BBC : “Researchers Say”

Researchers say unequivocally that hurricanes have gotten more damaging due to a one part per ten thousand increase in atmospheric CO2.

Climate change: Bigger hurricanes are now more damaging – BBC News

Had they done any actual research, these researchers would have known that nearly one-fourth of the 35 deadliest Atlantic hurricanes occurred during the fifteen year period from 1767 to 1782.  (This chart ends in 1996, and is missing Hurricane Mitch 1998 and Hurricane Katrina 2006.)

The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996

The deadliest Atlantic hurricane occurred in 1780, and destroyed every single building in Barbados.

30 Dec 1780, 2 – Jackson’s Oxford Journal at Newspapers.com

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/perez_11_20.pdf

Every single day we see new fraudulent claims from climate researchers, loudly parroted by journalists pushing the big climate lie.

The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought — why this is terrifying – The Washington Post

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to BBC : “Researchers Say”

  1. Robertv says:

    11,000 ‘scientists’ warn about climate change? FAKE NEWS! | Ezra Levant

    https://youtu.be/Vs3ZPGLPiss

  2. Martin says:

    Did I imagine the long hurricane drought from Wilma ( 24 October 2005) to Harvey ( 25 August 2017) – 4,324 days.

    I guess I must have done – the BBC is never wrong !!

    • arn says:

      Well-technically they are right.

      As result of non existent(increase in) sea level rise
      and growing population and retiring people moving to warm sea regions
      people built a million more buildings in those hurricane areas.

      The result by default is more damage
      as a flood will now affect 3* more buildings than it did 50 years ago
      while people still continue to built wooden houses.

      (and i would not be surprised if they forgot to adjust inflation the proper way or the fact that prizes for beach front properties skyrocketed.
      Ask Obama who paid a marxistic 15 mio dollar for his sea level mansion.
      And while his hus…wife is complaining about racist white flight the Obamas always do their best to avoid living among black people,even in places where this is very hard as Washington.)

      • Robertv says:

        Remember B.H.Obama is half white. And it is more like they are made to avoid living among people in general. Any news from their ‘daughters’ ?

  3. Margaret Smith says:

    …and, of course, no mention of the great increase in building and development in storm-prone areas.

  4. MGJ says:

    Ah those magic words again.

    No evidence required
    No argument required
    No data required
    No reason, no logic, no fact-checking…

    …because…SCIENTISTS/RESEARCHERS SAY!

    I bet the BBC’s cut ‘n’ paste jockey didn’t even read the paper.

  5. G W Smith says:

    Born yesterday the left can’t be expected to remember three years ago.

  6. Archie says:

    Here’s something worth reading. Dr Spencer IS a scientist and when he “says” something, it’s actually worth reading. He touches on a couple of Tony’s favorite subjects too.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/comments-by-ross-mckitrick-on-the-continuation-of-climate-model-failure/

  7. Tyler says:

    This reminded me of an old study from a NOAA person:
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00420.1

    tldr: We classify way more cat 5 hurricanes now due to technological capability. In fact, some cat 4’s wouldn’t have even made hurricane status prior to 1944 (airplane surveillance started).

  8. Andy says:

    Cost of damage is a poor metric of determining the actual intensity of a a storm not reliant on how intense that storm is.

    It’s difficult already correlating measurements now to way back when, never mind also factoring in how “costs” increase.

    I did some graphs from the basin archives at Colorado, for instance the North Atlantic one

    http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northatlantic

    The major hurricanes and hurricanes as a percentage of all storms has not gone up over time

    https://imgur.com/TqlyUWx

    Regards

    Andy

  9. Andy says:

    There is another BBC article

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50381328

    Which is more reasonable. However surely it was plainly obvious the large amount of open water in the Arctic over summer was always going to be a larger driving factor than some soot !

    Talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

    Andy

  10. Norilsk says:

    Talk about lies. CO2 was powerless to keep the Norfolk County, Ontario temperature record from being shattered. The record low of -8 C had held since 1877. It was down to -9.2 C this morning and may go lower yet this evening. I had to shovel about 15 cm deep snow off my driveway this morning. The record is around 9 cm for Nov 11.

    Lest we forget!

    • Tomsa says:

      A province west of you (MB) is just as bad, this morning a fierce wind from the south (MN and ND – we’re on the border with both) froze my face walking this morning at -14C (feels like -24). And it’s still the first half of November!

      Reminds me of Tony’s posting of the frigid CO weather last month.

  11. GCSquared says:

    You guys have so missed the point: death and destruction are no longer proper indicators of hurricane damage. You have to use the “…new method of calculating damage,” like it says right there in the article. Then you’ll have the proper perspective.

    See?

  12. SteveT says:

    Hi Tony,
    XMetman has posted some nice charts using HURDAT4 here:
    https://xmetman.com/i-dont-believe-it/

  13. Thaipixie says:

    I don’t know how you can be so negative about the BBC… this is the home of systemic rape and child abuse which they protected for 50 years that takes a conspiracy.. what makes you thing they would lie about something as insignificant as climate change…. they are Britain’s elite… all the best schools and Universities… many of them studied story writing for adults… some of them political science… you see they are science based bullshitters.. (sarc)

  14. Mark Frank says:

    Has Tony or anyone who has commented above understood the point of the paper? The full paper is behind a paywall but the abstract tells the story. Their whole point is that cost and number of deaths are both poor measures of how damaging hurricanes are becoming (selected stories from old newspapers are even worse!). Far more and far wealthier people live in vulnerable areas; on the other hand people get much more warning of hurricanes and are much better able to evade them.

    So the researchers have come up with an interesting new approach. Estimate the area that is damaged. They also noted that frequency of damaging hurricanes (the abstract does not define damaging but presumably it is in the paper) shows the same trend.

    Some of you even seem to be accusing the BBC of lying. All they did was report the paper which they seem to have done quite accurately.

    • Gator says:

      The BBC does lie. That is simply a fact. As for the paper, it is another vehicle for alarmism which kills millions annually. But feel free to defend both.

    • GCSquared says:

      Thanks for digging up the details, and for the clarification.

      Re the BBC’s integrity: given that the paper made the implicit claim that a “new method” resolved “conflicting results”, it was incumbent upon the reporter to at least state what the new method was, and to adopt some scepticism as to whether the conflict was actually resolved or not.

      Given the oddly selective “new method” proposed by the journal authors, a suspcious person might think that the authors were seeking a way to extract a preconceived conclusion from truly inconclusive data. Do scientists do this sort of thing? Yes, scientists do: Climategate.

      Putting researchers’ biases aside, by neglecting essential points in the story, the case can be made that the journalist lied by omission.

      • Mark Frank says:

        GCSquared

        You write:

        it was incumbent upon the reporter to at least state what the new method was, and to adopt some scepticism as to whether the conflict was actually resolved or not.

        Did you read the BBC article? It explains the method including a worked example! Why is it up to the reporter to adopt some scepticism? That would be expressing an opinion. As it stands the article neither supports nor attacks the research. It simply reports it – in a surprising amount of detail and as far as I can see quite accurately.

        • Gator says:

          While objectivity and a lack of bias are of primary concern and importance, more liberal types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism and activism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint. This has become more prevalent with the advent of social media and blogs, as well as other platforms that are used to manipulate or sway social and political opinions and policies. These platforms often project extreme bias, as “sources” are not always held accountable or considered necessary in order to produce a written, televised, or otherwise “published” end product.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

          So you endorse advocacy journalism? Good to know!

          • Mark Frank says:

            Gator

            Are you seriously suggesting that non-objective reporting is confined to liberal journalists? It is all over the political spectrum. Meanwhile the BBC article under discussion expresses no opinion at all and provides a link to its source – what more could you ask?

          • Gator says:

            I am more than suggesting that the BBC article is advocacy journalism, as described above. I would ask that journalists do their job, and research their subjects, getting differing opinions on an obviously controversial subject. Journalists are not supposed to act as PR managers.

            Why do want to be lead by the nose? Is that easier for you?

        • Mark Frank says:

          Gator
          Where in the BBC article do you see it advocating anything? All I can see is a report summarising the paper – and rather better than usual. There is no statement about the whether the paper is correct or not.

          Also – how about answering the question.

          “Are you suggesting that non-objective reporting is confined to liberal journalists?”

    • Samuel Collins says:

      Twice my computer was ‘flicked off ‘ in the course of writing commentary here and one post was not visible when successfully posted … What a curious euphemism you chose for this revisionist methodology for gauging hurricane strength and ferocity Mark Frank – ” an interesting new approach ” Not an appraisal of its accuracy – rather its novelty [ And defending the notoriously dishonest BBC in the process ] What about scientific validity ? Are climate alarmists willing to apply the same criteria to wildfire burned area noting the US Forest Services data shows the burned acreage of the 20’s and 30’s was much higher than the 21st century data ? ..Or the tens of millions of hectares that were burned across Australia during the record 74-75 bushfire season ..It is the same ‘approach’ after all is it not ? Are you , or the BBC , aware Mark that Hurricane Irma, 2017 whose image was used in the BBC report , formed over Atlantic waters 2C cooler than the average threshold ? . It means global warming and ocean temperature are not always implicated in hurricane potency . And yet if the estimation of geographical damage ‘ assessment procedure you attribute to these researchers is adopted , it still means the 1780 hurricanes that scythed through the Caribbean during the Little Ice Age are probably the worst on record since European colonisation of the Americas …Not Hurricane Katrina 2005 …Nor any this century . ….As Tony Heller has shown , it is an established fact there was a record US landfall Cat 3-5 hurricane hiatus from 2006 to Harvey & Irma 2017 . Yet this lull contradicts global warming catastrophism ideology as it happened while atmospheric CO2 levels soared past 400ppm .. High intensity destructive hurricanes are not increasing this century compared to the longer term chronology .. In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology satellite observation data proves cyclonic frequency and severity have declined significantly since 1970 ..The trend is indisputable . Did the BBC report this information for comparison ? For US landfall hurricanes Roger Pielke Jr identified at least 14 Cat 4-5 storms over the 47 years prior to 1970 and around half that number from 1970 – 2017 [ including the hiatus ] . It remains a fact that Cyclone Mahina 1899 was the most powerful and devastating Australian cyclone in the country’s history since European settlement . The Mahina storm surge extended far inland and is second in the accepted world record storm surge ratings .. Should that storms damage be dismissed because it was documented in ‘old newspaper reports’ ? Climate alarmists must accept that hurricanes this century are not surpassing the tempests of 1780 , 1899 and Labor Day 1935 across the globe ,, Redefining the methodology will not alter the facts

  15. Terry Shipman says:

    I just got angry and shut off the TV while watching the Weather Channel. In the midst of one of the coldest outbreaks on record the channel had an “expert” telling us how there would be fewer freezing days in the decades to come. The year 2040 was mentioned. As the cold weather has dipped further south in the last few days they seem to have gotten more shrill with their climate change spiel. There, I am done venting!

  16. Petit_Barde says:

    The cost of damages caused by a hurricane is a very poor (if not useless) metric of its strength, as said by another commenter.

    With respect to the insidious link that the paper’s authors and the BBC try to establish between AGW (climate change) and Hurricanes :

    – This is total nonsense.

    The facts (even the IPCC acknoledge the diagram presented by François Gervais – CNRS France – in this video) :
    https://youtu.be/iK3G8wqqp_k?t=3030

    The Total and Major Hurricanes trend is, if any, rather decreasing since 1970, and clearly decreasing since the mid 80s, while the CO2 concentration increased from 380 to 410 ppm.

    So, without any correlation (or worse, if any, a negative correlation), the assumption of AGW (caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions) causing more violent hurricanes is baseless.

    • Mark Frank says:

      “The cost of damages caused by a hurricane is a very poor (if not useless) metric of its strength, as said by another commenter.”

      And is also criticised as a metric by the paper!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.