Frequency of Severe Hurricanes

[Airbrush]

Recently I heard someone state on CNN or MSNBC that climate change has not increased the frequency of severe hurricanes in the past 100 years.  Nobody disputed it, which amazed me.  I did a little research and found this 2012 article in Forbes.  Is this true?   It states:

"Let’s split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.

During the most recent decade, 2001-2010, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

During the preceding decade, 1991-2000, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is below the 100-year average.

During the decade 1981-1990, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties the least number of major hurricanes on record.

During the decade 1971-1980, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties 1981-1990 as the two decades with the least number of major hurricanes.

During the decade 1961-1970, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

Incredibly, not a single decade during the past 50 years saw an above-average number of major hurricanes – not a single decade!

Now let’s look at the preceding 50 years in the hurricane record, before the alleged human-induced global warming crisis.

During the decade 1951-1960, 9 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

During the decade 1941-1950, 11 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially above the 100-year average.

During the decade 1931-1940, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

During the decade 1921-1930, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is slightly below the 100-year average.

During the decade 1911-1920, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

Global warming alarmists and mechanical engineers at obscure Minnesota universities may lie, but the objective data do not lie. During the past 5 decades, an average of 5.6 major hurricanes struck the United States. During the preceding 5 decades, and average of 8.4 major hurricanes struck the United States.

“The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage” are not increasing. Hard, objective data show exactly the opposite. Indeed, during the past 4 decades, the time period during which global warming alarmists claim human-induced global warming accelerated rapidly and became incontrovertible, the fewest number of major hurricanes struck during any 40-year period since at least the 1800s.

Oh, and during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/#568a9f18f4de

Edited August 29, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

The way I understand it, frequency of tornadoes and hurricanes OVERALL has decreased. Frequency of massive, high power, devastatingly destructive hurricanes and tornado, however, have increased. We're seeing these "100 year" and "500 year" storms every few years, even though total number of storms is on average lower. It's like having more homeruns but fewer base hits in baseball.

 

[Area54]

I understand (though I cannot recall the source) that the paths of hurricanes is expected to change. Since Airbrush's data considers only those hurricanes striking the US it is not necessarily representative of the global number of hurricanes.

[Ten oz]

William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960.

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

[DrKrettin]

The Telegraph newspaper has an article with a bar chart showing the frequency of hurricanes, but I don't know its source.

[rangerx]

On 8/29/2017 at 5:42 AM, Airbrush said:

 I did a little research and found this 2012 article in Forbes.  Is this true?

It disregards floods, droughts, cold snaps, land slides, pollution, dams (or other water course alteration), tornadoes, invasive species and a whole host of other factors.

Hence not even remotely scientific in their approach.

[Ken Fabian]

Airbrush - I don't know about "alarmists" but scientists studying tropical Cyclone/Hurricane (TC) frequency and intensity with global warming mostly aren't coming up with predictions of more frequency. They also admit a lot of uncertainty, in part because there is naturally a lot of variability; I haven't heard of any predictions from what I think are credible sources that haven't come with admitted high levels of uncertainty. But more intense but less frequent TC's is a more usual conclusion than more frequent; data examined do show a significant upturn in North Atlantic Hurricane intensity -

 

Measure of total power dissipated annually by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic (the power dissipation index “PDI”) compared to September tropical North Atlantic SST (from Emanuel, 2005)

The basic premise that warmer sea surface temperatures affect formation and intensity seems sound. The evidence of a trend of warmer SST's looks solid. As Ten Oz points out, the data on precipitation also shows a significant upturn.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Ken Fabian
improve clarity

[Ken Fabian]

I do recall speculation that frequency would increase but raising it as a possibility is not the same as claiming it as a certainty or strong likelihood. As an example of "climate scientists are wrong" it looks a bit strawfilled; the assertion that climate science "predicted" more frequent TC's is where the argument falls down. But for those who don't know and, like me, have heard it raised as a possibility - but aren't going to fact check - it could look compelling.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Ken Fabian

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I do recall speculation that frequency would increase but raising it as a possibility is not the same as claiming it as a certainty or strong likelihood. As an example of "climate scientists are wrong" it looks a bit strawfilled; the assertion that climate science "predicted" more frequent TC's is where the argument falls down. But for those who don't know and, like me, have heard it raised as a possibility - but aren't going to fact check - it could look compelling.

It is easy for those looking for holes and errors to find whataboutism to complain about because global climate change is asymmetric. Warming ocean temps does mean more moisture in the atmosphere yet that doesn't mean droughts are a thing of the past.  Land ice is receding yet some places still have record levels of sea ice during certian periods of winter. 2016 may have been the warmest year on record but that doesn't mean there wasn't still winter or that every community was noticeably warmer. Because climate change is asymmetric in that it doesn't impact all localities the same one must invest mental time and energy to understand all the dynamics. It isn't something that all fits onto a single graph, meme, 140 character limit, or prediction. The whataboutism opportunities are abundant. Storms are worse but what does worse mean; more frequent, more rainfall, stronger surges, faster wind, longer sustaining, more direct landfalls?????

 

"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year -- from January through September, with the exception of June -- were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record -- in all three cases, behind records set in 2015."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118112554.htm

[Sensei]

On 29.08.2017 at 2:42 PM, Airbrush said:

Oh, and during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States.

 

That depends on what is meant by "major".. Major size? Major velocity of wind? Major loss of lives? Major loss of infrastructure?

This statement is certainly wrong, because in 2011 there was Irene and Lee, worth 18 bln usd and 70 deaths..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene

Sandy (worth 75 bln, ~140 deaths) was one month after article.

 

Now, this year 2017, you will have at least 6 (including Franklin)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Now add 2011-2017 together..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlantic_hurricane_season

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season

 

According to above wiki pages, Lee in 2011 was not even hurricane, just tropical storm, still caused loss of >1.6 bln usd..

 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

On 8/29/2017 at 8:42 AM, Airbrush said:

Oh, and during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States."

 

 

Why does this need to be explained. Are you implying that hurricanes must strike the United States to count? And what do you consider a "major hurricane" to be?

 

In the Pacific Ocean there have been 15 recorded Category 5 hurricanes. Of those 8 have formed since 2002 and 13 since 1994.  In the Atlantic Ocean were strong Hurricanes are more common, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007).

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Why does this need to be explained. Are you implying that hurricanes must strike the United States to count? And what do you consider a "major hurricane" to be?

I should definitely like to hear Airbrush's explanation for making such an irrelevant point. As I said earlier:

On 29/08/2017 at 4:05 PM, Area54 said:

I understand (though I cannot recall the source) that the paths of hurricanes is expected to change. Since Airbrush's data considers only those hurricanes striking the US it is not necessarily representative of the global number of hurricanes.

 

[Airbrush]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:09 AM, Area54 said:

I should definitely like to hear Airbrush's explanation for making such an irrelevant point.

Sorry, I forgot about starting this discussion.  The point is not mine, but rather James Taylor.  I posted that because it was written in a style that sounded unbelievable to me.   James Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.    "The word "freedom" sounds suspect to me.  He has a doctorate degree in government from Dartmouth College.

Frequency of severe hurricanes in his story is in landfalls on the US, and not frequency of such storms world-wide.  There must be other things wrong with his article.  He follows the climate denier agenda.

 

 

[Area54]

19 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Sorry, I forgot about starting this discussion.  The point is not mine, but rather James Taylor.  I posted that because it was written in a style that sounded unbelievable to me.   James Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation.    "The word "freedom" sounds suspect to me.  He has a doctorate degree in government from Dartmouth College.

Frequency of severe hurricanes in his story is in landfalls on the US, and not frequency of such storms world-wide.  There must be other things wrong with his article.  He follows the climate denier agenda.

Thank you. That makes sense. I didn't pick up on the important distinction. It had seemed to me that you were attempting to support his thesis. All is clear now.

[HB of CJ]

I do not think we have enough statistical data either way to determine hurricane frequency.  To let that work the data would have to go back at least 1000 years. 10,000 years would be better but then we could be banging on ice age recovery eras.  Then we also have the naggy zinger defining the various definitions.  Gets  quickly fuzzy.  Climate change is very dynamic.  It is also easy to discount the people factor fudging the data.

[rangerx]

50 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

I do not think we have enough statistical data either way to determine hurricane frequency.  To let that work the data would have to go back at least 1000 years. 10,000 years would be better but then we could be banging on ice age recovery eras.  Then we also have the naggy zinger defining the various definitions.  Gets  quickly fuzzy.  Climate change is very dynamic.  It is also easy to discount the people factor fudging the data.

You claim data doesn't exist yet dismiss so called fudged data based on that same data which doesn't exist?

Clearly the antics of a double denier claiming data doesn't exist, but if it does therefore must be false.

Edited September 16, 2017 by rangerx

[Endy0816]

I don't even get it. Weird arse winters and people still stick their heads in the sand.

 

We do need regular tropical depressions and even low category hurricanes to some degree or we end up like California.

Here's an article about all the wildfires from earlier in the year:

http://wildfiretoday.com/2017/05/09/all-eyes-on-florida-as-wildfires-burn-throughout-state/

Edited September 17, 2017 by Endy0816

[Area54]

13 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

I do not think we have enough statistical data either way to determine hurricane frequency.  To let that work the data would have to go back at least 1000 years. 10,000 years would be better but then we could be banging on ice age recovery eras.  Then we also have the naggy zinger defining the various definitions.  Gets  quickly fuzzy.  Climate change is very dynamic.  It is also easy to discount the people factor fudging the data.

I was with you until you moved on to the fifth word.

[HB of CJ]

I will make it easier to Grok.  We do not have enough statistical data to accurately determine hurricane frequency.  Such required accurate data may not exist.  Precise vocabulary regarding definition of terms is also necessary.  Any human intervention in the modeling process would also render any possible results suspect.  The resulting conclusions would not be accurate..

Hope this helps.  "Enthusiasm about Science is good.  Enthusiasm in Science is Not Good."

[rangerx]

27 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

I will make it easier to Grok.  We do not have enough statistical data to accurately determine hurricane frequency.  Such required accurate data may not exist.  Precise vocabulary regarding definition of terms is also necessary.  Any human intervention in the modeling process would also render any possible results suspect.  The resulting conclusions would not be accurate.

There's plenty of statistical data. Denying doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

By your logic,  your own conclusions are suspect.

[Area54]

12 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

I will make it easier to Grok.

Thank you for throwing me a lifeline, I mean a Heinlein. However, I was with you until the fifth word, because your first four were "I do not think". I thought that was an honest and accurate summation.

[HB of CJ]

Thank you for your non professional personal attacks.  By default, any possible further input by you concerning the subject at hand MAY be forfeit?  Also may not.  What you could have done is just say you do not understand.  Instead you resorted to feeble insults by killing this messenger.  You can do better than that.  Let's keep this on track please.  What you can do is contribute meaningful input.  Again, there is not enough statistical  data to make an accurate determination of hurricane frequency.  That is the subject at hand.  Please feel free to stay focused.  Thank you.  So far a D-/D-.

Respectfully.

[rangerx]

26 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

Thank you for your non professional personal attacks.  By default, any possible further input by you concerning the subject at hand MAY be forfeit?  Also may not.  What you could have done is just say you do not understand.  Instead you resorted to feeble insults by killing this messenger.  You can do better than that.  Let's keep this on track please.  What you can do is contribute meaningful input.  Again, there is not enough statistical  data to make an accurate determination of hurricane frequency.  That is the subject at hand.  Please feel free to stay focused.  Thank you.  So far a D-/D-.

Respectfully.

This is a science forum where you need to show your work, not a Trump rally where pulling feces out of your ass then throwing it against the wall expecting it to stick.

You've brought nothing to this discussion other than soap boxing a deeply flawed opinion.

[HB of CJ]

Airbrush's presentation did not provide enough data for a statistical valid presentation.  At least 10 times the data would be needed.  Perhaps 100 times the amount which was my point.  Such data may not exist.  Feel free to continue this discussion at hand but do not drag this into personal attacks.  What does a Trump rally have to do with this?  Feces?  WTF?

[rangerx]

Airbrush admits the OP is flawed. Where's your evidence?

Your argument is framed in a manner that must stand as an unsubstantiated fact which precludes criticism. Nobody is attacking you, just your opinion.