Ida, the Catastrophist’s Latest Stopped-Clock ‘Prediction’

We asked climate and weather experts what the hell is happening in N.J. Here’s what they said.

This was the headline of a New Jersey Star-Ledger article following the walloping of NJ (and other Northeastern states) delivered by a tropical rainstorm formed of the remnants of Hurricane Ida.

But if your looking for an actual explanation for Ida’s extreme severity in the Northeast, you won't get it in this article by NJ.com’s Payton Guion. Payton delivers just more climate change (i.e., political) propaganda, catastrophe predictions, and references to falsehoods like “We have a society we’ve built around a really stable climate, and we’re entering a period where the climate is changing really rapidly.” But no real explanation.

When has the climate ever been "stable?" When has it ever been unchanging, or not full of danger for man? 

Never.

When, in response to a mayor's assertion that “No one could predict" this storm, Guion noted, "In fact, it was predicted," I got ready for some interesting reading. But, no. All we got was a rehash of catastrophe predictions. 

Short-term forecasts this week called for several inches of rain from Ida and heavy flooding in the Passaic and Raritan river basins. And scientists have been warning for years that a warming planet will produce more devastating storms.

Well, climate catastrophe has been predicted for decades. So, the catastrophists have set themselves up a nice little rationalization game: Predict “more devastating storms.” Then, when the inevitable next devastating storm hits, trot out your global warming (or climate change) prediction as proof that you predicted it. Well, I can predict that a stopped clock will be right twice a day. Every storm becomes proof of the rightness of their predictions. But weather extremes have always happened and always will. The "In fact, it was predicted" strikes me more like a stopped-clock prediction -- just another in a long line of them. 

In fact, the article provides no meteorological explanation for IDA's unusual intensity. But others did. While Ida was still in Mississippi, Accuweather’s Bernie Rayno warned of a secondary storm or “piece of energy” that would drop down from the North and merge with Ida’s remnants, strengthening it. And a Weather Channel reporter noted the non-tropical storm front that settled across the area just as Ida was approaching, contributing to the storm’s strength. Both spoke of a third factor—the U-shaped jet stream dip that established itself. All of these factors combined to strengthen the storm further, enhancing and concentrating much more energy over the area, causing more intense rainfall than otherwise would have been the case. Said Accuweather three days before Ida really ramped up:

"There is going to be some interaction with Ida and an approaching dip in the jet stream in the northeastern United States," AccuWeather Chief On-Air Meteorologist Bernie Rayno said, adding that this could cause the air pressure at the center of Ida to drop. The intensification could lead to even heavier rainfall across parts of the area.

Yes,  "In fact, it was predicted" -- really predicted. And for reasons that are not just the stale old stopped-clock climate change mantras.

To make matters worse, the jet stream set-up created the atmospheric conditions that greatly enhanced the odds for the formation of tornadoes, which became reality. All of these factors—a secondary storm, a stationary storm front, a dip (or trough) in the jet stream, are not uncommon events in the Northeast. All went into predicting and explaining -- genuinely predicting and explaining -- Ida’s Northeast rampage. None of this was mentioned in Guion’s article. 

Could human-caused climate warming have contributed to the intensity? Of course. As Guion reported:

“Basic physics says that when air warms up, it can hold more water,” Marvel said. “The Earth right now is about 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. As a result, we’ve seen an increase in very heavy rainfalls, especially in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

“Rising temperatures means air holds more water, so more gets dumped on us.” 

Maybe a bit less rain would have fallen. But would a quarter or half inch lower totals have mattered that much? Extreme weather is extreme weather, climate change or not. But the fact is, the confluence of atmospheric phenomena that caused Ida’s exceptional strength has nothing to do with climate. It has everything to do with weather.

“Human-caused global warming from burning of fossil fuels also likely made Ida's far-reaching impacts a bit worse, experts said,” according to News 4 NY’s much more accurately reported. Yes, a bit worse -- maybe. But bad luck also played a part, as 4 reported:

“Some of this is just bad luck too. If Ida had tracked just 100 miles farther east, that heaviest swath of rainfall would have been over the ocean and no one would care,” said University of Miami hurricane researcher Brian McNoldy.

News 4 NY also observed:

“This [atmospheric setup] is not rare," Emanuel added. “For example, it happened with Hurricane Camille of 1969, which took a similar path.” Camille killed more than 100 people in Virginia from flooding after making landfall as a Category 5 hurricane in Mississippi.

“Not rare.” Are you listening, Payton Guion of NJ Advance Media for NJ.com? When you say you’re going to explain a weather event, explain it. Your article is very misleading. It’s no help to people seeking useful explanations to trot out vague generalized predictions as to the why or how. Next time, maybe you can actually report something useful and interesting, rather than the same old climate mantras of the politically motivated.

There is no way to connect this weather event to climate. Climate is not weather. Nor does climate cause weather, any more than my bowling average causes my game score. Yet NJ Governor Phil Murphy wasted no time in coldly and brazenly exploiting this tragedy for his political agenda. As NJ Spotlight News reported by e-mail newsletter on 9/2/21:

Murphy and other officials tied the storm and its severity to climate change, saying it presented definitive proof that more must be done to wean the nation from carbon-based fuels.

Shame on Murphy. What storms like Ida tell us is that they will happen, and that the best way to react is to build protection, not strip us of the reliable energy we’ll need to build that protection and live our lives. Simply weaning the nation from carbon-based fuels won’t cut it.

Murphy failed to call a State of Emergency until the storm was well under way and people were already drowning in their cars. Disingenuous voices from Murphy on down are shamefully politicizing, blaming man-made climate change. Don't believe the bullshit. According to Seth Borenstein of AP, How Ida Can Be So Deadly 1000 Miles From Landfall, Global warming may have made it "a bit worse." But the atmospheric conditions that caused Ida's intensity over NJ "is not rare," has happened before, and was well predicted by meteorologists days in advance.

Related Reading:

EXPLAINER: How Ida Can Be So Deadly 1000 Miles From Landfall by Seth Borenstein for AP

A Humanist Approach To Environmental Issues—Alex Epstein @ Forbes

Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: Remember Life Before Them

The Suicidal Demonization of Fossil Fuels

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey

QUORA: ‘What is, in your opinion, the best solution to climate change without destroying the economy?’

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger  

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin 

Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore