Hurricanes have not grown in intensity. Nor are they bigger or stronger.

Though global warming activists will vehemently disagree, Roger Pielke, a faculty member at the University of Colorado since 2001 who teaches and writes about government issues related to science, cites climatological history and data showing that hurricanes have neither increased nor become stronger.

As hurricane season draws to a close Nov. 30, Mr. Pielke said a flawed paper published last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team of authors led by Asiak Grinsted, a scientist at the University of Copenhagen, claimed “the frequency of the very most damaging hurricanes has increased at a rate of 330% per century.”

Saying the paper flies in the face of decades of research and observation that over the past century and more there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall, Mr. Pielke said these conclusions are reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Climate Assessment and the World Meteorological Organization.  

“The bottom line here is that a fatally flawed paper on climate science passed peer review at a significant journal, using a dataset found online that had not undergone peer review, much less any quality control,” said Mr. Pielke. “Loudly promoted by activist scientists and uncritical media, the result has been a pollution of our discussion of climate science and policy … and if we do not enforce basic standards of research quality along the way, we will make the battle much more difficult than it need be.”

Pointing out that the Associated Press passed along the incorrect information saying “247 hurricanes hit the U.S. since 1900,” Mr. Pielke said the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration said that from 1900 to 2017 “there were only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (nine storms had multiple landfalls).”

The underlying problem with the PNAS paper is it uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends.

In 2018, the IPCC declared that we’re not seeing an increase in hurricanes. “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century,” it said. But, said Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, “We are seeing an increase in hurricane costs “because more people with more wealth live in harm’s way.”

Noting the U.S. population rose four-fold over the past century, he said it climbed 50-fold in coastal areas. The area hit by Hurricane Florence had fewer than 800,000 homes in 1940. Now it’s 11.3 million — a 1,325% increase.

“Homes are bigger and hold many more expensive possessions,” he said. “Adjusted for population and wealth, U.S. hurricane damage has not increased since 1900. Global weather damage as a percent of global GDP actually fell from 1900 to 2017.”

Factoring in socio-economic demographics of the population on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts said Mr. Lomborg, damage by future hurricanes will only increase because the population is greater and wealthier. And there may be more deaths.

Saying vulnerability is the main hurricane problem facing the United States, he said, “We should not allow so many houses to be built on flood plains or coastlines. We should insist on higher building standards, and increase wetlands to handle flooding. We should stop federal insurance subsidies that encourage building in vulnerable areas.”

“Major storms are charismatic events. They afford great footage, which feeds a false sensation in viewers that storms have become more frequent and more powerful,” said Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. in September 2018. “Meanwhile, tragedies befall Americans every day for which the federal government does not shower them with aid because CNN is not present.”

“Where is Al Gore when you need him?” he continued. “Oh right, the climate crowd has become enamored of coastal development because it creates a constituency for doing something about climate change. Well, not exactly for doing something about climate change, but for throwing money at coastal dwellers and calling them ‘victims of climate change’ for the benefit of generating media coverage of climate politics.”

Connecting extreme weather to climate change to encourage carbon reduction is today’s false mantra.

Blaming global warming for hurricane damage, says Mr. Lomborg, “is tilting at windmills — posturing that does nothing do ameliorate hurricanes.”

 

 

(31) comments

David Collins

Oh so true! The business of disaster folds neatly into the business of “climate change”. Strangely it always comes down to more money, wealth redistribution, thrown at something that is uncontrollable. Money distributed amongst those that chose to live in harms way and demand others to bail them out of their bad decisions. Locally, one only has to look to Ocracoke Island for a prime example of this. Talk about a bad idea, you got one. While climate change is real it happens over millions of years and is due to changes to the Earth’s crust and plate tectonics. Weather is different from climate and is historically all over the place and can be influenced by human activities. That has been well proven. The problem is that the general public is quite ignorant of all this and looming disasters sell far better. Yeah, all about the money. Just look at the players and their proposals. A greater scam has never been invented, other than religion, of course. Soooooo, believe what you wish but don’t give away the farm quite yet.

dc

Storms? Ocracoke natives and all the outer banks really have weathered many storms, recovered, and kept on keeping on. Development even since the 70s has brought in many new residents no different than anywhere near the water in most places. Lots of so-called natives have had to sell out for obvious reasons if they didn't do it on their own volition for the money. So, what's new? Run away development will continue. What's the answer? Pro-active planning versus reactive. "Packing fewer sardines in the can". Didn't notice anything about religion in the article but since you mentioned it David the churches on Ocracoke have a rich history and have been and surely will continue to be an integral part of their community. Actually their churches may outlast them like on Portsmouth.

David Collins

Felt compelled to throw in religion in order to be inclusive toward all of the usual posters. Leave no one out is my new 2019 holiday promise. No offense intended. It is well recorded that faith in a higher power has helped during adversity. Doesn’t it?

Polymerman

First of all that is Dr. or Prof. Pelke, not Mr. Second, it is Prof. Pelke of Political Science, not Climatology. Why have a political scientist comment on meteorology? Let's hear from actual scientists whether the data was good or not. Finally, saying that climate scientists are somehow convincing people to live near the coast is ridiculous. People have always lived near the coast. There are simply more people around now! In conclusion, I don't know if hurricanes are getting stronger, but I prefer to take this possibility seriously, and listen to actual scientists, not political scientists. Climate change is marching on and there will be many unforeseen consequences. Hang on to your hats folks!

dc

Those who have it certainly seem to think so.

dc

You might also think about the future of our country's youth. Communism/socialism & atheism go hand-in-hand while capitalism/freedom & Christianity have worked pretty well for us. Areas of the world where freedom is taking hold is where Christianity is growing while the youth in our own country are turning towards socialism & atheism. Good sign for others but not at all for us.

dc

Good article by Marc Thiessen: "Evils of socialism must be taught to young people".

JohnnyR

Moving from mythology to reality is a good thing dc. Kinda like reality is listening to actual climate scientists when it comes to the actual science of the climate; where non-reality is listening to political scientists who have no background in the field and probably get paid to make unfounded claims because they have a doctorate in "something."

As long as they say what you want to hear, it must be correct, no?

David Collins

All this shooting of the messenger accomplishes nothing. Greta Thrumberg is a renowned what? A 15 year old that repeats what she has been prompted to say but has no formal training or laudability in any of it. Now a Eco-Warrior hero. Wow! Johnny, you are leaving out personal observation. I have not seen any changes during my travels up and down the coast. No sea level rise at all. Have seen changes in areas that have always eroded and those that have been built upon reclaimed ocean bed dirt. Inherently unstable from the git go and likely to stay that way. True climate change is real but not for many, many lifetimes. So, do what you wish, think what you wish and most importantly donate all you can to those that will champion your cause. Of course, living large on donations is part of the deal. Isn’t it?

DeadBolt

Here's some climate change you all can believe in! [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnbS0f4dSA8 ] hahahahahahaahahahahahahah

JohnnyR

Yep, you hit the nail on the head Dave, claims about climate change are all about racking up them donation dollars, you figured it out!

Of course the anti-climate change challengers are certainly not majorly funded by the fossil fuel industry, I'm sure they would gladly shut down if they thought it was even partially true. Those big oil CEO's have our best interests at heart.

dc

1933 & 1941 were a little reality if that's your game.

David Collins

Have gone on record numerous times stating that lobbying for any special interest should be illegal. Any special interest! Corporate donations should be banned as well as lobbyists donations along with gifts. Period. By the way, isn’t all of this a quid pro quo or bribery? Individual donations should have strict limits as well. Preferably in the hundreds of dollars range. Do I have any expectations that any of this will happen? Not a chance. Money rules in our government be it local, state or federal. Honestly feel that this will end badly for us all.

JohnnyR

Here's a little reality dc, compare the number of cat 5 storms from the past 100 years vs. the cat 5 storms from the base 10 years. They've been keeping records of barometer pressure measured storms since the late 1800s, but I bet you get your numbers from biased sources like your beloved "Thinker" and not from any scientific based ones such as NOAA.

dc

Three of the 5 deadliest hurricanes occurred in 1893, 1900 & 1928.

dc

Most intense to make landfall was Labor Day 1935.

dc

There's a couple articles on climate on AT today but haven't read them yet. You go ahead & read them & get ready to discuss when I can find the time.

dc

As long as who says what I want hear it must be correct JR? My impression is you really have no idea about me & maybe me about you. For instances on religion I suspect over both our lifetimes you have been much more "religious" than me. Guessing also you are younger than me. My whole purpose on back & forth with you on the subject is about my undying support of Christianity versus all other so-called "religions" including what I have come to believe includes "Atheism" since all of them are simply belief systems. And, I suspect many non-atheists & atheists may disagree. If that's a myth or what I want to hear then so be it. I attended various church denominations in my youth but none regularly or for extended periods. Upon entering the military I declared "Protestant" for religious preference. That is on your "dog tags". From your posts I assume you attended a somewhat "fundamentalist" denomination at one time before becoming a devout atheist. So, I guess you probably went from what you considered "extreme" to extreme in the opposite direction. I've never been dedicated to one denomination but just support the idea of Christianity in general as I believe that whatever their denomination it was the foundation of our Founders and the basis for the birth of our country hence giving us the rights & freedoms endowed by our "Creator". If the Founders based our founding on a "scientific theory" it escapes me. It's troubling that as other countries around the world not so fortunate but now begin to become more like us Christianity is growing whereas our youth are turning more & more towards socialism/communism & atheism. That's all I'm trying to get across to you and other posters. Whatever your "religious" beliefs you need to let the "freedom" factor sink in.

dc

And, that "freedom factor" goes way beyond the "freedom" for a particular "belief system" to not pledge allegiance to a flag or any other "object" because they believe they should "worship" only their "God" or another "belief system" that will pledge allegiance to a flag (object) provided a phrase including the word "God" is not included. Less sensitive folks can deal with pledging allegiance to an object symbolic of their country and under some semblance of what the country's Founders wrote about who/what endowed them with their freedoms.

JusticeForAll

A few observations. Athesim is not a belief system, it is lack of belief in a diety. It is a choice based on science. Science is proven by evidence. Religion is not. Regardless of one's choice, both components are necessary through our DNA process to continue the survival of our species. Called balance, although that balance fluctuates. Evolution explains the process. Freedom does not come from faith. It comes from force. Again, it is the way humans promote that their faction of the species survives. Force is contingent on group mentality and justification by means of manipulation. In our industrial and technological age the game has changed exponentially. Hold on, it is going to be quite a ride.

David Collins

Hurricanes, hurricanes, hurricanes. They are bad news for people, not so much for Mother Nature. They have their place in the scheme of things. Like it or not. This conversation is going the way of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin? Pointless. How religion sneaked in this , really not sure. What the **** already! Let’s blame all this on Trump and move on. No winners here.

dc

Article in National Geographic by Gabe Bullard - "The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion". Guess atheism might mean a belief in "no religion". If believing in "no religion" is not a "belief" hence a "belief system" not sure what a "belief" is. Completely understand traditionally & historically your post but the world is indeed changing along with words, definitions, meanings, etc.

dc

Yep, politics & religion have a strange way of sneaking into any exchange of ideas. Maybe the very first post is a reminder?

dc

The words "No Religion" in the title of the article could easily be replaced with "Anti-Religion Religion" or "Nones Religion" or even "Atheism Religion". Close to and in our lifetimes regimes like Communist Russia/Soviet Union, Red China, et al the heads of state like Stalin & Mao were essentially "God" & these type virtual religious systems remain today. If those type systems are not "belief systems" and "virtual religions" what were/are they? Not sure of your exact meaning of "force" but obviously "force" was/is prominent in these belief or virtual religious systems of control. Unlike these virtual religious systems as well as other religions where enforcement by death in many cases are the norm no such evil is found in Christianity . Therefore, in modern times the "Christian religion" as practiced in the U.S. seems far more preferable over atheistic virtual religions & certain other religions wherein pure evil exist. Don't think it can happen here as these aforementioned virtual religious and other religions gain a foothold?

JusticeForAll

Evil is inherent to humans, not a particular religion or lack of religion. To have freedom of any sort humans must eliminate any factions that keep them from that freedom. Usually force is the component to gain or maintain that freedom. Not trying to get into a religious discussion. The point is that DNA programs humans with certain coding that promotes the continuation of our species.

dc

That we humans including our Founders have/had DNA is a fact. Not sure of its relevance otherwise.

dc

Suspect there are some religions with more evil ways than others.

dc

That would include those "virtual religions".

dc

Use of force obviously has been/is a way of obtaining & keeping some freedoms especially the more important ones.

dc

"The Biochemistry Challenge to Darwin" by John Dale Dunn, MD, JD.

dc

"A simple proof of intelligent design" by Robert Arvay.

Welcome to the discussion.

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive/condescending attacks on other users or goading them. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning.