Another Alarmist Hurricane Claim Blown To Pieces

hurricane michael space

Atlantic hurricane numbers fell sharply after 2005, the opposite of what alarmists had predicted.

When a few bad ones made landfall in 2017, rather than repeat their discredited claim of a scary increase, some alarmists claimed their so-called “translation speed” (their rate of crawling horizontally over land and ocean) would decrease, so each one that did make landfall would stay longer, dumping ever more water and being Worse Than Expected tm.

Alas, someone has checked the numbers and found no evidence that tropical cyclone translation speed has declined since the 1950s, that climate models don’t predict that it would and that on balance the speed isn’t likely to change much in the future either.

The model simulations of the next century, for what they’re worth, don’t say nothing will change. On average the authors expect global average translation speed will increase.

But they say it’s because there will be small offsetting changes between the tropics and the regions outside the tropics, so there could be a reduction in the speed depending on where you live.

To which we would say, c’est la vie but ce n’est pas conditions météorologiques extrêmes.

Despite which if you buy beachfront property in the path of Atlantic tropic storms, you should know by now what you’re in for: some hurricanes, of varying intensity, on an unpredictable schedule.

It doesn’t seem to be putting people off.

Read more at Climate Discussion Nexus


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Unless I misinterpreted the graph the computer models were predicting a slight increase in translational speed. The narrative was that they expected hurricanes would travel more slowly and therefore dump more rain on any one spot resulting in greater local flooding. However, the computer models did not support this ergo the narrative is correct. It’s a strange way to get the narrative supported.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via