Skip to content

Hermine a Poor Example to Push Man-Made Global Warming

September 10, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




Joe Bastardi responds to claims that Hurricane Hermione was caused by climate change:




I read this article with great interest, given what I do for a living:

Clinton says Hurricane Hermine was caused by climate change as hurricane drought persists.”

I have watched and forecasted hurricanes on a professional level for almost 40 years. So what Mrs. Clinton is asking people like me to believe is that a storm that took 15 days to develop and then hit Florida as a Category 1 hurricane, and then never re–strengthened off the Mid-Atlantic in spite of record warm water, is a sign of extremes. Actually, I am sure she doesn’t care that people like me show the facts, since the idea is to get it out there and rely on the idea that the media will gladly pick it up, publicize it and, once the horse is out of the barn, know there is no way to get it back. In reality, portraying Hermine as some kind of climate change demon is either ignorance as to the history of hurricanes or deceit.

Let me show the reader why I make these statements. I will go to a time when CO2 was much lower to illustrate my point. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will keep this short. Let’s just cherry pick the track of Florida hurricanes from 1950-1974 when CO2 was well below what it is now.



The period 1900-1949:



In the 1940s, Florida was like Grand Central Station for MAJOR hurricanes.



So the question is, why is Mrs. Clinton warning us about something that occurred much more frequently in the past, yet trying to blame it on an agenda-driven issue?

By the way, given our hurricane forecast, there are likely to be “better” examples to use later in the year. But they are not supportive of the agenda she is pushing, but simply nature being nature. Using a storm that arguably underachieved relative to what more numerous storms have done in previous years as an example of impending climate doom is deceptive and indicative of a person out of touch on this matter. It’s that simple.

Of course it can be argued such things are small beans compared to other issues that bring up questions, but those are beyond the scope of this commentary. Those who have eyes can see the obvious here.

  1. Joe Public permalink
    September 10, 2016 12:27 pm

    Sooner or later, the scaremongers frequently crying wolf will realise they’re being counter-productive.

  2. September 10, 2016 12:44 pm

    Ignorance or deceipt? I would suggest it is both.

    • September 10, 2016 2:03 pm

      I was going to vote for “deceipt”.

      Anymore, any kind of storm system is evidence for CAGW as far as the CAGW proponents are concerned.

  3. September 10, 2016 4:46 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

  4. Mr GrimNasty permalink
    September 10, 2016 5:24 pm

    It’s a very very poor example for CAGW, given the other Labor Day hurricane, 1935, Cat 5, possibly 600 dead!

    • Broadlands permalink
      September 10, 2016 7:54 pm

      What about the 1938 “Long Island Express” hurricane? It landed where super-Sandy hit and the damage was severe. The National Geographic magazine had a feature on “Sandy” but didn’t even mention the 1938 edition. Where there is fire but no smoke it must be fog?

  5. John F. Hultquist permalink
    September 10, 2016 8:24 pm

    Thanks Joe, and Paul.

    There must be a Department of “Just Make Things Up.”

    The NHC shows a disturbance (a week away yet) that looks interesting. — a “better” example, maybe.

  6. September 11, 2016 8:26 am

    Warren Buffett, the insurance billionaire, wrote to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders:

    “Up to now, climate change has not produced more frequent or more costly hurricanes or other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat[astrophe] rates have fallen steadily in recent years, which is why we have backed away from that business.”

    My googling skills are not up to par today and I can’t find the James Hansen quote (help anyone?) that global warming should decrease, not increase hurricanes, as they are caused by high temperature gradients across latitudes.

  7. RAH permalink
    September 11, 2016 10:40 am

    So Joe Bastardi does say it was a hurricane an landfall. Could someone, anyone, please show me or link me to the data which confirms that was the case? I happened to be home monitoring it via the internet when it came ashore and never saw any measurement from a near shore buoy or land station which recorded the required 1 minute of 74 or more mph winds measured 10 meters from the surface to meet the classification of it being a Hurricane at landfall.

    • Billy Liar permalink
      September 11, 2016 3:23 pm

      Once someone admits it wasn’t a hurricane the floodgates will be open and Sandy will have to be re-classified along with numerous other ‘hurricanes’ which only made the grade for a few hours based on dubious data.

  8. Peter MacFarlane permalink
    September 12, 2016 7:00 am

    ” either ignorance as to the history of hurricanes or deceit.”

    Since it’s Hillary I would imagine nobody needs to think too hard as to which it is.

    Deceit is her stock-in-trade is it not.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: