🧵
Happy Monday
I'm going to let you in on a secret
It is out in the open but I doubt you've heard about it
Th most recent CMIP6 modeling studies of tropical cyclones/hurricanes project no detectable changes in storm metrics most associated with damage ... under RCP8.5 ... 1/n
Kreusseler et al GRL look at "integrated kinetic energy" (IKE) as a metric of potential damage and in model projections find "no significant changes in lifetime maximum IKE between present climate conditions and a projected climate scenario" agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
Very important
Kreussler et al support Klotzbach et al 2020:
"minimum in MSLP seems to be a better predictor of IKE in HR than the max wind speed, which tends to support the use of central pressure deficit as a better proxy than max surface winds to estimate TC damage"
Kreussler et al provides additional confirmatory evidence of the robustness of the normalization methods most recently applied in Weinkle et al 2018 for hurricane damage 1900-2017 nature.com/articles/s4189…
Even under "enhanced signal" of RCP8.5 Roberts et al are unable to detect in projections meaningful changes to TC behavior (only a few hints of small changes)
This passive voice construction made me laugh out loud:
"the relatively short reliable historical record may also be conflating multidecadal variability and climate change signals"
I can say authoritatively that it is not the historical record doing any conflating 😎
Bottom line
On hurricanes . . .
The long-term historical record doesn't support claims of detection of a climate change signal
Most recent, state-of-the art models don't support claims we should now or soon be seeing such signals
Feel free to accept or deny the evidence
/END
PS. None of this argues against any climate policies
I support net-zero by 2050
But what it does mean is that if you are using hurricanes to try to sell climate policies (looking at you @ClimateEnvoy) then you are risking your claim to be well-grounded in evidence and science
PPS
Despite evidence & research the weight of conventional wisdom is heavy
Compare this group of NOAA GFDL authors who say at one place that climate change "probably" increasing intensity (L) & elsewhere it is "premature to conclude with high confidence" (R)
Confusing? Yeah🤷♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A time series of base (i.e., current-year) loses was first compiled from annual reports published in the Monthly Weather Review by Chris Landsea in 1989 for 1949-1989
I extended the data using same methods to 1996
Chris and I extended back to 1900 for Pielke and Landsea 1998
Then, Pielke et al. 2008 extend the dataset to 2005, again using the same methods
The heavy lifting was done by my then-student Joel Gratz
Joel graduated and went to an insurance company called ICAT . . .
Last month I revealed based on files part of the public record of the Michael Mann trial how Mann coordinated peer review of a paper of mine to ensure that it "would not see the light of day"
I only had a snippet of the relevant Mann email
Now I have the whole thing
And JFC...
First
New: the editor of GRL, Jay Familigetti, originally sent our submission to Mann!
That's right
A paper by Pielke & @ClimateAudit was sent to Mann to peer review
Mann wisely didn't accept but instead recommended hostile reviewers so that "it would not see the light of day"
@ClimateAudit Mann emails his partners Caspar Amann (NCAR) and Gavin Schmidt (NASA) to express his glee that this gives him an opportunity to cause harm
🧵
"The U.S. installed 1,700 miles of new high-voltage transmission miles per year on average in the first half of the 2010s but dropped to only 645 miles per year on average in the second half of the 2010s"
The US has 240,000 miles of high voltage transmission capacity
An expansion of 645 miles/year is just about 0.3%/yr
Take that 0.3%/year HV grid expansion to the next Tweet
The Princeton study (@JesseJenkins) used to promote the Inflation Reduction Act claimed the HV grid has been expanding at a rate of 1% per year based on a newsletter from JP Morgan
That 1% is >3x greater than actual recent grid expansion rates of 0.3%
🧵
I have a new favorite example of bad statistics on disasters
By 2085, climate-fueled natural disasters will cost more than $100 trillion, or more than the entire US GDP
Big if true!
What is the methodology?
EM-DAT of course
Misinterpretation Left
What EM-DAT says right:
"what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time"