As Hurricane Isaias neared the Gulf Coast on October 9, Climate Central published a rapid attribution analysis arguing that human-driven warming had “supercharged” the Gulf waters beneath the storm and increased its winds by roughly 7 mph. WSMV-TV and other media organizations soon repeated the claim.
That episode highlights a growing challenge in climate reporting: the analysis appeared before the hurricane had even finished unfolding. Typically, assigning causes to a complicated weather event requires detailed post-storm examination, not an immediate conclusion made while the system is still active.
There is no dispute that warm ocean water is essential to hurricanes. Tropical cyclones operate as heat engines, drawing energy from the ocean through sensible and latent heat transfer. But the general fact that warm water powers hurricanes is not the same as proving that an unusually warm Gulf added exactly 7 mph to one storm’s winds.
Meteorologist Chris Martz explored that distinction by reviewing two long-term datasets maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. His work does not demonstrate that rising sea-surface temperatures have no effect on hurricanes. Instead, it questions how much certainty should accompany highly specific claims about the strength of an individual storm.
A key point is often overlooked in news coverage: a sea-surface temperature anomaly does not describe the water’s actual temperature. It measures how far that temperature is above or below a historical average.
The Gulf of Mexico is naturally hot during the peak of hurricane season. In late summer and early fall, including August, September, and early October, water temperatures commonly rise well above the level needed to support major hurricanes. A reading above the long-term average, therefore, does not necessarily mean a storm is receiving a new source of fuel that would otherwise be missing.
To examine whether unusually warm Gulf waters have historically produced stronger hurricanes, Martz combined NOAA’s HURDAT2 database from the National Hurricane Center, which reaches back to the 19th century, with NOAA’s Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 record.
His review covered 269 tropical cyclones that reached hurricane intensity while located in the Gulf between 1854 and 2025. For each storm, he compared its maximum sustained wind speed in the Gulf with the average sea-surface temperature anomaly along its track.
The findings were notable.
Martz found a Pearson correlation of only +0.036, while the R² value was 0.001. In other words, the temperature anomaly accounted for about 0.1% of the variation in maximum hurricane wind speeds in that historical comparison. The relationship was not statistically significant.
The broad spread of the results also tells an important story. Some of the Gulf’s strongest hurricanes formed or intensified over waters cooler than the 1991-2020 average. At the same time, some storms crossing exceptionally warm water remained comparatively weak.
That outcome is understandable because sea-surface temperature is only one part of the hurricane-intensity equation. Tropical cyclone development is governed by a wide range of interacting conditions.
Strong vertical wind shear can weaken or break apart a developing storm, while dry air can suppress convection. Atmospheric stability, upper-level outflow, the storm’s internal structure and forward speed, and heat stored beneath the ocean surface can all influence intensity. Internal changes, including eyewall replacement cycles, may also cause major fluctuations even when the broader environment remains supportive.
That complexity is why journalists should be cautious about assigning a precise climate-change contribution to a hurricane while the storm is still dominating the headlines.
Climate Central’s estimate was based on model-driven attribution, not a direct measurement. The reported 7-mph increase was not recorded by a hurricane-hunter aircraft or a buoy. There is no second, identical Hurricane Isaias traveling through a Gulf unaffected by human-caused warming that could serve as a real-world comparison. That alternative storm exists only as a modeled counterfactual.
This does not mean attribution models have no value. It does mean their findings should be presented accurately—as estimates shaped by assumptions about how the storm might have behaved under a hypothetical climate, rather than as observations taken directly from nature.
Martz’s analysis has limitations, too. A basic historical correlation cannot account for every factor that affects hurricane intensity, and it cannot by itself rule out a thermodynamic effect from long-term ocean warming. But that limitation reinforces the central issue: because hurricane behavior depends on many variables, reducing one storm to a single climate-related number can create an impression of certainty that the evidence may not support.
Increasingly, the attribution process appears to run in reverse. A damaging weather event occurs, a rapid model estimates how much more severe climate change made it, and the resulting figure becomes the headline. By the time the story reaches television or social media, the important explanation—that the number reflects a hypothetical scenario—may have been lost.
Research into the long-term relationship between climate change and hurricanes is entirely legitimate. The problem arises when an uncertain attribution estimate is presented as if researchers had placed Hurricane Isaias in a laboratory and directly measured the extra wind produced by atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The public deserves to know the difference between direct observation and computer modeling, between correlation and causation, and between conclusions supported by evidence and estimates built on assumptions.
Climate attribution should follow the evidence. Increasingly, the headlines seem to be arriving well before any evidence does.
Anthony Watts ([email protected]) is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.
Editor’s Note: President Trump is leading America into the “Golden Age” as Democrats desperately try to stop it.
Help us continue to report on President Trump’s successes and combat Democrats’ lies. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
