Skip to content

Latest Alarmist Hurricane Study Easily Debunked

November 12, 2020

By Paul Homewood

 

It’s amazing how global warming seems to make everything worse!

Yet another junk study from the climate change factory:

 

 image

Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in leading journal, Nature.

The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.

"The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming," said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST). "We know that coastal areas need to ready themselves for more intense hurricanes, but inland communities, who may not have the know-how or infrastructure to cope with such intense winds or heavy rainfall, also need to be prepared."

Many studies have shown that climate change can intensify hurricanes – known as cyclones or typhoons in other regions of the world – over the open ocean. But this is the first study to establish a clear link between a warming climate and the smaller subset of hurricanes that have made landfall.

The scientists analyzed North Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall over the past half a century. They found that during the course of the first day after landfall, hurricanes weakened almost twice as slowly now than they did 50 years ago.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/oios-ccc110820.php

 

 

My first reaction is why pick a 50-year comparison?

It is well established that Atlantic hurricanes tend to be more severe during the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which started in 1995.

The cherry picked 50-year time span of course begins at the start of the cold phase. Why did not the researchers go back to the previous warm period between 1930 and 1960?

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

 

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd-faq/#complete-list-of-landfalling-hurricanes

 

To make matters worse, however, hurricane expert Ryan Maue has found some serious errors in the paper:

image

Image

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326582980857516032

 

He goes onto to analyse that rash of outliers, and finds things are not quite as have been represented. For instance, Hurricane Bonnie:

image

 

He finds similar problems with the rest, and concludes that when these are omitted, the claimed trend disappears:

 

 image

 

This paper is typical of so many climate change papers nowadays. Researchers, fed with massive grants, decide what they are going to find, and then massage the data to get the right conclusions.

19 Comments
  1. November 12, 2020 7:16 pm

    Thanks Paul. Here was my quick observation:

    Associated Press article: “examined 71 Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall ‘since 1967’. In the 1960s, hurricanes’ wind strength declined by 2/3 within 17 hrs of landfall.”

    What? “In the 60’s?” Study starts in 1967. Comparing 50 yrs of storms to a base period of 3 yrs?

    Indeed the abstract states ‘late 1960’s’:

    “Thus, whereas in the late 1960s a typical hurricane lost about 75 per cent of its intensity in the first day past landfall, now the corresponding decay is only about 50 per cent.”

    • Chris Morris permalink
      November 13, 2020 8:14 am

      If you look at the graph in the post, it seems in the period 1967-69, there were 4 or 5 hurricanes that made landfall. It seems that only in the world of climate science do they build such a towering edifice on such a small base

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      November 13, 2020 9:12 am

      As John Brignall said a Trojan number. Smuggle tiny data sets in under cover of what appears to be a comprehensive data set. Thus ten years is actually a handful of hurricanes. Then there’s a massive measurement problem – what are you measuring where and with what? Then there’s the confounding variables.

      Would any government licence a drug using such data? No. Yet the entirety of Western society must be treated with the drug on this basis.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    November 12, 2020 7:56 pm

    “We know that coastal areas need to ready themselves for [*******] hurricanes, but inland communities, who may not have the know-how or infrastructure to cope with such intense winds or heavy rainfall, also need to be prepared.”

    Yes, of course. That’s what’s called infrastructure adaptation, preparation for extreme weather. It needs to be improved, whether more intense or not.

    Was there something else to alarm us about, Professor Pinaki Chakraborty?

  3. Jackington permalink
    November 12, 2020 8:37 pm

    “Massage the data to get the right conclusions?” deja vu Covid-19 all over again

  4. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    November 13, 2020 12:28 am

    The sad aspect of this sort of thing is that nations are setting policy and spending billions.
    Gaia doesn’t care.

  5. November 13, 2020 6:04 am

    And yet another debunk

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/25/net-zero/

  6. November 13, 2020 7:58 am

    More about Hurricanes

    https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5j9

  7. ThinkingScientist permalink
    November 13, 2020 8:23 am

    Torturing the data until they confess. Just like the Spanish Inquisition.

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition…..

  8. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 13, 2020 9:08 am

    First off, does the paper provide any evidence of its fundamental premise – that these hurricanes were generated by “warmer” water? Have they got actual measurements of water temperature at formation time for both sets of hurricane data? If not then the whole thing simply becomes conjecture. Average temperatures might be higher but average temperatures aren’t proof of specific temperatures at specific times.

  9. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 13, 2020 9:27 am

    Can someone on twitter point McGrath to the critiques, and ask him to retract/update?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54902068

    A few years back he was asked why he was scare mongering in an Arctic warming story with ‘flowers’ blooming in the Arctic accompanied with a picture of ARCTIC Cotton Grass in an area of Greenland long famous for the display, you can guess what happened! But at least the story does seem to have vanished from the BBC, I can’t find it anyway.

  10. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 13, 2020 9:36 am

    More BBC idiocy – Black Friday deliveries to cause a CO2 surge!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54924993

    So as we know, shutting down the global economy for weeks isn’t enough to make any detectable change in global CO2 levels, but one day (probably offset by other factors like people not driving to pick up stuff themselves or ordering on a different day) is a disaster.

    This is an altogether new level of dumb from the BBC.

  11. Mad Mike permalink
    November 13, 2020 10:13 am

    OT here but I thought I’d share it with the group. Its from a friend who is concerned about her daughter’s mental health. Its a little dated.

    “After our daughter of fifteen was moved to tears from the speech of Gretha Thunberg yesterday, and became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years”, we decided to help her to prevent what the girl on TV announced “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems”.
    So we are going to give our daughter a future again. And cool the planet four degrees. We do this as follows:
    From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because bringing her by car costs fuel. Of course it will be winter soon and then she wants to go by bus, but as long as it is a diesel bus, that does not seem to be conducive to the Climate. Now, of course, she is asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused by nature as a result of the Lithium extraction, so it just becomes pedaling. Good for her, we used to cycle to school too.
    To get used to “getting rid of the gas” we have disconnected the radiator in her room. It is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, but it could freeze in the winter. In that case we have promised that she will receive an extra jumper, hat, tights and gloves.
    For the same reason we have agreed that from now on she only takes a cold shower. From now on she will wash clothes herself, with the washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and the tumble dryer even morning e. That is of course no longer possible.
    Speaking of the clothes that she now has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. On Monday we therefore bring everything to the secondhand shop. We have found an eco store where only clothing is sold from unpainted and unbleached linen, wool and jute. We do not think that it looks good on her, even that she is going to be laughed at so colorless and without a bra, but that is what she has to pay for the benefit for The Climate. Cotton is out of the question, it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it.
    We just saw on her Instagram that she got pretty angry. This was not the intention. But later on at 7 p.m. we will turn off the WiFi and it will only switch on again tomorrow after dinner. In this way we save electricity, she is not bothered by electro-stress and she is totally isolated from the outside world, so that she can concentrate better on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we take the power off, dark is really dark. That saves a lot of CO2.
    She is no longer going on winter sports. She is no longer going on any vacation, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible with a bicycle. Back to the CO2 emissions and footprint of your great-grandparents simply means that you also live like your great-grandparents and they never had a holiday or even a bicycle.
    We haven’t talked about food yet. No CO2 imprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes based on soy (after all, that grows where rainforests used to be) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.
    Only Dutch potatoes, vegetables and fruit, therefore, and only from the cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, CO2 and artificial light. That is bad for The Climate. Bread is still possible, but butter, milk and eggs, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from chickens and cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and nothing from the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations on Borneo where rain forests first grew. No ice creams in the summer. No wine. No soft drinks and no beer, these bubbles are CO2. She wanted to lose some pounds, well, that will work.
    We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen what an energy such a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? And finally, she no longer receives makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication, and the sanitary napkin is made of linen. Just like before.
    In this way we want to prevent mass extinction and the disappearance of entire ecosystems. For her.She believes in it.”

    Could be a blueprint for life.

    • Tim permalink
      November 13, 2020 6:18 pm

      Reminds me of my chilhood. My breath froze on the inside of the bedroom windows. I walked to school and in P.E. we had to swim in the pool at 48F. We did keep hens for eggs, and grew most of our own fruit and vegetables. I had to clear the firplaces out and lay it ready for the evening fire. Chopping the firewood was another chore.

  12. Anders Valland permalink
    November 13, 2020 12:06 pm

    You do not need to invoke malice when incompetence is a far more likely explanation. Remember, doing statistical analysis on data you never checked in-depth and getting results that confirm what you think you know is what fools researchers and scientists on a daily basis.

  13. NeilC permalink
    November 13, 2020 1:55 pm

    When viewing hurricanes this year I noticed that NOAA had max sustained winf speed for tropical storm of 45 mph, which is just a gale on the Beaufort scale. No wonder there were so many “named” storms.

    I just wish I had screen grabbed a few!

  14. Ulric Lyons permalink
    November 13, 2020 2:36 pm

    Atlantic hurricanes are normally more intense during centennial solar minima because of a warmer AMO, like also in the 1880-1890’s.

  15. November 13, 2020 4:01 pm

    Top 3 ‘Most severe landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States’ are all in the 1960s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records#Hurricane_Severity_Index

    None since 2008 in the top 10.

  16. Philip Mulholland permalink
    November 13, 2020 9:17 pm

    Surely that whole idea is that once a hurricane makes landfall it stays on land?
    To include a hurricane that passes over Cape Hatteras in the analysis is a joke.
    Why not go the full shilling and include hurricanes that make landfall on Bermuda?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: