I quoted from your work in an article on WUWT today, “Australian Heatwave stories cop severe criticism.” Your work is good and I hope you do not mind me quoting it again. Geoff.
Not about this specific topic, but a really laughable AP story yesterday about the California fires, that states...."But the myriad of causes that go into the still smoldering fires are complex, so the level of global warming's fingerprints on weeks of burning appears relatively small compared to previous studies of killer heat waves, floods and droughts by the international team at World Weather Attribution. Tuesday's report, too rapid for peer-review yet, found global warming boosted the likelihood of high fire weather conditions in this month's fires by 35% and its intensity by 6%."
So, who needs to wait for peer-reviewed research, let just put out our opinion and call it good.....
Those two regions together have reliable data going back to 1950. The other regions do not. Also, the WNP and NATL together account for >70% of all global landfalls -- so as these basins go, so too does the overall global trend. Discussed further here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-tropical-cyclones
I latched on to this substack because it often simultaneously uses, say, IPCC ARs to contradict media and gubmint pronouncements, thus agreeing with many climate sceptics. These sceptics rely on media reports and gubmint propaganda to accurately reflect the state of "The Science". The sceptics don't dig deeper. If they did, they'd often agree with "The Science". In other words, not going to the source deceives all who do not go to the source.
Agreed. The data series as shown has a variability from one data point to the next which is probably (I haven't made detailed measurements) greater than the average value of the series. In other words, the signal-to-noise ratio is less than 1. Attempting to determine long term trends under such circumstances is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible. The 55 data points (1970 - 2024) is insufficient to detect anything but grossly obvious trends.
This is indeed the problem with these data. The popular idea is that the average represents normal and that any deviation from an average shows a trend. The same is true to a certain extend for temperature records.
Are there any globally consistent data sets going back that far? Do these data sets give readings for today with higher confidence than only going back to 1970?
Interesting! There is one thing that puzzles me in AR6 (chapter 11): "It is likely that
the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances and
the frequency of rapid intensification events have increased globally
over the past 40 years." How should one understand this compared to the other quote: "There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics . . .”?
Roger
I quoted from your work in an article on WUWT today, “Australian Heatwave stories cop severe criticism.” Your work is good and I hope you do not mind me quoting it again. Geoff.
Why are cyclone tracks missing from around South America?
Not recorded or not happening?
Geoff S
Thanks. What % of global hurricanes (landfall or not) are NATL?
From 1970 to 2024, the NATL had 155 landfalling hurricanes, globally = 870
Not about this specific topic, but a really laughable AP story yesterday about the California fires, that states...."But the myriad of causes that go into the still smoldering fires are complex, so the level of global warming's fingerprints on weeks of burning appears relatively small compared to previous studies of killer heat waves, floods and droughts by the international team at World Weather Attribution. Tuesday's report, too rapid for peer-review yet, found global warming boosted the likelihood of high fire weather conditions in this month's fires by 35% and its intensity by 6%."
So, who needs to wait for peer-reviewed research, let just put out our opinion and call it good.....
Is that chart of Western North Pacific and North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity an example of cherry-picking? Leaving out other regions?
Those two regions together have reliable data going back to 1950. The other regions do not. Also, the WNP and NATL together account for >70% of all global landfalls -- so as these basins go, so too does the overall global trend. Discussed further here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-tropical-cyclones
Excellent unbiased reporting as usual!
I latched on to this substack because it often simultaneously uses, say, IPCC ARs to contradict media and gubmint pronouncements, thus agreeing with many climate sceptics. These sceptics rely on media reports and gubmint propaganda to accurately reflect the state of "The Science". The sceptics don't dig deeper. If they did, they'd often agree with "The Science". In other words, not going to the source deceives all who do not go to the source.
"Last year the world experienced the most major hurricane landfalls since records are available, tying only 2015, with 11 storms."
What was the tie? Number of storms only?
This is interesting, but using short data sets like since 1970, really is not as good as data sets from the 1800.
Agreed. The data series as shown has a variability from one data point to the next which is probably (I haven't made detailed measurements) greater than the average value of the series. In other words, the signal-to-noise ratio is less than 1. Attempting to determine long term trends under such circumstances is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible. The 55 data points (1970 - 2024) is insufficient to detect anything but grossly obvious trends.
This is indeed the problem with these data. The popular idea is that the average represents normal and that any deviation from an average shows a trend. The same is true to a certain extend for temperature records.
Are there any globally consistent data sets going back that far? Do these data sets give readings for today with higher confidence than only going back to 1970?
Good job!
We can expect a redefinition of hurricane categories from climate change enthusisasts any day now....
Should not the title read: "The most major hurricanes in 50 years of reliable data"?
Ha
You get it 😉
Ik am sure many will read this as : Even well-known climate denier agrees that there are more hurricanes then ever before.
Interesting! There is one thing that puzzles me in AR6 (chapter 11): "It is likely that
the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances and
the frequency of rapid intensification events have increased globally
over the past 40 years." How should one understand this compared to the other quote: "There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics . . .”?
I discuss that here
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-tip-from-an-ipcc-insider
Always nice to see an analysis that does not try to cherry-pick data starting and stopping points to create a narrative.
The use of first principles and objective reasoning is always refreshing.