The report just published in the journal Nature Geoscience also found that the increase in tropical storm activity the planet has seen since 1995 is part of a natural cycle completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
These revelations represent another serious crack in the claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and therefore seem quite unlikely to be reported by American media that have been largely ignoring all the errors that have been found recently in key IPCC documents.
As is typical, this bombshell was uncovered by a British publication, the Sunday Times (h/t Ed Morrissey):
Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.
The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.
It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.
The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.
The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.
After supplying readers with the important background concerning this matter, the Times presented the facts:
However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.
It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.
Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.
It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms do occur they could get slightly stronger, with average windspeeds rising by 2-11% by 2100. A storm is termed a hurricane when wind speeds exceed 74mph, but most are much stronger. A category 4 or 5 hurricane such as Katrina generates speeds in excess of 150mph.
“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.
He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading".
Fascinating.
As I have suggested in the past, it was indeed Hurricane Katrina and the insistence by Gore and his sycophant devotees that it was caused by global warming that helped to generate a nationwide hysteria concerning this issue.
As Ed Morrissey noted Monday:
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists insisted that the stronger storm systems resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making hurricanes increasingly more severe. These claims made their way into the UN’s IPCC report and have been a staple of AGW arguments for immediate and drastic action to limit energy production as part of the “settled science” attempt to shut down debate.
Now, less than five years after Katrina, some of the world's top hurricane experts say Gore and the IPCC's assertion was false.
What makes this study even more fascinating is that the scientists involved were not just global warming skeptics. As the Times reported:
Led by Thomas Knutson, a renowned hurricane researcher at Princeton University, the group also included Landsea and Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology at MIT. Kerry was a leading proponent of the idea that global warming meant more severe hurricanes.
Julian Heming, an expert in tropical storms at the Met Office, said: “Several of the authors have clashed in the past so the fact that they have co-authored this paper shows they have been prepared to adjust their stance on the basis of the recent research. ”
The only question remaining is whether the IPCC will adjust its stance.
Maybe just as important, will American media report this stunning finding, or will they continue to hide from the public revelations that go counter to their agenda?
Stay tuned.
Readers are advised that skeptics don't deny the planet's average temperature has increased since 1850, and therefore shouldn't view this study as supporting the theory of manmade global warming. At issue is not whether the globe has warmed but instead what the causes for that warming are as well as the consequences. This distinction also seems lost on agenda-driven media members.
