Claim with a question mark: Hurricanes: Stronger, slower, wetter in the future?

From the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and the “could have, would have, and may lexicon, but at least they used a question mark in the title” comes this press release.

New analysis compares 22 named storms with possible hurricanes of the future

Scientists have developed a detailed analysis of how 22 recent hurricanes would be different if they formed under the conditions predicted for the late 21st century.

While each storm’s transformation would be unique, on balance, the hurricanes would become a little stronger, a little slower-moving, and a lot wetter.

In one example, Hurricane Ike — which killed more than 100 people and devastated parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2008 — could have 13 percent stronger winds, move 17 percent slower, and be 34 percent wetter if it formed in a future, warmer climate.

Other storms could become slightly weaker (for example, Hurricane Ernesto) or move slightly faster (such as Hurricane Gustav). None would become drier. The rainfall rate of simulated future storms would increase by an average of 24 percent.

The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and published in the Journal of Climate, compares high-resolution computer simulations of more than 20 historical, named Atlantic storms with a second set of simulations that are identical but for a warmer, wetter climate that’s consistent with the average scientific projections for the end of the century.

A future with Hurricane Harvey-like rains

“Our research suggests that future hurricanes could drop significantly more rain,” said NCAR scientist Ethan Gutmann, who led the study. “Hurricane Harvey demonstrated last year just how dangerous that can be.”

Harvey produced more than 4 feet of rain in some locations, breaking records and causing devastating flooding across the Houston area.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is NCAR’s sponsor, and by DNV GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd), a global quality assurance and risk management company.

“This study shows that the number of strong hurricanes, as a percent of total hurricanes each year, may increase,” said Ed Bensman, a program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which supported the study. “With increasing development along coastlines, that has important implications for future storm damage.”

Tapping a vast dataset to see storms

With more people and businesses relocating to coastal regions, the potential influence of environmental change on hurricanes has significant implications for public safety and the economy.

Last year’s hurricane season, which caused an estimated $215 billion in losses according to reinsurance company Munich RE, was the costliest on record.

It’s been challenging for scientists to study how hurricanes might change in the future as the climate continues to warm. Most climate models, which are usually run on a global scale over decades or centuries, are not run at a high enough resolution to “see” individual hurricanes.

Most weather models, on the other hand, are run at a high enough resolution to accurately represent hurricanes, but because of the high cost of computational resources, they are not generally used to simulate long-term changes in climate.

For the current study, the researchers took advantage of a massive new dataset created at NCAR. The scientists ran the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model at a high resolution (4 kilometers, or about 2.5 miles) over the contiguous United States over two 13-year periods.

The simulations took about a year to run on the Yellowstone supercomputer at the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center in Cheyenne.

The first set of model runs simulates weather as it unfolded between 2000 and 2013, and the second simulates the same weather patterns but in a climate that’s warmer by about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) — the amount of warming that may be expected by the end of the century.

Drawing on the vast amount of data, the scientists created an algorithm that enabled them to identify 22 named storms that appear with very similar tracks in the historic and future simulations, allowing the hurricanes to be more easily compared.

As a group, storms in simulations of the future had 6 percent stronger average hourly maximum wind speeds than those in the past. They also moved at 9 percent slower speeds and had 24 percent higher average hourly maximum rainfall rates. Average storm radius did not change.

Each storm unique

“Some past studies have also run the WRF at a high resolution to study the impact of climate change on hurricanes, but those studies have tended to look at a single storm, like Sandy or Katrina,” Gutmann said.

“What we find in looking at more than 20 storms is that some change one way, while others change in a different way. There is so much variability that you can’t study one storm and then extrapolate to all storms.”

But there was one consistent feature across storms: They all produced more rain.

While the study sheds light on how a particular storm might look in a warmer climate, it doesn’t provide insight into how environmental change might affect storm genesis. That’s because the hurricanes analyzed in this study formed outside the region simulated by the WRF model and passed into the WRF simulation as fully formed storms.

Other research has suggested that fewer storms may form in the future because of increasing atmospheric stability or greater high-level wind shear, though the storms that do form are apt to be stronger.

“It’s possible that in a future climate, large-scale atmospheric changes wouldn’t allow some of these storms to form,” Gutmann said. “But from this study, we get an idea of what we can expect from the storms that do form.”

###

The study co-authors include NCAR scientists Roy Rasmussen, Changhai Liu, Kyoko Ikeda, Cindy Bruyere and James Done, as well as Luca Garrè, Peter Friis-Hansen and Vidyynmala Veldore, all of DNV GL.

79 thoughts on “Claim with a question mark: Hurricanes: Stronger, slower, wetter in the future?

      • Bill,
        Agreed – but CO2 doesn’t make models magical – especially if I am allowed to choose the parameters.
        Or anyone else, too, of course: I have no monopsony on that!

        This is models all the way down.
        Mark out of one hundred? . . . .

        ‘Mark’, there, is a singular noun, not a verbal instruction, nor, indeed, for completeness, a Gospeller, or one named after said writer.

        This is models all the way down.

        Auto – not hugely impressed, as careful readers will mostly have intuited.

  1. Shortly after Katrina – the AGW consensus was more frequent and more intense

    After a few years with no major hurricanes – The AGW consensus was less frequent but more intense.

    • joe – the non climate scientist

      And only last week we were told they would grow faster but be smaller.

      So now it’s faster, stronger, longer, wetter, slower, bigger, smaller………

      Have they covered all the bases yet?

    • “After a few years with no major hurricanes – The AGW consensus was less frequent but more intense.”
      No, that was always the expectation. From the AR4 SPM, written soon after Katrina, they say an increase in intensity is likely, and with less confidence, a decrease in numbers is projected.

      “Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period. {9.5, 10.3, 3.8}”

      • They had to use a climate model to predict what future temperatures humidity and SST’s are, etc…
        ….what would be more interesting is what model did they use…and how high did they jack temps up to get this result
        …since the models have been so totally accurate so far snark

      • Thanks, Nick. Reading IPCC verbiage always cracks me up. It convinces me that they don’t understand jack squat about climate or hurricanes.

      • What they didn’t bother to write was it was only a miniscule 5% more intense and only based on one paper which was later refuted by another researcher who had bothered to consider wind shear.

  2. Simply agonizing to read this shytte. Learned-speak. Says absolutely nothing.

    • Absolutely! BTW, did they even compare the control model to the actual data on these hurricanes? How far off were they.

      I’d propose a two pronged Executive Order:
      1. Unless validated models are used, the government employee author (not researcher) would be prohibited from using terms like Study, nor say that they Determined, Found, or Concluded anything. The author would have to state – up front – that non-validated models were used in the Simulation, from which he Speculates on the meaning of the output.

      The paper would be restricted to circulation within the government. If it got out, the author, the department head, and the leaker (if determined) would be subject to termination.

      2. Any press report, based on such a leaked government report, which implied that it was a Study which gave Evidence of real effects, without indicating up front in the article that it used non-validated models, was total Speculation, and could not be used as evidence of anything, should make the media outlet subject to prosecution for defrauding its readership. They can say anything they want, but if it’s not true, then they have to accept the consequences.

  3. Real card carrying scientists would have at least scaled the problem by including six storms run under a 3 degree C cooler climate. After all it was taxpayer money, not coming out of their pocket. Write a complaint letter to your Congress Critter today.

    Sandy, Minister of Future

    • Yep, Zonk,

      Let’s look way back to 1935 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane), 1947, 1957, 1965, 1969, 1985, 1995 and the beat goes on.

      I was in all or part of those storms except 1935, but I remember the 47 storm as the eye went over my house in east New Orleans and I saw the oak tree roots heaving the ground in our front yard. Saw two in 1995, watching 70 foot trees being uprooted and crashing down all around our house in the Panhandle. PLZ see what Rita and Ike did at the Louisiana-Texas border, and then show me comparable pictures from the superstorm “Sandy”, was it? I forget as it wasn’t even a real storm.

      Many more pictures, and the Katrina tidal surge east of New Orleans was over ten times higher than what the wimps in New Yawk and New Joisy saw, as were the winds.

      Gums sends…

      • Please, don’t make fun of the way Joiseyites tawk. People in the 6 boros of NYC have a hard enough time understanding each other (Joisey is the 6th boro).(/sarc)

      • Since the Sandy surge was about 13 feet, I must have missed the reports on your 130 foot tidal wave somehow.

      • Sorry, D.J.

        And I apologize if I have made light of a disaster. Guess it’s just what you are used to, and we down here are used to lottsa wind and water.

        It is just that the folks along the Gulf Coast have seen many more storms and many feet higher surges than the beach at Coney Island.

        I can’t find more than a mile of coast in the Jersey/Yawk/Long Island maps with more than 8 or 9 feet of surge according to the NHC and NOAA. The homebuilders I talked to mentioned 2 or 3 feet of water in the houses. So let’s call Katrina more than three times higher surge, huh?

        I also can’t find any gross damage as in the picture I posted. The Katrina pictures are as bad, if not worse due to more motels and homes within a half a mile of the coast. I drove 13 miles from Waveland to Biloxi and it was the apocalypse.

        A good reference is this one.

        https://www.wunderground.com/education/Katrinas_surge_contents.asp

        We down here are now looking at a potential storm that could be in Florida about Sunday or so.

        Happy trails.

        Gums sends…

      • @Gums;

        I wouldn’t claim that the area covered was as extensive as your locale, but keep in mind that on average New Jersey is as densely populated as India. Also, in the NYC metro area, the shape of the coastal waterways actually created a funnel, magnifying the surge. The PSEG Hudson plant in Jersey City was knocked out and took about a year to bring back on line. My company did the repairs on the fire alarm system. My current company is doing fire alarm work for the MTA related to Sandy repairs/upgrades that are getting done only now.

      • @ D.J.

        You have a great observation about “the funnel”. See the Louisiana “boot” and then consider a more gradual slope of the ocean floor. That gradual slope magnifies the surge and waves compared to what you get on Long Island. Additionally, until reaching our county in the Panhandle, you can’t get above 10 or 15 feet for more than a mile from the coast. Once east of Pensacola things change, and I am a half mile from the water and maybe 60 feet.

        The “funnel” is one of the big reasons Sandy did its dirty deed. Ditto for Pass Christian and Gulport. I stood in a surviving Pass Christian home that was far enough away from the beach to not have wave action, just rising water and wind damage from tree limbs/debris. The home was on tall pilings, so floor was about 10 or 12 feet MSL. The water got to their ceiling, so figure surge of about 20 – 22 feet. Mobile had a decent surge that was about the max that Sandy produced, and it is quirte a distance east of the landfall.

        The Mobile State Docks measured the highest storm surge value of 11.45 feet, while the lowest was 4.1 feet in Santa Rosa Sound, Florida

        I live close to Santa Rosa Sound and can verify the 4 foot number. We only got about 45 or 50 miles per hour winds compared to twice that and maybe three times that during Opal. Remember, Katrina was a big storm by area and a well-developed Cat 3 at landfall.

        My parents went under the eye about 40 miles from the coast, and I couldn’t get in for the rescue unitl very late the next day. Trees down everywhere, no cell coverage once west of Mobile, I-10 closed, I rolled over downed powerlines ( they were dead) and followed some rednecks with chainsaws bigger than mine, heh heh. That beer warms up fast!!

        I would be concerned about the predicitons as far as the slow movement. The ones we have endured/survived have shown that the slower, the worse. Opal was a decent cat 3 after nearing cat 5 earlie that morning. But that sucker moved right thru and we had a block party that evening amongst the fallen trees. Fairly low tidal surge due to our seafloor gradient but there are some videos out there. Nobody knows about Opal because it hit the morning after the O.J. verdict!!!

        Gums sends..

  4. The AGW consensus is that the warming waters (SST – sea surface temps) will cause an increase in the intensity of hurricanes,
    With numerous peer reviewed studies showing why this will occur.

    However, since circa 1750, the oceans have had a steady increase in the SST while have a flat line in accumulated hurricane energy (ACE) after adjusting for observational deficiencies (pre satellite – pre radar, etc).

    Somehow the Great Scientific minds of the AGW scientists – have been able to ascertain the climate gods will unleash greater and more powerful hurricanes due to warming SST’s contrary to the flat line trend of the last 250 years.

    • You would think some sort of a differential would be required: warm vs cold, high vs low. If we’re all in a warm bathtub there wouldn’t seem to be much to sotrm about.

    • joe – I think they were forecasting the strength of hurricanes of the future. Also, t makes sense that increased wind shear above the gradient level would inhibit hurricane formation (but again, in the future, joe).

  5. This reminds me of staring at clouds and seeing horses and ducks and snoopy. Welcome to sciences new ride “Imagination Station”. Be sure to keep your grant secure before the ride takes off.

  6. Looks like what could be the first TS of the season will come out of the Caribbean this week and eventually come ashore along the Gulf coast.

  7. “the second simulates the same weather patterns but in a climate that’s warmer by about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) — the amount of warming that may be EXPECTED by the end of the century.” (Caps mine)

    Once again, the most far-fetched RCP 8.5 scenario is touted as “expected”. As a result, none of the results are even plausible. It’s classic “garbage in, garbage out”

    • My thoughts exactly. 5 degrees Celsius?!? Absolutely no one is forecasting anything like that.

      If you’re not going to care about being reasonable, why not simulate 50 degrees Celsius of warming? That would have yielded even more attention getting headlines. More clicks means more credibility, right?

      But the ultimate irony is that they mention, “the high cost of computational resources.”

      Have they considered bitcoin mining?

    • If you need to forecast 5C of warming before your model can find an impact, you might as well give back your grant and admit defeat.

      • “give back your grant and admit defeat.”

        Thank you for the laugh of the day, week, month, year.

    • The problem with the Cargo Cult Climate Computer Models is that for them to statistically pull effects out of otherwise very noisy weather, they have to use the most extreme, thus unlikely, scenarios.

      Usually they run short tuning test runs before sending the computer off to run months long simulations. In these test runs, which might be only a few days to to week, they try out different parameter sets, tweaking along the way, reinitialize and starting again. It was likely that only in the most extreme +5 ℃ at end of century scenario did they start seeing the results their preconceived bias needed to confirm their “hypothesis”.

  8. They don’t have a clue, but to get paid handsomely, they have to dress it up as “science”.

    • Kind of like putting lipstick on a pig. Then give it a cute bonnet and a flowered dress. Forget washing the sh*t off.

      It’s worser than we thought! It’s too big to stop! It roots deeper and gets bigger and pees much more! Scream hogzilla before it’s too late and you’re overcome by the grunting sounds!

  9. When using the output of one model to feed a second model, shouldn’t you try and make sure that the first model is accurate first?

      • We have built our models so that errors cancel.
        By the law of large numbers, if we use enough models we will have a perfect forecast.
        /sarc

  10. I find it amazing that they continue to make these claims. Humans have been generating CO2 from fossil fuels for at least 200 years, with no evidence of increasing trends in hurricanes, according to NOAA. But they continue to predict such a trend. The question to ask is if the trend hasnt shown up in 200 years, when do they expect it to show? Every time someone makes the claim, above is the response to make. Below are the highly credible sources:

    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

    “Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change.”

    • Dbarkerber – “for at least 200 years, with no evidence of increasing trends in hurricanes, according to NOAA. But they continue to predict such a trend. The question to ask is if the trend hasnt shown up in 200 years, when do they expect it to show? ”

      I have pointed out the same facts at Skeptical science – They were very belligerent that peer reviewed models were vastly superior to my pointing out actual empirical evidence – especially since I was not a scientist

  11. Who would name a climate model supercomputer after Yellowstone. We know that it just blows up eventually.

  12. These “are (fill blank) getting worse?” crap deflects attention from real issues — actually preparing for (fill blank). Instead the insinuation is that driving your car less or turning off lights or supporting goobermint regulations actually helps (fill blank).

  13. The hurricane season in the Atlantic this year will be weak due to low solar activity and meridional jet stream. However, the convection in North America will be high.

    • Ren
      An intelligent call based on SST. However they are not the primary driver.
      Atmospheric pressure pulses particularly after the solstice when the sun makes it’s return run to the equator provide the impotus.

      So far this year the pressure bias has been to the SH, note the Antarctic Blozone activity, near constant dilution under 220DU.

      SST are secondary to trapped pressure.
      Regards

      • Just in the last week the blocking mechanisms in both hemispheres moved above mean. They may also go down.
        It is the atmosphere that is trapped between these blockers that increases pressure, and when there is a pressure pulse, bingo.
        Regards

      • Interesting bit of info. I had also noted the cooler sst temps while debating at Wunderground last month. Everyone was wondering where the hurricane development of April?May had gone to. That is when I mentioned what about he cooler sst levels caused by the surface winds flowing southward in the North Atlantic. Funny, those guys think they are so hot on the topic, but none of them had considered looking out the window for a likely reason for the lack of development. None of them can think out of the closed box in which they have placed themselves.

        Thanks for the info you added, though. I will keep that in mind as I watch the ongoing surface wind chnages which are still underway from what I can see.

      • Joe Bastardi and the guys at weatherbell had to adjust their forecast downward due to the poor conditions for development and strengthening in the MDR. He believes the worst storms that could impact the US will come north out of the Western half of the Caribbean. That means the Gulf coast states are in the cross hairs.

    • Actchally, many of the local weathermen feel that the Gulf and south Florida potential is lower than normal due to El Nino and associated shear way up high.

      But what do they know?

      Gums sends..

  14. AGW is on it’s last leg. The N. Atlantic now cooling rapidly as overall sea surface temperatures continue in a cooling trend.

    Solar is now very weak ,geo magnetic field weakening translation more explosive volcanic eruptions, more global cloud coverage/snow coverage translation higher albedo lower global temperatures.

    This year is running cooler then last year thus far for global surface temperatures.

    Hurricanes are not going to change in strength.

  15. “While each storm’s transformation would be unique, on balance, the hurricanes would become a little stronger, a little slower-moving, and a lot wetter.”

    They form at sea and also have a finite lifetime So, if slow-moving, they might weaken and dissipate before reaching land. I haven’t seen any mention of duration. Which brings us to hurricane tracks. Might they track North to cooler Atlantic water more often? Where a hurricane is, and where it is going to be, is just as important as the other factors.

  16. Not much of a geologist or even weather person, but as I fly over the plains states on a clear day it sure appears that there were some periods of very heavy rain for many years. The directions of erosion do not appear to be away from melting glacier cover or broken ice dams. And as you fly over the major rivers you can see that these rivers have cleared out wide, flat valleys, several miles wide. And still see traces of where the river was many, many years ago, far longer than the 200 plus years that we have mapped these rivers.
    IMHO it would take many storms like Harvey each season for several seasons to cause these rivers to move the distance they did.

  17. At least we have a large body of questionable research and modeling time to use in the opposite direction for global cooling.

  18. This is no better than climate seance, staring into their digital crystal ball, trying to glimpse the future.
    “The future is cloudy…cloudy, rainy, and whirling about!”

    Eight co-authors produced this pathetic piece of parameterized phantasy….. Ugh! What a waste.

  19. I tell my model to make my hurricanes wetter and then when they do, I can prove hurricanes will be wetter.

  20. Phienix44’s simple concise statement is accurate and powerful.

    “For the current study, the researchers took advantage of a massive new dataset created at NCAR. The scientists ran the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model at a high resolution (4 kilometers, or about 2.5 miles) over the contiguous United States over two 13-year periods.

    The simulations took about a year to run on the Yellowstone supercomputer at the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center in Cheyenne.

    The first set of model runs simulates weather as it unfolded between 2000 and 2013, and the second simulates the same weather patterns but in a climate that’s warmer by about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) — the amount of warming that may be expected by the end of the century.

    Drawing on the vast amount of data, the scientists created an algorithm that enabled them to identify 22 named storms that appear with very similar tracks in the historic and future simulations, allowing the hurricanes to be more easily compared.”

    Models feed models that run run models…

    Lovely, a mockery of science.

    * Look! We used a database!
    * Look! We used the super computer; which obviously wasn’t needed for important stuff!
    * Look! We wrote more programs to incorporate Harvey type rainfalls as rain disaster scenarios!
    * Look! We wrote program modules to replicate Harvey’s stall, in order to maximize rainfalls.
    * Look! a few, very few, of our model runs closely matched historical storms!
    * Look! We pretend that model run coincidences are definitive comparisons to real storms!

    Great, give them flowery ink jet printer paper awards signed by their supervisors and shut them down!

    When will our government stop funding these circle _erk self satisfaction pleasure researches?

    This research group should be high on the list for Inspector General evaluation and investigation, after they’re completely defunded.

  21. If hurricanes slow down, maybe climate science and models will be able to catch up! One can dream…

  22. “a climate that’s warmer by about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) — the amount of warming that may be expected by the end of the century.”

    With a ECS on the order of 1.5 degrees as indicated by recent studies this would require at a minimum thre doublings, i. e. about. 3200 ppm CO2. This means that we would have to consume as much fossil fuel as has been burnt from the start of industrialization every four years until 2100, starting tomorrow.

    • ECS of 1.5 degrees is actually worst case. It assumes that all of the warming of the last 100 years is due to CO2.

  23. And the most interesting thing is that such a huge temperature change apparently had rather minor effects on hurricanes. I would have expected vastly greater changes. For example 5 degrees warmer oceans would mean whole new sets of hurricanes in e. g. the South Atlantic, South-East Pacific, North Pacific, Mediterranean etc where temperatures are currently too low for hurricanes to form. Think “Anchorage devastated by hurricane”.

  24. Apparently, the journal article on which this blog post was based is:

    Ethan D. Gutmann, Roy M. Rasmussen, Changhai Liu, Kyoko Ikeda, Cindy L. Bruyere, James M. Done, Luca Garrè, Peter Friis-Hansen, Vidyunmala Veldore. Changes in Hurricanes from a 13-Yr Convection-Permitting Pseudo–Global Warming Simulation. Journal of Climate, 2018; 31 (9): 3643 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0391.1

    … pay walled, of course.

    Notice the title of that journal article: Changes in Hurricanes from a 13-Yr Convection-Permitting Pseudo–Global Warming Simulation

    Notice further the following phrase: Pseudo-Global Warming Simulation

    Still not done, notice even further the word, Simulation

    I don’t know about you, but any title with the words, “pseudo” and “simulation” in it does not instill a lot of confidence about the reality of the claims put forth under it.

    Oh, BUT it’s “convection-permitting”, … how thoughtful to include this in the simulation of the pseudo global warming.

    • On a positive note, the title does seem honest, in that it fairly represents the fantasy it foretells.

      But let’s dumb it down for the general reader: How Our Make-Believe Disaster Model Makes Future Hurricanes Look Worse Than They Probably Will Be In Reality

  25. In the Galveston area, hurricane Carla in 1961 (Cat 5 & listed highest on the US hurricane severity list) had stronger winds. The great 1900 hurricane killed way more people. Tropical storm Claudette in 1979 dropped 43 inches of rain in 24 hours (long the US record). These were real data, not model predictions.

  26. After a Miracle cup of instant espresso I remembered Javier and Willis both commenting SST is very very difficult to get above 30 dG C due to evaporation and self-cooling. Oops. My bad. I forgot these were teacup models and do not incorporate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Carry on with the text wasting BS.

    Sandy, Minister of Future

  27. So how much did they contribute to their forecasted DOOM by running a Super Computer for a friggin year to spit this garbage out? OH the Pain!

  28. Their entire premise is nothing but game playing. How ridiculous to say what if this, and what if that. The only thing which will ever matter is what are the current conditions at the time the next hurricane spins up. All the rest is stupid and wasted time, made even more stupid by the thought that somehow they know what the sst/wind conditions will be in 2100. “…Scientists have developed a detailed analysis of how 22 recent hurricanes would be different if they formed under the conditions predicted for the late 21st century. ..”.

    • If the so-called scientists used a detailed analysis of 42 recent hurricanes would the answer be different? Would there even be a question? Would the certainty be 91% greater or could we just call it 97% and maintain the consensus? Anyway, if they have the answer just what was the question? HHGTTG

  29. The more recent Hurricanes have had less horsepower over land than their predecessors three decades ago. The recent ones have been tuckered out SO fast by landfall as to make the concept of a hurricane laughable.

  30. Apparently this team needs a good meteorologist. “A future with Hurricane Harvey-like rains” and “Our research suggests that future hurricanes could drop significantly more rain,” said NCAR scientist Ethan Gutmann, who led the study. “Hurricane Harvey demonstrated last year just how dangerous that can be.”.

    Hurricane Harvey dropped a lot of water on Houston because it was stalled there for 36hours by a weather front. By all measures the Harvey rainfall RATE was not unusual at all. What was unusual was the confluence of weather conditions- about which the research in this report say nothing at all. The same applies to Hurricane Sandy. It was a low grade hurricane storm combined with a low grade Nor’easter that covered an unusually large area. All the factors that made the storm damaging were unexpected weather conditions and happenstance. Until the last day before landfall there was never a forecast that suggested that Sandy was going to crawl up offshore of the east coast and then combine with another non-tropical storm and make a 90deg. turn onto New Jersey.

    I heartily concur with Bob Shapiro, no research done with unvaldiated models should ever be released as a scientific study but always prefaced of a complete statement of the speculations being offered with suggestions for what new “observations” might be helpful in directing new, actual research.

  31. Seems to ignore the actual facts that current warming of 0.6K/century has had a net declining effect in both numbers and intensity of hurricanes. Not unexpected of course if wind shear (which depends on temp difference) is actually more important than absolute temperatures for hurricane formation – which would bring it into line with the textbook theory and our personal experience of every other storm event which is that storminess increases only in a cooling climate. The twin problems with such studies is the bias the pessimistic researchers start out with and the pessimistic results they have to report in order to keep the money flowing.

Comments are closed.