Hurricane Horrors – Separating Fact from Fiction
This is an update to the original article, “Climate Change, Hurricanes, and the Myth of the Unprecedented,” which can be found below.
This update incorporates new data and historical flood events that challenge the prevailing narrative that recent extreme weather events, like Hurricane Helene’s flooding, are solely due to climate change.
In the original article on climate change and hurricanes, I explored how media narratives tend to paint any extreme weather event as “unprecedented,” often invoking climate change as the sole or primary explanation. Recent data, however, challenges this simplistic framing.
As shown in this new grpahic, which analyzes flood events along the French Broad River, we see a clear historical pattern of significant floods that predate the industrial revolution and modern CO2 emissions. The flood levels associated with Hurricane Helene, while severe, are by no means unprecedented.
Historical Context of Flooding: The data reveals multiple historical flood events, such as those in 1769 and 1791, which are similar in intensity to recent floods, including those caused by Hurricane Helene.
Events like the 1852 flood in this region match or exceed modern flood levels, long before the widespread burning of fossil fuels could be blamed.
This further suggests that significant flooding is part of the natural variability of the region, rather than a new phenomenon driven by recent human activity.
What This Data Tells Us: The paleo-flood reconstructions show that while extreme weather events like Hurricane Helene can cause significant flooding, they are not unique to our current climate or unprecedented in any meaningful sense.
Floods of this magnitude have occurred throughout history, and they are part of the region’s natural hydrological cycle. This context is crucial because it undercuts the frequent attribution of every extreme weather event to climate change.
Additionally, the link between hurricanes and floods, especially in areas like the French Broad River, is more about geographical and meteorological conditions than it is about rising CO2 levels.
Conclusion: The new flood data challenges the alarmist framing of Hurricane Helene as a harbinger of a climate-driven apocalypse. Instead, it reinforces the importance of understanding historical context and natural variability.
The real story is that these floods are nothing new, they’ve been happening for centuries. What is new is the insistence on blaming every extreme weather event on climate change without acknowledging the bigger picture.
This updated analysis highlights once again that human progress and resilience rely more on understanding natural cycles and investing in infrastructure, not on uncritically adopting the catastrophic climate narratives that often accompany these events.
Original article below…
As I watched the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, the homes submerged, lives upended, and entire communities left in disarray, my heart went out to those facing unimaginable loss.
It’s a stark reminder of the human cost of these natural disasters. But as we confront these tragedies, we must also take a critical look at how we respond to them.
Are we truly addressing the causes, or are we caught in a cycle of rebuilding the same vulnerable areas, only to see them destroyed again?
The recent Hurricane Helene has sparked renewed debate about the relationship between extreme weather and climate change.
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell’s remarks, focusing on warming waters and rising storm intensities, reflect the narrative that connects these disasters to global climate trends.
However, the available data on hurricane frequency and historical comparison with the 1916 Appalachian storm complicate this picture and raise questions about how we should respond to such disasters.
Analysis of Administrator Criswell’s Statements
In her recent CBS interview, Administrator Criswell stated that the rapid intensification of recent hurricanes, including Helene, is largely due to the warming waters of the Gulf of Mexico. She suggested that these conditions are fueling more frequent and powerful storms.
ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL: Well, I think what we’re seeing, Robert is, you know, this storm took a while to develop, but once it did, it developed and intensified very rapidly.
And that’s because of the warm waters in the Gulf and so it’s creating more storms that are reaching this major category level than we’ve seen in the past. It’s also creating greater amounts of storm surge in the coastal areas.
It’s creating greater amounts of rainfall as it moves up north. And so in the past, when we would look at damage from hurricanes, it was primarily wind damage, with some water damage, but now we’re seeing so much more water damage, and I think that is a result of the warm waters, which is a result of climate change.
This view, heavily endorsed by both policymakers and some scientists, asserts that human-driven climate change is the root cause of these escalating natural disasters.
However, historical and meteorological data offer a more complex picture. Despite increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, the frequency of major hurricanes (≥ 96 knots) has fluctuated over time, following a cyclical rather than linear trend.
Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue’s data on the 12-month running sums of global hurricane frequency reveals periods of both increases and decreases over the last several decades, questioning the assertion that climate change is the sole or even primary driver behind these storms.
While the number of hurricanes is often used to discuss the impacts of climate change, the frequency of storms does not necessarily indicate whether storms are becoming more intense.
To assess whether hurricanes are becoming stronger, a more reliable metric is Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), which considers both the duration and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes. The provided graphic of global and Northern Hemisphere ACE data over the last 50 years illustrates no significant upward trend in cyclone energy.
In fact, the data suggest periods of fluctuation but no consistent increase in storm strength.
This implies that while storms like Hurricane Helene might be destructive, there is no clear evidence that climate change is “supercharging” the entire hurricane system. ACE remains a crucial tool in understanding storm power, showing that variability in storm energy, rather than a dramatic intensification, is part of the natural system.
Comparing Hurricane Helene and the 1916 Storm
To provide historical context, it’s essential to compare Hurricane Helene with the 1916 storm that devastated Appalachian towns.
The flood of July 1916 in Asheville, North Carolina, was caused by two back-to-back tropical systems that dumped unprecedented rainfall on the region. This resulted in the most catastrophic flooding in Western North Carolina’s history.
The flood stage at the French Broad River in Asheville reached an astonishing 23 feet, with water levels rising rapidly due to the saturated ground and overwhelming rivers and streams. This flood submerged entire sections of Asheville, destroyed homes, businesses, and railroads, and left significant debris in its wake.
Several towns in the Appalachian region experienced unprecedented destruction, with many areas submerged under several feet of water. The 1916 storm caused rivers like the Swannanoa to rise over their banks, affecting communities that had little in terms of flood infrastructure.
The total economic toll and loss of life were profound, as the region struggled to recover from the devastation. The 1916 event occured even though atmospheric CO2 levels were approximately 120 ppm lower than they are today.
In comparison, Hurricane Helene caused flooding in Asheville just recently. While the exact numbers may not be finalized yet, NOAA shows that the French Broad River at Asheville reached a peak stage of 24.67 feet following Hurricane Helene.
This crest exceeds the 1916 flood level, which had reached a record of 23.1 feet. This new peak is indicative of the storm’s severity and the risk of significant flooding in the region.
The 1916 event suggests that extreme weather events of similar magnitude occurred long before human-driven climate change became a prominent factor.
Hurricanes are a natural part of Earth’s climatic system, and their occurrence is influenced by a wide range of factors, including natural climate variability and oceanic patterns.
The comparison between these two storms highlights an important point: while the frequency and intensity of hurricanes may fluctuate, they are not unprecedented.
The 1916 storm serves as a reminder that catastrophic weather events have always occurred and will continue to do so, regardless of human activity. This context raises questions about how we should interpret and respond to current events like Hurricane Helene.
Broader Issue: Politicization and Responsibility
A critical aspect of this discussion is the role of politicians and government agencies in framing the causes and consequences of natural disasters. For years, government agencies, politicians, and environmental groups have blamed the fossil fuel industry for intensifying natural disasters.
This narrative often becomes a platform for justifying large-scale taxpayer spending, as communities are rebuilt in areas that are destined to flood again. Despite this cycle, there has been little emphasis on revising urban planning practices to avoid such repetitive destruction. FEMA’s own response has followed a predictable pattern, respond to disaster, request billions for relief, rebuild, and wait for the next inevitable storm.
This graphic showing Asheville’s population growth from 2000 to 2022 highlights an important factor when considering the impacts of Hurricane Helene and future flood events .
As the population has steadily increased, reaching an estimated 93,776 by 2022, this growth exacerbates the risks associated with flooding. More people, homes, and infrastructure are now situated in vulnerable areas, increasing the potential for damage during extreme weather events.
This steady urban expansion into flood-prone regions, without adequate flood prevention measures, further emphasizes the need for stronger planning and infrastructure solutions.
The rising population, coupled with frequent storms, raises questions about whether the current rebuilding practices in Asheville are sustainable or merely setting the stage for future disasters.
Blaming the fossil fuel industry for all weather-related disasters overlooks the complexity of natural climate variability and the role of poor urban planning in flood-prone regions.
The decision to rebuild in areas that are consistently vulnerable to hurricanes and floods, regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels, raises questions about the efficacy and sustainability of these efforts.
Rather than focusing solely on climate change, there should be greater emphasis on improving infrastructure and disaster preparedness in high-risk areas… or not building in them at all.
Conclusion
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matthew and PSI Readers,
I do not know if you, or others. are aware of the Major Lunar Standstill (MLS) which is an observed FACT. For I have not read of this phenomenon being connected with flooding caused by hurricanes, or any thing else.. The MLS is an approximate 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle during which the moon rises and sets at its most northerly and southerly positions on the horizon During this 18..6 cycle, the moon pauses at each end of its north-to-south swing for about three years. Which means the timing extreme flooding is far from precise. I assume the three year period at each means there could also be an approximate 9 year period.
Any thoughts? Have a good day
Reply