I’m sure Warmists will find a way to blame this on Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. Probably because you, dear reader, drove a fossil fueled vehicle and refuse to unplug every appliance before you go to work. Or, perhaps they’ll flip back to their talking point that weather is not climate (via Climate Depot)
(SI Organization) There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
Tornadoes
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)
Just 771 tornadoes. Previous low was 938 in 2002.
Wildfires are at lowest levels of numbers since 2004. Acres burned is 2nd lowest. Actually, this is the slowest season by count since 1985.
Extreme Heat
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records (chart below).
The five summers with the highest number of 100 degree days across the US are as follows: 1936, 1934, 1954, 1980 and 1930. In addition to the vast reduction in 100 degree days across the US this year, the number of high temperature records (ie hi max and hi min records) is way down compared to a year ago with 22,965 records this year as compared with 56,885 at this same time last year.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/; through 10/17).
Here in Raleigh we had zero 100 degree days. Average is 4-5. We didn’t even have that many high 90’s days. Then we get to hurricanes
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned and keeping in mind that the season isn’t over yet, there have been only two hurricanes so far this year in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms. Also, the first forming hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940’s when hurricane hunters began to fly. Overall, the tropical season in the Atlantic Basin has been generally characterized by short-lived and weak systems.
In addition, this suppressed tropical activity has not been confined to just the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern Pacific Ocean has had no major hurricanes this season meaning there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968. This is actually quite extraordinary since the two basins are generally out of phase with each other i.e. when one is inactive the other is active.
The article author, Paul Dorian, also notes that Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is extremely low. And low around the world. Make sure to read how (yes, a little trick to get you to click over to the article itself and give them web-hits). Along with the reduced activity, there have still been no major hurricanes (cat 3+) making landfall since 2005 (Wilma, October 24th). Also, there haven’t even been any major hurricanes to develop in the Atlantic nor eastern Pacific during 2013.
Since 2008, there has only been one US landfalling hurricane (Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall), and one could argue that Isaac was only a strong tropical storm at landfall.
Warmists love pushing the “extreme weather” meme. Yet, extreme weather (or, what was previously known as “the weather”) is not getting worse. Well, maybe some of the winter weather is getting stronger over the past 5 years. Which Warmists blame on, that’s right, greenhouse gases. Hence the change from “global warming” to “climate change”, so they can blame everything on Mankind. While still refusing to making substantive changes in their own lives.
Here in Oklahoma, we’ve had less than 5 100F days. Typical summers have us with around 30. Few years ago we had around 60 and that was followed up by a return to a snowy winter.
In other words, climate means cyclic weather. Oklahoma was hot in the 30s and 40s. WE got colder in the 70s with lots of snowfall in the winters. Then we got warm again in the 90’s. Seems we are back to a cooling pattern once again.
For those talking about a return to an ice age or “little ice age” that is as much hype as the talk of out-of-control heating. We’ll see it when it happens. As it will take a large number of decades of non-cyclic temperature change.
But, I still rub my hands in glee that the cycle has returned to a cool period while the people who should know never expected it.
Nice distraction, but your anecdotes aside, the Earth continues to warm rapidly from human-generated CO2.
Do you seriously believe that fewer tornadoes in the US last year represent a change in the physical laws of the universe?
Do you think that fewer hot days last summer in Raleigh NC is meaningful? That’s the epitome of cherry-picking.
While it’s very important to us Americans, the US represents less than 2% of the surface area of this Earth.
J,
Nice anecdotes aside, but the earth has warmed before and it has cooled before. Please provide proof that this warming is man’s fault. Please provide proof that CO2 is the sole reason that we have temperature. You still have not done so after my many queries.
Over the last 100 years, temperature has gone up, gone down, and stood static while CO2ppm has increased. There is no correlation. Thus, your fanciful cult belief is falsified using science.
Balls,
I understand your frustration and anger. Science is hard.
But you are a little confused about the temperature record. The energy capacity of the atmosphere is only a couple percent of the total capacity of the Earth, which includes the oceans and land masses. The total heat content of the Earth continues to rise steadily.
Of course, no one really believes or claims that atmospheric CO2 is the only driver (what climate scientists call ‘forcings’) of the Earth’s temperature. Changes in atmospheric aerosols, volcanic activity (dust in the atmosphere), reflectivity (albedo), cloud formation and variations in solar output can all potentially impact the measured temperature of the atmosphere, land and oceans. El Nino’s and La Nina’s affect the heat exchanges between the ocean’s and atmosphere having significant impacts on atmospheric temperatures (recall that the atmosphere represents only a few percent of the total heat capacity of Earth).
Once again, 1) the added CO2 in the atmosphere has come from fossil fuels (based on isotope ratios).
2) The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, consistent with less infrared radiation from the Earth going back into space. (Increased solar radiation would have also warmed the upper atmosphere).
3) The wavelengths of infrared radiation missing from the upper atmosphere are the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.
4) Previous warming and cooling of the Earth was obviously not dependent upon fossil fuel burning (please Google Milankovich theory). This current, rapid warming episode clearly is related to fossil fuel burning.
So hard data is now considered “anecdotes”? No wonder you wacktard Warmists (hey, if you can use the slur “teabaggers” in a different post…) are such brain dead Believers.
Meanwhile, in Reality Land, the Earth has warmed just 1.4F in 163 years. Just. 14F since 1997 and. 28F since 1990. And pretty much zero since 2000. The vast majority of your models fail. The Modern Warm Period is a weak warm period when compared to the others during the Holocene. Your little fantasy about CO2 is just that, a fantasy. Mankind has a small effect on the global climate. And you Warmists still won’t walk the talk.
Of course Jeffery is just deflecting because the so called “scientific models” say that storms will increase in both number and intensity,
When the data shows the exact opposite Jeffery can’t bear to question the models because that means examining the premise of AGW.
Cult-like warmists can’t handle real scince and data.
[…] The Pirate’s Cove: 2013 Ranks As One Of The Least Active U.S. Weather Years By William Teach October 19, 2013 – 9:04 […]
gitar,
You are precious! Do you think that fewer tornadoes in the US (<2% of Earth) falsifies AGW?
What aspect of the theory do these data invalidate? Warming? CO2?
In any event, the Earth continues to warm rapidly, regardless of what you think.
Why do you think the author only looked at tornado data back to 2000, even though the data extend back to 1950 (when there were 201 tornadoes)? 201 tornadoes in 1950 and 1894 in 2011. That seems relevant. Do you see why we don’t trust deniers like Marc Morano?
Wow Jeffery. For someone who alleges to be a smart guy, you have a problem with reading and comprehension.
Notice what I said….. according to warminsts such as yourself. the warming of the earth will cause more hurricanes and more tornadoes. When that doesn’t happen, the climate models and effects of AGW the warmists predict are not only suspect, they don’t meet the observed data.
You have to defend the models because if they are wrong (and we all know they have been) the AGW theory which is “proven” by the model is suspect.
It has warmed in the past and cooled in the past despite what you or I think. Yu aren’t God so et used to that idea. You don’t control the warming or heating of the earth and neither do I. The question is not whether the earth is warming or cooling, Jeffrey, the question is whether man is causing or contributing to that warming. That is what AGW by definition seeks to prove.
But it does not prove anything close to that and so like a petulant little child who can’t reach a cookie, you scream and yell about the injustice of it all.
If you are actually interested in data you might analyze some actual data yourselves. The website below has a search function where you can search by year and by severity.
http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/search/basic
Mr. Morano is obviously not interested in science or data but you shouldn’t let that stop you! You could plot the tornado number vs year since 1950. You could break the data out by F number too, to see if the distribution of severity has changed over the decades.
The IPCC’s position on tornadoes is that there is not enough data on which to base any conclusions. So who said that global warming predicts more tornadoes?
The IPCC stated there is a 50% probability that global warming will increase hurricane activity, particularly in the N Atlantic and Western N Pacific.
So are Teach and Mr. Morano shooting down strawmen?
Who has claimed that global warming will cause more tornadoes? Not I. Not the IPCC. Who?
How can fewer tornadoes in 2013 impact the validity of AGW?
Well Jeffery, many organizations concerned with “global warming” have said that more extreme weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes will increase with global warming.
But it is impossible not to notice that you are pulling a fast one on people.
The IPCC in their latest report says there is no way to predict a tornado so it is impossible to say whether tornadoes will increase or not. This is a reversal of their earlier papers which made that very claim.
However the IPCC report did say that with global warming:
Most intelligent people would take that to mean the IPCC report was saying that all extreme weather events – which would include tornadoes – would increase. The IPCC doesn’t mention tornadoes specifically, but it is there as an “extreme weather event.”
In other words Jeffery, not only are you a hypocrite, you’re lying through your teeth on this.
Once again, it is not that a lack of increase proves or disproves AGW. But the lack of an increase in extreme weather events calls into doubt the AGW models. The models are said sho the effects of AGW but if the models are wrong (and they are) doesn’t that call into question the very premise on which the models are based?
Its really not that hard to understand Jeffrey. A child can understand what is being said. But because like any cult member you are wedded to the ideology rather than the truth, you refuse to look at, examine, or accept anything that is contrary to your cultist view.
J believes that the man-made theory of CAGW that was created to try and explain climatic cycles and place the sole means of that change upon man. They want to say that man controls the climate by man being evil. Man’s evil is by being man.
They have to have an explanation for anything that is natural that they can say they control. Thus, natural cycles are gone, man controls the climate is in.
So, their theory is that extremes in weather will increase as years go on (starting from mid 1970s). They kept track of the number of tornados, the number of fires, the number of hurricanes, the number of storms, the extent and number of droughts and floods, the number of clouds, the extent of cloud and ice cover, etc. All this in an attempt to prove that a changing climate is due to man’s output of CO2. And only man’s.
Thus the playing field is bounded by a theory that says extreme weather will continue to increase through the years, along with all other metrics on one side. And all because of rising CO2 levels. They even ruled out the sun’s effect upon the greenhouse effect or that the entire universe might have upon our planet. No, they say it’s only CO2.
The other side says that climate is normally changing and that our time now is actually below normal.
So, when no data matches the CAGW theory (theory is not law) they ignore the data, change the data, or make up data about the other side as if all that is what will prove their theory correct. When even their vaulted models fail to predict future temperatures for 30 years, and are unable to predict past temperatures, they claim that their models are working better than ever.
So, when we say CAGW has been disproven, the CAGW cult followers deny that by claiming their theory is law, and that the other side must now disprove their theory.
Which of course, is not how science works. But then, the CAGW cult was never about science.
Jeffrey, Warmists and Warmist groups continuously trumpet the notion of “extreme weather”. Here’s Al Gore
He said much the same on his blog.
Joe Romm, Barack Obama, Michael Mann, James Hansen, this Warmist group, that Warmist group, the media, the list continues on and on. Here’s the NOAA whining about it. Your fellow Warmists keep saying that weather is going to get more extreme (all weather, including cold and snow. LOL), yet, it isn’t. That’s the point. You folks are just trying to scare people. Hell of a “science” you have there.
My reference to anecdotes was to your “data” that Raleigh, NC had no 100F days this summer. But you knew that.
YOU made the leap from “extreme weather events” to tornado frequency in the US. Neither the NOAA document nor the IPCC claim that tornadoes will increase. The two citations you provide do not mention tornado frequency.
From your own data, there were 938 tornadoes in 2002 (anecdotally, more than in any year in the 1950s), but by 2004 there were 1820. Does that data bit support the hypothesis that tornadoes are increasing in frequency or do we need to look at a longer time period to determine a pattern? You know the answer.
Those specifically claiming that tornado frequency will increase are mistaken. Have you examined the IPCC data for the other “extreme events”, for example, drought, deluges, heat waves and blizzards?
To summarize this episode:
You created a straw man, “AGW predicts more tornadoes!”
You tore down your straw man by cherry-picking tornado data (from a single incomplete year) representing less than 2% of the Earth’s surface.
You conclude that the theory of AGW is refuted.