The Honest Broker Profile picture
Sep 9, 2021 10 tweets 6 min read Read on X
FACT CHECK🧵

Hurricane Ida Isn’t the Whole Story on Climate by @BjornLomborg wsj.com/articles/hurri… via @WSJOpinion
In the @WSJ @BjornLomborg uses our analyses of hurricane landfalls to argue that "the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the continental U.S. has declined slightly since 1900"

Can that be true?

Yes it is

Figure below updated from: journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/…
Well what about major US hurricanes. After all they cause >85% of all damage.
No they haven't increased either

Also updated from @philklotzbach et al 2018
But what about the entire North Atlantic basin, after all the US is not the only place in the world that gets hurricanes

Last year (still preliminary) was a record for landfalls, but since 1944, no overall trend

Updated from: doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D…
OK, but what about the world? After all the North Atlantic has only about 15% of landfalling TCs of hurricane strength

Here we see an increase from 1970 ... but if we look further back in time ...

Also updated from @JessicaWeinkle et al 2012 doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D…
There's not comprehensive records globally <1970 but we can go back in time for the North Atlantic & the Western North Pacific, which together have ~70% of all global landfalls

We see an overall decrease since 1945 & majors no trend

Also updated from @JessicaWeinkle et al 2012
OK, maybe landfalls aren't the place to look for increases, how about overall hurricane activity whether they landfall or not?

Again, hard to see any trends

Global TC activity via @RyanMaue 1970-2020
OK so is @BjornLomborg consistent w/ IPCC?

"A subset of the best-track data corresponding to hurricanes that have directly impacted the U.S. since 1900 is considered to be reliable, and shows no trend in the frequency of U.S. landfall events"
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Yes, he is
Bottom line:
@BjornLomborg has accurately conveyed the peer-reviewed literature & IPCC conclusions on US hurricane landfalls

More broadly, the US is not an outlier, as similar trends can be found globally on climate time scales

FACT CHECK = 👍👍👍👍👍
PS. But what if you want to cherry pick the data to show more landfalls?

Some suggestions💡:
✅Start data in 1970 to 1980 (lowest activity period this century)
✅Use pre-1944 data in NA (even better, pre-1900)
✅Do some fancy stats on the actual data to create a trend

😎

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Honest Broker

The Honest Broker Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RogerPielkeJr

Jul 18
1/3

Climate science is broken

I provided PNAS with irrefutable evidence that a paper it published used a fatally flawed “dataset” compiled by interns for corporate marketing

I asked for a retraction

PNAS investigated & found no problems at all with the dataset

The PNAS reply belowImage
Image
I documented how the “dataset” was created (including contributions of two of my former students)

It was never intended for scientific research, just for selling insurance products

In the next Tweet I’ll link to my post with all of the details

If climate science cannot pass this simple test, it has a serious problemImage
Read 4 tweets
Feb 23
I have been digging into methodological and data errors in Grinsted et al. 2019, some of which you can see in the thread below

This nerdy thread on US hurricane loss data documents how bad data gets created (surely accidentally) . . .
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 Image
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 . . . Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 22
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... Image
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" Image
@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

"Pielke Jr has finally made his bed!!" Image
Read 9 tweets
Feb 20
🧵
"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"

Take that 645 miles/year to the next Tweet...

gridstrategiesllc.com/wp-content/upl…
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%

repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IR…
Image
Read 7 tweets
Feb 15
SpringerNature held off sending my submission for peer review because:

"We thought it prudent to seek advice on the potential risks of publishing claims that may appear to criticise the actions of government bodies"

Now under review

Read it here:
osf.io/preprints/soca…
Image
I was only informed of the evaluation of my paper for political risk after that review took place

This is a plain vanilla policy evaluation, but that should not matter

So in addition to passing peer review it had to pass political review

Just when you think you've seen it all
I was just asked if I am worried that commenting on this publicly might hurt my paper's chances of being published

Ha! Simply having my name on a paper probably does that ;-)

But sunshine is far more important
Read 4 tweets
Jan 26
Biden: LNG exports—>historic hurricanes & floods
But is that true?
🧵⤵️
How about hurricanes?
Not increasing Image
Well, what about major hurricanes?
Not increasing Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(