Fact Checking BBC’s Hurricane “Reality” Check
By Paul Homewood
The BBC has packed three lies into a 3-minute “Reality Check”. That’s some performance, even by their standards!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/61843574
Weather girl Louise Lear introduces the latest reality check on hurricanes, which is just a clumsy attempt to use Hurricane Ian to fool the public that they are getting worse because of global warming.
In particular there are three outright lies:
1) “There’s evidence they’re getting more powerful”
There is no such evidence.
US landfalling hurricanes, which offer the longest, most complete and reliable record, clearly show there is no such trend:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html
And last year’s paper by Vecchi et al, “Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century”, establishes that there are also no century scale trends in Atlantic basin major hurricanes, once changes in observation practices are taken into account.
There has been no long term increase either in the number or proportion of major hurricanes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
.
Meanwhile on a global basis we also see no increase in major hurricane frequency or accumulated energy:
.
https://climatlas.com/tropical/
Don’t believe me though – this is what NOAA themselves said last year, when reviewing the IPPC’s AR6:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
.
2) We actually started naming hurricanes in the 1940s [in alphabetical order]. But in recent years the hurricane season has been so busy, they’ve used up the list and had to start again”
The increasing number of named storms has nothing to do with the climate, but is a consequence of observational changes:
a) Many more hurricanes and tropical storms * are spotted nowadays thanks to satellites.
The BBC itself reported this fact last year:
“Over the past 10 to 15 years, though, named storms have formed prior to the official start about 50% of the time.
And the way they are defined and observed has changed significantly over time.
"Many of these storms are short-lived systems that are now being identified because of better monitoring and policy changes that now name sub-tropical storms," Dennis Feltgen, meteorologist at the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) told BBC Weather.
The number of named storms has increased over the decades, but there is no real evidence this is the result of a warming world.
Dr McNoldy, senior researcher at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School, notes "the big shift in counts is simply that there were several inactive seasons from 1981-1990 and several active seasons from 2011-2020".
"Once that inactive period drops out of the average, and is replaced by the active, it will increase the numbers"
The overall increase from 1961 is also likely to be due to better technology, along with observations over the Atlantic Ocean.
Since satellites came along in the 1980s, we can spot and monitor the development of tropical cyclones and name them when they meet the threshold.
We are simply able to record more”
* As well as hurricanes, tropical storms are also named, even though wind speeds may be as low as 39 mph.
.
b) Many more storms are now classified as tropical storms and named, which in the past would have been regarded as sub-tropical or winter storms.
Dr Neil Frank, who was Director of the US National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987 goes further, maintaining that many of the storms now named would not have been in his day.
He made two particular complaints about current methods two years ago:
1) Many named storms are actually winter storms, not tropical storms. He states that the first six tropical storms in 2019 would not have been counted in his time.
2) Nowadays the NHC rushes to name a storm, simply based on wind speeds. His team would have waited until the central pressure dropped to confirm that it really was a tropical storm, and not just a thunderstorm. This often explains why named storms are often so short lasting now
https://climaterealism.com/2020/11/no-2020-was-likely-not-a-record-hurricane-season/
.
.
3) ”Hurricanes usually weaken when they hit land, but in 2021 when Ida hit land , it had picked up enough moisture for the rain to keep falling…… a months worth of rain fell in one day in New York City.”
One weather event is not climate.
The rainfall from Ida amounted to 7 inches over the space of two days to New York.
In 1955, Hurricane Diane brought 12” of rain in 24 hours, and 20” over two days to Connecticut, after a similar overland track:
Hurricane Diane 1955
There is nothing unusual about a month’s worth of rainfall falling in a day, particularly where tropical storms are concerned. It is dishonest for Lear to suggest that it is.
.
Summary
Louise Lear finishes by claiming :
“The current evidence suggests that ….. hurricanes that do develop have the potential to be stronger, wetter and more devastating”
There is no evidence for any of these false claims.
Is she aware of this? Does she even care that what she is telling the public is a pack of lies?
Or does she just do what she is told?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Then why can we not prosecute the BBC for deliberately spreading false and misleading facts?
Defund, and complain.
”Hurricanes usually weaken when they hit land, but in 2021 when Ida hit land , it had picked up enough moisture for the rain to keep falling”
Hurricane strength is measured in sustained wind speed, and central low pressure. ‘Rain to keep falling’ has nothing to do with hurricane strength. It’s an ignorant head fake. Ida DID weaken after landfall. It fell from major hurricane to tropical storm in less than 24 hours.
”Hurricanes usually weaken when they hit land,” but NOTHING. Ida did weaken, exactly as expected. Her assertion is simply bizarre. Are BBC’s writers children?
I think that the final sentence of the piece: “Or does she just do what she is told?” is really chilling. Who is telling her to lie and why???
Klaus Schwab’s little workers.
It might be even worse than we have previously suspected. The Spectator (10/9/2022) has an article by Austin Williams “Green Screen”. Well worth a read if you can get a copy. The article explains about Bafta Albert, initially set up by the BBC to provide a carbon calculator for the film and TV industry, it now describes itself as an environmental organisation which aims to encourage TV and film companies to reduce there carbon footprint. It claims to be leading the charge against climate change. One of its big initiatives is Planet Placement – effectively subliminal messaging. “It’s a chance to shape society’s response to climate change”. This wretched thing might be one of the reasons that programmes like Gardener’s World seem to shoehorn Climate Change into every programme.
Yes, and a very interesting article, propoganda and subliminal messages deliberately fed into every programme. Very very Orwellian.
I’m getting sick of Gardener’s World, as they all mouth ‘peat-free compost’ at the end of every sentence, or drone on about having to alter all our garden plants to adapt to climate change, which is not necessary at all. People used to be able to water their gardens some decades ago, but the country is now massively overcrowded, with excessive demands on water, that is no longer possible.
Many of the presentations have shifted to ‘wild gardens’, which generally look like patches of field or scrub land, or an overgrown, neglected yard outside a derelict council house. They seem to be completely missing the point of what gardening is about for most people. Then there’s the usual BBC obsession with ‘diversity quotas’, which, when all added up, makes for utterly dull, agenda driven monotony.
I’m a retired BBC engineer and i, now, feel ashamed that I ever worked for it, it has become so bad – for the last 30 years being run by ignorant, uncultured morons – just go through its radio channels – endless bland pop music.
And, having been a union member so still receiving the union magazine full of “We must protect the BBC” and full of crap about climate change and “green” programme making – bullshit at its best.
To be kind to her(louise Lear), she probably doesn’t realise that she’s lying. She’s simply not knowledgeable enough about the subject she’s writing about to have any kind of a valid opinion. On the other hand, she does, and is lying!
She doesnt write this stuff she’s just a weather presenter. She just reads what she is told to read.
Yep. Just reading the teleprompter.
Louise Lear is unknown in America. We have diva weather girl Stephanie Abrams on The Weather Channel. The “just reading the teleprompter” excuse ran out on her years ago. She, and most of the rest of the clowns on TWC, fully embrace climety changy. In fact, they have two hours a day of “climate” news.
Anyone remember the Beeb, the Graun or others of that ilk blaming ‘climate change’ for the 12-year major-hurricane (landfalling) drought that ended in Aug 2017?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/major-us-hurricane-drought-ends-after-record-4323-days
Me neither.
One less boring climate whinger at COP 27.
King Charles will not attend climate summit on Truss advice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63105522
Not sure I would believe the BBC take on it. My understanding is that Charles has understood that things have changed now he is King and had already realised that it would no longer be appropriate to attend and that Truss concurred with that assessment.
I used to have a radio tuned to radio 4 which came on when I switched the light on in my workshop. I’ve had to turn it off because nowadays a reference to climate change comes within two minutes at least 75% of the time
Just what’s happened in my life too.
“and there is evidence they’re getting more powerful” (in the video still, yes. Otherwise, no.)
I’m complaining again
Today’s weather reporters do believe what they are saying because they have all been brainwashed during their continuing training. There is no room for any other opinion in their profession. If there are any sceptics, they make sure they keep it to themselves, as they know that if it were to get out, their career would be over. The facts, as presented on this website, will never be reported on mainstream TV. No presenter or producer would dare to do it.
The mainstream TV exceptions are the climate contrarians Andrew Bolt and The Outsiders team of Sky News Australia….. To their great credit they report the facts
Yes, we must remember those exceptions. I was really referring to the UK where there seems to be complete conformity on TV. There are good people in the press, but sadly they are not given air time.
Till the morning came of that hateful day
When the Jumblies sailed in their sieve away,
And the Dong was left on the cruel shore
Gazing — gazing for evermore, —
Ever keeping his weary eyes on
That pea-green sail on the far horizon, —
Singing the Jumbly Chorus still
As he sate all day on the grassy hill, —
“Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and the hands are blue
And they went to sea in a sieve.
But when the sun was low in the West,
The Dong arose and said;
— “What little sense I once possessed
Has quite gone out of my head!” —
Was Edward a relative?
😂
Louise Lear.
BA in Music & Drama from Middlesex Uni, where she studied the clarinet & piano.
So, I may be doing her a disservice, but I think her knowledge of historical hurricane strength & frequency is poor.
So, he that pays the piper calls the tune.
Bryony Worthington, the ‘brains’ behind the Climate Change Act disaster – BA English.
I thought they were supposed to be trained meteorologists? They were in the days of Bill Giles, Michael Fish et al.
“There is no evidence for any of these false claims.
Is she aware of this? Does she even care that what she is telling the public is a pack of lies?”
I think we are the stage where the purveyors of false information, who are almost certainly aware of their own propaganda, just don’t care anymore. They know that the facts contradict their ‘science’ but they also know that the people in power ‘own the science’ (ref. recent comments by certain people at the UN) and I believe that they are now relying upon increasing censorship by Big Tech to start shutting down sites like this or at least greatly reducing their reach, such that their lies go unchecked most of the time.
Some excellent, accurate, and cutting comments above. The BBC are obviously not fooling those of us prepared to think and question.
No Malcolm but they are winning the war hands down.
Correct, they ARE fooling the masses who don’t think and question.
A comprehensive array of antidotal data to the BBC’s lies Paul ……So the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy index for 2021 – 22 is comparable to the troughs of 2o14 -15 ; 2000 – 02 and 1988 -90 and the Major Hurricanes series is the lowest ebb since 1987 ….. No linear exponential trend whatsoever ..
It must be a “climate emergency “
One presumes an official complaint will be forwarded to the BBC. We can individually notify our MPs, and ask (require) that they insist the BBC both report accurately and also adhere to their legal Charter of impartiality, as this is clearly more ‘climate change’ rhetoric.