From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) has now lost all credibility and is no longer fit for purpose.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42251921
You will recall that at the end of last year’s Atlantic hurricane season, the BBC published the above chart, as part of a long propaganda article based on the contention that climate change is making hurricanes more powerful.
NOAA of course are absolutely clear that they are not:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
The ECU have now responded and rejected my complaint that their chart was grossly misleading, as it compared data from the pre-satellite era with today. NOAA have always emphasised that you should not do that, as many hurricanes were simply not spotted in those earlier days.
The ECU however are not interested in facts or what actual hurricane experts have to say about the matter. All they are interested in is “justifying” the BBC’s propaganda, no matter how fallacious it is.
This is their reply to me:
The graphic showed recorded data from the US National Hurricane Center, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As you have pointed out, experts who have studied tropical cyclones, including Atlantic hurricanes, recognise it is difficult to identify any trends from the early 20th century with confidence because of the limitations of observed data. However the graphic did make it clear “Storm frequencies and intensities are less certain further back in time” and so readers would have been aware of the potential limitations of the data from the National Hurricane Center. It would, in my judgement, have added to the audience’s understanding if the reasons for the limitations had been explained but I do not believe the way the data was presented would have misled readers in any significant way when judged in the context of the article as a whole. The article made it clear, as set out above, what experts believe can reasonably be inferred from the available data but also explained where there is doubt. It said, for example, “Assessing the precise influence of climate change on individual tropical cyclones can be challenging due to the complexity of these storm systems”. The absence of a more detailed explanation of the limitations of historic data about tropical cyclones would not have left readers with a misleading impression of what organisations such as the IPCC believe in answer to the question posed in the headline to the article “How is climate change affecting hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones?”.
That, I have to say, is utter bilge.
You do not publish any information that you know full well to be wrong, whether or not you add some small print saying “Storm frequencies and intensities are less certain further back in time”. To do so is grossly dishonest – some might say fraudulent. After all, the BBC knew that most readers would either not notice the small print or ignore it.
A business certainly would never get away with such a misleading presentation, which conflated two totally different sets of data.
According to the BBC, there never used to be any hurricanes out in the middle of the Atlantic!
Moreover the ECU completely ignored NOAA’s emphatic conclusion that hurricanes are not getting stronger, a copy of which I had included in my complaint. Nowhere in their response did they even mention it, never mind explain why the BBC’s Climate Reporter came to different conclusions.
The author of the article, Mark Poynting has zero qualifications or experience in hurricane science, and has only been working at the BBC for two years after leaving University in 2022. Clearly he has no understanding of the subject. Which makes it even more astonishing that the article included contributions from NOAA or their US Hurricane Research Division, acknowledged to be the leading authority on Atlantic hurricanes. Nor were there any comments or references to any hurricane scientists.
Instead there were a few cherry picked quotes from the IPCC and the usual computer model studies, none of which addressed the specific issue I raised.
The ECU is of course part of the BBC, who are in effect marking their own homework. Until a genuinely independent complaints unit is set up, this farce will carry on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s a page from NOAA US hurricane landfalls Dumping that into Excel and sorting to find year and class yields the chart below. It only shows land falls you can see a bit of a trend for Class 4 & 5 being more recent. The data from from August 2023.
Unless all those ratings are based on fixed terrestrial instruments, you still have a data consistency issue. Firstly aircraft, then satellites; far more likely to spot the most powerful moment.
Not to mention, prior to aircraft, the hurricanes at sea could only be recorded by ships that had no capacity for rating any hurricane encountered. Landfall hurricanes in the past were gaged by a damage assessment.
So yes, data inconsistency.
Bingo. Here are six reasons to assert that todays hurricanes are considerably over estimated when compared to past hurricanes, and how those storms were rated.
1. Dropsondes (Instruments dropped from hurricane hunter airplanes, guided by Doppler to be placed in the most intense part of the storm eye wall) cannot give the one minute sustained wind reading required to determine Hurricane classification, as they stay in a given guest far longer than a fixed instrument…
…“Turbulence studies have demonstrated that Lagrangian (parcel) wind measurements are inherently smoother than Eulerian (fixed-point anemometer) measurements (Gifford 1955), with dominant periods longer by a factor of about 3–4 (Angell et al. 1971)”.
2. The “surface” readings have considerable variance, and are often “modeled”. And that is controversial, with considerable debate on how best to do that. Currently the high side of the model is, unsurprisingly, ascendant…
“Powell and Black (1990) recommended that an adjustment factor of 63%–73% be used to reduce 700-hPa wind speeds to the surface, based on comparisons of flight-level and buoy data (again, mostly outside of the eyewall). Operational practices at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) have varied over time; in recent years surface winds have typically been taken to be 80%–90% of the flight-level wind”
That is a very large difference where a 100 mph at altitude wind can be considered to be from 62 to 90 mph at the surface. Also individual storm profiles are known to be highly variable, so no one model is right.
3. Modern hurricane readings predicted storm surge is often considerably over-modeled to actual results. As an example… ” October 4, 1842 – A 955 mbar major hurricane which made landfall on northwestern Florida produced a 20-foot (6 m) storm surge at Cedar Key. Strong winds result in severe damage in Tallahassee.” (This is almost double Helena’s peak 10.5’ storm surge, also at Cedar Key.)
4. The Safirr Simpdon scale used to categorize hurricane strength for wind damage (excluding storm surge, spin off tornado damage, and rain flood damage), consistently shows observed damage one to two categories below how today’s hurricanes are rated. Past storms do match Saffir Simpson scale damage, as this, beyond the occasional well placed anemometer readings, was the actual method used to classify hurricanes, along with observed storm surge records.
Oh 5 and 6
5. Modern media is very coy with exactly how the category estimates are made, and seldom if ever releases links to the actual flight readings taken right at landfall. Also, by the time the eye wall hits land, close to 50 percent of the storm has already been on land for some time, and the storm is already weakening.
6. At landfall, especially in a storm like Milton with the eye wall broadening and breaking up, a hurricane hunter aircraft, guided by Doppler radar, will place the dropsconde directly in the strongest part of the storm, and get the highest wind speed possible, fail to confirm sustained wind speed, and get the lowest pressure reading possible. While everything happening on land is considerably less. This makes a huge difference in rating a storm. This site illustrates that message very well. https://www.ventusky.com/
Looking at that chart, for whatever it is worth, the 1936 to 1967 was much more intense and it has been declining since.
If you download NOAA’s spread sheet and count the land fall hurricanes observed by year, it looks like 1850 to 1950 there was more activity. Let’s if I can get a quick and dirty of that:
My intent was to the relative of the 1936 to 1967 versus today.
Some years ago we had scare stories from the BBC about puffin numbers declining because of a shortage of sand eels caused by ‘Climate Change’. Now we find out that it was nothing to do with the climate but down to Danish fishermen sucking up all the sand eels. That has since been banned and puffin numbers are increasing. Can’t believe a word they say.
It was the same with the poly bares. Banning hunting them with rifles really helped numbers.
The BBC tell lies on a daily basis. They only accept facts that they have made up or manipulated as the truth.
One way to look at it is: they sell propaganda and readers are their subjects, not customers.
The BBC adheres to the recommendations of ‘ALBERT’
This is just one of its very many recommendations.
‘Let it out of the factual box Whether you’re commissioning documentaries, soaps, comedies or competitions, make environmental sustainability a consideration across all genres and formats. Climate change is relevant to every single person you create content for, so we need to make sure that environmental sustainability is accessible to all audiences and reaches as many people as possible. To do this, make sure you don’t fall into the trap of limiting it just to factual.’
This is from the Planet Placement Guide.
‘Planet Placement is a new resource from BAFTA albert which was created by albert in partnership with Futerra. It looks at how film and television content can help to raise awareness about climate change by introducing sustainability messages into the content we see on our screens.’
The public is forced to pay for the BBC, whether they consume its services or not.
The customers of the BBC are the politicians who pay their salaries. The public is the product that the BBC sells to the politicians.
The politicians like their product fully indoctrinated and incapable of independent thought.
The BBC lie continually about climate. Most of us don’t watch the BBC any more, so it’s not a problem. Ditto Sky News UK, Sky News Australia are a different bunch, and are anti climate nonsense.
“usual computer model studies“
Auntie can be said – quite rightly too – to be a regular feature on WUWT. The proverbial gift – paid for by Joe Public – that just keeps giving. It’s been common knowledge since that Seminar that there is no debate to be had; the science is settled. The BBC puts it to schoolchildren like this:
“Scientists created two climate models using data on carbon dioxide level increases:
The second model better matched the observed temperature changes.
This adds to the evidence that the observed warming of the Earth is because of human activities changing the composition of the atmosphere”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zp32k2p/revision/3
So, they are being taught that models are evidence. We all know that is a scientific no-no.
Can the BBC really be ignorant of that? But then, the BBC uses science as a tool towards its own ends and agendas…
“The BBC has finally removed a resource for children aged nine to twelve which claimed there are over 100 ‘gender identities’.”
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/bbc-removes-100-genders-video-after-new-complaints/
The BBC makes Lord Haw-Haw look credible.
I still don’t get why people at the BBC, Guardian, Times, Financial Times write such dreadful articles which a bit of doubt and questioning would show to be not just wrong but deliberately misleading.
Is it a job requirement to do an article a month of deliberate nonsense to keep the narrative going? Don’t they at least have one friend or acquaintance who laughs at them in the pub? After all it’s a bit like being an adult who still believes in Father Christmas.
There is a complete echo chamber of ‘people with minor degrees who think they are smarter than they really are’ that comprises huge sectors of the middle classes.
The above mentioned media outlets draw their staff from this group and proselytise to this group.
Complete Bandar Log. They all say it, so it must be true.
you forgot the other propaganda outlet – formerly interesting.
Now good economics journalism went down the toilet but kept the name.
THE ECONOMIST.
Economical with the truth.
The BBC says:
“World’s glaciers melting faster than ever recorded”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4ly8vde85o
And the study it references…
Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change
…
Our results provide a refined baseline for better understanding observational differences and for calibrating model ensembles
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08545-z
Meanwhile in the Guardian…
“Unlike previous studies, the research uses multiple models of glaciers to examine their fate well beyond the end of the century. About 20% of glaciers were already known to be doomed to melt by 2100, but the longer term view revealed that the total glacier loss that is already inevitable is 39%.”
“scientists said that every tenth-of-a-degree rise that was avoided would save 2.7tn tonnes of ice.”
Almost 40% of world’s glaciers already doomed due to climate crisis – study
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/29/almost-40-of-worlds-glaciers-already-doomed-due-to-climate-crisis-study
They are pretty well co-ordinated.
One for Mr Eschenbach?
“every tenth-of-a-degree rise that was avoided would save 2.7tn tonnes of ice.”
Sounds bogus to me.
If people want to believe the fantastical tales of the BBC, they are free to do so. No facts will be harmed by their stupidity.
The BBC has a stranglehold on education. The children subjected to its content have no real choice in the matter; the indoctrination is what they get.
That is the real power of the state broadcaster.
Wait until the next mini ice age hits.
They will have to burn all those old newspapers for heat and light.
Yes. I am aware these are all digital now.
Either it will prove that scientists have saved the Earth from global warming, or it will be CO2-driven global cooling all over again.
So grab a beer and a tub of popcorn and watch the show.
We do not know what it will be like. We cannot with any fidelity predict what it will be like.
Actually, we won’t have to wait. The coming winter is likely to put Britain’s electric grid to test. Then all will be burning the BBC, Guardian, Times just to stay warm. End of debate.
+10
“No facts will be harmed by their stupidity.”
Be that as it may and not withstanding, the question is how many facts were harmed, killed, maimed, or whatever in the preparation of that piece.
I’m sure they’ll be in overdrive about the recent glacier landslides in Switzerland that have buried a village.
Yup. And isn’t Santorini or Pompeii about to pop its top? Not to mention Betelgeuse going supernova and frying all our chickens?
We doomed I tell you. Doomed…
Etna popped.
“About 20% of glaciers were already known to be doomed to melt by 2100”
I can’t believe someone wrote it. They must be under 30.
Surely this is a case to take to OFCOM. It is transparent that there is a huge difference between uncertainty (say plus or minus 50%) and clear bias (large scale undercounting).
There is a very useful catalogue of studies and analysis in this article by Euan Mearns, much aided by Roger Andrews, Joe Public and others to help with the case:
https://euanmearns.com/atlantic-hurricane-trends-and-mortality-updated/
As usual, it is worth reading through the comments as well as the article.
Sadly OFCOM never takes action. Political and religious matters can lie all they like and getaway with it. They told me so.
So sign saying ‘Jesus saves, but the Labour party spends’ is fine.
” has now lost all credibility and is no longer fit for purpose.”
It was never fit for it’s publicly stated purpose !!
It was designed to attenuate/remove any criticism of BBC actions.
When you have an agenda, anything that purports that agenda to be incorrect is ignored.
That’s the only way to recruit new “true believers” into your fold who will support your agenda.
No one ever says “I have a bridge for sale that I don’t actually own”.
The proper way to compare historic to modern periods is to *exclude* modern era hurricanes that would never have been known to exist using methods and technologies available before satellites.
It’s not to invent possible storms that may have existed in the past and would’ve been observed if there had been weather satellites.
It’s like comparing the college basketball careers of Pete Marovich and Caitlin Clark. Pete only had three years and no 3 point rule. So how you do a proper comparo is ignore Caitlin’s freshman year and change all her 3 point shots to 2 points. Still the best female college basketball player ever, yet short of Marovich’s total. That doesn’t consider other differences like the shot clock that were implemented to make the game faster and push players to shoot more often.
But the way some are “adjusting” pre-satellite storm history would be like inventing a freshman year’s performance for Marovich and digging through the records to try and figure out how many of his shots were made from beyond the 3 point distance to add 1 point to each of them.