No Hurricanes Have Hit The US For 843 Days, But The Hurricanes We Aren’t Having Would Have Been Very Destructive

and modelling
predict that hurricane intensity should
increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on
the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focusedmostly on
their frequency
and shows no trend.Here I define an index of the
potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show
that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This
trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm
intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature,
reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multidecadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and
global warming. My results suggest that future warming may
lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential,
and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—
a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-
first century

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to No Hurricanes Have Hit The US For 843 Days, But The Hurricanes We Aren’t Having Would Have Been Very Destructive

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    The US is not the only place where hurricanes happen.
    ” the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was well above-average with the most number of named storms since 2005. The 2010 Atlantic season ties with the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season and the 1887 Atlantic hurricane season for the third largest number of named storms, with 19, and it also ties with the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season and 1887 for the second largest number of hurricanes, with 12.[2]”

    • I’ll go name all the snow crystals in my yard.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Tony Duncan

      Thanks for talking a lot but not saying anything.

      So if hurricanes are getting worse why aren’t they getting worse?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Is it at ALL possible for you not to read what I actually write?

        Sorry. it seems that my last comment did not get posted. I sad it was an interesting article. It seems quite reasonable. Although it is form a government agency.

        So, assuming the paper is accurate, that is a good point.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Ya Tony, no one reads your comments before they reply.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        So your point was what? Hurricanes are as bad as they were 123 years ago at the tail end of the Little Ice Age? And how did they measure the amount of hurricanes then? By satellite? So the amount they could count was obviously less than could be counted in 2010. So it follows there were more in 1887 than 2010, not tied.

        So your point was what?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Oh, Tony Duncan so funny. He has no life so he comes here and tries to annoy people.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        You are really are amazing.
        can’t even allow me to more or less agree.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        You changed what you said from the first comment to the second. It’s not funny Tony.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        WHEN are you going to read what I write? I did not change my comment. I made one comment that said one thing. Steve responded with actual relevant article from a real scientist, and I read the article and it made sense. As does the Pielke post.
        the number of Atlantic hurricanes did not change in the intervening minutes. the fact remains that the number of hurricanes hitting US shores has nothing to do one way or the other with ACC.
        the other issues in the articles DO have relevance however.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Ya, again, nobody reads what you say.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        The number of hurricanes is down. It looks like it is you that is not reading comments.

        So with the number of hurricanes being down what is your point?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Tony Duncan says:
        January 5, 2011 at 4:52 am

        the number of hurricanes hitting US shores has nothing to do one way or the other with ACC.

        You better have a talk with Al Gore then. In fact, you better have a talk with all the global warmers who blamed Katrina on “global warming”. And that would be all of them—oh, except for you, correct?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Tony Duncan……….. Tony Duncan………..

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        You must have went to bed. I’ll check tomorrow.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        I waited, no reply.

    • mt says:

      Tony, you’re correct, the US is not the only place hurricanes happen.

      “Even with the expected active 2010 North Atlantic hurricane season, which accounts on average for about 1/5 of global annual hurricane output, the rest of the global tropics has been historically quiet. The Western North Pacific in 2010 had 8-Typhoons, the fewest in at least 65-years of records. Closer to the US mainland, the Eastern North Pacific off the coast of Mexico out to Hawaii uncorked a grand total of 8 tropical storms of which 3 became hurricanes, the fewest number of hurricanes since at least 1970. Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Energy (ACE) remain at decades-low levels.”

      The Emmanual paper was written in Jan 2005. After the 05 season, hurricane activity significantly decreased.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Tony D,

      What about the Pacific,Indian,Arctic and Southern oceans? Did much happen there?

      Many of the hurricanes were very short lived.They spent most of their time as tropical storms.

      Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy charts reveals that Hurricane/Tropical storms for year 2010 are actually below average,well below average.

    • Sundance says:

      On track to be the lowest typhoon count in the Northwest Pacific and the South China Sea.

      ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) levels are weak:

      courtesey of Dr. Maue

      The nul hypothesis would be that there is no link between CO2 and hurricanes and that looks to be the case.

  2. Layne Blanchard says:

    The Title of this post is hysterical. 🙂

  3. Mike Davis says:

    Anything before satellites is a Wild A Guess. It seems that much before the last 15 years is probably questionable also. Best estimate is NO TREND is being observed in either number or strength of Hurricanes. However Globally there has been a reduction in the number and strength of tropical cyclones.
    The major increase in storms last year was FISH storms!

  4. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Ya but, Tony Duncan brought up 1887 and 1969. Satellites worked just fine back then. Quit you skepticism.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      I did NOT bring up 1887 and 1969. they were in the quote I used , which, as I explained, was the first hit I got when checking on hurricanes.
      I had no clue how many hurricanes there were are or will be. My point had nothing to do with that. if Steve’s post had said. World hurricanes at near record lows, i would not have posted anything. i might have checked a source seen he was correct and that would have been it. His post said that hurricanes had not hit the US. it is a meaningless post. and that was what i was responding top , which is often what I respond to on steve’s blog.

      and I am sorry for not getting timely responses to all your requests. I am in the midst of a major financial/medical emergency with my father, and I had over 30 comments from different places, many directed at me. Just no time to deal with all of it.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        i would not have posted anything

        you should anyway. regardless of the truth (and this blog is true as far as it goes), you are not arguing he is incorrect, but that he is being too narrow. So even when correct, you can then argue he should broaden his scope to get a more meaningful trend, or to make a larger point.

  5. intrepid_wanders says:

    Tony Duncan,

    When you are done “playing” with your unique form of humor, you might want to check back with Joe Romm and see how he is doing.

    Other parts of the world seem to be experience the same frequency and destruction of lack of hurricanes…

    Unless you can provide some good evidence to Amino and the rest of us of this “steam-powered” satellite, we can only assume than you are having the same cold winter… 😉

    • Tony Duncan says:


      It is good to know that I get attacked whether I agree or disagree.
      You guys don’t discriminate based on reality.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Attack? You have to get over your persecution complex.

      • truthsword says:

        Awww Tony don’t worry, we are all used to you not saying anything that makes sense. I for one, am glad you read something sensible and found it to be reasonable. Another point in named storms is that there has been a lot of going back and forth of changing the rules in naming subtropical storms. Right now they get named with the tropical list. They didn’t always. Sometimes they got numbers, then they got their own name list, and now, thanks to the AGW need to inflate numbers, they get tropical storm names.

      • suyts says:

        lol, Tony it isn’t you personally. But come on, maybe you haven’t been present when this was hashed or rehashed, or maybe you haven’t thought about it much, but bringing up the 1887 hurricane year simply invites antagonism.

        Now, I’ve got to ask you, when you received the information that 2010 had as many hurricanes as 1887, was the satellite angle ever mentioned? Any disclaimer put out? If it was mentioned and you knowingly put that out, stop it. It doesn’t fool anyone here. But,if not, you really have to consider why it wasn’t. Personally, I don’t believe you attempt to intentionally mislead anyone, so I’m betting you read a nice little alarmist piece and put it away to bring out some time. If you really consider what I’m saying, you should start become a full fledged skeptic real soon.

      • sunsettommy says:


        you tried to contradict the post headline,with your narrow minded first comment drivel.You failed ,and that is why be pick on you.

        It is obvious that you forgot about the OTHER four oceans out there.They were all below average.

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    not possible to respond to all the love I am getting here.

    I am still quite impressed with how much people know about my thoughts beliefs and attitudes based on their projections.
    I don’t know if anyone noticed but the topic of the post was that no hurricanes have hit the US. As I said in my last comment that has nothing to do with ACC.
    the quote I used just pointed out that there was no dearth of hurricanes in the Atlantic. All this tea leaf reading about 1887 is a fascinating exercise in profiling, but it has nothing to do with anything related to my comment.

    there was nothing in my comment that made any claims about the relation of hurricanes to ACC. I looked up atlantic hurricanes and pulled the the first thing that came up. I was just pointing out Steve’s typical irrelevant posting.
    He then posted something relevant, as did a few other people. When people post relevant concrete information I assess it as well as I can considering my lack of expertise.
    It is fun getting so much attention for being completely misconstrued however, especially in this case

    • suyts says:

      Tony, for some help with Steve’s headlines, look up the word irreverent. I think you confusing it with irrelevant.

      Nice act, BTW.

      Much love, [[fist bump]]


  7. Steve Koch says:

    I have to give Tony props for being polite and for making a good living as a juggler. Here is a link of Tony and his pretty assistant juggling:

  8. It makes sense to me, less energy from the sun, there for less energy for storms to pick up speed to become major hurricanes.
    Where’s all this so called “catastrophic Global warming”? and all the major storms it was meant to cause?

    Even tho the Uk Met office was predicting all the “CAGW” to the public for the “climate change” (on behalf of big Oil & energy people) they are now telling the BBC that they with withheld accurate forecasts because they got so much public ridicule about their “barbecue summers” & milder winters, Does anyone else find this sinister and fraudulent?

  9. Paul Pierett says:


    Hurricane activity is based on sunspot activity.

    See my work at
    Oct. 2009 Newsletter under my name.


    Paul Pierett

  10. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    January 5, 2011 at 5:40 am
    not possible to respond to all the love I am getting here.

    You are a trooper.

    I am still quite impressed with how much people know about my thoughts beliefs and attitudes based on their projections.

    But again, I read responses, not divinations to your posts.

  11. villabolo says:

    Climate Solipsism

    There once was a little child,
    Who thought his backyard was the whole world.
    If it was raining in his backyard,
    Then surely, it must be raining at the South Pole.
    If it was snowing in his backyard,
    Then it was obviously snowing in a place called Hawaii.
    Then that little child ‘grew up’.
    Yet he still lived in his backyard.
    Only difference was that his backyard had gotten bigger.
    It had become the whole United States.
    So when it was snowing in the United States,
    It was obviously snowing in Brazil.
    And when there were no hurricanes in the United States,
    Well, what did the rest of the world matter? . . .

    • Mike Davis says:

      A weather event in New Orleans is related to global Climate?
      A weather event in Pakistan is related to global climate?
      A geologic even in Haiti is related to global climate?
      Natural regional weather patterns are caused by Humans?
      BTW The rest of the world had the lowest Hurricane activity in the history of hurricane monitoring.
      Talk about Myopia. Your statement shoes you are describing your narrow mindedness.
      Excess snow was caused by cold in the 70s and now excess snow is caused by warming! Must be the new science!

      • villabolo says:

        First, the big picture. In the winter of 2009/2010 (Northern Hemisphere) 15% of the Earth was colder than usual while the other 85% was much hotter. Like today, there was, not a global cooling, but an exchange of energy from the Arctic to areas immediately south.

        For the second time we have an unusually strong Negative Arctic Oscillation which can be easily described as follows.

        Instead of giving some of its cold temperatures, as it usually does, the Arctic region simply spills its frigid guts southward. From the US to Europe, Russia, Siberia, China to parts of Canada and back to the US while the Arctic itself sucked in warm air from the south making it 10 degrees warmer than normal.

        A mere exchange of cold, not a net cooling.

        Second, the realization that snow is precipitation. Precipitation is caused by humidity, not temperature per se. But the undisciplined and ignorant mind magically thinks that more snow has to be caused by colder temperatures. Really? It could be -40F without a cloud in the sky. +28F (68 degrees warmer)could give us a ton of snow.

        Since humidity is what causes increased precipitation, rain or snow, the next step is to ask what causes increased precipitation. The answer is increased evaporation.

        And what causes increased evaporation, the uninquisitive mind may not want to know? Warmer oceans.

        Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s