US Major Hurricane Strikes Peaked In The 1950s – Now At An All-Time Record Low

In the 1950’s the US averaged about one major hurricane strike per year. Now we average zero per year.

ScreenHunter_2303 Aug. 25 10.28

HURDAT Re-analysis Chronological List of All Hurricanes

About stevengoddard

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

20 Responses to US Major Hurricane Strikes Peaked In The 1950s – Now At An All-Time Record Low

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Maybe the hurricanes are hiding at the bottom of the ocean playing poker with the missing heat.

  2. rachase says:

    The same is true of tornados (the US is at a low point with respect to both frequency and severity) but nothing like facts seem to bother the AGW folks (scientists, politicians, and their sock puppet media) who quiclkly ascribe the cause of each new event as climate change (aka CO2 global warming).

  3. philjourdan says:

    Around here, the mid 00s was not so hot either. But since then, we have gotten some rain, but nothing more.

  4. Zebo says:

    I blame the Rockefeller -foundation .
    They can throw away billions to promote the co2 hoax
    but are not able to create a dozen hurricanes.

    Btw- I’m no climate expert,but i know:
    The warmer it is,
    The more energy is inside a system(eg world-climate)
    The more energy inside a system
    The more turbulences(eg. hurricanes) will occur

    The less hurricanes,the less energy is inside the system.

  5. They said that the global climate would change dramatically. Perhaps they were right, but got the direction wrong.

  6. tom0mason says:

    Oh no a catastrophic hurricane pause, the hurricanes and tropical storms, like the heat are hiding in the deep ocean, from where they will emerge sometime in the future and …..
    🙂

  7. Andy DC says:

    Florida had major hurricane strikes in 1944, 1945, 1947, 1949 and 1950. The last nine years, zilch.

  8. Dave N says:

    Some alarmists said (since they tend to contradict each other, and themselves, regularly) that there’d be fewer hurricanes, but more intense. Zero is fewer, and I guess when you multiply zero by any intensity you still come up with zero.

    Please send me my grant (or big oil) money now.

  9. hunter says:

    Interesting. What does a 10, 20 and 30 year moving average look like? I ask because the accusation by our catastrophic obsessed friends will be that 9 years is cherry picking. I ask about 30 years because that is actually close to a climatically significant period of time.

    • mjc says:

      30/4,500,000,000 is significant?

      or

      30/1,000,000?

      or 30/100,000?

      or, even, 30/10,000?

      • hunter says:

        >sigh<, 30 years, prior to the age of cliamte madness, was considered to be the minimum time frame for a climatically significant period of time.
        The other time frames were suggested as means to dispense with the "cherry picking" accusations of the climate kooks.

        • mjc says:

          The 30 yr record being significant was basically determined back in the late 1800s/early 1900s not on any real analysis that it was so, but rather based on ‘it’s what we have’. Climate being weather over time and climatology being the study of climate, some sort of ‘standard’ needed to be set as to what time period that meant. That turned out for the most part to be 35 yrs (average length of a Bruckner cycle…). That fit nicely with ‘standardized’ record keeping that was developing in the 1860s/70s. 1879 is often recognized as being the start of ‘modern’ weather records, by the 1940s two cycles would have been recorded.

          One of the key components to ‘climate’, as defined in textbooks of climatology, in the 1940’s onward, is that climate is the summation of weather conditions in historical times, based on a record period of ‘what we have’ (about 35 yrs)*. It was also based on the notion that climate changes occur on very long, millenial or longer, timescales; that glacial/interglacial periods took many millenia to develop, in each direction. And that the sun was much less variable.

          *Bruckner published his work in the 1890s.

        • mjc says:

          Oops…left out a paragraph.

          So, for a long time 35 yrs was the ‘climate period’ not 30. And the idea was to extend it, as time went foreward and the records progressed. 30 yrs is the climate kooks ‘cherry pick’ because it falls outside most of the cylces (11, 22, 35 (some argument for Bruckner cycles being 33 yrs exists) and so on.

        • hunter says:

          mjc,
          That info on the 30-33-35 year period is interesting. My request to our host, if I may be so bold to ask, is to show this study in the time frames that the climate obsessed can not dismiss as easily as 9 years. In a business setting, that would be called ‘comparing apples to apples’. I happen to firmly believe that our climate is not doing much of anything in a historical context. Only in the world of hysteria could a perfectly normal set of weather events be conflated into evidence of a world wide catastrophe.

    • Follow the linkie, the data begins in 1851, so you’re looking at 162 years of data. The nine years is an averaging window – start in 1851, take that year + the next 8 years, average the intensity and come up with a number. Move on to 1852, and repeat until you’ve gotten to 2013.

      I’m a little rusty on the reason for 9 years, but probably to smooth out decadal influences.

      And yeah, that looks pretty significant to me.

  10. Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

    After the really bad 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, I found out my insurance company wouldn’t write anymore policies in my area. They were defending against losses due to global warming induced hurricanes. A few years ago, they started writing policies again after finding out their assumed future weather didn’t come to fruition. My agent explained they gave up a lot of business within the period they refused to underwrite.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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