Study finds cleaner air leads to more Atlantic hurricanes

Study finds cleaner air leads to more Atlantic hurricanes:

No matter how this US government sponsored study is trying to explain the tentative conclusion above, it remains hard to convince people of such claim.

A longer longitudinal data collection & comparison would be necessary..

The more hurricanes the better it is for mother earth...

This is not true. More tests need to be done. Not all studies results are true.

This is not true. More tests need to be done. Not all studies results are true..

If this is the only evidence presented about the conclusions then it merits attention and by default to be considered indicative of them. The whole point of the discussion part of scientific reports is to confront the new evidence with related studies that point to similar or contradicting conclusions and defend the ones included in the report. Just saying "this is not true" is not enough to disprove the findings a study that contradicts this with more and better data and valid methods would be necessary to do that.

The article describes a correlation, but then they use as title: Study finds cleaner air leads to more Atlantic hurricanes. As they say: correlation does not imply causation...

The article describes a correlation, but then they use as title: Study finds cleaner air leads to more Atlantic hurricanes. As they say: correlation does not imply causation...

The title is correct, because the primary source do not only describes a correlation but goes to great lengths to justify a causal relationship.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn9493

In this study, we reveal that the decreases in aerosols over Europe and the United States have contributed to significant decreases in TCs over the Southern Hemisphere as well as increases in TCs over the North Atlantic, whereas the increases in aerosols in South and East Asia have exerted substantial decreases in TCs over the western North Pacific. 

As usual a single study is not enough to "prove" the causal relationship, but the analysis is detailed, supported by the available evidence and the discussion very complete, from a scientific point of view this is a very strong proof of a causal relationship between quality of air and hurricanes.

The article describes a correlation, but then they use as title: Study finds cleaner air leads to more Atlantic hurricanes. As they say: correlation does not imply causation...

Good point.

The title is correct, because the primary source do not only describes a correlation but goes to great lengths to justify a causal relationship.

Wrong. Your source does not describe a causal relationship.

Good point.

That would be the opposite, it is readily contradicted by the original article.

Wrong. Your source does not describe a causal relationship.

Yes, it does, the quoted texts excplicity describe a causal relationship. what are your arguments to contradict what the authors of the article have concluded?