{"id":428032,"date":"2026-02-26T15:07:39","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T14:07:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=428032"},"modified":"2026-02-26T15:07:41","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T14:07:41","slug":"claim-strongest-noreasters-are-getting-stronger-reality-low-confidence-and-fragile-trends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=428032","title":{"rendered":"Claim: Strongest Nor’easters Are Getting Stronger. Reality: Low Confidence and Fragile Trends"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC’s AR6 Working Group I Report, specifically Chapter 11 (“Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate”), provides a careful, consensus-based assessment of extratropical cyclones (ETCs), which include Nor’easters as a regional subset in the western North Atlantic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AR6 explicitly states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Large natural variability (e.g., influenced by modes like the North Atlantic Oscillation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inhomogeneities and limitations in historical data and reanalyses (e.g., fewer observations pre-satellite era).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lack of robust, consistent trends across datasets for dynamical intensity metrics like maximum winds or central pressure deepening rates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AR6 assesses with medium confidence that future changes in overall ETC dynamical intensity (e.g., maximum wind speeds) “will be small”, though poleward shifts in storm tracks could lead to substantial regional changes in extreme wind speeds (increases in some areas, decreases in others).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are the Strongest Nor’easters Getting Stronger? A Closer Look<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n


From The Honest Brocker<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Roger Pielke Jr.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A case study in confidence inflation in climate science<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

UPDATE 2\/25: After publishing this piece I was asked to write a related column for The Free Press<\/a>. You can read my column here<\/a> (apologies for any paywalls). If you are visiting THB for the first time from that column, Welcome! \u2014 RP<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As New England digs out from a historic blizzard, today\u2019s post takes a deep and technical dive into recent research \u2014 Chen et al. 2025<\/a>1<\/a> \u2014 claiming that Nor\u2019easters<\/a> have become detectably more intense over recent decades. That research asserts,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Our analysis of nor\u2019easter characteristics reveals that the strongest nor\u2019easters are becoming stronger . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Taking advantage of AI tools, I have replicated and extended the analysis. As is far too common in high profile climate research, the top-line claims of the paper do not survive scrutiny. Public commentary by the paper\u2019s senior author and subsequent media reporting provide a case study in how uncertain and ambiguous findings are turned into strong claims expressed with absolute certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grab your coffee, settle in and let\u2019s take a deep dive. Last July, a paper in PNAS<\/a><\/em> by Chen and colleagues was accompanied by widespread media coverage claiming that the new paper was the first and last word on trends in the intensification of nor\u2019easters. For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n