thought that an increase in tropical storms hitting the UK was associated with global cooling.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    July 13, 2020 2:09 am

    “None of these storms became particularly large, which may have had something to do with the unusually large amounts of Saharan dust – a hurricane inhibitor – across the Atlantic.”

    The current forecasts do not include ‘unusual’ aerosols crossing the Equatorial Pacific where the current ENSO 3.4 is in neutral with no major La-Nina in sight… in spite of a new record high for CO2.

    • dave permalink
      July 15, 2020 10:58 am

      It seems to me most unlikely that dust, per se, is important. The point is that the dust is carried across the Atlantic by extremely dry air with a vertical wind shear; and these characteristics definitely ARE inhibitors.

      However, according to ruling CAGW dogma, a warming planet will make North Africa drier, and increase the amount of this dust – hence, hurricanes by their logic must tend to become scarcer.

      Dearie me, these twerps are always getting their knickers in a twist!

      Of course, it is another handy excuse when there are few hurricanes in a season. They will try to to blind us with their bit of pseudo-science, “Oh! It was unusual dust.” Some of them will undoutedly aver that it is so unusual that it proves CAGW.

  6. July 13, 2020 3:41 am

    A little hurricane history of the outer banks.
    https://www.thoughtco.com/north-carolina-hurricanes-583725

    And in the winter/spring they be having nor’easters.

    And, mind were ya be swimmin out thar, mate.
    https://www.joelambjr.com/blog/great-white-sharks-migrate-past-the-outer-banks/

    Clutch your pearls Simon King, and cower under your desk in fear.

  7. StephenP permalink
    July 13, 2020 7:22 am

    IIRC storms were controlled by the difference in temperatures between the tropics and the Arctic.
    As the major effect of global warming is supposed to be in the Arctic, then the temperature difference between the two should be less.
    So shouldn’t the effect be fewer or less intense storms?

  8. saighdear permalink
    July 13, 2020 7:42 am

    Hmm,keeping it simple: I’ve been watching the @ https://www.nhc.noaa.gov daily, AllI see is Here today and gone tomorrow. Why give that events a name?Looks like name for a name’s ( bad) sake to push an agenda.

    • dave permalink
      July 13, 2020 8:47 am

      “…name for names’ (bad) sake…”

      As the Met started giving names to every little spot of windy bother in the UK.

      It is all based on the touching deference of ordinary people, “Them EXPERTS wouldn’t give a name to a nothing, would they?”

      The essence of “populism” is to encourage the loss of deference; and this is why a populist (someone who encourages it) like Trump is the devil for elites and bullies everywhere.

      So, actually, deference to the BBC and the Climate Mafia is no longer “touching” – it is sickening and appalling.

      As I mentioned a day or two ago, the world is having a QUIET cyclonic year to date. The BBC has “forgotten” to mention the more important Pacific Basin where absolutely nothing is happening.

      It is pathetic of hurricane-porn purveyors to fall back on mere tropical storms!

  9. July 13, 2020 9:41 am

    Given that the BBC are historical revisionists as part of their embracing of marxism I suppose they have blanked this from their memories…..and their media output of course

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane

    Also when Desmond hit the UK and there was all the wailing and gnashing of teeth I did a bit of googling and found a very recent paper by some bod in Lancaster Uni who had gone through the Parish records and found many references to terrific storms in the Lakedistrict. I have tried and tried to find it again but as it popped up so easily then, has the link been deleted? If anyone knows about this paper which was published 2014 or 2015 I would appreciate a link

  10. mikewaite permalink
    July 13, 2020 10:07 am

    I have been looking at the statistics of named storm days in the N Atlantic as collected by the colorado state U met dept:
    http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northatlantic
    Looking at the no of storm days /year from 1851,you could eyeball a small increase in recent decades which strongly suggest a GHG componen , but to my inexpert eye , the major component is a multidecadal trend which surely is linked to AMO.(It is ironic that the AMO was christened such by M E Mann- according to Wiki , but the Met Office and the BBC, who worship Prof Mann, seem not to have heard of it)

  11. tom0mason permalink
    July 13, 2020 12:56 pm

    Wow, the BBC’s Simon King believes that he has second sight?
    Maybe he has really good access to the BBC crystal ball or something. You know the one that’s NEVER wrong (even when it is).

    “New game! New Game — Weather predictions from the best the BBC can offer, lets see how this plays out.”

  12. DaveR permalink
    July 13, 2020 5:37 pm

    NOAA’s PSL has projections of PDO, AMO and Global T at https://psl.noaa.gov/forecasts/decadal/Forecastindices.html.

    So,forecasted GAST cooling via oceanic temp fluctuations?

    https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

    Yip, ‘the science’ is truly in…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: