Eric Worrall's paper
Is the evidence of contradiction now “uncertainty”?
Former tropical cyclone Alfred welcomes amid wave of fresh climate denials when Trump attacks U.S. scientific institutions
Adam Morton
…
In Australia, a fresh wave of climate denial has been around the past week as the former tropical climate Alfred approached and hit the southern coast of Queensland. News Corp's channel in particular has had a scarecrow debate, attacking people who link storms to climate crisis.
Some commentators pointed out that there were whirlwinds in southern Queensland. Others suggest There is uncertainty about the pace and way they are changingthis climate change did not “cause” Alfred. OK, yes. Of course, this is all right, but it's hardly the point.
What they didn't say is The ocean and atmosphere are obviously warm Even a few years ago. Or it means the most intense storms formed in warm conditions carry more energy and more water. Alternatively, as the planet heats up, the conditions that tropical cyclones may form move southward.
…
There is evidence that this makes tropical cyclones lower, but stronger. There are data that show that they tend to last longer. A greater intensity plus time equals an increased risk of injury and casualty. This doesn't mean that every whirlwind or extreme storm is more destructive than it was in the past. This does mean that when a person comes, its potential for energy to cause significant damage is rising, not falling.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/mar/11/ex-tropical-cyclone-alfred-cyclone-cyclone-climate-denial-denial-australia-trump-trump-trump-attacks-tacks-ustacks-ust-science-anciencies-science-anciations
The graph at the top of the page shows the long-term decline in cyclone count and intensity. There is no “uncertainty”, this is reality.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, and how smart you are. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. – Richard Feynman.
Statement “This [ocean heating] The frequency of tropical cyclones is being reduced, but stronger” evidence suggests that both the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones are decreasing.
Why do anyone believe such a blatant mistake? I don't know why journalist Adam Morton holds this view, but the idea that the model is more important than the observation seems to be rooted in the climate community.
When it comes to long-term cyclone frequency and intensity versus surface temperature, will the climate module put the effect before the cause? Because there is a very simple possibility that explains why the temperature of the atmosphere and ocean surface increases, but the frequency and intensity of cyclones are decreasing – the frequency and intensity of cyclones may be inversely related to the ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. A cyclone is a powerful dissipator of surface heat, and the rise of a cyclone will cause the surface temperature to drop immediately.
For anyone who causes more whirlwinds, reward points – I mean a theory that contradicts observation.
Related
Discover more from Watt?
Subscribe to send the latest posts to your email.
