Saw it mentioned and nixed before I could pass along this information. Draw what conclusions you may and not interested in a debate about ramifications. The biggest caveat on most of this is a lack of long-trend data. Short cycles are easy to see, longer ones not so much. Just passing along bonified research on the topic.

2014 "The poleward migration of the locaiton of tropical cyclone maximum density"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13278

2018 "Is the poleward migration of tropical cyclone maximum intensity..."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-017-3636-7

Are you going to pay the 200 so we can see the actual article?

Like all good work - it aint free. That said - you can sign up for a free trial by clicking "Rent this article via DeepDyve"

I wouldn't assume that work is good based on the abstract. Nature doesn't exactly have the best reputation for anything that's political.

What don't you find "good" in the abstract?

Anytime you see the word "anthropogenic" in a climate study is never good.

Sniper - not being sarcastic at all here but if you click on the blue 6 next to anthropogenic you'll see where the authors cited that information. In this case, Timbal & Nguyen. That article/study can be quoted as "Multiple factors have been identified as potential drivers of the expansion, including increasing greenhouses gases, stratospheric ozone depletion, and anthropogenic aerosols. No single factor by itself appears to explain the full expansion, perhaps a shortcoming of the models or experiment design. It may be that some combination of these forcings is producing the change, but the relative contribution of each forcing to the expansion is currently unknown. The key issues remaining to be resolved are briefly summarized at the end."

The biggest take-away being if you read the sentence more in-depth in which anthropogenic was used. "The migration away from the tropics is apparently linked to marked changes in the mean meridional structure of environmental vertical wind shear and potential intensity, and can plausibly be linked to tropical expansion, which is thought to have anthropogenic contributions 6.

Also - nature published that one piece, they didn't fund it. big difference. The reading is out there and highly informative.

I have never heard of a journal funding an article.

They're testing an hypothesis using a different "metric" that's not as prone to the unreliability of historical data. The abstract suggests that they can confirm poleward migration trends of tropical cyclones which "are evident in the global historical data" by way of an independent measure that doesn't rely on such problematic historical data.

This is what science does: It tests hypotheses using independent measures and alternative models, which either confirms or disconfirms current research. That such trends are thought to have anthropogenic factors is likely secondary to the research conducted by these authors. In other words, they're not directly testing the validity of any supposed "anthropogenic contributions." They're simply demonstrating the poleward migration trends found in other studies with different metrics.

Sorry to be a stickler here, but I don't see anything political in the abstract at all.

Just the use of the word anthropogenic is political.

Fair enough. I'm not so certain about that, but I do think the politicizing of climate research has been detrimental and a major loss for everyone concerned.

Cripes...I thought this was going to be about a hurricane or tropical storm!

The abstract could of basically said, "Hey the hurricanes are starting farther away from the equator than they use to". Which is what I was getting from the abstract until I saw the "anthropogenic" word. There is no need to even mention that, even if you are a AGC alarmist. Because now it says, "The hurricanes are starting farther from the equator and its man's fault". People tend to ignore the words "probably" and "likely", which such words to me are completely careless to use in a scientific article without further explanation.