On a Sirius XM show with Dan Rather, Bill Nye continued his effort to try and remain relevant. As the alarmists, like Nye, continue to peddle their so called “settled science”, real expert meteorologists tend to disagree. Many of our top meteorologists simply don’t agree with this Climate Change fear mongering. Here is what Nye said:
Well, it’s the strength that is almost certainly associated with global warming. Now, everybody, global warming and climate change are the same thing. As the world gets warmer and there’s more energy in the atmosphere, you expect storms to get stronger. You also expect ocean currents to not flow the way they always have, and that will make some places cooler and some places warmer. The problem in southeast United States and Mexico is that these hurricanes are very powerful, and as I say all the time, they’re very expensive. We are all gonna pay for Harvey; we are all gonna pay for Irma, one way or the other. And so I want, I would prefer, as a guy born in the U.S., got my engineering degree and my license in the U.S., worked in aerospace for over twenty years in the U.S., I would like the United States to be the world leader in addressing this, rather than the World Sit-On-Its-Handsers. So anyway, the more heat energy in the atmosphere strengthens the storms, Dan.
The Washington Examiner just posted an article specifically covering this. At best, the scientists have no idea if our weather is being affected at all. The Examiner:
This is why the idea of climate science being “settled” is so ludicrous, at least as regards the connection between global warming and tropical cyclones. A settled theory makes specific predictions that can, in principle, be tested against observed data. A theory that only yields vague, untestable predictions is, at best, a work in progress.
The climate alarmists offer a vague prediction: Hurricanes may or may not happen in any particular year, but when they do, they will be more intense than they would have been if GHG levels were lower. This is a convenient prediction to make because we can never test it. It requires observing the behaviour of imaginary storms in an unobservable world. Good luck collecting the data.
Climate scientists instead use computer models to simulate the alternative world. But the models project hundreds of possible worlds, and predict every conceivable outcome, so whatever happens it is consistent with at least one model run. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, some climate modelers predicted such storms would be more frequent in a warmer world, while others predicted the opposite, and still others said there was no connection between warming and hurricanes.
What ensued was an historically unprecedented 12-year absence of major (category 3 or higher) hurricanes making landfall in the United States, until Harvey, which ties for 14th-most intense hurricane since 1851. The events after 2005 were “consistent with” some projections, but any other events would have been as well.