HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.
MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.
IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.
FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.
BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!
HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?
Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.
He treats weather as climate.
He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.
And he then blames the victims:
Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…
Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.
But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.
To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale…
In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…
Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…
Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.
So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.
What a snake oil salesman.
One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:
The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.
There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.
Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?
Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.
Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.
There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.
Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.
Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?
In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
So what makes this event unprecedented?
The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…
Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.
But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.
Harvey Related :
- Hurricane Harvey: Devastating – Not Unprecedented | Climatism
- It’s over – 4324 day major hurricane drought ends as Harvey makes landfall at Cat 4 | Watts Up With That?
- JUDITH CURRY – “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” |Climate Etc.
- 15 Feet Of Sea Level Rise In Ten Minutes | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Extreme Weather Related :
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends | Climatism
Failing Fairfax Media Related :
CLASSIC example of how sea-level rise is deceitfully abused as evidence of anthropogenic climate change (AGW) when sea-level rise should be treated on a region to region basis to account for, in this case, land subsidence.
The other no-brainer to identify wilful deception is the fact that there has been no sea-level rise acceleration, despite accelerating CO2 emissions…
You may notice this trend, or lack there of, in many cases of SLR fear-mongering.
By Paul Homewood
CBS have a report on rising sea levels at Tangier Island, in Chesapeake Bay here
The video is worth watching. The CBS reporter makes the usual attempts to blame it on “climate change”, but the locals know too much to fall for that old pony.
They know that sea levels have been rising, and land eroding, since 1850.
And they are right. Tide gauges in the area, such Sewell Point, Norfolk, confirm that sea levels have been steadily rising for a long time, long before recent rises in emissions of CO2.
The rate of rise is 4.6mm/yr, nearly three times the global rate. But there is a very good reason for this – the land is sinking.
Chesapeake Bay is the site of an ancient impact crater, caused by a comet or meteor. As a result the land has been subsiding ever since. Estimates by proper…
View original post 78 more words
A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…
Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything
global warming climate change.
7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:
1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)
They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.
They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.
Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.
3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)
The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.
According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I make that 1.6%, not 97%.
Full details are here.
Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.
But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.
If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.
Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:
The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)
Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.
They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.
In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…
And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.
For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:
The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.
As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.
They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)
They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.
As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.
5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con
“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”
There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.
Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.
National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?
Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:
Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.
So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.
As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:
- The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
- It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.
Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.
Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.
Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.
Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.
Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.
6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”
In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.
When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.
7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!
1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?
Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.
For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.
Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.
2) Switch to renewables
They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.
The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.
Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.
The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.
3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.
Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.
BP Energy Review 2016
4) We can do something about it!
Who is this WE?
In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.
Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.
BP Energy Review 2016
Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.
This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.
Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.
National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :
- You Were Lied To About Arctic Sea Ice Disappearing | Climatism
- What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California | Climatism
- National Geographic : Global Warming Makes People Throw Acid In Each Other’s Faces | Climatism
- National Geographic Goes Full Criminal | Climatism
- National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty? | Climatism
- Spectacular Climate Fraud From National Geographic | Climatism
- Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic | Climatism
- National Geographic Exposes Their Real Agenda | Climatism
Ahh CNN! What we always knew, now proven by WikiLeaks – nothing more than an activist, bought-off, advocacy group for far Left elites & their ruinous agenda.
The (predominantly Leftwing) mainstream media is officially dead.
By Andrew Bolt ~
Clinton lies. Her operatives foment violence at rival campaigns. And she cheats, with CNN now firing a commentator, Donna Brazille, for passing on questions to her before a debate. Questions which Clinton accepted, of course.
Why does the Left pretend to be more moral when they act like skunks?:
CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Ms. Brazile, a veteran political analyst for the network, was already on leave from CNN since becoming interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. On Monday, CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on Oct. 14.
“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a…
View original post 222 more words