How global hurricane activity can rebut climate exaggeration

How global hurricane activity can rebut climate exaggeration


By Joe Bastardi


There is so much propaganda being thrown at the public on Hurricane Ian it is impossible to counter it all. One egregious erroneous deceptive statement after another. And no one seems to call them on it outside of people that normally do. The problem is they wait until the fight starts, rather than bringing the fight to them. I need to hit major events from a long way out. That’s what I get paid for. After showing clients I go public. On Sept 13 speaking in Chicago to a natural Gas gathering, I did so


WeatherBELL’s Bastardi Sees Active End to Hurricane Season, Cold December


Even here on Cfact the end of August post on the season forecasted a frenzy and lamented my side of the AGW debate trying to use the lack of activity thru then as a cherry-pick. In fact, it was about that time I recorded an hour segment with Tucker Carlon on the Weaponization of Weather and said the hurricane season was going to come to life with a major threat to eastern NAMER. (only New England, seemingly immune from hurricanes the last 32 years after taking 1 hit every 7 years 1938-1991, has not been impacted) It did as I feared, come back to bite them.  Florida, Carolinas, Canadian Maritimes. Which means we should not be using the same tactics. But there was a reason for why the season was so quiet. And globally there are some direct refutations of a major climate change idea that actually means we are likely seeing a response taking place to whatever is causing the warming. This should be expected unless one wants to refute Le Chatellier’s principle.


What tactics should be used in the media and anyone that is actually serious about countering this? Vary your programming to allow a weather/climate segment way in advance of an event to educate people about the WHY BEFORE THE WHAT. Not sit there and wait. The left owns that. Why keep marching into the same battlefield? Do something different for goodness’ sake if it actually means something to you. ( I suspect it doesn’t. They play for ratings. Since the left is using this for a takeover, I suspect ratings don’t mean much to them)


What gets me is the gross misrepresentation Let’s take VP Harris with her climate justice comments. Given this hurricane went ashore and devasted most an area of Florida where median income and property value is well above the target she was trying to pander too, the only disproportion was the rich got crushed most. The average income on Sanibel Island is. 136k. The fact is most people that have property on the beach or boats have money. So they put themselves in harm’s way. There is an astounding lack of hurricane knowledge among Floridians. They think they know but they don’t. Since 1965 only 6 major hurricanes have made landfall in south Fla while in the 1940s, a single decade there were 6. So according to Don Lemon, because he does not see it or know about it, hurricanes are getting worse. Only in his narrow, non-knowledgeable field of vision in this case, he displays an amazing lack of. But then again so do all of them (if  knew then why would he have said he grew up there and they are getting worse, in the interview with the NOAA forecaster, who correctly went to the task at hand, forecasting the weather)


In any case here is the 1940s in south Florida



newsflash: 6 in 10 years is almost 6 times more frequent than 6 in 57 years. Of course, the way they operate is if I don’t know it or see it, it can’t possibly have happened. Will erasing climate change take us back to the 1940s? Seems to me more people of all economic means will be hit in S Florida if Kamala, Klobuchar, the view et al get their way.


The AP calls that cherry-picking. Well, it is easy to cherry-pick with an orchard that is so full of them.


But since it is apparent Don Lemon et al did not take tropical meteorology (nor know a lick about the 1940s) at Penn State in the 1970s or he would have understood this was a textbook case for a major hit, a pattern waiting to simply lower the boom, let’s hope he and the rest of the left-wing weaponizers read this and ask questions, not about a specific hurricane, but why globally the classic low latitude major storms are becoming rarer. For the imbalance in the tropical breeding ground is likely a response that is OPPOSITE of the kind of runaway feedback warmth, hurricane orgy idea, that was being pushed


It’s the total picture that is the so-called control knob of climate. The Oceans are a great reservoir of energy and air-sea interaction is the vital link.   The amount of energy input from where sea surface temperatures are in the 80s for instance is much greater from where they are in the 30s.  The correlation of water vapor to temperature for instance is such that if you increase water vapor globally by .1g/kg at -40, the correlation is a rise of 10 degrees. To get the same correlation at. 80 degrees you need a rise of 9 grams/kg or 90 times the amount.  So what you see, the disproportionate warming where its warming much more in the colder, drier areas is a direct function of increased water vapor. There is no such linkage with co2. The nice little theory on co2 is that it “back radiates” in the saturated bands, capturing the earth’s outgoing long-wave radiation and warming the air around it.  But the bands are a)saturated. so they are doing all they can do aleady b) limited by the vastness of the atmosphere and other forces around it. c) rely ON WARMING. to create warming, then supposedly feedback, and its off to the races. Obviously, the over-forecasting of the climate models of this means they have vastly over-estimated its sensitivity


Besides, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that underwater volcanic activity has a lot to do with the warming.  The completely overlooked paper

Underwater Volcanic Activities Increased Exponentially In Recent Years

can explain a lot of the oceanic warming.  Look at the difference in the oceans between now and 40 years ago.



Now imagine that this input is distributed in the oceans so eventually it spreads out and in vertical, into the air where increased water vapor spreads out.  What has to be the result? What you are seeing now.  Energy from the oceans ( which btw is a large source of releasing co2) far outweighs what the increase in co2 emissions can do. It renders it incalculable if you look at the oceans as the source.  Of course, if you simply jump all over co2 and ignore this, then guess what you are going to conclude?


Where is the Pacific ring of fire in underwater volcanoes?



Look where the warming has been. The blue represents how much cooler it was in the 1980s


remember this shows how much cooler it was so it’s in blue


It is particularly evident now (the warming is in red vs 30-year means)



you almost could not line it up better.


The increased Underwater Volcanic activity (natural) is set off by the ring of fire and spreads out.  Meanwhile, the AMO switched from cold in the 80s to warm now (natural). So it accounts for the change there. But large parts of the eastern tropical Pacific have cooled in response. The fact is that temperatures are a poor metric for climate    Water vapor quantified and explained is the best.  But since that would explain temperature and open up the argument to the oceans and the natural cause for their warming, agenda-driven people do not want to see that.  The natural increase in SST brought about by increased underwater volcanic activity and the natural flip to the warm AMO in the Atlantic would explain the increase sst, and water vapor and correlate nicely to temperatures if one then lined it up with mixing ratios.


But the result of this, the fight back in the atmosphere has become apparent in studying the demise of large long tracked storms in the Atlantic and western Pacific.  The trapping hot spot idea was that warming would take place in the mid-troposphere over the tropics. This truly would raise my eyebrows.   First of all, if you are warming the air over the tropics, where it is warm it has far greater implications than over the arctic areas.  Remember the energy difference I demonstrated above with water vapor?  Their idea forecasted orgies of tropical cyclones developing in the main development regions and then attacking the coast ( US and Asia). this is not happening. Storms are developing further north and size-wise are much smaller, though at the center just as intense. This is why, because Saffir Simpson has been co-opted by the left it has to be replaced by a power and impact scale that incorporates the  SIZE of the wind field and duration of intensity to quantify a storm.  The last great long-tracked storm to hit the US was Irma and it was weakening. Dorian, Matthew, and Irene, Florence, all were falling apart coming to the coast. This is unlike the 30s 40s and 50s when large and powerful storms hit the US after a long journey and were larger. The classic example is Carla and Harvey.  Both are catted 4s. But  Carla’s cloud deck covered the entire gulf and it gave hurricane-force winds to every station on the Texas coast.








Harvey’s width of hurricane winds was about 1/3 of Carla’s in the gust field. The heavy rain was because it got caught by a cold trough  and stalled.   I suspect its rain would have been like Alicia, 1983 if it had kept moving. But alas an cold trough caught. Dang that climate change (sarc)


Ida vs Betsy.  Cat 4.  Betsy’s hurricane winds






Ida’s width was half that of Betsy  But both 4s of Saffir Simpson. Power and Impact Carla and Betsy stronger


Donna vis Ian


Donna. 120 mph SUSTAINED winds for 45 minutes at Tavenier Key Fla (Only God knows the gust). Ian gust to 140 Cape Coral.  Donna hurricane-force winds every state on the east coast, hit as. 4 Fla, 3, NC, 2 In New England. Saffir Simpson


Ian 4 Fla, 1 NC, then nor’easter for mid-Atlantic states


How is Ian even remotely stronger? Only to people with a narrow vision It is not unlike a rush to judgment that sometimes plagues police investigations.  (I have been watching a lot of Boston Legal lately..Denny Crane)


But what would this tell us about climate change? Well while people weaponize the hits, they hide the fact that a) trapping hot spot theory is WRONG).  Warmth over the arctic is not nearly as important to the global climate and is a response to NATURAL warming. B) Lack of cooling over the tropics is a huge elephant in their room. It is the visible result of nature compensating.


Look at this:



We have been seeing modeling catching the warming at northern latitudes in the mid-troposphere, but they have also been showing the lack of, and in the case of some runs, like this one of the CFSV2, the widespread cooling over the tropics.



So, for those saying climate change is making it worse, here is the challenge. Given that you now have read the paper that I gave you up there on the increased underwater volcanic activity in the very years the global temperature has increased, you can see the linkage to SST increases, understand that is natural and would correlate with the air warming, understand the Atlantic is in a warm cycle, understand all these large scale natural events,  do you not stop and think about this relative to your dogmatic view of co2 as the climate control knob?.   If the oceans had not warmed, are you saying the air would have? Are you saying the air that responds to the energy input from the oceans, is now causing the oceans to warm, ignoring underwater volcanic increases? Are you saying that Bill Gray in the 1970s knew the Atlantic was going into its warm AMO, accounting for its warming and input, and he based that on co2 input?  When you understand the NATURE OF HEAT AS ENERGY. and trace what leads to that energy source, how do you not question the missive?  Only an agenda-driven zealot would not stop and say, maybe this needs to be looked at.


Just where is all that heat coming up thru the crust of the earth in the form of these volcanoes supposed to go?  Our knowledge of the oceans is laughably small compared to the air. But air is like the paint on the house.  You would not buy a house based on what the paint job looks like without inspecting how the house was built, would you?


The climate house is built by the ocean.


Look I don’t have all the answers. I do need to know what the result of all this is as far as the weather.  So, I have to dig in.  But in digging in, there is a risk that you may find something different.  So, I don’t want anyone to accept my answer as to why this is almost exclusively natural (heck I didn’t even bring in the sun which at last look was natural).   I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT, READ THE PAPER, LOOK AT THE WARMING IN RELATION TO THE RELEASE OF HEAT THAT HAS TO BE TAKING PLACE BY THE INCREASED VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, and stop and think for goodness’ sake.  I am well acquainted with the wonderful CAGW idea, it’s jammed down everyone’s throat.  But if the oceans had not warmed, do you really think the air above would have?  And the proof is where its warming and when, and it is linked to water vapor, not co2. Underwater volcanic activity increase which has been completely hidden from the public in this debate would explain the Pacific warming and that warming spreading out. There are then the natural reactions that start in the horizontal and the vertical.  The cycles of the Atlantic explain the warm AMO and its input. Given heat is naturally carried to where its colder and redistributed, its intuitive it would warm in and over the colder areas more in their cold season.  Resultant blocking then forces the counter, increased late season snows for instance in Canada, and a countering with cooler responses further south, which then thwart any trapping hot spot over the tropics and eliminate runaway feedback. Quite the contrary, it may mean cooling is about to begin.  Another can of worms for another time.


In the meantime despite whatever hysteria is whipped up, with 4x the amount of people than 1930  we have 1/28th the amount of climate and weather-related deaths today.  So whatever it is, man’s ability to adapt and advance far outweighs the missive being pushed.  And destroying the very system that has enabled us to do that thru the insanity that masquerades as energy policy today, is the way to put us at the mercy of nature, not make use of it  So its either ignorance of purposeful deceit that is driving the phony climate war, a war designed to destroy the fundamental values of what made this country the place people try to get into, not out of.

Joe Bastardi
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore. His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here.