More Global Warming Stupidity

Big Climate and its advertising agencies is trying to spin there was "little warning" before Hurricane Ida because it rapidly intensified due to global warming. They are wrong. 

Oy! Big Climate is pulling out all of the stops on this one. Below is just one of them:

Hat tip: Tomer Burg

This story tries to push the false narrative that there was less than 72 hours warning. 

Here is what this blog published 85 hours before landfall:

Note the phrase, "major hurricane." And, "best chance of landfall is over Louisiana or Mississippi sometime Sunday..." There was plenty of warning. 

Big Climate has never had a problem with being ghoulish. So, even while the storm was moving inland and crushing the Mississippi Delta, they were busy telling us that Hurricane Ida was caused by global warming for its political purposes.

One of literally dozens of tweets attempting to tie Ida to global warming

 

You'll recall Ida was a Cat 4 with 150 mph winds. If global temperatures and/or carbon dioxide was determinative, it would have been impossible for Cat 5 Hurricane Camille -- with 175 mph winds the second strongest hurricane to have ever struck North America  -- to have made landfall the same part of the Gulf Coast the same week of 1969. Want proof?

Here is a plot of world temperatures since 1950. Temperatures in 1969 on the left. 

Of course, today's temperatures are warmer (arrow on the right).

And, here is a graph of CO2 concentration. 

In 1969, CO2 concentration was 325 parts per million (ppm). Today, it is 418 ppm. Much higher (arrow on the right).

The point is: if a stronger hurricane can occur in the same area, at the same time of year, then global warming did not cause Hurricane Ida!

Now, let's take a broader view. The peer-reviewed ACE Index, which combines tropical storm+hurricane strength and duration, confirms there is no upward trend in hurricanes.

Of course, this is up to the present. It seems to be that if the increase in temperatures so far has not caused an increase in hurricane numbers or strength, we should be cautious about saying there will be an increase in the future. 

But, this isn't just my opinion. Earlier this month, on August 9, NOAA published information about climate and hurricanes. Here are verbatim statements from NOAA:

• There is increasing evidence from modeling studies at GFDL/NOAA and the UK Met Office/Hadley Centre (UKMO) that the increase in tropical storm frequency in the Atlantic basin since the 1970s has been at least partly driven by decreases in aerosols* from human activity and volcanic forcing.  Natural variability may also have contributed to recent changes.  The recent GFDL and UKMO studies do not imply that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm frequency since the 1970s will continue into the future:  these same models project future decreases in Atlantic tropical storm frequency in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
• There is evidence for a slowing of tropical cyclone propagation speeds over the continental U.S. over the past century, but these observed changes have not yet been confidently linked to anthropogenic climate change.
• There is no strong evidence of increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, or of Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes or major hurricanes since the late 1800s.

Note the last sentence of the first paragraph: Their models forecast a decrease in hurricanes. 

* Aerosols = air pollution. It is ironic that our efforts to decrease air pollution since the 1970s may have caused an increase in hurricanes since the 1970s. However, it is largely believed the 1950s and 60s were an extremely active period for Atlantic hurricanes. 

Big Climate can cherrypick items from various studies all thy want but the genuine science clearly demonstrates there is no increase in hurricanes due to global warming or CO2 concentrations.