From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s Climate Check is unsurprisingly about hurricanes, and equally unsurprisingly does not tell the truth:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/58503854
Ben Rich repeats the BBC’s frequent lie, that climate change is making hurricanes stronger, expressed of course in the usual “scientists say” way. These are his exact words:
“Climate scientists believe that global warming is making them stronger”
It is of course true that some scientists say this, but equally many hurricane experts maintain the opposite, something you might have thought the BBC would have reported.
And, given this is supposed to be a “Climate Check”, you might have thought the BBC would actually have provided some facts, rather than just opinions. The IPCC were quite clear in their last Assessment Review, AR5:
IPCC AR5
They could find no evidence whatsover of any “significant observed trends” in tropical cyclone activity over the past century. All they could find was an increasing intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes since the 1970s, which hurricane experts such as Chris Landsea believe is part of the multidecadal cycle, the AMO. This is borne out by the fact no that robust trends in major hurricanes has been found in the North Atlantic in the past 100 years.
Little has changed in the latest AR6, which can still find no long term trends.
One particular omission in the video is the role of wind shear, high level winds which act to break up hurricanes. While Rich mentions this factor, he omits to tell viewers that scientists believe that global warming will increase wind shear.
This Climate Check has little to do with facts, and is little more than propaganda.
Just more fake news from the fake news factory, fake fact checking for hystericals.
The number of hurricanes went so much down that these lunatics have been praying for years for one to appear so they can finnaly release their propaganda pieces that they were given many years ago by their masters.
And even when they have to admitt the truth because reality became too big for the lie(more hurricanes) to survive,their griffesque bizarre minds somehow manage to give the absence of destruction a negative spin.
Headline froM the Washington Pest 2017/ 09/07
” The science behind the US’s hurricane drought – and why it is a bad thing”
Of course such headlines (“The US coast is in an unprecedent hurricane drought ” 8/4/2016)
completely contradict dozens of their own ‘more hurricanes due to AGW” fearporn articles,
(the problem with agenda lies is that you don’t just have to remember your own lies but also those of your fellow journalists)
but they know that their readers have no long term memory skills.
The IPCC were quite clear in their last Assessment Review, AR5:
Not that I don’t believe that verbiage appears in the AR5 somewhere, a link with page number and paragraph would be great. I can’t seem to find it over at the “Not A Lot Of People Know That” link either.
Here’s Chapter 14 of the IPCC’s AR5 where section 14.6.1 starts on page 1248
“The future influence of climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but the specific characteristics of the changes are not yet well quantified and there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity.”
“The global number of ETCs is unlikely to decrease by more than a few percent. ”
page 1220
” Consistent with this, studies have shown that pre-cipitation is projected to increase in ETCs despite no increase in wind speed intensity of ETCs (Bengtsson et al., 2009; Zappa et al., 2013b)”
page 1251
Thanks for the reply. The quote in the article is a good one, and is claimed to be from the IPCC. My short search for it came up empty, it wasn’t in section 14.6.1. It is apparently somewhere else.
word salad. Simplistic writing is not their friend.
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value.
Reading comprehension is still something you struggle with I see.
Nobody said he couldn’t understand it. He was just complaining that the statement was more complicated than it needed to be.
Statements that are more complicated and obtuse than they need to be are that way for a reason–to confuse the people who will read them and make them think something other than what they actually say. It is all part of the plan.
That said, really intelligent writers use common words with widely understood meanings and write with simplicity and elegance about complicated subjects. It works.
That’s rich coming from Simple Simon who mocks people for using perfectly correct English because he doesn’t understand it himself.
“Simple” is the word needed, not “simplistic”.
It annoyed me too, and I eventually tracked it down to Chapter 2, “Observations: Atmosphere and Surface”, sub-chapter 2.6.3, “Tropical Storms”, on page 216.
Back in 2013 AR5’s chapter 10.6.1.5, “Tropical Cyclones”, ended (on page 914) with :
Chapter 14.6.1.1, “Understanding the Causes of Past and Projected Regional Changes”, finished (on page 1249) with the following gem :
– – – – – – – – – –
For the “The Science is settled, The Debate is over” brigade AR6 includes (for now, it’s all still “subject to copy-editing, corrigenda and trickle-backs”) the following.
In chapter 11.7.1.4, “Detection and attribution, event attribution”, page 11-92 :
.
And in chapter 11.7.1.5, “Projections”, page 11-94 :
.
Of course, in the Technical Summary — chapter TS.2.3, “Upper Air Temperatures and Atmospheric Circulation”, pages TS-37 and TS-38 — this was reduced to :
Now here’s where I get confused… the past is over and done, we have data (recorded contemporaneously, therefore it should bear some resemblance to what actually happened), yet their interpretation of history comes out “…it is likely…”. Data is data, so you have only 3 choices: 1) the datapoint falls on a trend line; 2) the datapoint falls above a trend line; 3) the datapoint falls below a trend line. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES!!! What is this “…it is likely…” s***? Hint: modeling is not data!!!
👍
There is a fourth possibility: The data is so spread out that it is impossible to determine any convincing trend line with any degree of certainty.
Think up a QR Code and try to determine any trend line from the excellent data there!
The literal answer can be found in Box 1.1 of AR6, on page 1-31 :
“”Terms used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome include: …, likely: 66–100%, …”
In “normal” science there isn’t just “the trend line”, there is also the “error range / confidence interval” that surrounds it.
One of the main problems with “Climate Science” is that in the struggle to shoehorn the historical (empirical) data into their “Thou shalt have no other climate forcing but CO2” philosophy they end up with an “error range” that is so large that (almost ?) every single conjecture about what the “cause” might be ends up in their “likely” category.
The trick is to only include the “It woz CO2 wot dunnit ! ! !” and “It is ‘unlikely’ to have been caused entirely by natural variability” conjectures in the SPM of whatever report they are currently writing.
They deliberately limit their choices to
1) It is (/ was / will be) 100% (human) CO2 emissions and 0% natural, or
2) It is (/ was / will be) 0% CO2 and 100% natural
and conclude that option 1 is more “likely” than option 2 (since 1950).
The vast majority of “lukewarmers”, including myself, agree with the IPCC (not the UNFCCC, see the “Glossary” entry for the term “climate change” in Annex VII of AR6 on page AVII-11) that “climate change” is the result of a mixture of natural and anthropogenic factors, the entire “debate” is about the ratios that apply for any specific time period, and how those ratios change over time.
The “trend lines” that you are trying to map (historical / empirical) datapoints onto are not constant (/ linear).
After Hurricane Katrina the climate cluckers were screaming that there would be more hurricanes…but when their prediction turned out to be false…they then said…”what we meant to say was that there would be more hurricanes.” You just cant win with these idiots.
Anyway, everyone, please read this amazing book that debunks the climate cluckers The moral case for fossil fuels
Please pass the link to your family and friends.
“…the climate cluckers…”
Good one !
Oh dear. Another boring complaint to be written up and sent. Don’t know why I bother.
I no longer have the right to complain about the Beeb. After catching up with Not Going Out we cancelled our standing order.
We don’t miss it.
JF
The moment you see the phrase ‘scientist’s believe‘ you know that an enourmous pat of cow dung is about to land on your head.
Scientists don’t believe, they don’t do belief at all. Belief is not part of science.
Scientists believe that the flow of tax payer money will instantly stop if they have the wrong believe.
Therefore they believe that the official believe is the only believe that will keep the money flowing.
You need a fake man made climate if you want to buy real man made goods when you belong to a zero productive useless elitist group that has never produced a single thing of value.
It is time for governments to stop giving away trillions of taxpayers money under the guise of ‘research grants’ into the global warming fallacy, and leave the blood sucking, so called global warming scientists to raise their easy money from commercial grants and sponsorships. That way will save huge sums to help the economy and make it much harder for the grant seeking beneficiaries to convince the cheque payers that their hard earned money is justified.
Speaking of money, what is it?
Whenever I hear that hackneyed expression “scientists believe” I’m reminded of those 1960s cigarette ads on TV, with some white coated spiv telling us how health-inducing a particular brand of gaspers was.
The BBC does not acknowledge a difference.
They are post-modern. They assume that all “facts” can be interpreted in many ways depending on the framing paradigm or belief system.
So all opinions are of equal value. So long as they do not conflict with the core belief system; that would be a “false equivalence”.
By Government dictat everyone at the Beeb is forbidden on pain of dismissal to report anything that contradicts the CAGW meme.
It’s the Harrabin diktat, I believe. He’s gone from being a mediocre reporter to person of influence in the BBC, all on the strength of being a rabid zealot of the cause. With his alarmist influence, the BBC has gone more and more extreme in its support for climate change.
No, it was an order from the Government some years ago.
What is, or should be, of interest is why soooo many people nowadays find ‘joy’ in stories of doom, gloom and disaster.
Whether those stories be real, flat out fakes or as in climate stories, cherry-picked, biased and exaggerated.
Exaggeration being Mendacity = making stuff up
Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the consumers of this stuff are leading such crap, pointless, stressful, frustrated, lonely, boring, dead-end existences that it gives them a reason for living? Seeing and hearing about the misfortune of others gives them some sort of happiness
That, by comparison, this Doom & Gloom makes their existences look and or feel ‘Good’
Is that REALLY a good or healthy thing to be doing?
Is something intrinisically wrong with the MSM, or is the media simply supplying what its consumers demand?
Why should this be – isn’t everything = Better Than Ever?
Why do people need what is effectively a drug
Is that actually what is meant by ‘better than ever’ – that everyone else’s existence is, or fabricated to be, ‘Worse Than Ever‘ with the feeling being enhanced by A Drug.
The BBC itself told what that drug is = an average 6 hours per day watching TV for *every* UK adult
What is being compared to what?
e.g. Are Extinction Rebellion actually crazy or are they doing a variation on what was once a popular way of giving up smoking (##) – a huuuuuge overdose of The Drug which made its consumer realise just what horrible stuff it actually is?
## The wannabe smoking quitter would be given with a near infinite supply of cigarettes and told to smoke them
something is very very wrong out there
edit to add:
It isn’t that Not A Lot Of People Know That,
it should read:
Not A Lot Of People Want To Know That
Just look at what is popular in “entertainment”, all manner of end of the world crap, nothing positive much less entertaining.
I would have to describe most popular entertainment as degenerate.
It would be horrible to be a kid today trying to make sense out of what they are seeing from the “entertainment” Media. It’s really a travesty. The entertainment media are on a race to the bottom. Another aspect of the degenerate Left destroying our society from within.
The disaster movies of the ’70s have become a continual stream of disaster porn in “news” and “entertainment”, even down to children’s programs and cartoons. On a side note, I see NHC has named another non-hurricane and “news” is attempting to hyper people into yet another hysterical frenzy. Just one more aspect of the same pattern.
People have always told grim stories. They still do. Everything from Grendel to MacBeth to the Kennedy assassination.
They need reminders that this is not a benevolent world where all things turn out right.
““Climate scientists believe that global warming is making them stronger””
There’s the clue, it isn’t science at all; it’s blind faith in the holy models. It has to be blind faith for nothing else explains their ‘beliefs’.
“Hurricanes really are getting stronger, just like climate models predicted”
This paper doesn’t fully disentangle local trends like those from global warming effects, the researchers wrote. But it does establish with 95% confidence that tropical cyclones have gotten significantly stronger in the era of most intense climate change.
https://www.livescience.com/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger.html
I don’t know about you, but I just don’t do belief. It takes at least some evidence and without the models they have absolutely nothing to show. Thus far every claim they have made has proved to be utterly wrong.
The BBC is ramming home the gospels of the church of AGW every hour of every day and it goes unchallenged because to challenge the narrative is heresy and we all know what happens to heretics
I predict here will be a lot more climate anxiety for the psychologists to work on….
See my comment above.
The government is following orders. Unlike China.
“There’s the clue, it isn’t science at all; it’s blind faith in the holy models. It has to be blind faith for nothing else explains their ‘beliefs’.”
Substituting belief for physics.
There’s a difference between Modulz and thermodynamics.
And basic at that. Warmer air holds more WV … which releases more LH inside a TC/Hurricane with which to intensify.
And that the warmer the SST the greater the potential energy release. This will be realised by is maximum intensity (central pressure and consequent pressure gradient ie wind speed.
SSTs are warming
https://phys.org/news/2008-09-warmer-seas-linked-hurricanes.html
“The researchers found that the strongest tropical cyclones are getting stronger, particularly over the North Atlantic and Indian oceans. Wind speeds for the strongest tropical storms increased from an average of 140 mph in 1981 to 156 mph in 2006, while the ocean temperature, averaged globally over the all regions where tropical cyclones form, increased from 28.2 degrees Celsius to 28.5 degrees Celsius during this period.”
And:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328671950/figure/fig1/AS:688209558257664@1541093353629/a-Total-SST-anomaly-from-long-term-mean-over-1901-2017-b-anomaly-by-long-term-linear.ppm
This is the UAH version of Global SST trend (Trop over oceans)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20WithARGO.gif
And:
“The trend and variability of tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) since 1979; the unit of the trend is K (34 yr) 21. (a) The spatial pattern of the SST trend. (b) The blue curve shows the spatial mean SST time series (K) over the tropical Atlantic region, while the linear trend is indicated by the gray line. (c) The detrended time series of the spatial mean SST (K), which is used in the regression analysis. “
As usua,l Banton’s bollox.
So what pray caused the 1987 Michael Fish crapper, and the 1703 monster, The great storm of 1703?
heard of cyclic trends, stuff like the 5 month peak to trough Covid variants which they have now realised after months of vaccinodromes, (and deial) don’t do sweet F-A to achieve herd immunity.
Your climate bollox Banton is of exactly the same order….THE SCIENCE, just like all those “imperial college modellers…)
It’s what the forum now remembers you for.
Talking utter bollox and being in denial about your own lamentable track record in plain old weather forecasting.
And what use is a detrended line ?
“Climate scientists believe that global warming is making them stronger”
Taking that sentence at face value, I see that climate scientists believe global warming is making climate scientists stronger. I have frequently suspected as much, glad it’s finally out in the open!
The BBC are experts when it comes to Fat Cheques, but Fact Checks are part of the fiction dept.
More tumbling walrus, anyone?
Same crap bbc has been pushing for years. All their employees should be standing on street corners wearing hair shirts and sandwich boards proclaiming “The End Is Near!”.
From the article: “All they could find was an increasing intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes since the 1970s, which hurricane experts such as Chris Landsea believe is part of the multidecadal cycle, the AMO.”
That makes sense since the 1970’s were one of the coolest periods recorded and the Earth has warmed since that time to the present day, which means the ocean temperatures have warmed, and warm oceans provide the energy for hurricanes.
So when the AMO goes back to a cool phase, the oceans will cool, hurricane numbers will decrease, and the long term trend will approach zero. This is the opposite of what the GCMs are predicting.
The AMO is an index for whole of the North Atlantic and tropical Atlantic waters seem to be much less if at all affected.
See the graph above.
Doesn’t the air temperature have some bearing on hurricane intensity? In a warming world there is little difference in air and water temperature so there should be no storms.
“…is borne out by the fact no that robust trends in major hurricanes has been found…” – article
Oh, come on now!!! You guys are spoiling their game. You’re gonna hurt they feewings!!! They have to have something to say, even if it is just nattering babblespeak.
What are the worst hurricanes ever? Even if there are reasonably accurate records of hurricane frequency, recording the violence of such storms as data or categories or whatever did not really start until a short while ago – short, meaning by comparison with some centuries of reporting violent storms at sea.
And typhoons aren’t included in this? If not, why not? They don’t count for nuthin’? Yes, I do realize that the article addresses only Atlantic hurricanes/storms, but wouldn’t it make a better point if it addressed all such ocean-borne storms?
I’m skeptical of the nitpicking effort by the BBC as it’s engaged in self-aggrandisement to try to draw readers/viewers and is fast becoming a babbling “my daughter, my ducats” venue.
The Pacific is somehow non-existant in Europe! No emissions, no coal fired stations and nothing to do with the view of the BBC. Amazing isn’t it?
No coal-fired stuff? Oh, no!!! Isn’t China afflicted with a Pacific coast line?
Based on my familiarity (from the standpoint of engineering) with heat transfer, it seems apparent that a hurricane is a method of mass heat transport, a heat engine in actual practice. Willis Eschenbach has noted the apparent connection between rising afternoon temperatures and thunderstorms that cool both the ocean surface and the atmosphere, by punching a hole right through the atmosphere and transporting heat to the lower troposphere where it can readily radiate to space. Likewise a hurricane is an organized collection of thunderstorms (when just one simply won’t do the job) that not only transports energy from the ocean surface to the lower troposphere, but also transports heat (in general) from the tropics to higher latitudes. I believe this is a necessary function and if Humans ever attain the ability to ameliorate a hurricane they should pass on that opportunity; I don’t foresee it ending well.
Hurricanes also harbor tornadoes, so they’ve got that going for them.
Hurricanes are heat engines, and are an essential part of the Earth’s climate.
The “check” in the phrase “climate check” is how you know it is bona fide and true.
We didn’t have hurricane hunters or satellite pictures 80+ years ago, so the records that go back the farthest are those from land measurements.
I flew into Hurricane Gloria in September 1985, while employed as chief meteorologist for WEHT in Evansville, IN.
Another TV meteorologist from Pittsburgh, PA was on the same flight with his photographer. We thought that it was pretty funny that the 2 of us were broadcasting at TV stations so far away from the ocean that would never be hit by a hurricane.
The decades with the most US hurricanes were:
1. 1990’s -31(during global warming)
2. 1940’s -26 (start of 3 decades of global cooling)
3. (Tie) 1880’s -25(global cooling)
4. 2000’s -25(warming pause, after +1 Deg. C)
5. 1950’s -23 ( global cooling)
6. 1910’s -23 (end/peak of long lived cooling phase)
Here’s the link:
US Hurricane Facts
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/74788/
The weather bureau in Australia is so panicked about not enough cyclones they start naming them before they even form, and if it turns out to be just a tropical storm they let the name stand. About as dishonest as it gets.
I know its not particular relevant to THIS particular discussion, but the BBC perpetuate the ludicrous “listen to the science”, or “the science says” mantra week after week…. the same with the pandemic
Science does “say” anything. It provides data which is then interpreted by those that purport to being “expert”. ( whether they are, or are not, or whether they have a vested interest ). You can intepret ANY data however you want.