Guest essay by Dr. Neil Frank, former Director, National Hurrricane Center
As former Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), I was appalled when, in a campaign rally at Miami-Dade College October 11, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.”
That is false.
We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.
In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.
All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened only 4 times in over 150 years (1886, 1893, 1916, 1933)—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.
Clinton wants us to believe CO2, emitted when we burn fossil fuels for electricity and transportation vital to life, health, and prosperity, causes global warming that causes more and stronger hurricanes. She’s wrong.
There has been a worldwide 30-year lull in hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones despite the simultaneous warming—manmade or natural. It has been 11 years since a major hurricane hit the U.S. Before that we expected, on average, 1 every 2 years. In the 7 years 1944–1950, well before the rapid rise of CO2, 6 hit Florida alone.
Clinton is ignorant about more than hurricanes. Based on computer climate models that fail test after test, predicting two to three times the observed warming, she claimed that because of rising sea level driven by manmade warming, “one in eight homes in Florida could be underwater by the end of the century.”
Empirical observation says otherwise. Since 1992 sea level in Miami has risen only a little over 1 inch—a rate of 4.2 inches per century, no faster than for millennia. Mrs. Clinton is wrong. It’s not time to move to the mountains.
Yes, Earth’s atmosphere is warming. It has been, off and on, for 150 years. What causes it? CO2, natural cycles, or some combination? Sun and ocean current cycles correlate better with global temperature than CO2.
If CO2 doesn’t control Earth’s temperature, why has our government spent some $150 billion on “green energy” alone—not to mention billions on research to bolster belief in man-made warming—over the last 15 years?
What do we have to show for it? We lost $500 million when solar panel maker Solyndra went bankrupt. In 2009 we subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion. Six are bankrupt and 5 floundering. In 2015 Sun Edison, America’s largest “green energy” company, went bankrupt, costing us $3 billion. Abergeo, the largest international solar energy company, threatens bankruptcy costing us $2.5 billion. We’ve committed $3.5 billion toward a $100 billion climate fund for developing nations.
Projected future costs are staggering. Clinton wants to build and install 500 million new solar panels in the next four years. The Institute for Energy Research estimates this will cost $205 billion—plus higher electric rates for consumers. She wants all residential energy to be “green” by 2025.
A peer-reviewed study concludes that full implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which Clinton supports, would cost $1–$2 trillion per year ($70–$144 trillion from 2030–2100). The payoff? An inconsequential 0.3˚F reduction in global average temperature.
If climate alarmists want to protect life, why aren’t they as concerned about the 1.5 billion people without electricity and the 2–3 billion without pure water? Millions die each year from these two factors. At a fraction of the cost of fighting global warming, electricity from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels, not diffuse, expensive, intermittent wind and solar, could prevent those deaths.
Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and retired Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008), is a Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Originally published on The Daily Caller, republished with permission
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is incontrovertibly all true, and Clinton and a host of other politicians, policy makers, science representatives and media staff have either been fooled through ignorance of how science works and what it shows or they have been deliberately deceptive. The liklely motivation behind the second possibility is what I find most scary. What is the real agenda?
The real agenda is clear – cronyism under a cloak of do-good progressive policy. You need a good crisis to move a lot of money.
They are not dupes or fools . They are dishonest wannabe and actual tyrants .
Bob, it could be war.
http://www.infowars.com/the-most-shocking-campaign-ad-youve-ever-seen/
“[C]orporate power, upper class power, uneven distribution of wealth and prejudice cause social problems… [T]he problem is not one of poverty, but of enormous wealth. The problem is not one of gaps or cracks in an otherwise fine system but of a system which perpetuates prejudicial views concerning race, sex, age, and disability. The problem is not one of incompetence but of barriers to education, jobs, and power. Accordingly, as long as there is a deep gulf between social classes, both in terms of wealth, power, and outlook, traditional social programs will act merely as palliatives to oppression and not as a way of ending large scale human misery. This perspective is, above all, eclectic. It embraces Marx’s criticism of social class inequality but is not only a social class analysis. It is anti-racist, but it is not only a theory of race equality. It favors democratic distribution of power but is also an economic theory. It can be called a social and economic democracy perspective.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
Lots to take in here.
To me the problem here seems more to be the evolution of idiocracy in government.
You are correct. That some people allow their jealousy over other people having more to control their lives, is a real problem.
…That’s easy…George Soros !!
{Note: This comment is NOT off topic (it may appear to be to some, thus, I write this clarification) — Clinton is using AGW as a ploy to win an election in the U.S.A. and why she would do that is on topic}
Mr. Pattullo: The
is Enviroprofiteering and Envirostalinism, i.e.:
1. MONEY (wind/solar/disaster insurance industries NEED this lie to get tax subsidies/rate surcharges/policies sold).
and
2. CONTROL. If you control human CO2, you can control the entire economy. (just as with Government Medicine: you can control everything a person does) You can ennervate the military. And hand your own country over to the communists (or “socialists” or “Democrats” or whatever they prefer to be called).
And money controls the entire (even Fox, now, sadly, except for Hannity) U.S. news media.
Also:
3. Human weakness. People who vote Democrat want to be taken care of. They prefer being controlled to liberty.
I do not completely agree with Shaw’s second clause. Most people, when properly educated and told how liberty can work for them, that is, (to borrow from Winston Churchill) that while capitalism results in unequal blessings, socialism results in (for all but those who are “more equal than others” — G. Orwell, Animal Farm) equal misery.
Cubans understand.
Chinese understand.
Haitians understand.
And, if the Republicans would just get off their duff and put their time and money into educating inner city and new immigrant groups, all the “minorities” would also understand.
Thanks to Donald Trump — they may get a shot at understanding.
NO THANKS to the Republican/RINO machine which, stupidly, election after election, puts forth such duds as McCain and Romney. DUDS (as far as electability) who are abysmal failures at reaching out to the above population sub-groups. I have really wondered if they are actually Democrat operatives. They are THAT bad at doing what it takes to win. Incompetent or wicked? Take your choice.
They denigrate their OWN candidates! That incompetent (why does anyone interview the man?) creep, Karl Rove, a few years ago actively promoted the Democrat in a New Hampshire Congressional race (the Republican was a woman whose name I can’t recall). In this election, stupidly (or not?….) dopes like Rubio are throwing rocks at Trump. What fools! (or not….)
To bring this back to the thread topic: all the above is WHY Clinton is: 1) using the AGW sc@m; and 2) why such a ploy is a rational one for Democrats to use.
A new dawn is on the way. The Sun of Liberty is about to rise, once again, in the U.S.A.!
#(:))
Janice, you just might like these two by Scott Adams:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152379707591/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party#_=_
BFL! Loved them both. That man’s wit is a gift to us all! And, usually, with a worthwhile point. And this one is on point, here:
In one of those Adams pieces you cite above, he talks about the Hill-bullies. With a product with low quality of judgment, perceived as revolting even by her own fans (“you don’t have to like her”), expensive as heck with the tax increases/Obamacare perpetuation, and no distinguishing attributes to gain market share, bullying is all they’ve got. All bullies are weak. Just — say — no! 🙂 (and yes to TRUMP!)
Janice,
Don’t know what else to say but spot on.
Thanks, Phil R! Much appreciated.
Janice,
” What fools! (or not….) ”
I say both ; )
John Knight — I think you are right!
Good job of placing a thin veil of on-topic relevance on a purely political diatribe, based as it is on an out-moded ‘capitalism versus socialism’ diversion that has little to do with our political reality. Your paraphrase of Churchill is symbolic of your dogmatic belief in the phony charade. So much tripe to rebut, but I’ll just leave you with this link. It isn’t meant to be a singular focus on how you seem to buy into the simplistic veneration of Churchill, but how wrong your simplistic view of politics clearly is.
https://mises.org/library/rethinking-churchill#part9
Wow, Cletus. When you have nothing intelligent to say, you sure do say it well.
The “mises.org” is just another philosophical opinion piece cobbled together by typical political hack who (apparently like you) considers himself the one true genius. Yes politics is complicated, especially considering all the insider bargaining and under table payoffs that apparently are normally required to accomplish even the least effort. But that is just why is so necessary to reduce those complications to an understandable level of simplicity and then follow through (instead of the usual say whatever to be chosen and then do whatever to make the insiders happy/rich). The only candidate that even appears responsible enough to actually follow through AND be in the populist corner is Trump.
Janice,
I often appreciate your lively and informed comments here, but I think, perhaps, you may be misstating the case against “Republicans” somewhat. I respectfully offer this editorial for your consideration: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441442/republican-congress-conservative-majority
Note, I do NOT consider myself in any way, shape, or form a Republican. I vote Republican because I feel that they most closely represent the views/beliefs I hold. Frankly though, as a party, I could not POSSIBLY care less about their fate. They exist to serve the people. If they stop being useful, something else will (hopefully) take their place.
Having said that, though, I think it’s a disservice to so broadly smear them without due consideration of what they’ve accomplished. Demonizing your political opponents is often used to mask the fact that you have a weak argument, and it’s a tactic that I’ve seen repeatedly, and horribly, used and abused on the left. I find that the demonization of Republicans is too close to this, too similar in nature, for my personal tastes. Just my opinion and thoughts.
Respectfully yours,
Brian Lindauer
aka rip
Go for it girl! Applause from over here in England.
There is a reason that they chose CO2 as their lever instead of say H2O a much more pervasive and influencing greenhouse gas. Controlling CO2 allows them through one target to regulate the power industry and thus exert control on people to make them live the way they believe is good. After all if they didn’t dictate to us how we must live we might be gas guzzling energy sucking vampires.
Or we could be like our host and use Solar panels and a nice small electric car. But people would be free to choose which. Regulating H2O wouldn’t allow them the same degree of control.
Oh and also see water empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire . The idea being that you control the society through control of a primary resource. CO2 allows them to regulate most sources of power and if it isn’t something they can regulate via that they make it look bad in other ways or just don’t talk about it. See Nuclear Power and see Hydraulic Power … ie large scale dams used to generate power through changing kinetic energy into electricity.
I’m really uncertain as to why our current Governor of Lunifornia hasn’t sought legislation to require that ALL new subdivision housing tracts within the state shall require:
Rooftop Solar Panels with comperable Battery Back-up systems at every unit.
Electric Vehicle charging stations in every garage powered by additional rooftop solar and battery back-up
AND
At least 1 electric vehicle included in every garage.
Granted it would add approx $80,000 to the cost of the house
but
It would surely force an expansion of the infrastructure needed to manage a larger electric fleet.
I’m ever thankful that it hasn’t happened but it sure seems like their next step
Dr. Frank gave a great presentation at the Ryder Scott 2016 Reserves Conference in Houston last month…
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
Several of his slides were from WUWT, including one of mine…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
Can someone try to get this post to Vanessa whose silly email featured here yesterday: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/26/podestaemails-green-group-asks-hillary-campaign-manager-to-put-pressure-on-tv-networks-to-link-severe-weather-and-climate/ ?
Why muddle convenient political cant with scientific facts?
I would turn it around on Hillary. If climate change is responsible for Matthew, perhaps we need more since it was one of the most impotent Cat4/5 hurricanes in terms of lives lost. A few hundred died due to the hurricane, versus the unnamed storm of 1893 where 10 times that many did.
And most of those were in Haiti which was systematically stripped of all of it’s natural surface level wind breaks
philjourdan,
With all respect, no you wouldn’t. You’re trying to use a reasonable, rational argument to rebut a completely irrational, politically and ideologically motivated campaign of fear of a phantom Armageddon to scare the prols. Remember Rahm Emanual’s quote, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” To which I would add, even if you have to create the crisis.
@Phil R – (like the name BTW). I agree with you that it would have no impact on her or her acolytes. But I made the statement to show the idiocy of the smartest woman in the world.
philjourdan,
(Ditto, had it all my lfe :)) Got it. With all the other stuff starting to come out right now, I think you’re just piling on the evidence of idiocy!!
Yea, the latest news did make my Friday brighter!
‘The inconsequential 0.3 F drop in global average temperature’ is still only a guess, based upon many questionable assumptions.
It also appears to be “the optimistic scenario“. The pessimistic is less than a third of that.
This guy will likely get sacked, you don’t go against the tide, or the MSM, or Obama and the Clintons.
not likely. In Texas, especially around Houston, he’s considered a true hero. Politicians hate him because the people love him.
@kenw
“In Texas, especially around Houston, he’s considered a true hero. Politicians hate him because the people love him.”
Yes we do! Spoken like a true Houstonian.
Actually got to know him when he was director of the national hurricane center and CBS would use him as a guest authority. My how things have changed….
Double not likely since he’s retired.
It’s only retired scientists who are free to speak out about all this nonsense. Anyone with a job who voices sceptical opinions is in jeopardy. It was worse in the Lysenko years, your liberty, if not your life was in danger.
Some of the warmists in power or wanting to be in power, probably wish they had Stalin’s freedom to crush the opposition..
OTOH, Uncle Joe would have loved this:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-citizens-calculating-their-threat-score
The AGW alarmism behaves exactly like a religion. Not only does it determine the wrong cause, it vilifies the wrong culprit and creates rules that will never allow any solution to be found. Let’s double down on the stupidity and toss another virgin into the volcano. /sarc
It has sadly began to acquire the accouterments of a religion. We shall see how it goes. One of the serious problems it is having is that it is well wrong and getting more wrong as time passes.
Anthony, I corrected a problem in the text.
Cheers.
Thanks, that’s what I get for taking lunch!
..Ha !! No rest for the evil, patriotic, God loving, truth seeking, honest defenders of science !! Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated !!
Signed…G.S.
Typo needs fixing: “—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.lieve CO2, emitted when we burn fossil fuels for …”
Thanks, Med.
Fixed.
Apparently saying things that can be shown empirically shown to be untrue is no impediment to political success. Almost makes one wish that journalists didn’t go extinct years ago.
“Almost makes one wish that journalists didn’t go extinct years ago.”
Dave- I watched the campus newspaper at the college where I had my career degenerate slowly over the decades, getting more like a large high-school newspaper than a university. Maybe that was because my perspective was changing, also. I just see journalism as a place to spout opinion by spinning stories from your perspective, these days.
Who needs journalists? We have “Fact Checkers” now days! (extreme sarcasm intended).
Shrillary is an expert in Lying.
“If climate alarmists want to protect life….”
Kind of answers itself, they don’t. They believe 7 billion is tttooooo many. That if many of them should die off or stop breeding is not a problem for their agenda.
Been a long time fan of Dr. Neil for many years here in Houston. He’s straight forward, to the point and takes the subject and puts it in terms that anyone regardless of education can understand. I’ve always wanted to know his exact stance on the subject because he always used to stay away from the discussion on KHOU-11. Now that he’s off the air I guess he’s able to speak his mind a little more freely.
He was an icon here in Florida as well when he ran The NHC in Miami.
David Middleton reviewed a recent SL study that showed that over the last 30 years coastal land had increased around the globe. How is this possible if we are experiencing dangerous SLR?
Even the BBC were surprised by the satellite data that showed these results. Anyone care to comment about this problem for their so called CAGW.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/
I’m attempting to understand this myself.
Here are four peer-reviewed studies that supposedly address increased coastal land.
https://jasperandsardine.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/four-peer-reviewed-scientific-studies-found-no-observable-sea-level-effect-of-man-made-global-warming/
So far, the best I can make of Dr. Fedor Baart’s study is that the increased coastal land is the result of man-made structures and changes. Maybe someone else can comment on that.
It tells you that the sea level rise over the past 200-250 years is insignificant relative to all the other stuff that the Earth does.
Part of the increase is definitely Man Made
Dubai has added hundreds of miles of Coastal land and is creating hundreds more
https://www.google.com/search?q=dubai+%22islands%22&lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiam8Tznv7PAhXmqFQKHTUqBjoQsAQILA&biw=1902&bih=1070#imgrc=_
Websearch expanding Earth until you find one of 3 or 4 truly competent You Tube videos showing that the diameter of the arth has been expanding since the breakup of “Pangea.” See the strech marks of the ocean, the time dating of the mid-Atlantic ridge and the Pacific stretching and a good one will show that as you run all that back in time ALL the continents come together, not just Africa and Central America.
The Earth is still expanding, which makes for more land.
Thedre is a great deal of money and political investment in the notion of global warming, so it will be very resistant to change unless it becomes politically poisonous. Crighton drew parallels with eugenics, which after Hitler, almost no one admitted to ever having believed in.
The stratospheric PV is predicted to significantly weaken into early November. All weather models now predict an unprecedented and significant early split of the stratospheric PV. I expect the circulation anomalies associated with the PV split to descend into the mid and lower troposphere later in November. When this occurs expect the cold and snow that has been mostly confined to Siberia so far, to expand into the mid-latitudes resulting in an early start to winter weather for widespread portions of northern Eurasia, including Europe and East Asia, and possibly the eastern United States (US).
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation
Joe Bastardi says the Asian cold will “teleconnect” to the east US around middle/late November. Watch the public videos:
http://www.weatherbell.com/premium
Our skiers here in the Eastern U.S. will love the early snow!
A true scientist speaks. An expert in his field. One that the “97%” should pay attention to. Will they? Not if they’ve become political scientist.
I hope this “slap up the side of the head’ wakes some them up.
For the rest of who are laymen, didn’t Al Gore somehow try to blame Kartrina on GW Bush? Did Hillary just blame Matthew on Obama?
…Finally, the “Smoking Gun” that proves Hillary and company are controlled by George Soros, the country killer !!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/27/make-soros-happy-inside-clinton-teams-mission-to-please-billionaire-vip.html
People need to know this. And a lot more!!
Outstanding article by someone with much better credentials than Hillary
Share this article with everybody you know. It deserves 10 stars.
Coastlines are dynamic. They are shaped by wind and wave. I live directly on the Atlantic on the Barrier island in Fort Lauderdale (seaside the intercoastal, seaside famous Florida road A1A) and watch this dynamic process in real time off my ocean facing balcony. Swim out 50 yards and the sand is still only 4-5 feet down at low tide. Our beach grows and shrinks by yards in weeks depending on sea conditions. Today we are losing beach, with 6 foot waves breaking spectacularly over the coral reefs about 500 meters off shore and only 5 meters deep, then pounding the beach at an angle.
OTH, the long record PSMSL tide gauges with diff GPS land correction within 10 Km show ~2.2mm/year since 1900 and no acceleration. Over 30 years that is 66 mm, or 6.6cm or about 3 inches. Our local tides are about 3-4 feet depending on season and moon. The tidal beach slope is at most about 25 degrees. So that 3 inches SLR reduced the exposed beach at most by about 6.5 inches. Basic trigonometry says SLR is absolutely de minimus compared to ordinary beach dynamics. And so, for whatever locally dynamic reasons shorelines grew globally the last 30 years. Its called natural variation.
Ristvan, coastlines certainly are dynamic beasts, but I’m only highlighting SAT imagery that shows coastlines have increased over the last 30 years. Something doesn’t add up, because 30 years is a fair period if we’re supposed to be living in a time of dangerous SLR.
Anyway that’s the BS line that stupid Hillary wants to promote, plus a minor hurricane was made worse because of human intervention .
Who votes for these dummies?
Intended as reply to ngard2016. Don’t know why misthreaded.
You kast paragraph makes an incorrect assumption. Alarmists do not want nor are interested in protecting life. That’s why.
Sorry typing on a phone. That word is last not kast.