Everyone remember Hurricane Katrina in 2005? The climatistas fell all over themselves to rush to attribute Katrina to climate change—it was either Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Al Gore Jr. (they seem to be in a race to see who can be the crazier carrier of their family legacy) who said Katrina should have been called “climate change,” or “Hurricane Exxon-Mobil” or something. And we were promised that this was the future.
So—heh: The Washington Post reported yesterday on the record long hurricane “drought” the U.S. has experienced since Katrina:
A major hurricane hasn’t hit the U.S. Gulf or East Coast in more than a decade. A major hurricane is one containing maximum sustained winds of at least 111 mph and classified as Category 3 or higher on the 1-5 Saffir-Simpson wind scale. (Hurricane Sandy had transitioned to a post tropical storm when it struck New Jersey in 2012, and was no longer classified as a hurricane at landfall, though it had winds equivalent to a Category 1 storm.) The streak has reached 3,937 days, longer than any previous drought by nearly two years. . .
Scientists have no solid explanation for the lack of hurricane landfalls.
Wait, what? I thought the science was settled! Oh, turns out it is:
Adam Sobel, a climate scientist at Columbia University, cautions that the drought in no way invalidates global warming predictions or the expectation that storms will grow more intense in future decades. The “notion that the hurricane drought in the Atlantic has somehow disproved the consensus projections of climate science is wrong, because the drought is still a relatively short-term fluctuation in a single basin, while the projections are for long-term global trends” . . .
Well, that’s a relief. Move along, nothing to see here. One of the great things about being a climatista is never having to admit you might not know something for certain. Just another day at the office for the non-falsifiable cult of climate extremism.