Matt McGrath’s Latest Hurricane Propaganda
By Paul Homewood
The ambulance chasers are out, even though the ambulances have not set off yet!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48973819
Hurricanes are extremely dangerous and costly under any circumstances, and to try to tease out tiny changes, which may or may not be the result of a slightly warmer climate, is the work of a charlatan.
By far the most important factor is the NUMBER and STRENGTH of hurricane landfalls, which for some reason McGrath forgot to mention:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
During the current decade (beginning 2010), the number of US landfalling hurricanes is at a record low of eleven. Even if this year ends up with a couple of hurricanes, round about average, this decade will still end up as one of the quietest since records began.
By far the worst decades for hurricane activity were the 1880s and 1940s.
As Joe Bastardi pointed out a few months ago, people would have a fit if we were to experience the sort of major hurricane hits that they did in the 1940s and 50s:
As for McGrath’s theory about higher rainfall rates, scientists who know about these things say that they can detect no global trends in hurricane rainfall rates.
As for his assertion that Hurricane Harvey was moving slowly because of global warming is absurd and simply not true. Meteorologists explained at the time, the stalling of Harvey was because it was stuck between two ridges of high pressure.
As Rick Mitchell pointed out on his TV slot , “it was just a function of the weather patterns at the time. And that’s the way the weather works”
Sorry, Matt McGrath. But I would rather believe the experts than you. After all, your track record in these matters is not exactly confidence inspiring, is it?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Does less quickly mean slower? More importantly is that relevant?
This one, H. Barry, has been moving forward at about 7mph. The rain will be plentiful but if it moved forward — to the north — at 14 or 21 mph the rain in any given place would be less.
This is relevant to the people. It is not relevant to CO2.
The result of rain, on the place, can be shown as a hydrograph. Urbanization (increased hard surfaces) causes the water to run off faster, have a higher peak, and likely do more damage.
image
Yes it is relevant because the tail of the storm stays over water for longer, pulling in more moisture to dump as rain on land.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
“While there is no definitive link between climate change and Storm Barry, rising temperatures are increasingly a factor in making the impact of events like this more intense.” [Why mention climate change then Matt]
As the air has warmed over recent decades it is now able to hold much more moisture, meaning tropical storms are pre-loaded with large amounts of rain. [Right, the ‘air’ has warmed, but has nothing to do with climate change?]
The warming world is also making these storms more sluggish. Over the past seven decades tropical events like Barry have slowed down, going 20-30% less quickly over land in North America. [“The warming world” isn’t climate change? But it’s making “storms more sluggish”?]
This is what happened with Hurricane Harvey in 2017, when it weakened to a tropical storm and then stalled for days over the Houston area dumping enormous quantities of rainwater which cost lives and did huge damage. [So nothing to do with the warming air, caused by climate change saving up tons of water to dump on a single venue?]
Sea levels have also increased as a result of global heating, so if winds are blowing towards shore, this makes flooding much more likely during high tides. [So it’s global heating now, not global warming. Why didn’t you say that in the first place?]
How much exactly have sea levels risen? A few mm? And that makes flooding “much more likely”?
Just absurd, a rise that is almost imperceptible cannot make flooding that much worse. Stupidity and ignorance.
I would love to see him justify his claim. Storm surges are two orders of magnitude larger than sea level rises.
The extent of flooding inland will depend on how many has interfered with water flows through building and reducing the routes for water to escape.
BBC can’t wait to get the worst case headlines out there can they? They jumped the gun again because Barry didn’t make landfall as a hurricane – it’s a storm. Headlines have changed!
It’s just pathetic and ridiculous now, everything no matter how ordinary is definite proof!
But you can’t deny that the Obama era strategy exposed in the leaked emails – to flood the MSM with attribution stories on the back of every bit off weather and stress the unprecedented/historic nature (recognize those words that crop up all the time?) – is effective propaganda.
That’s why this is Superstorm Barrack.
That global warming has been replaced by global heating as the term of choice seems to indicate a tad of desperation. They are raising expectations: what happens when nothing much happens?
As to the McGrath “attribution”, I read it and winced somewhat. It is weak and, as Paul points out, requires that its audience has the attention span and historical understanding of a gnat. [However, the evidence is that people may well be so afflicted: hurricanes come and go, and the damage is made good, and people build more and more houses in the same spot without even a glance over their shoulders metaphorical shoulders at what went before. There is also the problem that our role models seem to be regressively sliding down the greasy pole of evolution.]
“I read it and winced somewhat.”
Yes. I thought, “Okay, when you hem and haw while writing, it comes out like this.”
I assume BBC finds editors a prohibitively expensive luxury.
“I would rather believe the experts than you”
Unfortunately, the public listening to him on the BBC think that he is an ‘expert’.
The definition of propaganda (one of them, anyway) is when one does not have the right of reply in the same medium. If one could reply to McGrath with the same level of platform he would not work again.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Amazing scientists these. With the days yet to come in and the wonky attribution studies not even sniffing peer review… we can conclude that it’s weather and the only predicable outcome is a rapid rise in climate ambulance chasering vultures.
The Joe Bastardi link featured is well worth a read – and it came out in April. Forecasters were aware of the patterns that lead to these instances because they have happened before and will keep happening regardless of the arm waving of climate modellers and activists who only show their continued ignorance of the weather.
OT, In my home town or rather city of St Albans ( it has a Cathedral ) the recently elected majority Lib Dem Council declared a climate emergency aided and abetted by Extinction Rebellion activists pledging to do everything in their power to make the whole of the St Albans District carbon neutral by 2030 beating the governments own intended target by two decades. This was followed up today (Saturday) with Extinction Rebellion blocking city centre roads with the acquiescence of the Police …. collective insanity ?
https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st-albans-climate-emergency-1-6154662
Not just the Lib Dems – the vote was unanimous. The Conservatives have 24 seats.
It’s not even a hurricane at landfall it’s a tropical storm. The deceitfulness of these people is just appalling,.
New Orleans has been facing these huricans for ever.They keep pumping oil out of the bay and the land mass sinks in theory anyway. BP oil is large in the area so it is a British issue also.They have change the flow of the Mississippi and it doesn’t deposit it’s slit like it use to so there is more open water.There is no simple solution but it is not a climate change issue
He is so right. I mean, nothing like hurricane Harvey ever happened in Texas before. Oh wait a minute. What about the Great Galveston hurricane in 1900, you know, the one which completely washed away Galveston and killed in excess of 6,000 people. Isn’t Galveston just up the road from Houston?
About an hour on I-45, not far from Mission Control and the Houston Space Center, Ellington Field and a couple of refineries. It trades these days off its hurricane memorial museums, and excellent sea food restaurants.
Watched this wonderful lecture by a very well educated man by Professor Tim Palmer at the Royal Society. Climate change: catastrophe, hoax or just lukewarm?
He thinks the science proves climate change will not be a catastrophe for quite a long time.
That Climate Change is not a hoax based on Trump tweet that it is a China conspiracy.
That Climate Change is not lukewarm the its not a major problem idea.
Spends a lot of time talking about weather and how it is very hard (impossible) to predict with much accuracy beyond a few days (a month forget it)
But that does not mean that we can not predict the CLIMATE to 50 and 100 years.
Gives example of chaos system using magnets and then introduces a wedge to increase probability of one outcome. The wedge is Carbon Dioxide.
Spends some time on clouds and how they mess things up.
Does not mention that chaotic magnet wedge example is a fixed system.
Unlike a dynamic system example where magnets varying in flux plus magnet 1 affecting magnet 3 and 2 while magnet 4 changes 1 and they all change there changes at times.
So where you put the wedge gets complicated.
Good news at end though we can fix Climate Change and it will only cost $400 Trillion.
Sounds like a bargain to me.
During questions and answers. Piers Corbyn made the point that most carbon dioxide is natural and not man made. Professor Tim Palmer agreed with this but as that was rather hard to control thought we should control the tiny bit we can control. Genius
One must remember that the RAIN in SPAIN falls mainly on the PLAIN and we know what to blame for that.
OT but the Dilbert comic for Sunday 14th July is appropriate, https://dilbert.com.
As for the OP, climate change alarmists are now reduced to just constantly lying. There really is nothing more to it than that, the game is up. Thirty years of failed doomsday predictions have left them with zero credibility as far as anyone with a functioning brain is concerned. Meanwhile our current PM thinks that inflicting the country with a zero carbon economy is a vote winner.
The BBC employs many propagandists like Matt McGrath. You can always assume that the truth will be the opposite of what they claim.
His “analysis” is just garbage. It assumes that the world has warmed everywhere at every time, which is obviously untrue. There’s no evidence the US land mass today is warmer than it “should” be – its no different this July from many other July’sgoing back decades . So the air is not warmer the storm is not moving slower.
This is the taking a higher global average and assusing temperatures are higher everywhere when they are not.
How I detest the BBC. Their replies to my complaints are a mixture of sophistry, ignorance and disdain.
I find the idea that warmer weather leads to more severe storms to be highly suspect from the start. I read a book about the Little Ice Age and it describes the ferocious storms that occurred during that very cold period in time. The theory seems to be that there is more energy in the atmosphere and that this will lead to more severe storms. In practice it turns out that warmer weather is more benign, who knew?
It seems to be that the climate is changing naturally and extremely slowly, but even if it is partly man made, why are the consequences assumed to be 100% negative? Especially as observations appear to be pointing entirely the other way.