I have to apologize for assuming you will follow the cites. The one I made was from the 2014 government climate report (the point here should be why others that you rely on did not attract the attention of the experts of the government) and following the arrow it does take you to the cites used. Again, intensity does not omit precipitation nor ocean rise.
Again that is what I observed. The point stands, you do not notice how you are the one that has nothing to support your implication that it should remain the same from now on. (And it has not. Once we do take into account the water both as precipitation and the ocean rise) That it has not changed can indeed be attributed to the lack of increase in temperature thanks to the natural variability. What is clear that indeed you can not cite anything that tell us that we should assume that it will not increase. (What you miss IMHO is that there is not enough data there for you to claim that we should not worry when other factors like the water are taken into account.
I can only rely on history and what does happen once we go up the escalator. Once the conditions change for the background other issues do increase. The increase in water vapor is very, very certain when hurricanes come; that the hurricanes can become more numerous, once again has been pointed to be a 50-50 proposition. It is clear that you feel lucky while other experts see that and do point out that uncertainty is not your friend.
Yes, you missed this. And you only show that indeed you fell for the idea that I was pointing at pundits and not science. Again, the graphs used in the site come from Emanuel:
Which parts of the paper are misleading you? … perhaps I can help out and explain …
Harry C claims to have read the article, it appears you have only read the abstract … and once again you haven’t addressed the issue of lack of data, when was the satellite launched into orbit that is now measuring SST’s? … do you honestly believe someone was sent out with a thermometer to make a comprehensive survey of temperatures? …
Crossthreading:
Thank you for reminding us that you agree with my claim in post #4 that we cannot factually claim hurricane frequencies are increasing …
The Vallarini, Vecchi (2012) cite makes the following conclusion:
Again, thank you for posting a citation that confirms my claims …
10 years is too short a time interval … and really the 50 year interval is minimal to be climatically relevant … climatologists use averages in order to filter out the short term fluctuations, like the mesoscale “ENSO (El Nino) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (and why you left out the Arctic Oscillation is beyond my ability to understand) … MY POINT, in case you missed it, is that we only have 50 years of data, and thus only one average value … we have to wait another 50 years to get a second average to compare to the first … we’re only talking about an upper bound of 8 mb more intense in 100 years … we’re four generations from any negative effect of global warming, if a lousy 8 mb is a negative effect …
“The PDI – which is the most sensitive measure of hurricane destructive power”
What was the PDI of Tropical Storm Harvey as he laid waste to Houston, TX? … how does PDI explain how Harvey retained tropical characteristic while his eye was over land? …
Speaking of eye walls … there’s one hell of a lot we don’t understand about hurricanes … let’s keep that in mind when we make these profound and absolute predictions about something we don’t fully understand …
The data are what they are. In 2004 it was reasonable, perhaps, for Emmanuel to tentatively conclude that there is a correlation between PDI and sea surface temperature. Newer data call that correlation into question.
The cite I showed does not show an overall drop in SST since 2004 but does show a significant drop in PDI in recent years.
So you’re saying a single bad hurricane season proves a trend that hurricanes are getting more intense? Riiiiight.
My conclusions are based on the data. Yours are based on pretzel logic about blending some imagined trend with some possible but poorly understood cyclic phenomena.
You mean the one that shows a slight decrease in PDI in the Pacific and a slight increase in the Atlantic?
I still haven’t seen any data on precipitation. Your cite only discusses precipitation models, not precipitation data. I’ll remain agnostic on that point until I see the data. I assume by “ocean rise” that you mean there is a slight increase in storm surge damage due to the slight rise in sea levels. This is probably true but has nothing to do with the intensity of hurricanes, only in the damage they cause. You might as well claim that hurricanes are becoming more intense due to all the new construction along the coast.
I have said nothing about what to expect in the future. My only point is only that past and current data do not support the contention that hurricanes are getting more intense.
I was wondering about that claim myself … “the ACE as of right now – November 5 – sits at 227.6, which is 234% of normal at this time of year” … what is the percentage value of the standard deviation for this “normal” value? …
Actually around 2008, while there has been a discrepancy in the later years one should not disregard how close they were for many years. I say that because the last time the deniers out there told us that the discrepancy of the rise in temperatures (ACA “the pause”) was going to stick or go lower. It did not turn out as they expected.
Meh, you are missing still that intensity does not exclude the damage brought by the increase in precipitation and the ocean surge thanks to the ocean rise. And that you skipped post #37
On edit:
As I said post #37, so much for accusing others that they are not reading.
I am not disregarding it. I’m just saying that, overall, the trend is not clear.
Depends on what you mean by “ocean rise.” If you mean storm surge above mean sea level, then yes this is part of what is meant by storm intensity. Where have you cited data showing an increase in storm surge above mean sea level?
Now you are just being thick. I’ve already said that, overall, higher global temperatures mean more rainfall. You are jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that this general trend means more precipitation within the storms. This is just as loony as claiming that more average precipitation means fewer droughts.
Uh, read again what you typed, are you willing to make the point that there is a mechanism that makes the precipitation increase detected to be magically omitted from hurricanes?
And clearly you also have trouble with your statements about why it is that we are having more droughts and more precipitation, it actually would mean that geography and the seasons do not exist. But they do.
<nitpick> Intensity in this context refers to the barometric pressure along the central axis of rotation … this is closely related to many other effects but it only measures the work being performed against hydrostatic equilibrium … however, this central pressure does not give any clear information about the pressures throughout the storm … again intensity is a poor measure of human suffering (c.f. Hurricane Katrina (2005)) … </nitpick>
If sea surface temperature were the only factor in the precipitation rate of a hurricane, then every hurricane passing over water of a given temperature would have the same precipitation rate. This is manifestly not the case. Actual precipitation depends on a multitude of factors, and the effect of global warming on these factors is not known with any certainty.
My point should be obvious. “Higher overall precipitation means precipitation increases everywhere, including hurricanes” is as logically faulty as saying “Higher overall precipitation means precipitation increases everywhere, thus fewer/less severe droughts.”
Sure, and all the precipitation on the ground by hurricanes like Harvey can be separated from the observations that precipitation is increasing[/sarcasm]. Again, what makes the clouds of hurricanes different then, specially after the hurricane has turned into a storm over land?
Again, the assumption that there is no known increase is not what the experts are telling us.
And nonsensical. Again nowhere there you make space for geography or the seasons.
Strawman. You are still not getting it, since it is increasing overall it does not mean that specific events do get different precipitation rates. Only that compared to the past the precipitation has increased overall, and that goes then for the clouds in the hurricanes too.
Quoted indeed already and the only solution you have is to assume that the observed increase does not apply to the clouds in the hurricanes.
Shows you that you do not know what I have posted before, things like wind shear offer explanations on why there are no more hurricanes while the earth warms. And as that was also talked about by the experts I do think that all do need to listen to them indeed.
I’m not even sure where to begin to refute this pile of nonsense which assiduously ignores the contrary evidence I presented while making dismissive references to climate scientists as “alarmists”. But your claims are most certainly not objectively based on the data, nor do I make any such assertions as you claim.
Let’s start at the beginning again and examine your specious claims: #16
Is there any data showing that hurricane intensity has been increasing? No. #26
I’m not so much concerned with what alarmist pundits have to say as to what the data say. Have a look at the Accumulated Cyclone Energy for the Atlantic basin or the east Pacific and tell me with a straight face that there is a significant increase since the beginning of the industrial era. #33
… the data clearly shows that there has been no detectable trend in hurricane frequency or intensity as the climate has warmed.
I showed you the key Emanuel paper on this (your credibility would be helped if you could at least spell his name correctly)and why these claims are obviously wrong. I don’t claim we have a thorough understanding of all aspects of this very complex issue. I’m just saying that your simplistic claims are wrong and contradicted by large bodies of evidence, or at least are highly controversial depending on what timeframes, ocean basins, statistical significance, or certainty of attribution one is talking about. But to simply ask the rhetorical question “Is there any data showing that hurricane intensity has been increasing?” and answer “No” is, as I showed, manifestly false.
And no, I’m not trying to establish a trend based on the current year’s hurricanes. I’m asserting a trend based on the past 50+ years. It is you, OTOH, who is trying to claim that the past ten years contraindicates the trend, which is absurd. All I’m saying is that the drop in PDI over the past decade is likely anomalous, and the very strong reversal this year, while proving nothing by itself, is consistent with such an anomaly. And my statement about cyclic patterns is based neither on “pretzel logic” or an “imagined trend” but on contemporary observations and paleoclimate data, and are related to decadal and multi-decadal cyclic phenomena like the ENSO, PDO, AMO, and others.
Secondly, you seem to claim that Emanuel’s landmark 2005 paper is no longer valid because the PDI in the North Atlantic has supposedly plunged. This is complete bullshit. From Walsh et al. 2016, Tropical cyclones and climate change – from page 5, the section on the North Atlantic:
There are clear increasing trends in observed intensities of TCs in the Atlantic basin in the past few decades. Kossin et al. note very significant increases since 1982. Holland and Bruyère also find an upward trend in the proportion of intense hurricanes since 1975, significant at the 95% level when compared to their global warming index.
The cite for the first sentence (“There are clear increasing trends in observed intensities of [tropical cyclones] …”) is Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2014, 19–67:
Key Message #8. The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm … The recent increases in activity are linked, in part, to higher sea surface temperatures in the region that Atlantic hurricanes form in and move through.
The cite for the second sentence (“Kossin et al. note very significant increases since 1982”) is Kossin JP, Olander TL, Knapp KR. Trend analysis with a new global record of tropical cyclone intensity, J Clim 2013, 26:9960–9976:
Our analyses using a new homogenized record of tropical cyclone intensity suggest that the stronger tropical cyclones, globally, have become more intense at a rate of about +1 m s[sup]−1[/sup] decade[sup]−1[/sup] during the 28-yr period 1982–2009, but the statistical significance of this trend is marginal. Dramatic changes in the frequency distribution of lifetime maximum intensity (LMI) have occurred in the North Atlantic, while smaller changes are evident in the South Pacific and South Indian Oceans, and the stronger hurricanes in all of these regions have become more intense.
Additionally to all this, sea surface temperatures are the fundamental engines of hurricane formation and their source of power. There are certainly a great many complicating factors, but this is something we should have all learned in high school, and to argue that SSTs are somehow not pertinent is just more bullshit. As Emanuel stated in a recent paper, “it is recognized that warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have been and will continue to be a key driver for TC PI [tropical cyclone potential intensity] trends under anthropogenic climate forcing”.
That said, there are certainly many good questions that can be raised about global warming, rising SSTs, and the future of hurricanes. We know that rising global temperatures can potentially also create factors disruptive to hurricane formation. We know that there is a correlation between relative SSTs and hurricane intensity – both relative to other ocean basins, and relative to upper atmosphere temperatures. Hurricanes are thus influenced not just by absolute SSTs but also by whether the mechanism that raised the SST was local or global. On top of all that, the extent of natural multi-decadal variability is not well understood. All those things are reasonable caveats to raise, and it means that although there’s a consensus that hurricane energies will increase in the future, the confidence in this prediction has to be tempered with these uncertainties. The good news is that the most recent climate models are now able to reproduce both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the current climate with a good deal of fidelity.
However, none of that is what you claimed. What you did was pop in to the discussion and muddy the waters with incorrect and misleading statements – especially as applied to the North Atlantic – declaring that no increases in hurricane intensity have been observed, while sneering at climate scientists who have made those observations as “alarmists”. That sort of denialist dogmatism isn’t helpful in fighting ignorance.
And I have to clarify a line here from my previous post to Harry Cameltoe:
‘Strawman. You are still not getting it, since it is increasing overall, different events do get different precipitation rates. Only that compared to the past the precipitation has increased overall, and that goes then too for the clouds in the hurricanes’