Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming

September 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.

In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.

For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.

I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed on climate change. Regarding Hurricane Irma which recently terrorized Florida, you might be surprised to learn that it is consistent with a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:

But what has changed is the number of people and amount of infrastructure at risk along the Altantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines. Before 1900, there were virtually no people residing in Florida. Now its population exceeds 20 million. Miami was incorporated in 1896…with only 300 people. Even if there is no long term change in hurricane activity, hurricane damage will increase as coastal development increases.

I review the science of why major hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexcico are not limited by sea surface temperatures, which are warm enough every hurricane season to support catastrophic hurricanes.

Even the IPCC has low confidence in whether hurricanes will become more frequent or more severe in the coming decades. NOAA’s GFDL says we might see 2% to 11% increase in activity by the end of the century. Does that sound like what you should be worrying about during hurricane season if you live on the Florida coast? Maybe instead you should worry that you chose to live somewhere that will, inevitably, be hit by a hurricane sent by Mother Nature that will be catastrophic with or without the help of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The book is an easy read, with fewer than 11,000 words, and 17 illustrations.

151 Responses to “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. History shows us that hurricanes and global warming have no relationship.

  2. Laura says:

    Let us be clear.

    It is indeed possible to blame hurricanes on global warming just like it is possible to blame hurricanes on population changes of lemmings. It is unscientific but it is possible. See the “celebrity experts” doing it and then see those that claim to know better overtly and covertly supporting them.

    The alarmist tribe is like that. Science is of no concern whatsoever to them despite their irate claims that they stand for science. The truth, of course, is that alarmist systematically harass normal human beings with science-like talk when it is in their interest. If it is not in their interest, science be damned as we have seen again and again and again.

    Will this thread show otherwise? Truly unlikely.

    As easy as it would be for alarmist to, even hypocritically, denounce these “celebrity experts” and post here links to proper exchanges challenging their idiocy, it won’t happen. Alarmist will instead assault everyone that they consider to be not of their tribe.

    Prove me wrong.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “Science is of no concern whatsoever to them despite their irate claims that they stand for science.”

      Perfectly described.

    • Nate says:

      When will start seeing the ethical lapses in your own tribe?

      • Laura says:

        Which tribe would that be? Regular human beings?

        Aside for your ugly fantasies, you have nothing but the naively confessed ethical transgression of your own.

      • Nate says:

        I think since you regularly us the phrase ‘alarmists’ to describe climate scientists, you have self-identified your tribe, and it is not ‘regular humans’.

        Yours is the tribe that includes Sen Inhofe who famously brought the snow ball into the capitol, to ‘prove’ climate change was a fraud.

        Your tribe includes an Environmental Protection Agency director, who would like to rename the agency: the Fossil Fuel Industry Protection Agency, after his main benefactors. He has received countless campaign $$ from this industry, and that investment has paid off handsomely.

        Your tribe also includes the Heartland institute, who recently sent me and 100,000 others a free book (lots of $$!). This book is trying to persuade people that climate science is extremely flawed. The problem is that the book has no peer review and thus is full of NUMEROUS distortions, cherry picks, and outright lies. This foundation is primarily funded by, you guessed it, the fossil fuel industry.

        Your tribe’s focus is not on science truths. Rather it is focused on protecting certain corporate interests, and promoting certain extreme views on government regulation.

        Perhaps you should consider these motives when weighing the scientific evidence that they freely provide.

        • Laura says:

          Please provide links to any of my comments expressing any form of “denying”. And please, please, no more deceit. Find a “I deny…” penned by me and then copy it here.

          Until then, all you have are your sick delusions and, specifically, the bizarre universe in which you live where only “us versus them” is conceivable. Your tribal mentality is not evidence of anything but of your mental illness.

        • Nate says:

          “us versus them”

          Why do you only attack ‘them’?

        • Nate says:


          As far as I know you have only ever complained about the motivations and ethics of my ‘tribe’. Calling scientists ‘alarmists’ is a statement of denial, BTW.

          I was simply pointing out that the other tribe has serious issues in the ethics and motives dept. These are the facts. IMO you need to be concerned about these as well.

          Not sure why you think thats ‘mentally ill’?

        • Nate says:

          ‘Please provide links to any of my comments expressing any form of denying.’

          Easy. Just above, you denied that anybody in my tribe cares about science. You’ve said this many times. Even though several of us have pointed out counter examples, that show we care about science a great deal.

          ‘The alarmist tribe is like that. Science is of no concern whatsoever to them despite their irate claims that they stand for science’

        • Nate says:

          One of the biggest reasons for tribalism is that people tend to extend and assign the sins of individuals to the entire tribe.

          Arent you doing exactly that with with statements such as:

          ‘The alarmist tribe is like that. Science is of no concern whatsoever to them’ ?

          Thats whey I find it very ironic that ‘tribalism’ seems to be your utmost concern.

          • Laura says:

            And, as always, you fail to provide a single shred of evidence with which to support your “arguments”.

            Let us be clear.

            It is you who voluntarily identifies as an alarmist. This is not my doing.

            It is the alarmist tribe who claims to stand for science. Again, not my doing.

            It is the alarmist tribe who behaves according to:

            Humanity – alarmists = the enemy

            I am no more than an innocent bystander to this lunacy.

          • Nate says:

            No ‘alarmist’ is obviously meant to be a derogatory term, which you guite regulalrly use, along with other ones to describe us.

            And you lump us all together, assigning to us extreme qualities and motives as a group, that maybe some idividual has. Pretty much like what racists do.

            So are you really so innocent inocent?

          • Les says:

            Nate why don’t you stop, you had your say and we are not interested.

          • Nate says:


            Your choice to read or not.

            But I get it. I can stop. Just ask Laura to stop judging everyone.

  3. Elephant in the Room says:

    I’m sure that most if not all of you have seen the NOAA report that SUPPORTS what Roy is saying about hurricanes that they published a couple of weeks ago, but just in case, here it is.

    So no matter what David Appell or Dr. No says, I refer you back to this. Nate, you seem like a pretty fair guy, and you may find it interesting as well, assuming you haven’t read it yet.

    Yes, NOAA still projects Atlantic hurricanes to become intensified in the future, but this report shows that they seem to have next to no confidence in a trend so far.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      elephant…”Yes, NOAA still projects Atlantic hurricanes to become intensified in the future, but this report shows that they seem to have next to no confidence in a trend so far”.

      Christ Landsea, a hurricane expert with NOAA, has claimed a catastrophic increase in temperature will only increase the strength of a hurricane by 1 to 2%.

  4. g*e*r*a*n says:

    And only $2.99! What a bargain.

    Thanks, Dr. Roy—A much needed effort.

  5. ren says:

    Hurricane MARIA
    As of 00:00 UTC Sep 19, 2017:

    Location: 15.3N 61.1W
    Maximum Winds: 140 kt Gusts: 170 kt
    Minimum Central Pressure: 924 mb
    Environmental Pressure: 1010 mb
    Radius of Circulation: 180 NM
    Radius of Maximum Wind: 10 NM

    The eye is in the Caribbean Sea. Turns northwest.
    Hurricane Jose will meet with the cold front in the Northeast US.
    There will be heavy rainfall.

  6. ren says:

    Maria follows Irma. Beneficial circulation.
    Geomagnetic activity was very high. Now it’s falling.

  7. Gordon Robertson says:

    Good stuff Roy, we need a voice of reason in the current alarmist hysteria. Kudos to you and John Christy for having the courage to stand up in this hostile climate and be people of integrity about it, among the children called alarmists.

  8. Debra A Parent says:

    I used to work for the AWS in the USAF I liked the excitement of being in GUAM @Andersan AFB working as an EMT at the time during a Typhoon. We had to stay in the AF Clinic until we were given the all clear. This base was ready for anything. All buildings made of cinder blocks , cement and extremely sturdy. When it was done no damage and little clean up on our base. Tis was in the 80’s. I can just imaging how they stand up to them now. Technology 1000 tomes better now and prediction easier. Wx is a fun job and the only job you can lie at and not get fired. Go NWS NOAA.

    • Bindidon says:

      I guess you have no friends in Guadeloupe, St Martin etc…

      • Mark Luhman says:

        Bindidon says: “I guess you have no friends in Guadeloupe, St Martin etc” She could very well have friends in those places, but her advice is sound, building for what our climate might present to you where you live only makes sense, what make no sense and is to ignore the realities of the climate of where you live and then expect someone to bail you out afterwards. Oh by the way the climate is always changing after all it very rare to have the same weather day in day out year in year out, decade in decade out century in century out. Oh by the way why were the Romans able to grow non=hybrid grapes in England while they occupied it. No one been able to do it since? Could that have been climate change?

  9. Chris Hanley says:

    H H Lamb found evidence of massively destructive storms in the North Atlantic during the LIA:

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      chris…”H H Lamb found evidence of massively destructive storms in the North Atlantic during the LIA:”

      Global temps were also 1 to 2C below normal and it has warmed since.


  10. ren says:

    It seems that Mary for a long time will remain in the Caribbean Sea.

  11. ren says:

    In the west of the Caribbean Sea there is a visible jetstream loop.

  12. Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

    Some things I do in response to a perceived threat of climate change (which I agree is overhyped):
    – drive a fuel efficient car
    – walk or ride my bike more often
    – eat vegetables in place of red meat

    Dr. Spencer is on a mission. He thinks my motives are not scientifically sound, and such behavior must be stopped at once!

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      What if government officials, insurance companies, etc. were deceived into thinking that Florida’s hurricane threat was increasing? It might spur them into action: stronger infrastructure, tougher regulations against building in flood plains, better planning of relief efforts.

      Is this something we need to prevent?

      • ren says:

        “Does that sound like what you should be worrying about during hurricane season if you live on the Florida coast? Maybe instead you should worry that you chose to live somewhere that will, inevitably, be hit by a hurricane sent by Mother Nature that will be catastrophic with or without the help of humanitys greenhouse gas emissions.”

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          Yes. If I lived in a trailer park near the beach in Florida, I would be more concerned with finding a different residence than my car’s emissions. Is that what you mean?

          If I had an unfounded fear of stronger, more frequent hurricanes, I would want to get away even faster.

      • Ken in Idaho says:

        Sir Isaac – All those items take tax dollars to build/implement. Thus either taxes need to be increased or diverted from other sources to account for the increased costs. Do you want your taxes raised on hype?

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          Our tax dollars will get diverted one way or the other. Better to prevent damage in the first place than to spend billions on recovery.

          “WASHINGTON President Donald Trump signed a $15 billion disaster relief package into law Friday afternoon, just hours after it passed the House with a broad bipartisan majority.”

      • Robert Austin says:

        Sir Isaac,
        So it’s okay to lie to us to achieve these perceived beneficial ends?

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          I think there’s a connection between stronger hurricanes and an increase in GHG’s, but it’s fairly small. The issue tends to get exaggerated by the media and general public, neither of which have a very high science IQ.

          If the result of the “hype” is:

          “stronger infrastructure, tougher regulations against building in flood plains, better planning of relief efforts, less coastal development, etc.”

          Then who cares? I wouldn’t go on a crusade to correct them. The worse problem is apathy and inaction.

      • Bart says:

        When you make a deal with the devil, the devil always wins.

        When you lie for “the greater good”, people eventually discover the lie. Then, they don’t believe anything you say, even if you are right.

        The boy who cries “wolf!” helps make the villagers more responsive. Perhaps goads them into making bells and horns with which to sound the alarm. But, when the lie is discovered, the bells and horns are ignored.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          Lighten up, I never said anything about people lying. When a study says something like, “Average hurricane intensity will increase 10% by 2100 due to AGW”, the details end up getting lost. Eventually it’s just, “global warming is making hurricanes stronger”, and people fill in the blanks.
          The magnitude of the problem gets unintentionally exaggerated.

          With an issue like hurricanes, complacency tends to be the much bigger problem.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Whether it’s the mainstream or dumbstream media, I do my best to look past the headlines and check out the details.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      A vegetarian snake.

      How cute!

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


        Typical. We’re having an important conversation and the best you can do is poke fun at my last name.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          No snake, what I am “poking fun at” is you believing you are “saving the planet” by being a vegetarian. Vegetables take in CO2. If you want to “save the planet”, you should only consume mushrooms. Mushrooms give off CO2.

          Mushrooms are causing the planet to overheat and the oceans to boil!

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


            The carbon footprint for producing a pound of beef is enormous compared to producing the protein equivalent of grains/legumes.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


            Ohhhh…. Now I get it! You think I should forage for wild mushrooms to prevent them from releasing methane/CO2 into the air. Evil little buggers!

            With this in mind, though, I should definitely not support businesses that PRODUCE mushrooms for mass consumption.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            The opposite logic for vegetables: we should support companies that produce them, and avoid eating wild veggies that are busy cleaning the air.

    • Gordon Robertson says:


      drive a fuel efficient car”

      How about driving a gas guzzler less often?

      “walk or ride my bike more often”

      a death wish in modern cities. I’m a skeptic and I walk, leaving my vehicle parked at home until required.

      “eat vegetables in place of red meat”

      you’d die from a diet like that if you did not supplement it with some kind of protein. The protein in vegetables alone is useless.

      Even the protein in soya beans is not great when consumed alone. Soy lacks three essential amino acids, methionine, lysine, and threonine. You need to make them up using complementary proteins.

      Never as simple as you might think.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


        You can rest easy, Gordon. I’ve been a vegetarian for more than 20 years, and if you notice am still alive. Healthier, actually, than most people my age.

        • lewis says:

          What do you consume to get those proteins Gordon refers to?

          Beyond that, the only problem I have with what you recommend is the government regulation.

          It is government which caused a large part of the problem by their interference in the private insurance market. If they would reduce regulation there, the market would adjust, people would find living in flood plains rather expensive, not do it and – voila. Problem solved.

          But government does interfere and the problem becomes worse.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            No market adjustment is necessary. If building permits are not granted for construction in vulnerable, low lying areas, and violators are sufficiently prosecuted, then there would no new construction in those areas.

            A diet that includes roughly 60% grains, 40% legumes gives you plenty of protein.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            To clarify: those are the proportions of grains/legumes necessary to form a complete protein. They obviously don’t need to be 100% of your diet.

    • Ed Caryl says:

      Those are all good things, especially for your health. But will have absolutely no effect on climate.

    • Laura says:

      If you want to be coherent with the example given by “celebrity experts”, you will indeed need to claim to do the things you list.

      Having done that, you will be ready to move on to the important stuff.

      First, you must purchase a private jet that you will then use at least weekly to fly around the world for critical missions such as scuba-diving or skying with teenage models. Ask DiCaprio for tips.

      Of course, you will also need to buy palaces around the world as well as a large yacht with a secondary slave tow to carry your luxury cars and other toys.

      It is also critical that each of your possessions pollutes as much as an average size Ugandan city. Remember, you are saving the world, don’t hold back.

      These few items are just to get you started. For particulars, email Gore. He knows his stuff well.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      “eat vegetables in place of red meat” does nothing to help the environment, lettuce that more energy to produce than beef. Other vegetables that may not be true but a vegan diet does thak more fossils energy to sustain you. Most place we live vegatables cannot grow 365 days a year.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          1. Lamb: 39.2 kg CO2

          Sorry, lamb lovers – eating a kilo of lamb is equivalent to driving about 90 miles! A whopping 50% of lamb in the US is imported, according to the EWG/CleanMetrics report, so some of its carbon footprint comes from shipping. But most of it is produced by the animals’ digestion (aka lamb farts), their feed, manure management and other farm operations.

          2. Beef: 27 kg CO2

          Though not as bad as lamb, beef still has a pretty hefty carbon footprint. Cows produce a lot of methane (a potent greenhouse gas), and also require a lot of water and land, as this Business Insider analysis found.

  13. Steve Case says:

    NOAAs GFDL [Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory]

  14. mickey Prumt says:

    Things are changing.

    Now we are not interested in landfall in the US only, but in Florida only.

  15. Tim Wells says:

    There has been no warming this summer in the UK. Greenland ice sheet at record amounts and the Artic is already gaining. Any ice loss in the Antartica is due to volcanoes going off under the ice. Manipulating data is the only reason there would be global warming.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tim wells…”Manipulating data is the only reason there would be global warming”.

      That and a propensity to believe in catastrophe then produce it as an illusion. Reminds me of the old comic strip, Mandrake the Magician. Mandrake had an ability to hypnotize people and affect their behavior…the same MO as climate alarmists.

      • Tim Wells says:

        I am a Hypnotherapist myself and walked out of a Carbon Management in company in 2006 when I found out warming was a lie. We are seeing mass manipulation of the masses, along the lines of Hitler.

        • lewis says:

          Repeat after me: I do believe….

          Again, the purpose is control of your lives, no other. The rich, de Caprio, Gore, Jolie et al, want to keep the separation between their life style and yours. Now that they’re rich, they don’t want you to become rich.

          It is all politics. Propaganda is the method. Be watchful for Kafka.

    • barry says:

      Greenland ice sheet at record amounts

      Nope. This year saw a record amount of snow dumped on Greenalnd in the instrumental record) and a sluggish melt season. On the Greenland ice sheet – for the first time in the instrumental record, ice mass balance was positive compared to the year before. The ice sheet is nowhere near record amounts (well, it’s near the lowest ever recorded in the instrumental record).

      and the Artic is already gaining

      Sea ice? Yes, every year re-growth usually starts sometime in September. You’re new to this, aren’t you.

      Any ice loss in the Antartica is due to volcanoes going off under the ice.

      Been reading some blogs have we?

      I have no doubt you are a good hypnotherapist.

  16. Nate says:

    I dunno several cat 4s and 5s in a row. Your timing on this book not so good.

    Also does Puerto Rico count?

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Nate admits: “I dunno…”

      Nate, maybe if you studied his book you would know.

    • Elephant in the Room says:

      Hi, Nate. Apparently you haven’t seen NOAA’s report from only a few weeks ago after all. I already shared a link to it, and even mentioned how you would find it interesting and how you seem like a fair guy. Here is the link again.

      NOAA explicitly states that they basically have no confidence in a meaningful trend in neither Atlantic hurricanes, nor global tropical cyclone activity.

      • Elephant in the Room says:

        P.S. NOAA still predicts an increase in intensity according to their models, which the report also covers quite a bit. But again, they see no trend in the real world when comparing recent hurricanes to the historical data.

      • ren says:

        The increase in precipitation does not necessarily involve warming, but with a slower movement of the hurricane. It again depends on the circulation.
        When sun activity is low circulation it slows down. This is the reason why El Nino persists for longer periods of time.

      • Nate says:

        This paper argues there has been a strengthening

        There is consensus that strengthening is expected in a warmer world.

        But no consensus on the data showing this so far.

        But after this season, lets see how the new data changes the record.

        • Elephant in the Room says:

          Thanks for the link. That paper was published in 2005. Meanwhile, a prestigous institute like NOAA is saying that they don’t see a trend in 2017.

          I know that age shouldn’t automatically detract from the paper, but I still found that worth pointing out.

          And I doubt that one season is going to make that much of a difference and suddenly show a trend, despite all the Category fours and fives. A lot of these climate projections are supposed to be happening in a gradual trend. Not that we see a very active season and that suddenly becomes the new normal from that point forward.

          Even if NOAA’s models are correct, and a 2-11% increase occurs by the end of the century, it may still take decades for that to emerge from the noise.

          • Nate says:


            Looked at Wikipedia on cat5s.

            Have been 33 recorded, all sinc 1924.

            11 in first 37 y

            11 in next 42 y

            11 in last 15 y.

            Note last 22 in satellite era.

      • barry says:


        The NOAA page on hurricanes says this:

        Hurricane landfalling frequency is much less common than basin-wide occurrence, meaning that the U.S. landfalling hurricane record, while more reliable than the basin-wide record, suffers from degraded signal-to-noise characteristics for assessing trends.

        Too late now, but that caveat could have accompanied Roy’s Florida trend graph, which has even less data and more “degraded signal-to-noise characteristics. But his ‘science’ isn’t neutral on hurricanes.

        Worldwide, the data is too noisy to assess many of the trend categories (intensity, frequency etc). Some basins show statistically significant trends, although these also should be caveated based on the global record.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…”I dunno several cat 4s and 5s in a row. Your timing on this book not so good”.

      Weather tends to be variable. The planet has been cooling since Feb 2012 when the 2016 EN peaked so it can’t be due to global warming if that’s what you are insinuating.

    • Robert Austin says:


      You along with the media have a short memory. Already forgotten in the latest hype is the recent record drought in US land-falling hurricanes.

      • Nate says:

        Why is land falling in US important to understanding hurricane science? America First?

        Seriously restricting to land-falling just reduces the stats to make them almost useless.

      • Nate says:

        ‘drought in US land-falling’

        Hurricanes go thru cycles I believe associated with AMO and PDO. These cycles apparently have not ended.

  17. David Appell says:

    What is the R^2 for the linear fit in the graph? It doesn’t look convincing with such widely scattered data. Just because it’s easy to do a linear fit doesn’t mean you should.

    Also, the relevant question isn’t so much whether AGW is causing more hurricanes, it’s whether it’s now making existing hurricanes worse. With sea level rise and higher ocean SSTs, it’s hard to argue it is not.

    These data do show statistically significant (2-sigma) increases in the Atlantic basin since 1970:

    Named storms: +1.6/decade
    hurricanes: +0.6/decade
    major hurricanes: +0.5/decade
    ACE: +16/decade

    Finally, from the IPCC 5AR:

    “Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”

    – IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 sec 14.6.3 p.1252

    • David Appell says:

      Also, max-sustained winds aren’t a good measure of a hurricane’s destructive capability, because the latter also depends on the size of a storm. ACE doesn’t do that, but the Hurricane Severity Index does, and uses the square of the maximum velocities instead. That would be an interesting graph to see.

    • Ken in Idaho says:

      It doesn’t matter as much to “weather” Hurricanes are worse, but more to WHERE they hit and HOW long they hit as prolonged storm surge and rainfall totals are a bigger factor than peak wind gusts in terms of damage and danger to life and as Dr. Roy always points out, when they make landfall at large populations centers seems to have an impact on damage totals $.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”What is the R^2 for the linear fit in the graph? It doesnt look convincing with such widely scattered data. Just because its easy to do a linear fit doesnt mean you should”.

      Why don’t you apply that same statistical logic to the UAH 0.12C/decade trend often quoted by alarmists as meaning the trend applies to anthropogenic global warming? Why have you suddenly become so persnickety over a linear fit that basically applies when you support a linear fit that has little to do with anthropogenic warming?

      That’s the main argument I have against your convenient logic: when it aids your alarmist philosophy you are all for it, but when it works against your philosophy you pretend it’s not there.

    • David Appell says:

      I used these data for Florida major hurricanes:

      and found that since 1900 the trend in v_max is slightly positive, 0.4 mph/decade, but the Pearson coefficient R^2 = 0.006. Similar zero correlation for v_max^2.

      Starting in 1950 though, the trend in v_max = 1.2 mph/decade and R^2 = 0.13. The trend in v_max^2 = 294 mph^2/decade with R^2 = 0.11.

  18. Mike Nelson says:

    Dr Spencer

    Looks like a great read. I saw the posting on Wattsupwiththat which included the Amazon summary and noted a typo in the last sentence which reads:

    …and it will happen with our without carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use.

    Obviously you meant with “or” without. A trivial nit, but any excuse suffices for the alarmists to try and discredit you.

    Keep up the great work,


  19. Mike Nelson says:

    Wanted to add a question. So what will happen 50 years from now if we follow the progressive agenda to an all electric transportation infrastructure and 5M+ people need to evacuate Florida again?

    It seems to me this would have been a massive disaster during Irma and that a better use of our resources would be on more stringent zoning and building codes in hurricane prone regions.

    • David Appell says:

      Ironically, there were plenty of charging stations for those evacuating FL. The big problem was a lack of available gas stations.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Ironically, it takes 3-10 hrs to charge an “empty” electric.

        • Harry Cummings says:

          Plenty of charging stations ????. Each car takes hrs to charge imagine the queues, traffic chaos . It would be quicker to walk.


          • David Appell says:

            “Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two adjacent cars, with a maximum of 120 kW per car. That is up to 16 times as fast as public charging stations; they take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%.”


          • David Appell says:

            “Hurricane Irma triggers gas shortages as panicking Florida motorists evacuate,” USA Today 9/8/17

          • David Appell says:

            “Tesla owners said lines for the companys roadside Supercharger charging network were uncommon over the weekend. Drivers said they were worried about reliability of the Florida electrical grid during the hurricane.

            “But at least they could avoid gas stations, which ran out of fuel so quickly and often that police officers had to guard some locations.”

            – NY Times, 9/11/17

          • David Appell says:

            “Tesla drivers in Florida got an unexpected assist this weekend as they scrambled to evade Hurricane Irma.

            “Owners of certain Model S sedans and Model X S.U.V.s noticed that the battery capacity of their electric cars had increased, giving them as much as 40 extra miles of range to outrun the deluge. Range anxiety the fear that an electric vehicle will run out of charge before reaching its destination can be magnified in emergency situations.

            “Tesla confirmed that it had remotely enabled a free software upgrade for vehicles in the path of the storm, motivated by one customer who requested the change while making evacuation plans.”

            NY Times, 9/11/17

          • lewis says:

            Yes, the rich who drive Tesla’s got off easy. Most people are not so rich. Yet, if they depend on the grid, a good blow will put them out as well. And, if everyone drove an electric, where would that put them all? Enough stations? Probably not. Stations are built, as roads are, for normal consumption – not the consumption of a crisis.

            The example is not a very good one.

          • David Appell says:

            EVs are a new technology. Like all new technologies, its prices are high in the beginning and drop over time. For example, here’s the sharp downward trend in battery prices ($/kWh):


            Tesla, of course, plans to build more charging stations to meet demand:

            “As of April 2017, Tesla plans to expand from approximately 9,000 charging stations to 15,000 during 2017, in advance of the Model 3 rollout which they expect to put significant additional demand for use of the facilities.”

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis wrote:
            “Stations are built, as roads are, for normal consumption not the consumption of a crisis.”

            That holds for gas stations as well. And as we saw, they were very stressed during the pre-Irma evacuation.

          • Mark Luhman says:

            “Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two adjacent cars, with a maximum of 120 kW per car. That is up to 16 times as fast as public charging stations; they take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%.”

            David this is pure BS the cables to carry that amount of current alone from the station to the car would have to weigh over a hundred pounds. The transformers and infrastructure to support such a charging system would support a small city block of house with power to spare. A home with a 200 AMP service would have to consume all 200 amps for and hour to consume 24KW I can assure the line to the house would melt. The grid is not design to hand that kind of load at those rates. Oh by the way a 10 cent a kilowatt hour that two dollars and forty cents for that amount of power and and that about 1/5 the electricity need to charge at a rate of 120KW, next how do you get 145KW to furnish 240KW of power to two cars, Also a KW means nothing is a Kilowatt second, minute or hour. I would assume hour after most Electric cars store about 30 KWH of power in their batteries, fast charging also generates lots of heat and shortens the life of a battery not design to take it.

  20. Joz Jonlin says:

    Well, I purchased your last book when it was published, just to support you. I’ve done the same with this book. Thanks for putting these together.

    As an aside, my 10th great grandfather arrived in Massachusetts from England in 1635. I’m not sure if he arrived before or after this major hurricane, but had he been on the ocean at the same time, it’s likely I wouldn’t be here today. I can’t even imagine what people back then thought about major hurricanes.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Holy sh*#! Maria’s central pressure has dropped to 909 mb. If I recall, Irma bottomed out at 916 mb

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        If you ranked Atlantic hurricanes in terms of lowest barometric pressure, Maria is now 10th strongest ever recorded.

        • Mark Luhman says:

          “If you ranked Atlantic hurricanes in terms of lowest barometric pressure, Maria is now 10th strongest ever recorded.”

          Yes Maria is now the 10th strongest ever recorded! That statement is true but has no real meaning. First of all how was it measured, remotely by buoy, by plane or going over land with something to record the low. First of all we been measuring them for a very short time and the first two measuring methods are very new. How a hurricane acts out in the open ocean and it measurement there cannot be applied to the old storms, the old storms were virtually unknown until they hit land. Anyone with a half of brain should understand Hurricane wind speed can no longer be used as a measure anymore since doppler radar allow us to have a clear view of what the winds are doing in the storm that metric is deceptive as to what the true strength of past storms pre doppler are since back then we relied on land air and buoy measurements and not a continuous record of speeds like we have now with doppler radar. It never cease to amaze me how people have such a shallow understand of variables and how they affect everything and often not considering them lead people into false assumptions. Again the true statement is If you ranked Atlantic hurricanes in terms of lowest barometric pressure, Maria is now 10th strongest ever recorded which may only be due to modern methods and equipment.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


            I’m not making any assumptions about past hurricanes. They could have been way worse, who knows. My question to you is: was their barometric pressure measured and recorded?

            Among the storms that you would answer that question with a “yes”, Maria was the strongest.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Oops….I meant to say, “10th strongest”.

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes Sir Isaac. I got a mail from Guadeloupe today, no fun there.

  21. kyle_fouro says:

    Dr Spencer,

    I bought your ebook in support of your dedication and work. Thank you.

  22. The hurricane prediction was that hurricane intensity would increase. Which it has. See, for instance:

    Youtube: “11. Climate Change — Hurricanes, atolls and coral”
    Youtube: “What We KNOW About Climate Change – Kerry Emanuel” from 37:54 – 38:58

    To repeat myself: the prediction was one of *increased hurricane intensity, and decreased hurricane frequency*, resulting from increased wind shear (from global warming) limiting hurricane formation:

    “Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment”
    “The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate”
    “Simulated Increase of Hurricane Intensities in a CO2-Warmed Climate”
    “Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions”
    “Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming”

    “Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes
    The model projects nearly a doubling of the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century, despite a decrease in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones […]”

    “Observed and projected decrease in Northern Hemisphere extratropical cyclone activity in summer and its impacts on maximum temperature
    Climate models project a decrease in summer cyclone activity, but the observed decreasing rate is near the fastest projected.”

    “Intense tropical cyclone activities in the northern Indian Ocean
    Over these 3 months, the vertical wind shear is too strong to allow a significant intensification of storms.”

    There’s some research suggesting that anthropogenic climate change has not significantly affected total hurricane frequency, but has augmented hurricane intensity:

    “Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change”

    This paper suggests that anthropogenic forcing has augmented hurricane frequency, intensity, and cost incurred from the hurricanes:

    “Economic losses from US hurricanes consistent with an influence from climate change”

    This paper compares the data to results in models:

    Knutson et al. 2010: “Tropical cyclones and climate change”

    And this review discusses increased hurricane intensity in various regions of the world:

    Walsh et al. 2016:
    “Tropical cyclones and climate change
    For example, a summary of trends in the lifetime maximum intensity of TCTCs [tropical cyclones] in various ocean basins is shown in Figure 1, for the period 1989–2009. Globally, there are modest significant trends in this quantity (at the 90% level), but individual basins have greater significance.”

  23. Harry Cumming says:

    How many tesla cars in Florida how many petrol/desiel …….. 20 min in an emergency
    What a joke

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Harry says:

      “How many tesla cars in Florida how many petrol/desiel .. 20 min in an emergency
      What a joke”

      This line of reasoning is overlooking a crucial difference between electric and gas. If you own a Tesla, you have a filling station in your own garage.

      • David Appell says:

        Good point. Tesla’s cars likely start from home with a full charge. Gasoline powered cars rarely do.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:


          And while a Tesla owner is at home charging his car, other Tesla owners don’t have to wait in line for him to finish. The math is simple:

          -12 gas cars need to get their tanks filled, only one pump is available.
          – assuming this will take each car 5 minutes, it will take an hour for all the cars to fill up.

          If it takes a Tesla 20 minutes to charge: 12 Tesla’s, 12 garages….all get charged in 20 minutes.

          • Bindidon says:

            That’s OK, Sir Isaac, but…

            – Aren’t the batteries made out of lithium? How much do we still have of that poor guy in total on Earth?

            – If lithium comes to end: with what will we breed the inexistent tritium in fusion reactors, needed for the tritium/deuterium mix?


            – A small middle class car with an electric engine needs about 400 W/km.

            – Let us take a small average car use of about 30,000 km per year.

            Thus you need either
            – photovoltaic local supply for 12,000 KWh/year/owner plus batteries again, or
            – globally per million of car owners 12 TWh per year, that means either
            — 2 plants of 1 GWel each with 75% load factor, or
            — a field of 400 windmills of 10 MW each with 35% load factor.

            Good grief!

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Really smart engineers, like Bindidon, will get past the obstacles you mention.

          • Bindidon says:

            Merci beaucoup.

  24. ren says:

    The eye of Hurricane Maria goes to the center of Puerto Rico. Current data.
    LOCATION…17.6N 65.1W

  25. ren says:

    In my opinion, the earthquakes in Mexico are the result of recent strong geomagnetic storms. They are especially dangerous when they are preceded by very low solar activity.

    • lewis says:

      That’s a curious thought. How does that relate to plate tectonics? Wouldn’t the plate have to be under pressure to give for there to be anything to influence?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        lewis…”Thats a curious thought. How does that relate to plate tectonics? Wouldnt the plate have to be under pressure to give for there to be anything to influence?”

        Lewis…plate tectonics is a theory, no one has ever proved there is such continental motion. If you dig through Google you will find well-written critiques of the theory and other explanations for what plate tectonics tries to explain.

        I studied plate tectonics as continental drift theory many years ago in a geology course. It all sounded well thought out at the time but there are other theories related to the gravitational effect of the Sun and Moon on the planet that draws it into a shape like pumpkin. Those theories explain Earthquakes better than plate tectonics.

  26. ren says:

    Hurricane Maria can be a threat to Florida because the jet stream pushing lightly on the Atlantic.
    Hurricane Maria can be a threat to Florida because the jet stream pushing lightly on the Atlantic.

  27. ren says:

    Puerto Rico is devastated by the hurricane. We hope that everyone managed to take refuge.

  28. barry says:

    It baffles me that Roy is trying to make any claim/anti-claim about global anything while focusing exclusively on what happens along a fraction of the coastline of one country.

    And the title is the kind of schlock header that makes the eyes roll. Global warming doesn’t cause hurricanes, FFS. No one says it does.

  29. ren says:

    Solar activity decreases and the jet stream in the Pacific and Atlantic is weaker. This is a warning for Florida. Circulation slows down.

  30. Bart says:

    The cultists are really shooting themselves in the foot with overhyping hurricane events. Everyone knows hurricanes happen, and it just exposes their zealotry.

  31. trumpt blast says:

    Hey Nate prove that the alrmist view of climate change is real ! First is the fable of too much carbon !! Yet no one has proven carbon was the real reason for Venus being so hot it could be the lack of water and plant life plus a very hot core with an active volcanic surface that is constntly blowing sulfieds into the atmosphere !! But then most explorer systems ever sent to Venus found sulfied clouds and high pressure atmosphere that destroyed the instrument Packages the were dropped into that soup so tigers only radar and inferred imaging that was collected and yet they blame greenhouse gases and try to scare us that it can happen here !! And you fall for it like a mouse taking some cheese from a piece of harmless wood !! Here on the earth we have a vast amount of veggitation to absorb the exsess carbon and make oxygen and sugars !!

Leave a Reply to ren