Media Silence: Flurry Of Recent Papers Show Warming Likely Will Lead To LESS STORM ACTIVITY!

What follows are 6 recent studies presented by Lüning and Vahrenholt, which dump cold water on the claim storms will get more frequent and intense.

The studies fly in the face of a recent Nature editorial piece, one filled with the usual worn out alarmist propaganda language of climate doom we’ve been seeing for over a quarter century. The editorial claims some scientists have already found the link between “weird weather” and greenhouse gases.

Again it’s back to the medieval witch-hunt days when witches were blamed and burned for weather-related disasters.

New model simulation results: tropical storms will be more seldom, less intense in the future

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Whenever a hurricane strikes, there are always some climate activists who claim to know the exact cause: climate change!

And they are sure that in the future there’s going to be a lot of trouble. Stop what you’re doing, abstain from everything, and beg for forgiveness! You’re headed to hell, you wretched CO2 sinners. Pay up and repent!

Fortunately, there is a scientific side, which unfortunately rarely ever gets covered by the media. The truth is that everything appears far less spectacular than what many would have us believe.

On October 4, 2017, a study by Yoshida et al was published. It presented the results produced by simulations of tropical storms and their future development. According to the models, the number of tropical storms on a global scale will drop by 33%.

Moreover, there will be a significant reduction in storms of especially harsh categories 4 and 5s. The latter is especially remarkable because for a long time it was believed that the number of storms would fall, but that the intensity would increase. The new results show clearly that they will, in fact, a decrease. Abstract:

Future Changes in Tropical Cyclone Activity in High-Resolution Large-Ensemble Simulations
Projected future changes in global tropical cyclone (TC) activity are assessed using 5,000-year scale ensemble simulations for both current and 4 K surface warming climates with a 60 km global atmospheric model. The global number of TCs decreases by 33% in the future projection.Although geographical TC occurrences decrease generally, they increase in the central and eastern parts of the extratropical North Pacific. Meanwhile, very intense (category 4 and 5) TC occurrences increase over a broader area including the south of Japan and south of Madagascar. The global number of category 4 and 5 TCs significantly decreases, contrary to the increase seen in several previous studies. Lifetime maximum surface wind speeds and precipitation rate are amplified globally. Regional TC activity changes have large uncertainty corresponding to sea surface temperature warming patterns. TC-resolving large-ensemble simulations provide useful information, especially for policymaking related to future climate change.”

Murakami et al. 2014 already had projected fewer tropical storms for the future:

Influence of Model Biases on Projected Future Changes in Tropical Cyclone Frequency of Occurrence
The influence of model biases on projected future changes in the frequency of occurrence of tropical cyclones (FOCs) was investigated using a new empirical statistical method. Assessments were made of present-day (1979–2003) simulations and future (2075–99) projections, using atmospheric general circulation models under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A1B scenario and phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) models under the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The models project significant decreases in global-total FOCs by approximately 6%–40%; however, model biases introduce an uncertainty of approximately 10% in the total future changes. The influence of biases depends on the model physics rather than model resolutions and emission scenarios. In general, the biases result in overestimates of projected future changes in basin-total FOCs in the north Indian Ocean (by +18%) and South Atlantic Ocean (+143%) and underestimates in the western North Pacific Ocean (−27%), eastern North Pacific Ocean (−29%), and North Atlantic Ocean (−53%). The calibration of model performance using the smaller bias influence appears crucial to deriving meaningful signals in future FOC projections. To obtain more reliable projections, ensemble averages were calculated using the models less influence by model biases. Results indicate marked decreases in projected FOCs in the basins of the Southern Hemisphere, Bay of Bengal, western North Pacific Ocean, eastern North Pacific, and the Caribbean Sea and increases in the Arabian Sea and the subtropical central Pacific Ocean.”

Also, Kim et al. 2014 saw fewer tropical storms for the future:

Tropical Cyclone Simulation and Response to CO2 Doubling in the GFDL CM2.5 High-Resolution Coupled Climate Model
Global tropical cyclone (TC) activity is simulated by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Climate Model, version 2.5 (CM2.5), which is a fully coupled global climate model with a horizontal resolution of about 50 km for the atmosphere and 25 km for the ocean. The present climate simulation shows a fairly realistic global TC frequency, seasonal cycle, and geographical distribution. The model has some notable biases in regional TC activity, including simulating too few TCs in the North Atlantic. The regional biases in TC activity are associated with simulation biases in the large-scale environment such as sea surface temperature, vertical wind shear, and vertical velocity. Despite these biases, the model simulates the large-scale variations of TC activity induced by El Niño–Southern Oscillation fairly realistically. The response of TC activity in the model to global warming is investigated by comparing the present climate with a CO2 doubling experiment. Globally, TC frequency decreases (−19%) while the intensity increases (+2.7%) in response to CO2 doubling, consistent with previous studies. The average TC lifetime decreases by −4.6%, while the TC size and rainfall increase by about 3% and 12%, respectively. These changes are generally reproduced across the different basins in terms of the sign of the change, although the percent changes vary from basin to basin and within individual basins. For the Atlantic basin, although there is an overall reduction in frequency from CO2 doubling, the warmed climate exhibits increased interannual hurricane frequency variability so that the simulated Atlantic TC activity is enhanced more during unusually warm years in the CO2-warmed climate relative to that in unusually warm years in the control climate.”

In fact, there is not a single hurricane, typhoon, or another cyclone scientist who holds a different view on this. Also, Walsh et al. 2015 foresee a falling number of tropical storms for the future:

Hurricanes and Climate: The U.S. CLIVAR Working Group on Hurricanes
While a quantitative climate theory of tropical cyclone formation remains elusive, considerable progress has been made recently in our ability to simulate tropical cyclone climatologies and to understand the relationship between climate and tropical cyclone formation. Climate models are now able to simulate a realistic rate of global tropical cyclone formation, although simulation of the Atlantic tropical cyclone climatology remains challenging unless horizontal resolutions finer than 50 km are employed. This article summarizes published research from the idealized experiments of the Hurricane Working Group of U.S. Climate and Ocean: Variability, Predictability, and Change (CLIVAR). This work, combined with results from other model simulations, has strengthened relationships between tropical cyclone formation rates and climate variables such as mid-tropospheric vertical velocity, with decreased climatological vertical velocities leading to decreased tropical cyclone formation. Systematic differences are shown between experiments in which only sea surface temperature is increased compared with experiments where only atmospheric carbon dioxide is increased. Experiments, where only carbon dioxide is increased, are more likely to demonstrate a decrease in tropical cyclone numbers, similar to the decreases simulated by many climate models for a future, warmer climate. Experiments where the two effects are combined also show decreases in numbers, but these tend to be less for models that demonstrate a strong tropical cyclone response to increased sea surface temperatures. Further experiments are proposed that may improve our understanding of the relationship between climate and tropical cyclone formation, including experiments with a two-way interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere and variations in atmospheric aerosols.”

So why will tropical storms become less frequent in the future? One study by Lim et al. 2015 found that a cooling of the middle and upper troposphere leads to more storms, and not warming:

Sensitivity of Tropical Cyclones to Parameterized Convection in the NASA GEOS-5 Model
The sensitivity of tropical cyclones (TCs) to changes in parameterized convection is investigated to improve the simulation of TCs in the North Atlantic. Specifically, the impact of reducing the influence of the Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert (RAS) scheme-based parameterized convection is explored using the Goddard Earth Observing System version 5 (GEOS-5) model at 0.25° horizontal grid spacing. The years 2005 and 2006, characterized by very active and inactive hurricane seasons, respectively, are selected for simulation. A reduction in parameterized deep convection results in an increase in TC activity (e.g., TC number and longer life cycle) to more realistic levels compared to the baseline control configuration. The vertical and horizontal structure of the strongest simulated hurricane shows the maximum wind speed greater than 60 m s−1 and the minimum sea level pressure reaching ~940 MB, which are never achieved by the control configuration. The radius of the maximum wind of ~50 km, the location of the warm core exceeding 10°C, and the horizontal compactness of the hurricane center are all quite realistic without any negatively affecting the atmospheric mean state. This study reveals that an increase in the threshold of minimum entrainment suppresses parameterized deep convection by entraining more dry air into the typical plume. This leads to cooling and drying at the mid to upper troposphere, along with the positive latent heat flux and moistening in the lower troposphere. The resulting increase in conditional instability provides an environment that is more conducive to TC vortex development and upward moisture flux convergence by dynamically resolved moist convection, thereby increasing TC activity.”

Also, Sugi et al. 2015 were able to show that tropical storms in colder climates occurred more frequently and not so in warmer ones:

More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?
Recent review papers reported that many high-resolution global climate models consistently projected a reduction of global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency in a future warmer climate, although the mechanism of the reduction is not yet fully understood. Here we present a result of 4K-cooler climate experiment. The global TC frequency significantly increases in the 4K-cooler climate compared to the present climate. This is consistent with a significant decrease in TC frequency in the 4K-warmer climate. For the mechanism of TC frequency reduction in a warmer climate, upward mass flux hypothesis and saturation deficit hypothesis have been proposed. The result of the 4K-cooler climate experiment is consistent with these two hypotheses. One very interesting point is that the experiment has clearly shown that TC genesis is possible at sea surface temperature (SST) well below 26°C which has been considered as the lowest SST limit for TC genesis.”

Summary: storm alarmists are rapidly becoming an endangered species. No longer does the hypothesis hold because the intensity of storms as well will weaken in the future.

This is for some inconvenient results, which in any case need to be recognized.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

Trackback from your site.

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Oh yes the Greens want their little Witch Hunts to stop all skeptics and silence them as well the Eco-Wackos are becoming even more radical with Trump in the Whitehouse with the leftists NRDC and EDF lying about Climate Change and producing false and misleading TV ads

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Houston GAS

    |

    I think it’s important to note that these study authors all appear to assume that global warming is in fact a reality. Then they execute their studies based on that dubious assumption to see the impact on storm frequency and/or intensity. Their results do and should negate the global warming alarmists hysteria.
    These studies take on an entirely different import, if on the other hand, global cooling is instead the near future of planet Earth. While the message of the studies and of this article are both relevant, it is sad if not catastrophic, that we must focus on the warmists, instead of focusing on whether or not society is properly preparing for a future predicted by REAL science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    If it’s plus or minus 1 Celsius degree per century, we can adapt. The Socialists are wasting huge amounts of money turning our power grid into a lemon that won’t work in any climate.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Houston GAS

      |

      Agreed, planet temperature change of plus or minus a degree or 2 is inconsequential. But the temperature change during the Little Ice Age was big enough to alter history. We can adapt using modern technology. But if we have turned of real sources of usable and needed energy in a fool’s attempt to control (suppress) the temperature of the Earth, will the adaptation be less easily achieved?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    And it snows and the crack-pots blames Global Warming/Climate Change that crack-pot James Hansen has

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Just like Climate Gate 2, the main stream media will also censor out information unfavorable to the climate change movement.

    We don’t need studies to know that severe storms are increasing. Anyone who has been alive for awhile can see we have fewer extreme storms than we used to. Even the IPCC conceded in their fifth assessment report that extreme weather events don’t appear to be increasing.

    We need to remember the reason that extreme weather has been blamed on climate change. When it became obvious that the climate wasn’t warming as predicted, “global warming” became “climate change.” Then CO2 induced climate change was said to cause more extreme weather. This way, without the warming, they could still force a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in order to support all of the hidden political agendas depending on these reductions. However, just as with speed of warming, reality did not cooperate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    NATURE is the CNN of science reporting . Garbage .

    Reply

Leave a comment