tater

No, bu landfall is what matters looking over large timeframes since before satellites, that was the only way to be sure it was a hurricane.

The IPCC working group a few years ago in 2013 said: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

A simple question: When the media and climate people were saying after Katrina (then Mathew) that we'd have Katrinas a few times a year now because of global warming (trust me, that was the narrative in the US news), did this do a service to the politics of climate, or a disservice?

I would argue that this kind of hyperbolic prediction was 100% negative, because the following decade of no major hurricanes (in spite of the US media making a big deal of "Superstorm" Sandy to try and make climate news) actually made people reject climate predictions---they had been told with no uncertainty that Katrina was the new normal, then a decade of nothing.

Real scientists don't make those kinds of claims, they talk about uncertainty. WRT models, they'll say things like, "this is the best model we have currently, and it works well enough for X, but when a better model is established, we will dump this one."

Particle physics guys are more guarded about models that predict out to many decimal places than climate people are about models that are likely only accurate within an order of magnitude.