NOAA refutes link between global warming and hurricanes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently posted a summary of research on the link between global warming and hurricanes, concluding it is “premature” to say human activities are making storms more powerful.

“It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming – have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity,” reads the research summary put together by NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

“That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled,” reads NOAA’s research summary.

The research, last updated in March 2017, reaffirms findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

The IPCC’s 2013 synthesis report also found “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

For years, scientists have battled it out over whether man-made global warming has had a measurable impact on extreme weather events, like hurricanes. Climate models suggest hurricanes and cyclones could become more frequent and intense during the 21st Century.

Politicians and environmental groups often argue global warming is already making weather more extreme. Former President Barack Obama said on numerous occasions that man-made warming was already causing more droughts, storms and other events.

Increasingly, scientists are publishing attribution studies that claim to predict how much more likely a specific weather event was due to man-made warming. A group of scientists with the group World Weather Attribution said global warming made record-warm weather in February more likely.

But the evidence just isn’t there when it comes to most types of extreme weather.

University of Colorado researcher Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. said as much in a recent appearance before Congress.

Pielke noted the IPCC assigned “medium confidence” to research showing increases in heat waves and heavy rainfall events, but there’s not much evidence of a global warming link when it comes to pretty much all other categories of extreme weather.

“The lack of evidence to support claims of increasing frequency or intensity of hurricanes, floods, drought or tornadoes on climate timescales is also supported by the most recent assessments of the IPCC and the broader peer reviewed literature on which the IPCC is based,” Pielke noted in his prepared remarks.

At that same hearing, however, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann said Pielke was out of the “mainstream” on global warming.

Mann said “at least 97% of scientist publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that that climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet,” according to prepared remarks.

Mann offered no concrete reasons for why Pielke and the two other panelists at the hearing — climate scientists Judith Curry and John Christy — are wrong about warming. Instead, Mann personally attacked the researchers sitting next to him.

Pielke was quick to tweet out the results of NOAA’s latest summary of the impacts of global warming on extreme weather.

 

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • Marshall Rosenthal

    NOAA might start looking at Solar Spot activity when they finish pondering about modeling trivia.

  • Mick

    Data are the scientific evidence, not theoretical speculation created in a computer programme

  • J T

    Dano gets dick-slapped again.

    • Immortal600

      Notice that Dano has disappeared? Poor ole Dan, we know his real identity.

      • J T

        Why, who is he? Splather his identity all over the internet.

        • Immortal600

          JT, I am reluctant to do that. You could find it yourself by reviewing previous topics here on CFACT. Look for my comments and his (Dano) then look for a response from someone else who alerted me to his real identity. It IS him.

          • J T

            It’s enough that he’s been vanquished.

            • Immortal600

              He is scared that we would do to him what liberals do to those they disagree with, hound them to no end. I know I’m better than that and wish him no harm despite his arrogant ignorance.

  • Pam Dunn

    It was WARMER during the time of the Roman empire and the Vikings; Where was all the “Man made” pollution back in those days? HMM, Wonder how the little Ice Age of the 1600’s happened. Nothing but more algore manbearpig scam to enrich himself and governments at the expense of honest citizens.

  • jim_robert

    “Hide the decline”… this time in southerm hemisphere hurricanes.

  • ROYSTOLL2

    These “Climate Change”-“Global Warming” pushers are not going to back off of their claims no matter how ignorant that they look when none of their dubious claims come true, because the grant money derived from it is their life’s blood. Additionally, the “Progressive” Democrat Party, will not back off as this is their largest political donor slush fund. Just like they will never abandon their crusade against “Tort Reform” when it comes to a health care program as one of their largest donor constituencies are trial lawyers, which is their life’s blood. The third one in the Democrat Party’s donor network is “Planned Parenthood” which is also one of the largest donor sources. Campaign donations from these “big three” is what drive the “Progressive” Democrat Party and this is why they fight so hard for abortions, diversity and medical lawsuits and climate change hypocrisy.

  • Walt Bates

    If we really want to help our earth we should be producing as much CO2 as we can! Read Archibald – The Past and Future of Climate at http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Past-and-Future-of-Climate.pdf. The effect of rising CO2 on temperature is inversely logarithmic. After about 280ppm (we’re now at 400ppm) further increases in the CO2 level would have a miniscule effect on temperature. Not so with the health of all flora. Production of basic food plants would increase by 40% with a doubling of our CO2 concentration while the temperature would go up less than 1C degree. The Obama group was symptomatic of the scientific ignorance permeating our society. His actions had nothing to do with climate and everything to do with control. Our climate will be controlled, as it always has been, by solar/cosmic activity (or lack thereof) and ocean currents.
    The 97%-of-all-scientists-believe-in-it nonsense is easily refuted at petitionproject.org. There you’ll see the names of over 31,000 degreed (BS or higher) scientists who don’t believe that mankind has any significant effect on climate. Over 9,000 of these are PHds which dwarfs the UN’s IPCC. Further, NASA has had 40+ of their own scientists and astronauts write in a March 28, 2012 letter pleading with them to knock it off and recognize the benefits of CO2.

  • MJA5

    Can someone name the thread Best, D was outted in? I have been searching to no avail

    • Immortal600

      Jan. 25th, 2017.

  • jreb57

    Heat may drive hurricanes, but CO2 does not produce heat