No, You Can't Determine the Severity Of Climate Change Because Of A Single Storm.

Understanding how not to measure climate change.

It drives me crazy when talking heads such as Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon think it’s a good idea to use a singular weather event as proof of climate change.

Singular weather events, such as heat waves, hurricanes, droughts, or floods, are extreme weather events that can have significant impacts on human societies and the environment. However, these events are not sufficient evidence to determine whether climate change is real or not, or to what extent it is affecting the planet.

Climate change is not something that can be properly understood by examining a single weather event. Singular weather events may be caused by a variety of factors, such as natural climate variability, random chance, or human activities other than climate change. In fact, it is expected that extreme weather events will occur even in the absence of climate change, due to the inherent variability of the climate system.

Moreover, the occurrence of a single weather event does not provide enough information to determine whether it is a natural occurrence or the result of human-caused climate change. Climate change is a phenomenon that can only be interpreted in the context of having years' worth of climate data. Long-term climate data can help us understand the patterns and trends in climate variables over time and how they relate to human activities.

Using singular weather events to prove or disprove climate change can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. For example, if a severe winter storm occurs in a region that is not used to such events, some may argue that it disproves the existence of climate change. Conversely, if a region experiences a severe drought or heat wave, some may argue that it is proof of climate change. However, a single weather event does not provide enough information to determine whether it is a natural occurrence or the result of human-caused climate change.

To truly understand the impacts of climate change, we need to look at long-term climate data. This includes data on temperature, precipitation, sea level rise, and other climate variables over many years. By examining patterns and trends in this data, we can determine whether the occurrence of extreme weather events is consistent with the expected effects of climate change.

For example, climate models predict that as the planet warms due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, we can expect to see more frequent and severe heat waves and heavy precipitation events. By analyzing long-term climate data, scientists have found evidence that these predictions are coming true in many regions around the world. This is not proof of climate change in and of itself, but it is consistent with the expected impacts of human-caused global warming.

Long-term climate data is essential for informing policy decisions and taking action to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. It can help us understand how climate change is affecting different regions and communities, and identify strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote resilience.

In recent years I decided to plot out hurricane data from NOAA since 1851 to 2020 and found that while there are more storms per year and more rapid instensifications per storm, once those storms hit landfall, there’s been very little difference in what we’ve seen since the 1800s.

Above we see that hurricanes have been rapidly intensifying over the years.

Above, we can see that after they hit landfall, there has been very little difference in the category index of hurricanes since the 1800s.

Other climate change alarmists love to use the damage as measured in financial terms as proof that storms are getting worse over time.

Using financial indicators to measure the severity of storms, such as hurricanes, is often considered disingenuous. The reason is that these metrics fail to account for the fact that over time, more houses and buildings have been constructed in areas that are prone to hurricanes. Therefore, while there may be more economic damage from hurricanes today than in the past, it does not necessarily mean that storms are more severe.

Furthermore, historical data suggests that prices have generally increased over time due to various economic, social, and political factors. For instance, the cost of building materials and labor has increased significantly over time, and this can greatly impact the cost of rebuilding or repairing structures damaged by a hurricane. As such, it is not accurate to use financial losses as a measure of storm severity without adjusting for inflation and other factors.

For example, a house built in 1920 that was destroyed by a hurricane would cost significantly less to rebuild than a house that was destroyed by a hurricane in 2020. Therefore, using financial losses from natural disasters as a metric for measuring storm severity can be misleading if not adjusted for inflation and the cost of materials, as well as the number of new structures built.

In conclusion, singular weather events are not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or severity of climate change. Climate change is a complex phenomenon that can only be properly understood in the context of long-term climate data. By examining patterns and trends in climate variables over time, we can determine whether the occurrence of extreme weather events is consistent with the expected impacts of human-caused global warming. This understanding is essential for developing effective solutions to address this critical global issue.