Skip to content

Record Atlantic Hurricane Season?

January 15, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 image

https://theconversation.com/the-2020-atlantic-hurricane-season-was-a-record-breaker-and-its-raising-more-concerns-about-climate-change-150495

 

There has been much alarum about last year being a “record Atlantic hurricane season”. As I pointed out at the time, the claim was based on the number of named tropical storms, which includes both hurricanes and weaker storms. The number of Atlantic hurricanes alone was not a record.

Because of a tendency to name all sorts of small storms nowadays, not to mention the ability of satellites to spot them, the claim was always a spurious one.

Now we fortunately have the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) data available for the year, the claim is proven to be nonsensical and deceitful.

Briefly, ACE is a measurement of the intensity of the intensity and duration of Tropical Storms and Cyclones. [Tropical Cyclone is a generic name for storms which are called hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons in the W Pacific].

Reliable data for the Atlantic, both number of storms and ACE, is only available since the era of satellites in 1966, as NOAA explain:

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd-faq/#tcs-to-1930

 

However, scientists at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA have diligently examined older meteorological records to re-analyse hurricanes prior to 1966 – details here.

This allows us to make much more meaningful long term comparisons. Their data shows that last year was a long way from being a record hurricane season, or tropical storm for that matter.

In terms of ACE, it was only the 10th strongest, The record year was 1933.

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd-faq/#tcs-to-1930

http://climatlas.com/tropical/ 

 

There is a clear cyclical pattern, with more intense activity in the 1930 to 1970 period, less between 1970 and late 1990s, and an increase since. This is directly related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a natural cycle which switches from warm to cool over a 50 to 60 year cycle. It was in warm phase in the 1930s to 60s, and has also been in warm mode since the mid 1990s.

https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

 

NOAA explain the relationship between AMO and Atlantic hurricane activity:

 image

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

 

 

It is also worth pointing out that hurricane activity, even after re-analysis, still likely under records  hurricane activity prior to the satellite era. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Centre, who has carried out much of the re-analysis work, explained in his paper, Reanalysis of the 1921–30 Atlantic Hurricane Database,

 image 

 

Note how the names of Emmanuel and Mann crop up!

 

In reality, we are never going to be able to record all of the hurricane activity in the past, as we can now. Nevertheless, it is manifestly clear that there is nothing unprecedented about either last year’s hurricane activity, or that of other recent years.

20 Comments
  1. January 15, 2021 7:37 pm

    Funny how quiet alarmists were when hurricane activity near the US tailed off for about 10 years before 2017. How did that happen?

    • Duker permalink
      January 15, 2021 9:35 pm

      They didnt really keep quiet , they just hyped individual hurricanes rather than ‘a season’. As no particular storms to hype so far they shake the tambourines about the season again.

      • January 16, 2021 3:05 pm

        Time for them to dust off Polar Bears, (NON) sinking Atols and the (NON)dying Great Barrier Reef oh and do not forget the protoAtlantis Miami and the Mekong.

        The contempt the people regurgitating this K rap have for the collective memories of the general public, quoting the tired old “New Study Suggests” is bottomless and when we read the supposed “study” what we find is a selective search only quoting other studied which supports whatever doom laded view they wish to promote. How is funding always made available to give oxygen to those who disseminate climate propaganda?

        Hundreds and hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars wasted already and much more on the way and this is THE BEST the tired and bloated profoundly corrupt world of climate doom-mongering can come up with as “evidence” and proof of man made warming?

        The shear asininity of that statement will I am sure be clear to all because not one of these atrociously researched “studies” answers the fundamental question about what is causing the warming of the past 350 years ( except for an unsubstantiated finger pointed at CO2 and greenhouse gasses “since the pre industrial age”. Indeed, in not one studies I know if is there warming signature of any kind which can be extracted and shown to be uniquely detrimental to what ever cause they are promoting let alone one which can be separated out as caused by man.

  2. mjr permalink
    January 15, 2021 7:48 pm

    Paul .. just watching C4 News (at 19.46pm) which has just had a global warming doom and gloom featuring comments from Michael Mann and full of all the tropes- uk floods, us storms, fires, bleaching, etc etc etc . Missed the start so i am not sure what the trigger was for it.

    • January 15, 2021 8:19 pm

      I saw the trailer for the item on C4 News. It was all about how we (not the sun) are warming the oceans at the rate of something like two Hiroshima bombs every second of every day, 24/7. I don’t know who the idiot was who said this, but I decided to switch off at that point as I could guess what unscientific propaganda was coming.

      • Duker permalink
        January 15, 2021 9:41 pm

        The high snowfall that the US recently had in cities that generally have low snowfall has come to Europe this year so the ‘marketing messages’ switch to warming oceans elsewhere

      • Cheshire Red permalink
        January 16, 2021 9:35 am

        The Hiroshima thing is textbook fearmongering propaganda.

        Meanwhile ‘natural’ Hiroshima bombs from the good ol’ sun are running at thousands of times that amount.

        Obviously this context is conveniently overlooked.

      • dave permalink
        January 16, 2021 4:14 pm

        Oh no, not those Hiroshima bombs again! It was ‘scare of the year,’ a while back, tricking ‘useful idiots’ into shouting the sea is boiling.

        Actually – because 99% of the people in the world were born after 1945 – I am not sure that atomic weapons work any longer as a psychological yardstick for appalling energy releases.

        I was truly startled to find that in a recent survey four out of ten young people in the USA do not even know that the USA participated in something called World War II.

        In one of those amusing videos of fresh-faced American youth being asked to prove the value of their fifteen years of full-time education, I liked the girl who when asked

        “What used to divide East and West Berlin?” answered “The Great Wall of China!”

  3. Frank permalink
    January 15, 2021 8:41 pm

    There was no apparent trigger for this extraordinary tirade on Channel 4 News tonight, with lots of the usual dramatic footage of floods, fires, glacier calving etc etc. The introduction from the presenter included this horrifying information “There were so many tropical storms this year that they ran out of names to call them,…. for the first time ever…..”
    I quote statement from Professor John Abraham??. ” Since 2015 we have had the hottest 5 years on record. The hottest 5 years that have ever been recorded by humans. This is equivalent to the heat from five to six Hiroshima Bombs going off in the Oceans every second of every day and night, seven days a week, of every month 24 hours a day every day of the year.That’s how much heat we are dumping into the Oceans”. Michael Mann, he of the hockey stick? then added his bit at the end surrounded by his books ……could this be a £p promotion …?? Who authorises this rubbish to be on the main stream news?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      January 15, 2021 9:39 pm

      When the ‘Masters of the Universe’ can disappear a POTUS, who’s to say that they can’t change the climate to their advantage,
      We really do live in interesting times. (sigh)

      • Duker permalink
        January 15, 2021 9:51 pm

        No evidence of that at all inspite of 60 court cases and climbing. Even the smart people like Senator Hawley who have hopped on the bandwagon, arent saying theres evidence of fraud just that 1200 late votes in Pennsylvania were authorised when they shouldnt. ( the margin there is 80,000 votes.) And of course the Republican Senators and Congress members elected are VERY happy about the election for themselves.

  4. Frank permalink
    January 15, 2021 8:43 pm

    There was no trigger for this extraordinary tirade on Channel 4 News tonight, with lots of the usual dramatic footage of floods, fires, glacier calving etc etc. The introduction from the presenter included this horrifying information “There were so many tropical storms this year that they ran out of names to call them,…. for the first time ever…..”
    I quote statement from Professor John Abraham??. ” Since 2015 we have had the hottest 5 years on record. The hottest 5 years that have ever been recorded by humans. This is equivalent to the heat from five to six Hiroshima Bombs going off in the Oceans every second of every day and night, seven days a week, of every month 24 hours a day every day of the year.That’s how much heat we are dumping into the Oceans”. Michael Mann, he of the hockey stick? then added his bit at the end surrounded by his books ……could this be a £p promotion …?? Who authorises this rubbish to be on the main stream news?

  5. MrGrimNasty permalink
    January 15, 2021 10:15 pm

    Hiroshima bombs of ocean warming LOL. Zettajoules is the latest way to scare the credulous. Take a look at this response to GWPF by Darren Bett (as if we needed to guess that he would be pushing deceptive ‘facts’).

    I calculate that the latest 360 zettajoules means the top 2k of ocean is warming at a rate of 0.2C a century, which is of no consequence to any sane person/scientist – even if the data were reliable.

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      January 16, 2021 9:39 am

      Atmospheric warming is the Great Satan when it can be demonstrated.

      When it shows essentially no warming they move to measuring global warming by ocean heat content instead.

      The absolute scam that is ‘climate change’ industry summed up in one easy lesson.

  6. Mack permalink
    January 16, 2021 12:36 am

    The bottom line is, nothing extraordinary is going on with the ‘climate’ and, being an old student of historical weather patterns, the AMO will, inevitably, be shortly turning negative, so my best advice to anyone living in the Northern Hemisphere would be to stock up on anything that will keep you warm and well fed. Our governments have lost the plot and aren’t investing in actual power stations that will protect our societies. The Chinese, Russians and Indians seem to understand this and, secretly, enjoy our suicidal zeal to destroy our economies and way of life whilst they prosper. When the reality of current energy policies finally hit home to the great unwashed in the U.K. and across the western world, things could get very, very messy.

    • January 16, 2021 1:31 am

      Even when it happens, the chancers, rent seekers and lemmings will never admit they were wrong. They will find some excuse, always some excuse……

  7. January 16, 2021 1:26 am

    1. Since WHEN did we start accepting that ONE years weather or one years individual weather statistic or if it reported enough that one weather event is scientifically supported evidence of climate change when the minimum observational period is 30 years reduced I think from a previous 50 years?

    For a climate time unit to be part of a identifiable trend it follows that it should demonstrate a statistically significant and sustained identifiable change in respect of recorded empirical data for a range of measured weather properties as compared to the climate time unit which precedes it. Also as climate is not homogeneous the definition can only be location or limited area specific.

    A single or occasion event or years events are NOT representative or anything except for erratic variability that abounds and is called WEATHER.

    NOW! It is not possible to describe a trend with less than three points so discussing climate change it must follow that three climate time units is the minimum period across which to define any “climate change trend”. It must therefore follow that 90 years using the current definition of a climate time period is the minimum time over which it is possible to even begin to make empirical data based judgements in respect of establishing a trend..

    I do not know about you but I am distinctly uneasy about committing to a trend based on three points!

    2. In all of this the logic is still grossly disingenuous because underpinning all of this is a gross assumption and public discussion of this is rare and discouraged. Why would that be I wonder?

    There are herds and herds of elephants tightly crammed into the same tiny room because there exists no empirical data establishing either a unique cause of warming during the past 100 years (wilful ignorance is required here of course to ignore the small issue that warming actually began 250 years earlier), or even the main cause of that warming or the leap of faith further into the stratosphere into the magical world of the much promoted climate change.

    So WHY is that gross assumption promoted incessantly with the wave of an arm everywhere by the media and all the usual suspects as if somehow repeating it magically makes it fact? Certainly it is promoted in forums where a challenge or request for supporting evidence rarely if ever asked.

    I mean, from this unreal position what are we talking about here? Surely to be able to speak intelligently about climate change it needs to be codified? All the random talk about climate change is purely qualitative when the only to have any value scientifically it surely must have to be quantitative and a set of rigid and well defined parameters described as markers, markers which often will be unique to each climate region identified to observe when any consideration for real change is to be considered.

    It is all too conveniently slack and the lack of offered (or requested) empirical evidence or proof of any kind in support when claims are made draws the obvious parallel to what is being promoted as being simply a religion where belief is the only required quality.

    Where to begin? Is the standpoint that that climate was static and did not change until some undetermined time during the past 100 years or that it is acknowledged that climate is continuously changing but somehow began to change “faster”?

    I am curious to know what exactly are the units of climate change? If it is the latter what are the units of rate of change of climate and how are they both defined and measured?

    The problem is that real science is not taking place with the strongest thesis, the one supported by the most compelling argument and most clear empirical data coming out on top. This is a perversion of science at every level and had damaged and weakened the reputation of all science, perhaps forever

  8. January 16, 2021 1:56 am

    A single season in a single cyclone basin does not cintain information about global warming.

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

  9. Lez permalink
    January 16, 2021 10:30 am

    Defoe’s account of the great storm of 1703 makes interesting reading.
    https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42234

  10. January 17, 2021 9:28 am

    The 5 minute tirade on Channel Four News presented by Matt Frei, is now on Youtube here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2uv7L_SSBI&feature=emb_title . I am writing to Matt Frei who has previously been critical of Fake News, to ask him how and why he gets involved in promoting such mis-information, an issue of which he has been most critical in the past.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: