Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Contradictory evidence is now “uncertainty”?

As Trump attacks US science agencies, ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ushers in a fresh wave of climate denial in Australia

Adam Morton

…

In Australia, the past week has seen a fresh wave of climate denial as ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred approached and hit the southern Queensland coast. News Corp outlets, in particular, have run straw man arguments attacking people that have forcefully linked the storm to the climate crisis.

Some commentators have pointed out that southern Queensland has had cyclones before. Others have suggested there is uncertainty in the data about the pace and way in which they are changing, and that climate change didn’t “cause” Alfred. Well, yes. That’s all correct, of course, but hardly the point.

What they mostly haven’t said is that the ocean and atmosphere are demonstrably warmer than even just a few years ago. Or that this means the most intense storms formed in warmer conditions carry more energy and more water. Or that the conditions under which tropical cyclones can form are moving south as the planet heats up.

…

The evidence is that this is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense. There is data suggesting they also tend to last longer. Greater intensity plus time equals heightened risk of damage and casualties. It doesn’t mean that every cyclone or extreme storm will be more damaging than in the past. It does mean that when one comes, the potential for it to carry enough energy to wreak significant havoc is rising, not falling.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/mar/11/ex-tropical-cyclone-alfred-climate-denial-australia-trump-attacks-us-science-agencies

The graph at the top of the page shows both cyclone numbers and intensity are in long term decline. There is no “uncertainty”, this is reality.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – Richard Feynman.

The statement “this [ocean heating] is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense” is not supported by the evidence that tropical cyclones are declining both in frequency and intensity.

Why would anyone believe something which is so blatantly false? I don’t know why journalist Adam Morton holds this view, but the idea that models are more important than observations appears to be deep rooted in the climate community.

"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful."

Are climate modellers putting the effect before the cause when it comes to long term cyclone frequency and intensity vs surface temperature? 

Because there is a very simple possible explanation for why atmospheric and ocean surface temperature is rising but cyclone frequency and intensity are decreasing – cyclone frequency and intensity likely have an inverse relationship with ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. Cyclones are powerful dissipators of surface heat, an uptick in cyclones would cause an immediate and sustained drop in surface temperature.

Bonus points for anyone who has a good theory for what causes more cyclones – I mean a theory which doesn’t contradict observations.