One of the big talking points from Warmists, including the IPCC, was that “climate change” would cause more tropical storms, especially landfalling ones, and that they would also be stronger. So far, none of that has come to fruition, especially in the Northern Atlantic. Especially since much of the notion of more storms comes simply from better ways to see them. Prior to the satellite era, and, really, only in the last 20-30 years, the way people knew a tropical storm had formed was because it was approaching/hitting land, or a ship saw it out at sea. A notion mentioned in this study
(Red Orbit) A new study from South African researchers has debunked the notion that there are more tropical cyclones taking place due to global warming – at least in the Southern Indian Ocean.
Jennifer Fitchett, a PhD student at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, said better meteorology has probably fueled the idea of climate change developing more and more storms.
“From 1940, there was a huge increase in observations because of aerial reconnaissance and satellite imagery,†she said.
According to the report, co-authored by Fitchett and published in the International Journal of Climatology, tropical storms hitting the southeastern coast of Africa may not be increasing in number – but they are shifting south due to increasingly warmer temperatures on the surface of the sea.
For the study, the researchers used data from three storm track records that spanned periods between 66 and 161 years and discovered that there has been no rise in the amount of tropical cyclones. However, when the study team looked at where storms have been taking place, they found that the 80-degree surface temperatures needed for a cyclone to occur have been moving southward toward the pole. This phenomenon has coincided with storms shifting farther to the south.
OK, so no increase in tropical storms. As far as the shifting goes, it’s been happening at the rate of .6 degrees per decade since 1850, per the study. Which, as Ms. Fitchett stated, neither was expected. Of course, the shifting cannot be proven to be due to man-induced “climate change”, simply something that would happen during a typical Holocene warm period. Another nail in the coffin of AGW/”climate change”.
Superb post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on
this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more.
Many thanks!
Teach would you care to comment in the increase in strength of tropical storms world wide? Also by “landfall” do you usually mean that to be limited to the continental USA? A quick check in wiki will show how the frequency if major storms IS increasing
John,
There is now an alternative explanation for any climate change and that is that the earth is closer to the sun. I have a friend that is an astro-physicist and he concurred with this after a review of his literature. This fits much better than the false CO2 argument. Plus, it is verified by Occam’s razor. Of course, if we went with the carbon credits, we could have stopped Russia in its tracks, or they could stop us. That is the whole purpose of your religion.
dave,
Please expand on your new theory that the Earth is moving closer to the Sun and that is causing the Earth to rapidly warm.
By all means, share your data, or we might have to assume you are lying. Where is your new theory published? How much closer to the Sun has the Earth moved in the past 100 years? How long will it take for the Earth to fall into the Sun?
Nothing is “verified by Occam’s Razor”.
Teach,
“OK, so no increase in tropical storms… Another nail in the coffin of AGW/â€climate changeâ€.”
Whoa, slow down there skippy. The study looked at particular storm tracks in a narrow region. That is not to say that the results aren’t true, just that it’s a leap to make the broad statement “so no increase in tropical storms”, based on this study. But, of course you’re not interested in the science anyway. Also, the mechanistic nature of the theory of AGW does not depend on tropical storm frequency.
Also, the mechanistic nature of the theory of AGW does not depend on tropical storm frequency.
That’s funny, the warmists have been saying for years that tropical storms/hurricanes will increase in strength and numbers as the planet warms because of AGW.
Oh, and now AGW is just a theory? I thought the science was settled.
Nighthawk,
You’re confused, which is what Teach et al want.
The theory of AGW states that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels) will cause the Earth’s surface and oceans to warm.
“That’s funny, the warmists have been saying for years that tropical storms/hurricanes will increase in strength and numbers as the planet warms because of AGW.”
Climate scientists have also been saying that Arctic sea ice will melt, the ocean volume will increase, the pH of the oceans will drop, the upper atmosphere would cool, the glaciers would recede, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will lose ice, that the natural ranges of some flora and fauna would shift and yes, that extreme weather events would increase as the heat content of the Earth increased. All true and consistent with the theory of AGW. (Re Antarctica: sea ice IS increasing, the ice sheet is not).
So, even if extreme weather events were not increasing the theory would still be sound. But in fact, contrary to far-right dogma, the absolute numbers of extreme weather events are increasing. Munich Re, the huge re-insurance company has assembled data demonstrating that storms, droughts, severe cold and heat, but not seismic events, are increasing. Teach cherry-picks data, e.g., “Fewer F4 tornadoes in Alabama in June 2013 proves AGW is a hoax”, or “Fewer severe tropical storms in Mozambique in 2013 proves AGW is a hoax.” According to long-term, global data the number (not just the costs) of extreme weather events is increasing.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.200-last-year-costliest-on-record-for-natural-disasters.html#.UzQIAWdOXmJ
To scientists, “theory” means something different than it does to the general public. In science a theory is a specific, testable, falsifiable, edifice supported by data and evidence. For example, although the attraction between masses was formally identified and described mathematically in the 1600s, gravity is “just a theory”. We don’t understand the attraction between heavenly bodies. We don’t understand why objects don’t drift off planets into space. Or why objects in space orbit. Newton theorized that gravity was a force between two objects; perhaps there exist unidentified gravity particles (gravitons) or gravity radiation. Einstein theorized (Theory of Relativity) that gravity is not a force at all but represents the spherical nature of the space-time continuum. Regardless, the apple still falls from the tree. Is gravity settled science since we’re still trying to understand it?
It’s clear that the Earth’s surface and oceans are warming from the CO2 we add to the atmosphere.