Another Climate boogeyman crashes into reality

Statistical analysis of hurricane frequency and intensity

170 years with no trend and no correlation to CO2 levels.

“First you guess. Don’t laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” Richard P Feynman.

93 thoughts on “Another Climate boogeyman crashes into reality

  1. So, the climate is not steadily getting warmer? What a relief!

    Zoe Phin is not a scientist. She is a financial analyst working on Wall Street. That you try to link her doodling with Richard Feynman is an insult to his memory. Real science is published in scientific journals and subjected to peer review. Zoe Phin is completely self-published. Her central finding – in her words – “The greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect and should be abandoned for the sake of empirical science.” is laughable.

    After your trashing Greta Thunberg the other day, it is kind of ironic that today you are spreading the non-peer reviewed work of this autistic (as described by herself) young woman. If Thunberg’s “mental state” is relevant – as you say it is – then so too is Phin’s. One difference is that Greta does not pretend to be doing science.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Real science is published in scientific journals and subjected to peer review.”

      That’s just ignorant.

      Is there something in Phin’s brief statistical note that you wish to criticize? There are several obvious possibilities, including her code. If you find nothing to complain about in this instance of her work, then your complaint about her status as a data scientist is without merit.

      Like

      1. Uh, if a scientific claim or study cannot withstand peer review then it is not science. Maybe speculation?

        She is not any kind of scientist – data or climate. If she was, she would submit such extremely important claims – such as that “the greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect” to scientific journals.

        When someone has made a hobby out of manipulating statistics to refute actual climate science and election results where Democrats have prevailed I am not going to either trust her findings nor make the effort to usurp the role of scientific journals and actual scientists in the field where she makes her claims.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Where is she in error?
            Same place you seem to be – thinking she has proved something relevant.

            As I indicated in another post her hair-on-fire “discovery” is not new. The effect of global warming on hurricane frequency has not shown much of a trend. As the Yale link I provided pointed out, what has changed is the ratio of more serious and damaging storms. And the prospect of more in that direction.

            You present her work to say . . . Aha! Climate change is not serious. That is politics, not science.

            By the way, she presents some data and says they do not show a trend. In fact, they do. For example, her preferred measure – since the data does show increased frequency – is the number of hours of hurricane activity in the Atlantic. She reports about 300 hours rolling 10 year average in 1860 which compares to 600 hours for the same measure in 2020. That IS a meaningful difference. And doubly so since they are 10 year averages.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Uh, if a scientific claim or study cannot withstand peer review then it is not science.”

          That’s not only ignorant, it is Humpty Dumpty logic. Yet again you avoid the issue at hand; you have no valid criticism of the post.

          Like

      1. Where is she in error?

        Unlike you, I do not pretend to know what I do not know. But I DO know that her “findings” are so significant that they WOULD be published in scientific journals and not a personal blog IF they could withstand peer review.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You pretend to know that Zoe Phin’s blog post is erroneous, but you can’t explain how or why.

          Like

          1. Read again. I did not say her post was erroneous. I said that she is not an authoritative source. And, she isn’t. She has no actual qualifications and her work is not published or peer reviewed. And that is made clear – very clear – when she promulgates utter nonsense such as the claim that I quoted about the green house gas hypothesis.

            I will add now that cherry-picked statistics can be not in error but also probative of nothing. Or, as I noted in another post today untrue statements can be made about true data.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The subject of the paper was the trend in hurricanes, not the greenhouse effect.

            Her representation of that trend is the issue, Her timeframe is the entire time for which records are available. No cherry picking.

            Like

          3. No, I didn’t. I specifically referenced the claims of more frequent and more powerful storms, which her article shows not to be the case.

            This is a specific, statistical presentation one a single element of the alarmist scare tactics.

            The perception of more damaging storms is an artifact of the “Expanding Bullseye” effect Lomberg reports in his excellent book FALSE ALARM

            Like

    1. The article you cite is a series of speculations about what might be expected, things that Ms Phin’s tables show have not happened.

      Some of the statements are deliberately misleading. For example, Hurricane Harvey’s 60 inches of rain was not because of a higher rate of rainfall but because the hurricane became stalled just off shore for a protracted period os time.

      Like

      1. You have egregiously mischaracterized what was said about Hurricane Harvey. Here is what they actually said . . .

        “A majority of the rain was caused by Harvey’s extremely slow movement. But multiple attribution studies conclude that a significant amount of rain can be traced to human-caused warming, with various estimates ranging from 15% to 20% to 38%.”

        There is NOTHING misleading about that statement.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. My response to Dr. Tabor was to set the record straight after he egregiously mischaracterized what the Yale summary said about rain and Hurricane Harvey.

            If human activity has raised atmospheric and oceanic temperatures (“AGW”) then one would expect the air to carry more moisture and rain to increase. The exact contribution of AGW is difficult to separate from other factors that may be relevant which is why the studies you mock come up with different percentages that can be fairly attributed to human activity. Your charge this being a case of Affirming-the-Consequent logical fallacy requires that AGW has not happened, but – according to science and scientists – it has. And if AGW is real then SOME percentage of that rain would not have happened without it. And if it is real and it continues to get worse then the prediction of more rain from future hurricanes is sound.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “it has. And if AGW is real then SOME percentage of that rain would not have happened without it. ”

            Nope.

            That’s the point. Experience has shown that the recent warming trend, whatever its source, has not strengthened hurricanes.

            Storms are powered by differences in temperature and humidity. A uniform warming would naturally have no effect.

            Like

          3. “Nope”

            “Yep”

            The subject was the amount of rain associated with hurricanes. Warmer air and water means more rain no matter other factors.

            Wind speeds is another subject and your “Nope” is wrong there too. An increase in the proportion of higher category storms has been observed. Hurricanes grow in strength over warmer water and lose strength over colder water. It follows as night follows day that the greater the area of warmer water the greater the chance for a storm to strengthen.

            BTW, that data set that this discussion is based on is the best available but does not merit too much weight. The older parts of it is the result of analyses and extrapolations from newspaper reports, captain’s logs etc. Modern measurements of hurricanes are only available for the most recent decades.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Again, nope.

            That’s not how hurricanes work.

            A very large area of uniformly warm water would make a lot of small thunderstorms. A hurricnae requires a gradient.

            Like

          5. “A hurricnae requires a gradient.”

            Yes, to get started. And to move. But once started its strength is determined by the energy it finds in the water on its path. At least that is what NOAA says. Are they wrong?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Paul,
            Imagine having a theory so bad, you need to cherrypick a handful out of 611 hurricanes and then only look at their category and the path it takes thru water.

            Meanwhile, global accumulated cyclone energy has been decreasing.

            Like

          7. I am a lukewarmer. The term ‘denier’ is offensive hate speech trying to tar climate change skeptics as though they were holocaust deniers.

            Like

          8. I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

            Fine you are a skeptic. But isn’t it ironic how you use MTG style analogies for something completely unrelated.

            I could take offense at your tying denialism ONLY to the Holocaust. But I won’t. I will just say it is kind of ❄-y,

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Which theory is “so bad?”

            By the way, if you really want ANY credibility on ANY subject then avoid claiming that Trump did not mock the handicapped nor insult POWs. Spreading “alternative facts” is what partisan hacks and clueless cranks tend to do.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Trump does the SAME routine when he mocks people. Only LATER it was revealed that specific guy was “disabled”. Timelines matter. Trump is an equal-opportunity mocker. He also donated his entire salary minus $1.

            Pretty sure he was just mocking McCain.McCain wasn’t captured with a group, only by himself. It’s one thing to be defeated, and another to be defeated alone.

            The funniest thing, I guess, would be a deserter, who was captured. I think that’s what Trump was suggesting.

            Like

          11. ” Only LATER it was revealed that specific guy was “disabled”. ”

            NOPE. It was known that the reporter 45 was mocking was disabled. It wasn’t “later reveled”. Re-writing history is another go-to in MAGA-land. See the tourist of 1/6 for refresher/

            “The funniest thing, I guess, would be a deserter, who was captured. I think that’s what Trump was suggesting.”

            Are you suggesting that McCain was a deserter? He was shot down, for cryin’ out loud.

            People who make excuses for 45’s idiotic statements have ZERO credibility in the real world.

            Like

          12. “It was known that the reporter …”
            To whom? Was it known TO Trump?

            The fact that Trump mocks everyone in the same fashion, shows you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

            You want to make it seem that he was mocking the reporter specifically for just being retarded. But what about him mocking others in the same way, despite not being retarded? Hmm?

            No, I’m suggesting McCain was a traitor. Trump was ridiculing him for being a MORAL DESERTER, and traitor – something most other POW’s didn’t do.

            Like

          13. “Was it known TO Trump?”

            Uh, yes. They had been face-to-face before. Regardless, you don’t mock the handicapped. PERIOD!

            “Trump was ridiculing him for being a MORAL DESERTER,”

            Uh. no. He was ridiculing him for being CAPTURED. His own freaking words. But in T**** world REAL words ON TAPE are still denied.

            Your T****ian spin is unimaginably stupid for one who claims moral authority.

            Like

          14. If McCain wasn’t captured and treated, he would’ve died. In return for being rescued, he shared with the enemy gov secret targets.

            Like

          15. I doubt that. I see nothing dishonorable in his service in the Navy.

            But his time as a POW seems to have changed him. He became captive to his good reviews in the media.

            Like

          16. “He also donated his entire salary minus $1.”

            NAd by the way, he is now claiming his entire pension and using it to help fund his bullshittery tours.

            Like

          17. that makes ZERO sense. You need to learn the difference between a tax refund, which your post implies, to an earned pension. Similar to the one I get from the military.

            You continue to prove how absolutely clueless you are about real world vs fantasyland,

            Like

          18. “Trump mocks everyone in the same fashion”

            Uh, who should I believe – you or my lying eyes.

            I have watched about 6 years of Trump speaking. Hundreds of occasions. While he is one nasty and disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone for a President, I never – repeat never – saw him do a drooling, shaking imitation of cerebral palsy EXCEPT for his mocking of that reporter suffering from it who asked him a question he did not like.

            I will believe my lying eyes. And not you. On anything.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. “Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we’ve seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He’s not waving his arms uncontrollably.

            Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?

            The answer to all these questions is this: The media and their political handlers constructed a fake news talking point against Trump and ran with it.”

            The accusation:

            Typical repeated impression:

            Why must Democrats lie so complusively?

            There are actual valid criticisms of Trump. And dumb people can only repeat dumb fake news.

            Like

          20. “McCain was not a traitor until after he was in the Senate.”

            If I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt I would say that this was a failed attempt to be funny. But, actually, I think you mean it. Lack of unquestioning loyalty to Trump IS treason to Trump’s uncritical and worshipful supporters like you.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. As a POW, McCain was a hero, but when was in the Senate, he put his narcissism ahead of party and country. And he did it long before Trump.

            Like

          22. Trump said . . . “You oughta see this guy?” before launching into his imitation of a cerebral palsy victim. He was MOCKING him. That could not be more clear. Neither you nor the paid lying liars of Fox News are going to make that go away.

            I had no idea what you were like when I opined that you were not an authority to be relied on. I had no idea this morning how right I was. Thanks for joining our little community today to make it all very clear.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. And he mocks other people THE EXACT SAME WAY.
            Trump caught the man in a lie that he failed to retract for 14 years. The guy was stuttering because he lied. There’s numerous videos of this reporter without any speaking difficulties. Obviously being caught in a lie made him backpedal. The guy is not retarded.

            You saw the links. Why would Trump mock a general the exact same way as this guy with a withered arm?

            Anyone with integrity can see how the media plays their game.

            Trump: MS13 are animals.
            Media: Trump says immigrants are animals.

            I can’t stand low integrity scum, so stop proving you are one.

            And by the way, I’ve had a speech impediment my whole life.

            I can tell the difference when someone is ridiculing me for my speech versus the content of my speech.

            The reporter lied. He got caught. MSM doesn’t want to admit they didn’t retract a lie, instead pretend Trump is the bully.

            Slander hurts. And the reporter NEVER appilogized for it.

            You bought into distraction theater 101.

            Trump has every right to mock a slanderer for slandering, despite his arm condition.

            Like

          24. “ Trump caught the man in a lie that he failed to retract for 14 years. The guy was stuttering because he lied. There’s numerous videos of this reporter without any speaking difficulties. Obviously being caught in a lie made him backpedal. The guy is not retarded.”

            Really? Source that please.

            Trump lied about personally seeing thousands of people cheering in Jersey City after 9/11. The reporter investigated ALLEGED reports of a few people cheering and came up with nothing. Trump didn’t like being called out for lying.

            https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/28/donald-trump-criticized-for-mocking-disabled-reporter/

            Trump knew the man for years and the schoolyard effort to mock him was rank 5 year old behavior.

            So before you start insulting people for being low integrity scum, check the mirror.

            Liked by 2 people

          25. Figures it. Your investigation doesn’t extend beyond snopes. I watch two sides of the news develop in real time. Trump is mostly not wrong, but your sources are desperate to convince you he is. You DON’T KNOW what you’re not told and your too lazy to dig deep.

            “Alleged reports”. It’s was on videos. I saw it. Good luck finding it NOW. Try alt-tech sites.

            “Really? Source that please.” It’s right there in the context of what he’s talking about. Try paying attention beyond the hand gestures. See the original talk with that reporter that Trump is refrencing. You’d have to be a moron to not see that Trump has a legitimate reason to be angry at this reporter, not a thing having to do with his arm that he can’t move.

            Whatever. Idiots just say stuff.

            Like

          26. Sorry, but your non-existent videos are not proof of anything. You lied then and you are lying now.

            Now, in your defense you are enamored by the cult leader and may have a totally distorted sense of reality in accordance with what you want to believe.

            Successful con artists can make you believe in them while they pick your moral and financial pockets.

            Trump U, illegal payoffs to mistresses, tax evasion, bank fraud, stiffing vendors, four bankruptcies, favors from China for him and his family, lying about the virus, trying to extort Republican election officials with threats of jail, the Big Lie, telling organized gangs to stand by, well over $100 million in golf trips alone, (while “donating” $400k/ year of his salary”)…

            Yeah, Lindsey Graham said it best when he rolled over and said there was something “magical” while planting his pathetic but pliant lips firmly upon Trump’s butt.

            I won’t convince anyone they are delusional about Trump. Crippled integrity and intellect are tough to repair. Like any addiction, reality has to win by letting the victim hit bottom first. Then comes the acceptance that you have been duped.

            When that hit comes, it will be devastating and possibly violent. January 6 was the prelude.

            Good luck, you are going to need it.

            Liked by 2 people

          27. The videos that you and Trump are referring to were Arabs cheering in the Palestinian territory.

            Trump lied and you bought into it like a fish on a hook with fake bait.

            Yes, idiots do say stuff, but those who believe them are ignorant. The first is a sad state, the second is an innate laziness of intellect.

            Liked by 2 people

          28. I saw the videos at around the same time as Trump. They are legit. FBI picked some of them up. Next I suppose you will tell me there was no attempt to build a mosque at ground zero.

            Like

          29. “[McCain put] narcissism ahead of party and country”

            That is, of course, utter ugly bullshit.

            He was not a narcissist any more than any other pol and most certainly compared to your hero Trump.

            I suppose you knew him to be a “traitor” when he did not kill the ACA when he might have. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a traitor. Yes, really, that is true as hard as may be for a narcissist to believe such a thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. “Let’s try to be civil, especially when we have guests”

            You go first. Stop referring to politicians that you do not agree with as traitors and narcissists. That is NOT civil. Stop doing that and I will not point out that you have to be a narcissist to make such an accusation over political or policy differences.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. “And he mocks other people THE EXACT SAME WAY.”

            So, your spin on this obviously repellant behavior is that the media is not fair because Trump mocks other people by simulating stuttering and cerebral palsy whether they suffer from it or not. That makes okay, does it?

            You deride the Snopes summary of this mockery incident and the background for it and claim to have better information. From Qanon maybe? Which part of the Snopes summary was not factual?

            While laughably spinning on behalf of the scummiest, dumbest and laziest individual to ever sit in the Oval Office you are very free with accusations of people being lazy, dumb, and scum. Such ad hominem nonsense is clearly a staple in Trump apologist circles.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. “That makes okay, does it?”
            Of course. You need a license to mock dumb and/or dishonest people. Times Reporter got what he deserves. Can’t use his hand to cover his slander.

            Like

          33. “I am a lukewarmer. The term ‘denier’ is offensive hate speech trying to tar climate change skeptics as though they were holocaust deniers.”

            Well, that is a new card from the “conservative” victim card deck.

            You can call yourself whatever floats your boat but it is undeniable that you are a “denier” of the threat presented by climate change. We have been at this for years. I remember when you had lots of cites denying (there is that word again) that AGW was a thing. Maybe as a “lukewarmer” you have evolved on that point. Good for you.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. Paul, there’s no science to AGW. If CO2 caused warming, industry would place CO2 between two panes of glass and sell these windows for home insulation purposes. Unfortunately, adding CO2 causes COOLING and that’s why such a product doesn’t exist. It’s easy to call people names, but it’s hard to think properly and without emotion. You’re supposed to be a man. Act like one. 😝

            Like

          35. …”, industry would place CO2 between two panes of glass and sell these windows for home insulation purposes.”

            They already do.

            Proof once again that you REALLY don’t know what you are talking about.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. I cited her statistical analysis of storm severity and frequency, and that remains sound, whether I support her climate beliefs or not.

            Once again, I do believe there is a warming trend, and that human activity contributes, but that the IPCC assigns an effect to CO2 in the atmosphere that is at least double and close to triple, its observed effect.

            But agree or not, policy should be made based on balancing the costs of intervention and adaptation, and not on useless virtue signalling.

            Like

        1. “Civility toward other posters is required here.”

          If you are not a Trump supporter. The record on that point is crystal clear. If I had a nickel for every ugly ad hominem comment you have thrown at me personally I would have quite a stash.

          But, for the record what provoked this particular warning. Was it my referring to your bullshit about John McCain being a traitor as “bullshit?”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “ I can’t stand low integrity scum, so stop proving you are one.”

            “ Please seek help for your illness.”

            Ad hominen insults directed at me are not a problem for me. I consider that the value of the source which in this case is zip.

            But your guest is supplanting source with insults. Perhaps her manners are lacking or she has no facts. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and guess she has neither manners nor facts.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Which insults?
            Pointing out that her work is not peer reviewed?
            Pointing out that spreading “alternative facts” would harm her credibility?
            I really do not know what “insults” you are referring to?

            Since arriving Ms. Phin has offered several actual insults to several of us. My guess is that she does not need your protection. Some of us, might though.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. A non-peer reviewed blog by interested parties. Great source?

      Their theory goes a little something like this:

      CO2 says to hurricanes: Are you strong? Well, I’ll make you stronger.

      Are you weak? I’ll make you weaker.

      And how does CO2 PHYSICALLY generate that result? They don’t bother explaining.

      Reminds me of bad practices on Wall Street. Trust us with your money! Our pet theory is not working quite right, but our ideology department says it will any day now!

      Oh please. They’re just cherrypicking minor facts inside the data.

      This mistake is so common …

      Glad I walked off Wall Street with a bunch of clients. Working for yourself is the best thing for your mind and health.

      My clients don’t care that I don’t publish even in economic/financial journals.

      The results speak for themselves.

      Like

      1. The mechanism you say is missing is pretty clear . . . CO2 makes the atmosphere capture and hold more heat. And extra heat provides more energy for hurricanes to access.

        I have not seen this directly on your blog which I had not known about until yesterday but I have seen you quoted as follows . . . “The greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect and should be abandoned for the sake of empirical science.” If that accurate and that is what you believe then your statement -“They don’t bother explaining.” is not exactly fair. More accurate would be to say that “I don’t buy their explanation because I do not accept the greenhouse effect hypothesis.”

        Liked by 1 person

          1. It was quoted in an exchange on Whatsup or SkepticalScience. I do not remember which. I have now asked the person quoted whether it is authenticate. It seems to be since she claims there is no explanation for how CO2 can effect hurricanes.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Through the greenhouse effect it has which Ms. Phin seems to think is not relevant.

            https://tinyurl.com/6x6t7ez2

            According to NOAA’s presentation hurricanes need water at 80 degrees or more. The larger the area of such water, the better chance for hurricanes to form. Ms. Phin’s analysis that you cited agrees that hurricanes have trended towards greater frequency.

            According to NOAA’s presentation hurricanes extract energy from the water they pass over. The more heat in that water the stronger a hurricane can become. Which is why they use water temperature along the project path to predict the category. The heat of water somewhere else is not relevant to that process.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “ And how does CO2 PHYSICALLY generate that result? They don’t bother explaining.”

    How does fiberglass physically make you warmer?

    It doesn’t unless it is used to wrap your house to trap heat.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Except she was asking about CO2 and hurricanes, not insulation.

      Hurricanes do not work the way you and Paul seem to think. Look up adiabatic warming.

      Like

        1. Again, adiabatic warming.

          The Great Red Spot on Jupiter is a hurricane.

          It just takes place in an atmosphere of near freezing methane and ammonia.

          Very simply, if warm dry air rises, it expands as it rises, which cools it, and when it cools to the temperature of the surrounding air, it stops rising. This is what happens in air stagnations.

          But when warm moist air rises, as it cools, water condenses out, and condensation releases heat, so the air keeps rising until it runs out of moisture.

          So, the simple temperature of the air does not drive a hurricane, it takes a difference in temperature AND humidity in adjacent air masses to drive the convection. But if the air is uniformly warmerm that drives nothing.

          Like

          1. “NOAA piece is very shallow.”
            You know better?

            “It is not just heat, the adiabatic warming effect is the driver.”
            Uh, no. The “driver” is the heat in the water. Adiabatic cooling – not warming – forces clouds out of the warm moist air rising. Some of the air replacing the rising air comes from above and that descending air is subject to adiabatic warming but that is NOT the energy source that sustains the process.

            There are no perpetual motion machines so to continue there must be more energy for the system than these OFFSETTING adiabatic effects. That energy comes from the water the hurricane passes over. And that is why hurricanes strengthen over warm water and die down over cool water.

            Maybe THIS article is also too “shallow” for your taste, but it too shows that your understanding of this topic is less than perfect.

            https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/storms/how-hurricanes-form#:~:text=For%20one%20to%20form%2C%20there,air%20in%20a%20hurricane%20rotates.

            With an accurate understanding of this process, it is clear why more warmer water holds out the threat of more and stronger storms.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. If hurricanes were the ONLY mechanism then you might be on to something. But, there’s a limited capacity to produce and grow them. Rather than just number and mean wind speed, you have to consider volume, SST, in short energy dissipated. Then again, storms in general. Counting bubbles in a boiling pot. Increasing vegetation does the job too. Melting glaciers and caps, snowfall, melting snowfall, all contribute to removing energy. And then, still have to measure that loss at the top of the atmosphere. What gases and radiation is escaping?

    Got to take all. Or, you can count champagne bubbles and be content.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The claim is that we are seeing more, and more intense, hurricanes. The article simply refutes that claim. It doesn’t address other things going on.

      Of course the climate as a whole is a lot more complicated, but the claim that we are being overrun with hurricanes because of CO2 is simply, numerically, false.

      Like

      1. Again, you correctly attribute intensity, and number, to temperature differential between sea and air. If both warm then… it doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t contributing to a warming trend, just that hurricanes aren’t necessarily the best thing in which to observe the change or the effect.

        Yet. Time wounds all heels, ya knnow. Even Feynmand wouldn’t have discounted a theory based on a single observation.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m not discounting the whole issue based on hurricanes. I am simply pointing out that the repeated claims that storms are getting more numerous and intense is and always has been, false.

          A boogeyman created to frighten people into seeing a complex issue as a binary choice.

          Like

      2. Uh, the article does NOT refute that claim. In fact, it searches for a different metric because a trend toward more frequent hurricanes is seen in the data and THAT according the author. Instead she switches to hours of Hurricane activity and claims by that metric the trend is not there. And that in spite of the fact that the current 10 year average of around 600 hours is about DOUBLE the ten year average at the beginning of the data set.

        As for intensity, the Yale summary I linked to pointed out the observed increased proportion of higher category storms in recent decades.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s