Essay by Eric Worrall
Contradictory evidence is now “uncertainty”?
As Trump attacks US science agencies, ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ushers in a fresh wave of climate denial in Australia
…
In Australia, the past week has seen a fresh wave of climate denial as ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred approached and hit the southern Queensland coast. News Corp outlets, in particular, have run straw man arguments attacking people that have forcefully linked the storm to the climate crisis.
Some commentators have pointed out that southern Queensland has had cyclones before. Others have suggested there is uncertainty in the data about the pace and way in which they are changing, and that climate change didn’t “cause” Alfred. Well, yes. That’s all correct, of course, but hardly the point.
What they mostly haven’t said is that the ocean and atmosphere are demonstrably warmer than even just a few years ago. Or that this means the most intense storms formed in warmer conditions carry more energy and more water. Or that the conditions under which tropical cyclones can form are moving south as the planet heats up.
…
The evidence is that this is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense. There is data suggesting they also tend to last longer. Greater intensity plus time equals heightened risk of damage and casualties. It doesn’t mean that every cyclone or extreme storm will be more damaging than in the past. It does mean that when one comes, the potential for it to carry enough energy to wreak significant havoc is rising, not falling.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2025/mar/11/ex-tropical-cyclone-alfred-climate-denial-australia-trump-attacks-us-science-agencies
The graph at the top of the page shows both cyclone numbers and intensity are in long term decline. There is no “uncertainty”, this is reality.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. – Richard Feynman.
The statement “this [ocean heating] is making tropical cyclones less frequent but more intense” is not supported by the evidence that tropical cyclones are declining both in frequency and intensity.
Why would anyone believe something which is so blatantly false? I don’t know why journalist Adam Morton holds this view, but the idea that models are more important than observations appears to be deep rooted in the climate community.
Are climate modellers putting the effect before the cause when it comes to long term cyclone frequency and intensity vs surface temperature? Because there is a very simple possible explanation for why atmospheric and ocean surface temperature is rising but cyclone frequency and intensity are decreasing – cyclone frequency and intensity likely have an inverse relationship with ocean surface and atmospheric heat content. Cyclones are powerful dissipators of surface heat, an uptick in cyclones would cause an immediate and sustained drop in surface temperature.
Bonus points for anyone who has a good theory for what causes more cyclones – I mean a theory which doesn’t contradict observations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, there were more hurricanes during the 1945-1980 “The Ice Age is Coming!!” scare, so a greater temperature contrast between tropical and more northern latitudes might cause more tropical cyclones.
Historically, the LIA seemed to have also been bad for hurricanes.
The number of hurricane went so much down that the Washington Pest had to admitt 9 years ago that the USA is in a hurricane drought.
Somehow The Guardian got to the exact opposite result,which is impossible.
Who is right?
Very simple:
Google both claims + News Outlet
and you will find The Guardian one instantly,
but the WaPo one was memory holed.
If you Google Hurricane drought Washington Pest
you will only get results that are rebutting and respinning the original article,
but never the original article itself as result.
They always hide the truth and protect the lie.
50+ years ago the Bhola Cyclone killed 300- 500K people in Pakistan during the perfect climate era of > 350 ppm atmosphere..
Nowadays a Cyclone can kill a co2ish 0.01 % umber of people and they will call it the worst Cyclone in history and an unprecedented deathtoll that is in fact lower than the Clinton Bodycount.
When you don’t limit yourself to real world data, it’s easy to find data to support any position you want (or are paid) to take.
1st and ultimate rule of modern science.
“If real world data is in the way of funding then replace it with money-friendly data.”
2nd rule of science.
Omerta.
Any group of outcasts,misfits,perverts,pedos,criminals etc is selforganizing and selfprotecting.
They don’t snitch on each other and protect each other as long as the money is flowing.
Bound by crime and interest.
There are myriad atmospheric processes that can change ever so slightly to counter any warming and increase the energy flow from surface to the top of the atmosphere before the need to invoke cyclones.
I made a movie here which showed daily SST of the NH Atlantic with the six hourly locations of hurricanes superimposed. You can see the actual drop in SST.
I’ve always liked your visualisations.
I’m not disagreeing that Cyclones “are powerful dissipators of surface heat” because they clearly are. I just dont think that AGW making them “worse” is a fait accompli.
TTTMan,
But there is a central matter that is not discussed because it lacks measurement. Is the measured water temperature change large enough to change the frequency or the duration or the strength of storms? All we have to date, IIRC, is a rough correlation between sea surface temperature and the start of a storm, perhaps a little more like latitude bounds for hurricane genesis.
Then, circular reasoning is applied (not validly) to claim that hotter waters CAUSE this or that, the old saw of correlation not being causation.
This unscientific pattern of assertions is quite common in climate research, but not so evident in other types of science that I have worked with. Geoff S
Yes, this happens a lot. I think our simulation of cyclones is probably like our simulation of clouds being more a statistical fit than driven by first principal physics. But I haven’t looked into them specifically so YMMV.
Excellent work Nick, nice Javascript.
Thanks, Eric.
Good work Nick. it does make one want to inquire how much is cause and effect though.
It makes sense that winds are going to cause evaporative surface cooling in the hurricane’s wake and the path of the hurricane forward may be directed towards high surface temperature areas. Your movie doesn’t consistently show that effect I don’t think. Coriolis force?, prevailing winds?, low and high pressure fronts further away ? Those hurricane path predictor folks must have it mostly figured out…..
Re consistency, obviously the strength of the hurricane matters, but also the speed of crossing the water. And then all the other things you mention.
It’s not absolute temps that determine the speed & “strength” of air movement, but temp/pressure differences….Warmer surface temps need cooler upper air temps to make them rise significantly faster, and it’s the falling cooler air aided by gravity that provide most of the power….Tornadoes are driven by local conditions, hurricanes by conditions of continental sized air masses.
I was at the Gold Coast in 1967 when Cat4 cyclone Dinah crossed the coast.
The erosion of sand from the beaches uncovered old car bodies that had been placed there decades earlier to mitigate the erosion from past cyclones.
Bet they’re sorry now they removed all the clunkers.
I always get a large laugh when journalists claim that an upper atmospheric phenomena such as CO2 back radiation is capable of warming the oceans to any degree that would affect hurricane formation.
It’s been debunked for years as a non physical possibility, just as ocean acidification has.
Here’s a clue for you journalists. Stop lying. The sun heats the oceans and ocean currents spread it around the globe. It’s as if journalists don’t even care anymore how silly they sound regurgitating discredited climate propaganda.
Well, you can’t heat just the top bit, it’s all gonna mix eventually through circulation. It requires 1,000K increase in heat of the atmosphere to heat the oceans by 1K, because they have 1,000x the heat capacity.
Obviously, heating the atmosphere by 1K (dubious as that adjusted ‘observation’ may be), cannot, in any possible physical universe that I have ever existed in, heat the oceans by 1K.
The ‘observations’ of ocean temperatures are even more laughable, especially historically, than land temperatures. But perhaps the heat is ‘hiding’ somewhere, as Trenberth claimed.
To the extent that CO2 warms the air above the oceans, the oceans have to warm in order to keep the rate of heat flow from the oceans the same. (Heat flow includes direct thermal conduction and evaporation)
Hmmmm….
So cyclones have never come so far south before? I guess the cyclone that prevented my flight from Sydney to India in 1990 was all in my imagination…
Highest daily rainfall in Queensland was at Crohamhurst , just north of Brisbane in 1893 (907mm)
Highest rainfall in NSW was Dorrigo in 1954 (809mm)
So yes, cyclones have come “so far south” in the past.
Well Alfred wasn’t even a cyclone when it crossed the Queensland coast so most news outlets get that wrong for a start.
Of ex-cyclones that have hit New South Wales the years are 1954, 1967 and 1974 so they were well past due if you play the averages.
Not sure how any of that supports a view that cyclones are moving further south.
Take the oldest 1954 which pre-dates climate science CO2 magic days.
https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/cyclone-the-great-gold-coast-cyclone-queensland/
Our house in Brisbane got flooded by that one.
I still recall as a kid us being evacuated in the middle of the night.
What an exciting time!
But as Barbra Streisand sang –
“Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?”
Go back to 1582 and you find the last time that perihelion preceded the austral summer solstice. Since 1583, perihelion has occurred after the solstice. This year, perihelion occurred on 5th January.
This means the peak solar intensity in the SH is declining while the peak solar intensity in the NH is increasing. Accordingly we can anticipate the range of temperature in the SH to moderate while the range in the NH will tend toward greater extremes.
Cyclones require convective potential to spin up. They need to be at latitudes greater than about 7 degrees so that Coriolis acceleration will cause converging low altitude air to spin. The converging air needs tio be relatively dry so it can pick up moisture from the warm surface, expand and then rise strongly to keep the cyclone powered up as well as condensing some of the moisture as it gains altitude.
Cyclones are the most powerful means of redistributiing heat on the globe – look at the amount of water Alfred picked up from the ocean and deposited on land. Given that extremes in the SH are moderating, we could expect to see them moderating in the SH. Also, Australia presents a particular case because it is getting more like the Amazon as the atmospheric moisture increases. Monsoonal storms now develop over land and draw in moist air preferentially and progressively from the oceans so they disrupt cyclone development offshore. In 2024, a tropical low at around 990hPa spun up over land in the NT and travelled SSW for about a week before dissipating. The land was wet enough to act like ocean surface.
Alfred was as much fed by dry air coming up from NZ as it was from air coming off Australia. I initially predicted it would head off toward NZ but dissipate over cool water. As it turned out, BoM got the track close but they vastly underetimnated the time it would sit off Brisbane decided which way it would eventually track.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2025/03/06/0700Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-220.72,-28.49,1347
The NH will exhibit an increase in cyclone activity due to the increasing extremes particularly in September and October due to oceans holding more heat from the increasing sunlight but the land getting colder faster due to the reducing autumn and winter sunlight.
Few people appreciate that my solar panels at 37S get around 80W/m^2 more intense sunlight than solar panels at 37N. But the difference has been diminishing since 1583. The NH has a lot of ocean warming to come before the snowfall overtakes the snow melt again. I doubt that will be widely observed by anyone reading this today apart from Greenland where it is already happening.
The 80W/m^2 is real and a lot more than the imaginary 1.34W/m^2 that the CC religious fanatics claim CO2 can cause by doubling.
All interesting observations.
Have I told you about my butterfly flapping his wings theory?…. 🙂
That’s very interesting, Rick. A quick back-of-envelope calculation tells me that the peak difference between NH and SH sunlight intensity should occur in about 5,000 years time, give or take a few hundred years, whereafter it should start to diminish again so that the cycle is completed in about 10,000 years more-or-less.
BTW, when I clicked on your link I got a “Notice” from NOAA which said (my emphasis in bold):
“Weather and climate data shown on this website and countless others are at risk. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the U.S. agency responsible for global weather forecasting, hurricane prediction, ocean observation, and many other services vital to public safety. Its satellites, supercomputers, and research teams provide essential data that help us understand our planet and protect lives.
On February 27, the new U.S. administration initiated mass firings at NOAA. These actions are unethical and deeply disruptive to the talented scientists and engineers who dedicate themselves to the public good. The firings, along with expected budget cuts, have serious implications for the availability and quality of weather forecasts produced by the United States. They must be reversed immediately.
Much of the data on this website is downloaded directly from NOAA’s servers. In this environment of uncertainty, access could be disrupted at any time. While I’ll strive to keep all features on this website functional and switch to alternative data sources if necessary, some datasets have no substitute if they go offline.
If this concerns you, speak up. Share on social media. And if you’re in the U.S., contact your representatives.
– Cameron”
I cannot think of any other country in the world besides the USA where such overt political activism that opposes and morally condemns (by declaring “unethical”) a specific action of the government by a spokesperson for an administrative agency (NOAA) of the very government whose action they are condemning would be tolerated for more than a second by that government.
It’s their super-sized sense of righteousness and entitlement that they think bestows on them their obligation to defy the democratically expressed expectations of their employers – the American taxpayers.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/03/03/cnn-bill-nye-noaa-elon-musk-doge/
“You know, when I was young, when I was a kid, if a hurricane path was predicted within 60, 70 nautical miles, everybody would, that was amazing. Well, now it’s within 5 or 6 nautical miles because of the efficacy or the quality of the software and the satellites that do the weather analysis and the people who work on it.” Maybe he don’t know that everybody young was a kid, maybe he’s just kidding.
Nye is claiming that based on software quality and satellites since he was a kid hurricane predictions have gone down from 60 or 70 nautical miles to 5 or 6 which seems to be a real ‘stretch.’ Great improvements are true but the ones I follow lately don’t seem to get quite that accurate until get they pretty close since estimates obviously need offshore locations and directions.
earth.nullschool.net is not a government operated website. It is a privately run site that uses data provided for free by NOAA.
Just an observation of human nature is whenever the free stuff stops the people who use the free stuff complain.
I have an ex-wife who remarried but is still complaining about her loss of alimony and how unethical that is.
Ah, thanks for that, doonman. I stand corrected.
I have succumbed to a flu-virus and my cognitive-processes are evidently more affected than I had realised. I’d better keep quiet on here until I’m fully recovered. (This could take a while….)
Adam Morton from The Guardian writes that “Others have suggested there is uncertainty in the data about the pace and way in which they are changing,”
One matter is certain. No matter what the weather change is, it will be “bad”, or in the present period of excessive use of superlatives in expression, “Unprecedented”, “Astonishing”, “Terrifying”, “Stupendous”, “Life threatening.”
When was the last time that you saw a weather event described as “Reassuring”, “Often seen”, “Beneficial”, “Good for our youngsters” and so on?
Relatedly, our TV viewing in year 2025 has been full of commercials about insurance. “Bad” times await if you do not take out a policy to protect your near and dear. There are so many advertisements that I wonder if a little (chirpy) bird is not foretelling a rash of belly-ups about to hit the insurance industry. You can attach your own adjectives to the scenario of a rash of insurance industry failures. Geoff S
There’s an interesting question to be answered- why the lack of cyclones in the southern hemisphere? And given that cyclones are the most spectacular and readily measured climate change metric, has there been any climate change? Floods? Fires? Droughts? Prove it
“I don’t know why journalist Adam Morton holds this view”
It’s called cognitive dissonance. He could diagnose it himself, apparently his only qualification is in psychology
No doubt the nonsense he is spewing is based on ‘model’ outputs. As I have said before and will continue to say, these models are the textbook example of garbage in faeces out
I learned many years ago after trying to model far less complex but nevertheless complex systems that the uncertainties are so great you cannot rely on the results
You could say they are overparameterised, with many of the parameters serving no purpose other than to fudge a match with whatever data is available
These latter parameters arise in the modelling step and capture all sorts of poorly understood processes, or they are parameter whose values are not known
The data used for validation has zero volume or mass
What I mean by that is the model can predict many things, but the ‘fit’ or validation consists only of matching a global summary of the output like an average temperature to data under some very narrow set of conditions
Another way to explain this is that the error between the model and data is minimised over all of these lumped parameters in order to set their values. There is no unique solution, there are many combinations of parameter values that will fit the data, but the internal, fine scale results such as spatial distributions of the quantities involved will be different for each set of values found
There is no way to know which is correct without lots and lots of additional data of different types to validate other aspects. Often such data is not available, too expensive or impractical to collect, or we simply don’t have the tools to measure it
There are processes that we understand well, processes that we can model to great precision. The key is parsimonious models, ones that do not attempt to throw in the kitchen sink, but focus on subproblems or components with some dominant process such as heat transfer or fluid flow or mechanical deformation
Only in such cases do we have any hope of a proper validation and confidence in the predictions
Exactly.
The most fundamental approach to understanding a complex situation is to break it down into the smallest identifiable separate elements, and satisfy yourself that you understand what’s going on with each of them before you proclaim a “Euruka” solution for the whole situation.
There has to be more to learn about Australian cyclones, such as to explain how so many have tracks of many hundreds of km over dry desert, usually in hot summer season.
Where does the water come from to sustain them by currently-popular convective explanations? I am not doubting the story, just wanting to see more detail about critical parts of the mechanism, with quantitative numbers to firm up the current state of broad assertion.
Here are just a few tracks over long land distances.
Geoff S
The interior can get very soggy if a big weather system makes it inland.
I drove across the desert from Queensland to South Australia in December 2023, I got lucky, slipped between the raindrops. There were floods before and after we drove.
I once drove from Tamworth to Hobart in late summer (boat trip included) … aquaplaned the whole way there.
Just like surfing – with all the thrills & dangers of driving!
Yeah, Eric, as a born Queensland person who sat through Agnes in Townsville in 1956, I know that it can get soggy. As one who used to fly Melbourne to Darwin almost every month for 6 years, I have seen the after-effects of desert rain. They do not give me the impression of inland lakes, though I have seen lake Eyre fill a couple of times. They do not even leave an impression of soggy soil, especially a continuous one over the 2,000 km + tracks above the desert that some of these tracks show on the map.
Can we really say that the mechanism requires ground water above some abundance to allow a track to continue for days? What would that abundance be? Can any reader claim to have seen soggy soil for the lengths of some of these tracks, or is the asserted mechanism too optimistic?
I have asked this question and shown such maps on large climate blogs for 15 years now and have raised scarcely a nibble. Geoff S
I have no idea. In theory the cyclone might be able to recycle some of its own moisture given ideal circumstances, but surely there would be losses, so I’m guessing there must have been some additional moisture for such a long track over land.
In the early 70s, I flew in a light plane from Broken Hill to Mt Isa and return. We were flying over water for a good part of that trip. We landed in Birdsville on the return flight for lunch and a look. Birdsville was an island in an inland sea that stretched a long way in all directions with a mound or two sporting scrub and small trees.
Central Australia can hold a lot of surface water that warms up and becomes the fuel for cross-country cyclones. Those that travel across the land do not have the intensity of the ones that build in warm ocean and make landfall being fed from hot, dry air..
Flew over the flooded Channel Country on the way to Alice Springs once with a plane-full of Kiwis.
One said –
“Geez, thut’s luk seein’ all of UnZud under water”
Did you expect anything else?
Story tip
The union Aslef has threatened strike action over Sadiq Khan’s unwillingness to ban e-bikes from the London Underground network despite them causing severe fire risks.
The warning comes after an explosion at Rayners Lane station occurred on February 27, which saw an e-bike catch fire on a platform, sending toxic fumes across the station.
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/tube-drivers-strike-sadiq-khan-e-bikes-tfl-fire-risks
Shocking news from the People’s Republic of London…
If the pollution in the Underground doesn’t get you, the e-bikes will.
“PM2.5 concentrations in the Underground network were approximately 15 times greater than in the surface and roadside environments in central London.”
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/new-study-reveals-high-levels-of-pollution-on-london-underground
No action on the Tube – that costs money, it doesn’t raise it.
Bog standard news from the feudal estate of London
Splitters!
Shocking but not surprising
Seems that the comment “Guardian falsely claims” can be attached to basically everything the Gruniad prints. 🙂
The Guardian always tells lies and propaganda, that’s why it’s in debt and has to rely on funding from left wing supporters, with a dwindling readership.
I’m grateful that I don’t have to read it now ’cause Eric does it for us 😏
The problem the Climate Zealots have is the prediction is cyclones will be more intense and Cyclone Alfred was actually a tropical low by the time it crossed the Queensland coast. They were all excited earlier in the month when cyclone Zelia crossed Western Australia coast line as Category 5 but even as a 5 it did very little.
Nature isn’t helping the script for the Climate Tribe recently.
I claim those bonus points.
More cyclones are caused by ingrowing toenails.
Send money and I’ll prove it to you.
Well, it is as good a theory as anyone else’s.
Yes, and the reduction in annual cyclone numbers correlates almost exactly with the drop in annual Tupperware sales.
Climate science right there I don’t care who y’are.
Governments need to impose true scientific rigour on all scientific research and to attribute blame and even award compensation where such rigour is faulted or omitted.
Odd that so many left wing commentators misquote the science on anything connected with climate isn’t it?
It was George Galloway who gave me the clue to why leftists are so susceptible to climate crisis narratives, in a speech in 2008 (I think) Galloway said “when I first heard about the climate crisis, I thought, well corporations have stuffed up everything else, so why not the climate as well?”.
Climate doomism picked up where fire & brimstone televangelists left off.
From the article: “What they mostly haven’t said is that the ocean and atmosphere are demonstrably warmer than even just a few years ago.”
The oceans are not demonstrably warmer than they have been in the past.
The oceans are not like a bathtub where the entire volume of water is at the same temperature and rising.
The oceans are like the land: Some parts are warmer and some parts are cooler and then the warm parts cool and the cool parts warm. In other words, the ocean temperatures are constantly changing, so claiming the oceans are demonstrably warming is a mischaracterization of the process.
No part of the ocean gets warmer than about 30C, with a very few, unique exceptions.
When the ocean temperatures reach about 30C this causes thunderstorms and hurricanes to form which quickly reduce the temperatures of the water beneath them as they radiate this ocean warmth out into space.
So claiming that the oceans are demonstrably, relentlessly warming is a ridiculous claim not supported by the facts.
So, what else is new with Climate Alarmists? Nothing they claim about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere or oceans is supported by the facts. They are living in a False Reality of their own creation.
It must be scary to be so deluded.
Wow, folks, look at the magnitude of the numbers.….doubling CO2 is a forcing of 3 or 4 watts per square meter. That’s only enough energy to move the 10 ton column of air that sits on that same square meter to a velocity of about 1/10 of a kilometer per HOUR (compare to 30 meters per SECOND for your car at highway speed). So basically the entire additional 3 watts goes into convective currents at unmeasurably higher convection rate than “normal”….which will waft water vapor up to higher altitudes where they will form clouds causing the next 3 watts from the Sun to be reflected into space or emitted as IR, also into space, by the lower temperate of lapse-rate-influenced cloud tops or water vapor (or CO2). That 3 watts is just going to do SFA compared to existing energy transfers in the system.
David Dibbell, a sometimes denizen of these postings has some great vids of how this occurs from satellite view.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/17/open-thread-86/#comment-3883586
If the oceans are actually warmer, perhaps they could come up with some actual data that shows the oceans being warmer. Not model projections saying the water should be warmer.
A few years ago, they tried to claim that the ARGO floats had found that the oceans had warmed by 0.003C. Wow, about 100 floats, not spread out evenly, each with a 0.2C resolution measuring the oceans to 1% of their individual resolution? Really?
Even if the claim did turn out to be proven, just how much energy does 0.003C add to any given cyclone?
But, but, every July we’re told the oceans are “boiling,” so there must be something to it, right? And there are measurements from a puddle in a mudflat off the coast of Florida that “prove” the ocean regularly hits 100 F now.
“And there are measurements from a puddle in a mudflat off the coast of Florida that “prove” the ocean regularly hits 100 F now.”
Yeah, that was a good example of Climate Alarmists blowing things all out of proportion. Climate Alarmists are bad about that.
Didn’t they find that mudflat buoy had washed up on the beach ?
Can’t recall where the story went after last summer’s assault on our senses. There was howling that such extreme “ocean” temps had NEVER been recorded before. Then I saw records on that funky gauge, possibly here on WUWT, which showed it had registered 100 F some 15 years before, as well.
Did you notice anything here? Not one mention of CO2. Talk of climate change or global warming is meaningless. Those terms can mean anything therefore they mean nothing. We must force the conversation to CO2. They are implying that CO2 is the monster but they don’t even have to come out and say it because we allow it. In my view CO2 is incapable of causing catastrophic global warming. There are other forces or systems far more relevant to our climate than CO2. CO2 is critical to life as we know it. We need to stop the meaningless ignorant campaign against it. Think of it this way, they are sweating bullets fearing a doubling of CO2, I am grateful that the concentration didn’t go the other way. I believe the CO2 concentration in the early 1800s was 280 ppm, think about what would have happened if the concentration went down. It wouldn’t even have to go down by half and it would be all over for us. 280 divided by 2 is 140. My understanding is that 150 ppm is insufficient to support life as we know it. We have built a nice buffer, I am happy with it.
Yup, all climate mitigation for 40 years concerns only human released CO2 as the remedy. That policy has been an unmitigated disaster as it has accomplished absolutely nothing except for allowing the raid on government treasury.
When your policy does not provide remedy, clever politicians always hide the metrics but preach compliance anyway.
Yet another false statement about climate and what might affect it. Even the UN has confirmed that the world’s climate is not being changed by humans,
I wrote to the Guardian’s ‘Letters to the Editor’:
Ross Gittins on cyclones
In the context of Cyclone Alfred, Ross Gittins (“More cyclones will come. How many before our leaders finally do something?”, March 12.2025) says that extreme weather events have become more frequent and more intense. Well, that’s misleading. The Bureau of Meteorolgy, on their Tropical cyclone climatology web page, state that the total number of cyclones appears to have decreased, not increased. While they admit that cyclone data before about 1979 was unreliable, they present a chart of cyclones, showing a significant decline in both severe and non-severe tropical cyclones since about 1983. Cyclones have not become more frequent or more intense, in fact they have done the exact opposite.
I tried to write it in as clear terms as possible, but in a way in which they could at least consider publishing. I doubt they will publish the letter, but if they do hopefully I will find out and report back.
Such a predictable statement by people unwilling to look at data from the 1920’s and 30’s because they would have to go to the basement to find the dusty old storage boxes instead of doing some cool database search. Should tell you something about their dedication….
The Guardian lies about climate (and everything else). I’m supposed to be surprised? This is a news worthy event ?