A recent broadcast weather segment on CBS News, Los Angeles, titled “Helene gaining strength from climate change effects,” features a staff meteorologist claiming that hurricane Helene was strengthened by climate change, and that indeed hurricanes in general are increasing in intensity and power. This is false. It is actually shocking how wrong CBS is with regards to what actual hurricane data show, which is that hurricanes are not getting more intense, frequent, or powerful.
The CBS video description reads “…Helene is gaining strength from warmer waters in the Gulf of Mexico, an effect linked to climate change that appears to make hurricanes and storms more powerful.”
The CBS anchor hands the segment over to meteorologist Marina Jurica, who alleges that “the increasing intensity of hurricanes is basically rooted in physics… hurricanes draw energy from that warm ocean water and as that climate change causes sea surface temperatures to rise the energy available for these storms increases.”
It is true that warm sea surface temperatures contribute to hurricane formation, However, they are far from the only element, and in fact for most of this hurricane season, despite warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures, storms struggled to form at all.
Jurica asserts the usual claim that warm water causes stronger winds and more moisture which causes heavier rainfall, “one of the most significant effects of climate change is its impact on hurricane intensity… which is why we’re seeing more catastrophic flooding associated with all of these recent storms.” The anchor went on to assert that hurricanes have been more intense in recent years and “the level of the storms is rising,” and Jurica added that “over the last several decades storms are moving slower” using Harvey as an example of this effect. Most of these claims are made out of whole cloth, complete nonsense.
Starting with the Hurricane Harvey anecdote, when the storm hit Texas in 2017, it was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since 2005, after a 12-year major hurricane drought in one of the most active tropical storm regions in the world. The longest such major hurricane drought since records have been kept in the United States.
Jurica claims in the CBS clip that Harvey was stalled and dumped more water on Texas because of global warming causing more moisture in the air, and while it is true that the precipitation was unprecedented for the area, reality shows that it was cooler-than-normal trough that stalled the storm out over Houston. Stalled storms are not new, as pointed out by professional meteorologist and hurricane-historian Joe Bastardi here. As a meteorologist herself it was Jurica’s job to look this up before going on live television.
No measured hurricane data supports the claim that hurricanes have been becoming more intense. This is only found flawed computer model outputs.
Publicly available data record no trend in increasing frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or elsewhere around the globe. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a metric used to track the overall strength of tropical cyclones over time, and if anything, the data here presented by Dr. Ryan Maue suggest they have been getting less powerful since the 1990s. (See figure below)
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees, stating that there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”
The CBS broadcast was before Helene made landfall, and while hurricane Helene proved to be very destructive, it is not unprecedented. Past hurricanes have likewise caused significant flooding and wind and tornado damage well inland in the Appalachians and surrounding regions, such as hurricane Gracie in 1959 which made landfall in South Carolina as a Category 4, during which 13 people died in Virginia due to tornados. There are many other examples, the most damaging of which was the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a category 4 storm which took between 6,000 and 12,000 lives, most due to storm surge and flooding.
Every major storm involving loss of life and property is a tragedy, and they need to be taken seriously, which is why it is so appalling when the mainstream media takes advantage of peoples’ fear preceding dangerous storms, and their losses and misery following them, in order to make false claims about climate change. CBS’s meteorologist is either shockingly poorly informed about hurricane data or just doesn’t care about facts, despite her training as a meteorologist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees, stating that there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.””
_____________________________________________________________________________
Link is to a Blog and won’t cut any ice with true believers. Here’s a link to where you can find that buried in the IPCC’s AR6 report:
IPCC AR6 Chapter 11; Section 11.7.1.5; Page 1592 pdf80
11.7.1.5 Projections
It says: “It is likely …that the global frequency of TCs* over all categories will decrease or remain unchanged”
*TC: Tropical Cyclone.
The IPCC-speak translator:
“Low Confidence” = “There is no evidence that this is happening” or “This is not happening.”
Hint: The IPCC doesn’t have a “Zero Confidence” category, and everything no matter the lack of evidence is expressed in the positive to provide cover for continuing to assert unsupported outcomes.
From what I recall, their “confidence” metrics were calculated by basically asking a bunch of people who are presumably “experts” in the field what they think on an entirely subjective scale (1-10 would be generous of the precision).
So, not only is there no actual evidence of the thing happening, the level of confidence in the very likely not happening thing comes from the subjective whims of the “experts” at the time. These are a qualitative (even that is a stretch) assessment, rather than any sort of quantitative metric.
Selective quotation. Here is what it really says:
“The SREX (Chapter 3) concluded that there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC intensity, frequency, and duration, and any observed trends in phenomena such as tornadoes and hail; it is likely that extratropical storm tracks have shifted poleward in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and that heavy rainfalls and mean maximum wind speeds associated with TCs will increase with continued greenhouse gas warming; it is likely that the global frequency of TCs will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, while it is more likely than not that the frequency of the most intense storms will increase substantially in some ocean basins”
Pretty much what CBS said. Fewer storms, but the bad ones getting worse.
“Fewer storms, but the bad ones getting worse.”
Which is a load of total BS, of course.
We have seen that there is zero trend in Hurricanes over the last 30 years, and that ACE is declining.
Nick-really? “Wind speeds will increase, the frequency of intense storms will increase…”
Those are all future tense, Nick. Predictions of the future isn’t evidence of anything
Nit Pick Nick falls over yet again!
These are <b>all predictions</b>, you know, like all those predictions of Climate Change ™ that never happen.
The actual claim by CBS was that cyclones <b>are</b> getting worse, and the IPCC state that there is absolutely no evidence of this.
So what you claim CBS said is not what CBS said. Care to retract that, for a change, or will you just dig a deeper hole like usual?
Steve Case misquoted their prediction. I showed what they really said.
I set out the current facts downthread. It is as CBS said. Linnea has it wrong, again.
Do you think the method of how wind speeds are captured today are exactly the same as 10,20,30,40,50+ years ago?
And you got soundly trounced , downthread.
Nick has it WRONG as always.
OK, you’ll obviously keep digging!
You said that CBS said that storms will get worse. CBS didn’t say that. They said storms ARE worse. They are wrong, and are in direct opposition to what the IPCC say.
Whataboutism isn’t relevant.
The IPCC CID’s (Tropical Cyclone)show no movement, even under RCP8.5. That’s what the science says. Of course the models say different. 😉
Your whole quote is based on mindless guesswork and pseudo-predictions.
It is irrelevant and meaningless against reality.
“Fewer storms, but the bad ones getting worse.”
Well, where is the increase in cat3+ hurricanes in the last 30 years?
There isn’t an increase, so “the bad ones” ARE NOT getting worse.
Fewer storms but more media storm coverage would be more accurate.
The NOAA site says flat out no trend
You gotta linkypooh fer dat?
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20contrary%20to%20many,hurricanes%20and%20weaker%20cyclones%20overall.
There is more there
There is that pesky word “may” again.
Exactly correct for you to point that out … because wherever the word “may” is used in such a scientific argument, the implication is that the phrase “may not” could have easily been inserted as a replacement.
But…the models are robust, so we KNOW that climate change causes heat, and cold, and drought, and flood, and fire and ice…and everything!
It even makes beer go flat.
“It even makes beer go flat.”
Henry’s Law says the alarmists are even wrong on that complaint!
It sure make media coverage intensify.
If only we’d all stop driving our ICE cars a week ago, Helene would not have happened. /sarc obviously
Climate change = Global warming
Increased CO2 back radiation causes global warming, an atmospheric event
Atmospheric CO2 back radiation cannot warm ocean water.
Follow the science.
CBS is spreading disinformation and misinformation
CBS video transmissions can be received in Canada.
It is illegal in Canada to distribute misinformation and disinformation over the airwaves.
I expect criminal warrants to be issued soon for CBS corporate officers and its parent company Paramount Global.
Warrants might have been issued if CBS has quoted true sources instead of party lines.
“Atmospheric CO2 back radiation cannot warm ocean water.”
A colder thing cannot transmit heat to a warmer thing, but it can slow the rate of heat loss by the warmer thing, by being warmer than an even colder thing that would otherwise be adjacent to the warmer thing.
Slowing the rate of heat loss makes the thing that is losing heat warmer than it would otherwise have been, and in that sense can be said to be warming it.
Of course the primary source of ocean warming is solar shortwave radiation penetrating the oceans. That is the point to make, not bogus arguments that back-radiation can’t cause warming.
We know that the magnetic field strength of the earth is decreasing. So less protection against incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. That means not only that more shortwave radiation hits the ocean surface, but also penetrates deeper.
We are at solar maximum with a very active sun with Northern Lights reaching much closer to the equator than we have seen in the past. Of course the ‘problem’ is this has nothing to do with human activity and can’t force us in 15 minute cities. I just wonder why humanity went underground during part of its history and made those strange paintings in caves and carvings on rocks.
My belief is that the effect of solar activity is the main reason for all the climate change we have seen during the last 200 years and not the ridiculously small amount of CO2 we’ve put back into the atmosphere.
The magnetic field can only affect charged particles, i.e. protons and electrons. High-energy EM (UV, x-rays, gamma rays) are attenuated by the atmosphere.
Charged particles have energy and that energy is dissipated when interacting with the atmosphere, hence the aurora borealis. That is an energy input to the earth system. How much it contributes? I have not done an analysis nor have I read any.
Much the same, the biggest contribution to the earth energy system from hydrocarbons is not the CO2, but the energy. Waste heat in air and water plus all electricity ultimately is dissipated as heat in the atmosphere. That is not accounted for.
Volcanos do emit CO2, but no one has bothered to estimate how much thermal energy is injected into the earth energy system by the multitudes of volcanos and thermal vents, etc.
Variations on solar energy, due to orbital mechanics and solar physics is no doubt a major player in all of this.
I don’t know the answer to this question either.
It’s fewer clouds blocking sunlight in the past 30 or so years, due to cuts in sulfur emissions which were seeding cloud formation and those clouds were reflecting sunlight back into space.
Your description is how a blanket works, considering the human body metabolism is a source of thermal energy.
In thermal energy transfer, aka thermodynamics, that is true. A cold source cannot warm a warmer object via heat transfer (thermal energy).
In electromagnetics, temperature is not a limiter. EMI energy radiated from a cold element to a warm element can warm the warm element. The math is call “skin depth” in solids and “optical depth” in liquids and gasses.
It would appear that CBS knows their viewing audience very well.
And has concluded that they can present any kind of bullshit to their viewers, and they’ll just keep on viewing unquestioningly.
Correct you are, but, IMO, the saddest part of the entire propaganda process is that CBS is hardly the only perpetrator.
Such is the curse of humanity here in our golden age of technology: [1] Never before has technology had, relatively easily in many ways, such comprehensive geographical reach; the result being that [2] in view of the enormous potential profit, such endeavors have attracted the participation of many criminal actors.
IOW: human history does not repeat, but it often rhymes: crime still does pay — if you are sufficiently clever — where the perpetrators, most likely, will not ever underestimate the IQ and gullibility of the average Joe and Josephine.
Didn’t they forecast a lot more than one?
Either way, it isn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
Mother Nature is still busy using hurricanes to sculpt Florida and the Atlantic east coast.
Very nice Linnea.
Earth Science textbooks a century ago mentioned the role of tropical storms bringing much of the rainfall east of the 100th Meridian (Where the Plains begin). Often there is too much rainfall in the Appalachians.** See concept and maps here:
https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/dividing-line-past-present-and-future-100th-meridian
**History here:
https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2024/02/heavy-rainfall-events-and-their-impacts-in-appalachian-history.html
From JH link: “Climate models project that the aridity gradient will move eastward by an additional two to three degrees by 2100, Lis says.“
“Seager says, as the effective 100th meridian encroaches eastward, farmers will likely shift from corn to wheat, or other less water-intensive crops, as corn yields decrease and become less profitable.”
From second link “as the climate continues to change across the globe, some of the biggest storms are only predicted to get bigger.”
“Nearly all experts agree at this point that climate change is playing a role today in making floods and other natural disasters more intense than they might otherwise be”
“Unfortunately, as the climate continues to change, experts predict that these types of events are not only going to become more and more common, but they are also going to increase in severity.”
The point of all the quotes: Articles foresee both dryer weather and wetter weather, increasing both types of problems.
Climate models project. ’nuff said.
“**History here:”
But there was no history before storms were “named”!
The thing is that without these extreme events we would not have the beaches we love. You need powerful rivers and extreme rain events to move the sediments to the oceans.
Dam construction is the main reason why our beaches are getting smaller. If what builds a delta no longer can reach the delta the delta will disappear.
Several years back, there was a hurricane headed for the coast of the Carolinas. Much fanfare was bestowed upon the fact that this storm was going to encounter warm water as it made its way to the shoreline. I.e. the “warm sea-surface temperatures provide the fuel for/supercharge/intensify/etc. tropical storms and hurricanes” alarmist story, as exhibited in this article.
As the storm passed through this warmer water, it…fizzled. Another simplistic talking point bites the dust.
I her own words:
“Bruin blood runs deep in my family as both my dad and I graduated from UCLA. I studied Sociology with an emphasis in communications and also music.
After being close to the epicenter of the Northridge quake of ’94, my passion in geoscience and meteorology got a boost. I went back to school and got my bachelors and masters degree in geosciences with an emphasis in meteorology from Mississippi State. I also have my AMS Seal of Approval from the American Meteorological Society.
After forecasting for 12 years in many different climates and regions, I have fallen in love with the ever changing complexity of weather.
I have come to be known as the singing meteorologist. I studied opera performance at UCLA and have the lead in over 30 musical theater productions over the years. I love to sing with the local symphonies in my area and have performed the national anthem at numerous pro-sporting events across the nation.”
She used “and also”. Not a bright bulb.
“No measured hurricane data supports the claim that hurricanes have been becoming more intense.”
Just not true. Yesterday WUWT went through this, presenting the graph of global numbers of Cat 3+ hurricanes. I redid the plot, showing the trend, which is statistically significant at 95%:
And here is the plot of numbers of hurricanes of all strength:
It is as the IPCC projects for the future. Fewer hurricanes, but the bad ones will be worse. Just as CBS said.
The combination of fewer but worse is why ACE comes out as a wash.
Still DENYING the step up in 1990, and the ZERO TREND over the 30 year “climate”
Still no explanation how human CO2 could possibly cause that to happen.
All TC’s have DECLINED over the longer period as atmospheric CO2 has risen.
Stronger hurricanes were more prevalent in the 1930/40s
Hurricane numbers have continued to decline.
Absolutely no indication that the big hurricanes are getting stronger.
Global Major Hurricane Frequency shows absolutely nothing except randomness with a slight downward trend since 1990.
The “new ice age scare” period had far more Cat3+ hurricanes, than the following 25 years did.
“but the bad ones will be worse”
Well, where is the increase in cat3+ in the last 30 years.
There isn’t an increase, so “the bad ones” ARE NOT getting worse.
CBS didn’t say that storms WILL BE worse. They said that storms ARE worse. They are wrong, and in direct contradiction to the IPCC.
That is exactly what these graphs show. Over the period 1980-2023, cat 1-5 hurricanes have been decreasing, while cat3+ have been increasing. So clearly a greater proportion of TCs are cat 3+.
Cat3+ has a step up at 1990, for the last 30 years there is zero trend..
There has been NO INCREASE in cat3+ in the last 30 years.
“but the bad ones will be worse”
There isn’t an increase, so “the bad ones” ARE NOT getting worse.
Still no explanation how human CO2 could possibly cause that to happen.
Why are you cowardly running away from the reality, Nick
All TC’s have DECLINED over the longer period as atmospheric CO2 has risen.
Stronger hurricanes were more prevalent in the 1930/40s
I found a really good picture of you Nick…
That’s a good one!
Nick is his own worst enemy. Some of his points are quite valid. Unfortunately they get dismissed by most because of his invalid, and sometimes outright incorrect points that he refuses to back down from.
I don’t think he realises just how much damage he does to his “cause” by ducking and weaving and continually digging deeper when he obviously has nowhere else he can dig.
Its actually quite funny. 🙂
And by not answering the “human causation” about of the 30 year zero trend in Cat3+ he is basically admitting that human CO2 has absolutely ZERO effect on hurricanes.
Thanks Nick. 🙂
“So clearly a greater proportion of TCs are cat 3+.”
Yes… Cat, 1 and 2 have been getting less, and as shown by the last 30 years of data, cat3+ is NOT INCREASING
Same amount over a smaller total gives a bigger proportion.
Seems even basic mathematical understanding is beyond you.
As shown above, over the longer term total cyclones/hurricanes have decreased markedly.
We are still waiting for you to explain how human CO2 can cause a step up in 1990, then ZERO TREND for 30 years.
You really are acting like a slimy slithering little worm, aren’t you Nick.
Yes, your cherries have been picked well. But looking at a more sensible timeframe, there is no trend. Just as the IPCC state.
Are you now saying the IPCC is wrong?
You do realize that the hurricane categories have ranges of wind speed:
Saffir-Simpson
TS 39-73
1 74-95
2 96-110
3 111-129
4 130-156
5 157+
The point is, a strong Cat 2 at 110 mph gaining only 1 mph in wind speed estimate becomes a Cat 3.
In reality there is near zero difference between 110 and 111 as far as storm surge and wind damage.
So any claims of increased intensity can not be generalized by the SS category.
His plots would look quite different if the y-axis was the same for both, and started from zero.
Despite all the mainstream media’s alarmism, is there any evidence that governments, businesses, industries and consumers are going to any major lengths to combat the climate change problem? All I’ve seen are piecemeal proposals and halfhearted actions that may look good from a publicity standpoint but which have had very few positive results; i.e. plenty of lip service but nothing to show for it because few consider climate change a major concern.
Yes, plenty of people are doing lots. As long as the government is happy to dole out taxpayers’ money when they do it!
My electricity bills rise constantly to pay for subsidies given for rich people to put solar panels up. And my taxes go to pay subsidies for rich people to buy EVs. And my taxes go to pay rich landowners and developers to build ugly, wasteful wind farms.
Perhaps you can see the trend…?
Fortunately, I don’t have to pay income taxes any longer.
“Fortunately, I don’t have to pay income taxes any longer.“
Nice situation to be in isn’t it. 🙂
I have managed to arrange my situation such that the government gives me money each fortnight 🙂
Get some of those taxes back that I paid while working.