Claim: 400 PPM CO2 gives the weather 'personality' of the extreme kind – rebuttal to CBS News Face the Nation

CBS’s Face the Nation spent fifteen minutes today talking about “climate change” and its relation to the Moore tornado. The news outlet convened a one-side panel, with no climate skeptics present. The panelists, while on one hand saying there’s no link between tornadoes and increased CO2, on the other hand they were playing Janus and trying to convince the audience that now the weather has a new ‘personality’ while using scary and misleading graphics like this one:

CBS_News_UStemp

The data so far this year says otherwise:

USTemperature_2013

The desperation to link this tornado event to climate change in some way, even though the science says otherwise is palpable. An analysis follows.

First, here is the full transcript from CBSNews.com:

BOB SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION Part Two. For Page Two today we thought we’d explore a subject that affects everyone–the weather. So we have convened a panel of experts to tell us how bad things are going to get this summer and beyond. Heidi Cullen is the chief climatologist for Climate Central which is an independent organization of scientists and journalists who study the climate, now it’s changing; Jeffrey Kluger is an editor-at-large for TIME Magazine. He co-wrote this week’s cover story on the Oklahoma Tornado; David Bernard is with us in person today. He usually joins us from his weather watching post at WFOR TV, our CBS affiliate in Miami; and Marshall Shepherd is the president of the American Meteorological Society. He is in Atlanta this morning. Doctor Shepherd, I want to start with you because we’ve had floods. We’ve had droughts. We’ve had tornadoes. We’ve had superstorms. It’s cold when it ought to be warm and it’s warm when it is supposed to be cold. I guess, you know, if it starts raining frogs that’s probably the only thing we haven’t had so far. What is happening? Is this something different? Is this just a cycle? What’s going on here?

J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD (American Meteorological Society/University of Georgia): Yeah, well, it really– and– and I’m a professor at the University of Georgia and here in– in Georgia, we’ve actually had almost all of those examples that you just gave– tornadoes in Atlanta. We flooded in 2009, a really bad drought. I– I think it depends on which– which phenomenon you talk about. Certainly, as I often say, weather is your mood and climate is your personality, so on any given day you can have really cold weather or really violent weather, but the scientific literature, including our recent AMS Climate Change statement, does suggest that our climate is changing and I think we can say some things about certain weather phenomenon and climate phenomenon that are more linked to this climate change and we are in a different climate system now. Almost every weather phenomenon happens in a warmer and more moist climate. And so I– I think we do see some changes in our climate and some responses in our weather. I– I– I think it’s a bit premature to say that there is a definitive link between that Moore tornado last week and– and– and climate change. But I think more research is needed there.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well– well, Jeff, is there any consensus about what is causing this?

JEFFREY KLUGER (TIME): Well, in the case of the tornadoes, as Doctor Shepherd says, we’re reasonably sure that there is no link. And– and in fact, to the extent that climate change plays a role, the variables kind of neutralize one another, you get an increase in warm moist air, which feeds tornadoes, but you also get a decrease in the updraft, the vertical shear, so they sort of cancel each other out. I think what we see though the fact that we crossed four hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere just last week. This is the highest it’s been since the Pleistocene era when there were forests in Greenland and sea levels were sixty feet higher than they are now. As recently as 1958, it was only three hundred and fifteen. So, we have supercharged, super accelerated CO2 input into the atmosphere and this I think is what’s driving so much of the mood or the– the personality, the climate change variables we see.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Doctor Cullen, there’s no question that it’s getting warmer. We have a graphic here that just shows 2012 was the hottest year on record. It shows how much hotter it was. The entire country was affected. Is this going to get any better or is it going to get worse?

HEIDI CULLEN (Climate Central): It’s not going to get any better if we don’t do anything about it. I mean right now we’ve added about a degree and a half of extra warming to our atmosphere, the planet is that much warmer. And so what we are talking about is how does that extra degree and a half affect our day-to-day weather? And so right now I’d say that, you know, the jury is still out as to how global warming will affect tornadoes, which of those two variables will win out. But when it comes to things like heat waves, when it comes to things like heavy rainstorms, drought, wildfires, we know that, you know, the– the atmosphere is on steroids, if you will. So basically, you know, we know that we’d have to deal with weather-related risks. We live in a country that has always seen extreme weather. We’re basically moving in a direction where we’re going to see more and more of certain of these extremes and– and as we heard before that– that stuff is really expensive.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, but what is causing this?

HEIDI CULLEN: So, basically, add additional heat to the atmosphere, suddenly, you’re now adding more moisture to the atmosphere, so we know that certain kinds of extreme events are going to happen more frequently. So the heat wave that would only happen, say, one in a hundred years is now going to happen say once every fifty years. The statistics, if you will, the likelihood of seeing a certain kind of extreme increases just by the virtue of the fact that the planet is warmer, and then also when it comes to storms there is more moisture in the atmosphere. Those storms can now rain down more heavily and basically at the same time we’ve got more people in harm’s way. We saw that with– with Moore, Oklahoma, as well. So, you know, this combination of– of amplifying risks, more people in harm’s way, a warmer planet with more moisture to– to bring more storms into– into play, it basically just increases our vulnerability across the boards.

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Dave Bernard, you’re our man on the hurricane watch. We talked to you many times during hurricane season and the bad news is NOAA has come out with hurricane season predictions that say it could be worse this year than it– than it was last year. They’re predicting a likelihood of, I think, thirteen to twenty name storms of which seven to eleven could become hurricanes.

DAVID BERNARD (WFOR Miami): Well, you know, the key here is we have been in a climate pattern for the last twenty years of excessive storms in the Atlantic Basin. That climate pattern, Bob, is still in place, so that’s the reason why we’re looking at an elevated number of storms. Now, of course, the key everywhere year is, where do these storms go? That’s one thing that we really can’t tell ahead of time. Last year, there were nineteen storms and basically we had Isaac hit Louisiana and, of course, Superstorm Sandy. But the majority of the storms, they stayed out to sea. But with a forecast like that and the potential for more land falling storms, I– I think there could be even a– a greater impact and what we learned from Sandy and even going back to Hurricane Katrina and basically what Doctor Cullen was saying, we have more people now living on the coast than ever before. So the impact potential really is that much greater and we have to learn how to mitigate against these storms. Clearly, that was not done in the Northeast. We’d gone so long without a significant hurricane there. We’ve seen that in other areas. We have to learn to live with these storms and going forward since we don’t know exactly where this climate pattern may take us. With a warming world we have to learn to adapt to these storms as well.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, Doctor Shepherd, let me just cut to the chase here. Are we doing something here on Earth that is causing the weather to change or is this just one of the cycles that– that what we go through?

J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD (American Meteorological Society): Yeah, this is a question I often get, Bob. Of course, I mean, it’s amazing to me when someone comes up to me and says “Doctor Shepherd, the climate change is natural.” I say, of course, it does. I should send my degree back to Florida State University, if I didn’t know that. But what’s most important about that is that on top of this natural variability, as– as Heidi mentioned, we now have a steroid. Think of a basketball player. I mean I’m a big basketball fan. We were in the middle of the playoffs right now. A basketball ten feet high think of it this way: Climate change is actually adding about a foot to the basketball floor so that more people can dunk the basketball. There’s just more amplification. That warmer and more moist climate is amplifying, as– as Heidi mentioned, some of the weather systems that we see. And one quick point I want to make. I often get the question: well, what is the big deal? One and a half degree? Well, if our child gets a one-and-a-half or a two-degree fever that may not sound like a lot, but our body responds to that and our climate system as well. But the scary news is we’re talking about an additional three- to ten-to-fourteen degrees perhaps in some models in the next one hundred years.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So Jeff?

JEFFREY KLUGER (TIME): And one of the problems is the problem is getting worse, as Doctor Shepherd says. We have now baked in another fifty parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we turned everything around now, what’s in the pipeline already is going to increase up to four fifty and at a rate of 5.4 billion tons of CO2, the U.S. puts into the atmosphere every year and 2.4 million pounds per second that the world pumps in. We’re getting a level of consensus on thousands of peer-reviewed studies over decades that have established the– the connection between human activity and this kind of climate change and we have to face the reality that the problem exists and now we have to address it.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what is the human activity then?

JEFFREY KLUGER: Well, the human activity principally is fossil fuels. Now finally, everybody attribute this is to cars principally. Actually forty percent of all of the contribution is our homes, our office buildings and things of that nature. Fossil fuels do make a difference. And we are actually making progress, the slow transition to renewables, the increase in– in mileage standards for cars. All of this is bringing these numbers down, but all that’s doing is sort of putting out the fringes of the wildfire that’s blazing. We have to get to the heart of it and began to shut it down.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And this is not just something that the United States that’s happening in the United States this is happening worldwide.

HEIDI CULLEN: That’s what’s so tricky about this problem, right? It’s– it’s kind of the ultimate tragedy of the commons in the sense that we all contribute to the problem and so it– it really, you know, someone once said that climate change is really about a million little fixes and it’s also the biggest procrastination problem in the sense that the longer you wait to fix it, the tougher it gets to fix so the sooner we start the better off we are.

DAVID BERNARD: And I really think adaptation is going to be the key. We’ve already baked in this CO2. We can’t get rid of that. So we have to learn to live with the way the climate is going and that means responsible development. We can’t keep building in the same places that maybe more prone to floods. I live in Miami Beach. We’re dealing with sea level rise. That’s something we’re going to have to think about going forward in this new reality.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Doctor Shepherd, what– what I find kind of interesting is kind of like– it’s kind of like the country is divided in half. The western half of the country going through these droughts, which bring on the fires and all of that. Yet, on the eastern side of the country we have all these floods that are– that are going on right now. Is there any reason, scientific reason, that it’s kind of divided the country in half like this?

J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD: Well, it– it is. One of the things that we’ve always known in the literature is that places that are drier likely will get more dry and places that are wetter will become more wet. If– you have to really look at how weather patterns occur weather patterns occur as big waves in the atmosphere. We call them scientifically raspy waves. And so if you look at a weather map, for example, on any given day in terms of weather you’ll have one part of the country that is cool and wet there and a big sort of dip in the wave pattern, a trough, as we call it. Meanwhile, you have– you’ll have a ridge of high pressure and nice weather in another part of the country. We’re– we’re it’s gorgeous here in Atlanta right now and I was watching the Braves and Mets last night in New York, pouring down rain and cool the last couple of days. That kind of take that sort of wave pattern and think about that from the perspective of climate. So you’re not going to have the same type of response everywhere. That’s why it’s important to keep that in mind when we hear “Well, gee, it’s really cold this last couple of weeks, what are you guys talking about, global warming?” You cannot say anything about the overall climate system by looking at the last couple of days or where you live. Boy, I wish I could actually predict my stock portfolio based on the stocks the last two weeks, the last two months. We can’t do that. We cannot do that with our climate.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You know– and as is always the case around my house, we say when everything else goes wrong and top of it the toilet breaks. I mean, the least the– the thing you would least expect. In the middle of all this, Jeff, NOAA recently had one of its weather satellites go off line. What is the status of our technology?

JEFFREY KLUGER: The status of our technology is precarious and funnily it’s easy to fix it. We have two major weather satellites hovering over the eastern half– half– East and West Coast, the GOES East and GOES West, they’re called. They’re in geosynchronous orbit. They just hover there. We have five polar satellites. These are all set to go down at one form or another, to wink out between 2015 and 2016. The earliest we can replace them will be those very years, which means that if there’s any lag at all in launching construction schedules we’re going to be struck blind. This we saw the wages of back during Sandy when the GOES East satellite did go down for a few weeks just as this storm was brewing and we did not predict the sharp left hook Sandy took into the Eastern Seaboard that is exactly what did the sixty-five billion dollars worth of damage. It took the European system to weigh in and inform us that this was about to happen. Now we had just enough assets in place, a spare satellite in orbit to swing into position and take care of this. But if we don’t take care of this now and allocate the necessary money we are going to be vulnerable to whatever is out there.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I take you, you would endorse that?

HEIDI CULLEN: I– you know, I couldn’t have said it better. Right now ninety percent of the data that goes into our weather models comes from satellites and this infrastructure it’s critical, it’s our eyes in the sky and if we lose it we’re flying blind. And we desperately, I mean, as a country that sees a lot of extreme weather across the board we need strong forward-looking forecasts.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I’ll let you close it out here, Dave. What do we look for?

DAVID BERNARD: Well, I think as we go through the next few months everybody needs to keep in mind that regardless of where our climate is heading in the next fifty, one hundred years, the hurricane season it’s here now and that’s hurricane preparedness week and as we saw it last year, everybody from Maine to Texas, you need to be ready, you need to have a plan.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I guess we can’t say have a nice day to close out this segment, but thank you all for being here. We’ll be back in just a minute.

The video of this segment is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147675n

===========================

h/t to Marc Morano and  Noel Sheppard

I’ve made several responses about this need to try to link tornadoes to climate change over the years, and this is just another sad claim by activists that can easily be falsified by the data. A list of my previous responses follows, but let’s take one instance from the interview where Dr. Heidi Cullen says:

So, basically, add additional heat to the atmosphere, suddenly, you’re now adding more moisture to the atmosphere, so we know that certain kinds of extreme events are going to happen more frequently.

I don’t even need to look at long-term data to falsify this nonsense, just looking at seasonal variations is more than enough. If extreme weather events like tornadoes are more common due to more heat being in the atmosphere, then you’d expect more tornadoes when it is warmer, right?

First let’s look at solar isolation versus temperature on a yearly basis in the northern hemisphere. Plotted below, from the middle of tornado alley is the daily temperature data for Manhattan, Kansas for the year 2006. Compared to the normalized insolation from the sun. In the spring the temperature mostly lies beneath the energy. After the peak energy it tends to be above the energy curve due to the time lag.

Temp-Insolation[1]

Graphic by John Kehr, The Inconvenient Skeptic.

Note that peak temperature lags peak solar insolation. Solar insolation is a function of Earth’s orbit around the sun. Insolation peaks with the summer solstice, typically on June 21st each year, but temperature continues to rise after that.

You can plot insolation vs temperature for just about any northern hemisphere city and see the same result, it is a well-known relationship. Temperatures peak around late July to early August.

Latitude influence on mean monthly temperature. Mean monthly temperatures of five Northern Hemisphere locations with different latitudes. The graph suggests that monthly temperatures generally become higher as one moves toward the equator. Also, note that seasonal temperature variations between summer (June, July, and August) and winter (December, January, and February) become more extreme as latitude increases. (Image Copyright: Michael Pidwirny).
Latitude influence on mean monthly temperature. Mean monthly temperatures of five Northern Hemisphere locations with different latitudes. The graph suggests that monthly temperatures generally become higher as one moves toward the equator. Also, note that seasonal temperature variations between summer (June, July, and August) and winter (December, January, and February) become more extreme as latitude increases. (Image Copyright: Michael Pidwirny).

By Dr. Cullen’s claims of more heat being in the atmosphere, we’d expect to see tornadoes peak around August, right? The real world data says the opposite:

tornadoes_bymonth[1]

Tornadoes peak in May and June, prior to the peak temperature, which is a proxy for heat in the atmosphere.

So if more heat in the atmosphere produces more localized extreme weather events, as Dr. Cullen insinuates, we’d see peak tornadoes aligned with peak temperature. But, we don’t.

Dr. Cullen is being an advocate, rather than a scientist, but we already knew that since she works for a privately funded advocate organization, Climate Central.

See more reasons why this linkage of temperature and tornadoes fail:

Stunning ignorance on display from Senator Barbara Boxer over Oklahoma tornado outbreak

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse From Rhode Island Provides Erroneous Information To American Public in Global Warming Rant

Stunning map of NOAA data showing 56 years of tornado tracks sheds light on the folly of linking “global warming” to severe weather

The folly of linking tornado outbreaks to “climate change”

Further reading in the Washington Post:

Linking tornadoes to global warming a “myth”

Michael Smith,  Published: MAY 24, 2:47 PM ET

Mike Smith is a meteorologist, the senior vice president of AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions and the author of “When the Sirens Were Silent” and “Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather.”

5. Climate change is producing tornadoes of increasing frequency and intensity.

There have always been F5 tornadoes, and we will continue to experience them regardless of whether the Earth’s temperature rises or falls. National Weather Service figures show, if anything, that violent tornadoes — F3 or greater on the Fujita scale — are becoming less frequent. There is no trend, neither up nor down, in the frequency of all tornadoes.

The Capital Weather Gang’s Ian Livingston tweeted after the Moore tornado: “Climate change people do themselves a huge disservice by running to that after every disaster.”

I heartily concur.

Source: http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-tornadoes/2013/05/24/21f39502-c329-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

101 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E.
May 26, 2013 12:56 pm

To be fair, she said “certain kinds of extreme events” will happen more frequently, not tornadoes.
REPLY: LOL To be fair, count the number of times tornadoes and “right now” were mentioned in the segment. We aren’t in hurricane season yet, so that’s obviously excluded. – Anthony

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 1:04 pm

E. says:
May 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
“To be fair, she said “certain kinds of extreme events” will happen more frequently, not tornadoes.”
So, you think that you are being fair by pointing out that she offered total vagueness rather than the falsifiable hypothesis that Anthony identified? LOL!

May 26, 2013 1:13 pm

To bad we can not ask that panel – can you share with us when the last time in history there were no floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other harsh rapidly changing weather phenomena. I would like to hear them stumble around that –
In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours.
Mark Twain

Disko Troop
May 26, 2013 1:15 pm

They sound like politicians desperately trying to infer things without saying anything that can be thrown back in their faces later. Pathetic twerps.

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 1:17 pm

Having grown to maturity (1948-1966) in Tornado Alley, NW Alabama, and being unable to forget my mother’s hysterical recollections of the several times that Tupelo MS was “blown away,” I can assure you that the big tornadoes have not increased in number or ferocity. The damage that they cause has increased greatly because wealth and population have increased greatly.
I earned my knowledge of tornadoes. I spent about 1600 hours, total over 18 years, in a storm cellar. I spent about 16,000 hours under threat of a trip to a storm cellar. I can do a verbatim repetition of what was broadcast on the radio on the several occasions that Tupelo “blew away.” See my reference to my Mom above.

Dave Wendt
May 26, 2013 1:23 pm

Although there are probably very few people out there who rate the overall intelligence of the climate alarmist community more poorly than I do, even I cannot continue to credit this continuing deluge of PR doom mongering to simply ignorance and or incompetence. As you have pointed out Anthony these ideas are false at almost the intuitively obvious level and they have been obliterated not just here and in the other skeptical blogosphere and literature, but by the very organizations that the alarmist community tell us are the paragons of “consensus” climate science. Given that, the only logical assumption that seems tenable is that this ongoing effort is not attributable to simple stupidity, but can only be explained as a malicious and mendacious attempt to deliberately deceive the low information public, the existence of which is the legacy of allowing, over several decades now, our public education system to be transformed into a public indoctrination system. A system where the goal of teaching and developing the capacity for rational thought has been almost entirely replaced by a goal of raising revolutionary consciousness and programming the little skulls full of mush to believe that what they feel is infinitely more important than what they think, to the point where rational thought is not only impossible for most of them, but is actually anathema.

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 1:31 pm

J. Marshall Shepherd says:
“Well, if our child gets a one-and-a-half or a two-degree fever that may not sound like a lot, but our body responds to that and our climate system as well. But the scary news is we’re talking about an additional three- to ten-to-fourteen degrees perhaps in some models in the next one hundred years.”
Unadorned, ugly scare-mongering from an official of the AMS – said in the course of a Red Herring Fallacy (the models).

GlynnMhor
May 26, 2013 1:32 pm

“Mean monthly temperatures of five Northern Hemisphere locations…”
Hmmm… I count six, not five, locations. But it’s a minor quibble; the point is clear.

Dave Wendt
May 26, 2013 1:38 pm

E. says:
May 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
To be fair, she said “certain kinds of extreme events” will happen more frequently, not tornadoes.
Which kind of “extreme events ” would those be? From what I’ve seen if there is any trend in the rate of any of the supposed “extreme events” i.e. tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, droughts floods, etc., it is either flat or negative.

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 1:40 pm

Dave Wendt says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Very well said. Yes, the educational system that came out of the Enlightenment has been replaced by a system of indoctrination that supports societal tribalism. What we see in the interview above is the Global Warming/…/Extreme Weather tribe expressing its fundamental beliefs in a language so unscientific, “personality,” that only professional folklorists could understand it.

Jack Hydrazine
May 26, 2013 1:40 pm

“Tornadoes peak in May and June, prior to the peak temperature, which is a proxy for heat in the atmosphere.
So if more heat in the atmosphere produces more localized exterme weather events, as Dr. Cullen insinuates, we’d see peak tornadoes aligned with peak temperature. But, we don’t.”
Hurricane season for the northern hemisphere peaks out around September 10th. Why does it not peak in May or June like tornadoes do? Or in July? Why the lag?

Mark B
May 26, 2013 1:41 pm

The Energy and Seasons graph (temperature/isolation) looks like what Willis was showing in his “Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models” post. The temperature overshoots and whether in undershoots is not clear from this graph. But if you average the data over several years and/or several locations. Cheers, Mark

May 26, 2013 1:47 pm

Nothing is more enlightening than a mono-tribe among sock-puppets.

May 26, 2013 1:51 pm

Dave and AW,
this might be a hint – the old saw – follow the money – it leads to the desired information –
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Grant Awards Database All Awards by Recipient & Type
# Grant Number PC Project Title Cum Dollars Awarded Grant Specialist Project Officer
2,159
County $1,437,058,843
4
Federal Agency $12,510,951
325
Foreign Recipient $98,954,938
274
Independent School District $31,254,635
8,909
Indian Tribe $2,308,862,305
13
Individual $2,074,914
384
Intermunicipal $171,153,437
384
Interstate $274,577,948
5,480
Municipal $3,357,484,946
7,369
Not for Profit $4,127,812,977
190
Other $270,047,058
966
Private University $465,230,716
8
Profit Organization $1,497,230
1,534
Special District $1,532,538,503
16,381
State $59,726,984,449
4,591
State Institution of Higher Learning $1,695,776,730
185
Township $66,369,395
1
(Not Categorized) $61,965
49,157
$75,580,251,940
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/recipient2?OpenView

Editor
May 26, 2013 1:52 pm

profitup10 says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:13 pm
> In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours.
> Mark Twain
And that was just one visit to New England!
Twain would have loved this holiday – Rain much of the day yesterday, part of several days that brought me 2.75″ (and other places much more). Snow last night, but not to me here. 500 feet higher probably. Certainly northwest at my yurt on the flank of Mt Cardigan. More than 4″ from a CoCoRaHS spotter in VT.
The sun returns tomorrow (yay) after a frosty start. The high yesterday was 47°F, Thursday should be in the 80s. The changes aren’t as extreme as in mid-continent, but they are more variable.
Weather now has personality, heh?
Clearly that cast panel hasn’t read my accounts here of the “Witch of November” that hit Armistice Day 1940, The Great Atlantic Storm of 1962, or the Blizzards of 1978 (January for the midwest, February for the northeast). We still talk about ours. And this year we’ve reminisced about the big snow storm in May 1977.
That was when weather had personality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/10/35-years-ago-the-witch-of-november-come-stealin/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/50-years-ago-the-great-atlantic-storm-of-1962/
http://wermenh.com/blizz78.html

May 26, 2013 2:07 pm

The two graphs raise an interesting question: the “scary” graph shows (I think) an instantaneous moment reflecting (perhaps) some time during the development (maybe) of the EF5 tornado. The second graph shows the temperature deviation on average from 01-01-2013 to (perhaps) today or very close to the day of the EF5 event. Neither is necessarily pertinent to the EF5 (and I don’t think it does: it was the rotational movement of signficant air masses that lead to the the tornado at that time in that place), and neither is necessarily pertinent to CAGW worries.
Still, the two together say something very, very pertinent to the AGW discussion. They say that over differing time intervals we have differing views of a deviation from “normal” (whatever, as the commercial goes, your normal is). Let us keep that concept in mind: in climatalogy, what is “normal”, really? We have been saying that 30 years is “normal”, by which we mean that all processes that vary, vary in a random enough way that over a 30 year period they have averaged out. Only longer-term processes that act on the entire system remain.
Is that so. Or is that assumed?
On what basis do we assume that all processes “random out” within 30 years? Over the last 10,000 years, we have seen numerous rises and falls, including the MWP and the LIA. No smoking gun has ever been found for these rises and falls, but some unique, powerful process is ASSUMED to be responsible. Is it possible that, instead, the variability of “normal” processes do not random out over 30 years but over 1000 years? That the LIA was not a sudden shut down of the sun but the combination of several smaller, normal variations (ocean currents, consequence cloud development, wind patterns) that, together, dropped temperatures until another, normal combination of varying processes, brought us out of it?
I have been told (but not seen) of colour variations in internal structures of old sand dunes in North Africa and the United States. I have seen banding in glacial ice in Canada, and in the satellite photos of polar ice on Mars. For sand dunes to have different colour bands, you have to have different source areas, which means sustained, significant changes in wind direction. Glacial banding here and on Mars is taken to represent differential AMOUNTS of deposition, removal and movement, but perhaps different directions are also at work. Longterm, cyclic changes in the character of weather patterns – such as we are seeing in the post LIA times.
All this comes back to the question as to what is “normal”, or what we determine is the reference period. The weather channel shows (probably) a specific moment in time and how that is different from some protracted period of time, unstated. The WUWT figure shows the difference of a near 6-month period to some other period (presumably the prior 30-year period). Neither is necessarily pertinent to the EF5 subject in discussion, but both show how “this” moment may be completely different from some other moment. Yet before we can know what signficance this hold, we have to know what the variation is that is “normal”.
So with the time in which we live. On what basis do we say that the hundred year period is actually randomed out? I recall that it was said to take 300 years to travel from the bottom of the ocean from Europe to America; I don’t know how true this is (and it doesn’t matter) but the principle is interesting. If oceanic processes “random out” in a 600 year period, then we are deeply wrong to think we can attribute any 30 year change to one item (CO2) without understanding what other temperature influencing cycles are at play.
CAGW is just speculation, responding to CAGW Scenarios is about certainty of outcome (not possible outcomes, but certainty that one of the terrible ones will, not may, occur). If we cannot say with a high certainty that we understand at what point natural factors average out, we cannot say with a high certainty that the last 30 years of warming (+ pause) is anything we had to do with or can do about.

Jay
May 26, 2013 2:10 pm

The weather is now a political scapegoat.. If our weather / climate was a person, what they are doing would be a hate crime..
Kinda funny seeing the same old method of operation for political power being used on the weather.. The most useless bizarre crop of morons that have ever attempted to lead anybody anywhere..
More windmills and solar panels because we dont have a clue what we are talking about..
Lets pretend we are right because otherwise we are wrong..
The means justifies the end..
Even though everything has turned against them.. The weather, climate, economy and the science, they still have doe eyed followers needing their hands held into the next election..
So its the wink wink nudge nudge fill in the blanks feel good news to keep up moral..
Feel good meaning we are all still doomed.. Your special and dont forget to vote on election day..

MaxL
May 26, 2013 2:19 pm

I laughed when I read this line from Shepherd:
“One of the things that we’ve always known in the literature is that places that are drier likely will get more dry and places that are wetter will become more wet. If– you have to really look at how weather patterns occur weather patterns occur as big waves in the atmosphere. We call them scientifically raspy waves.”
LOL. Either the person writing the article made a mistake or Shepherd hasn’t a clue about basic meteorology.
They are called Rossby Waves.

MikeH
May 26, 2013 2:19 pm

Looking at the top map of the U.S. . Could someone Define for me how much in Degrees C the scientific notation of Severe is? Is is 0.5C? 1.5C? 3C?
Is that average daily temp, Max high temp?
Also, the whole U.S. is obviously cooking, being it’s all a reddish hue. Not one green oasis anywhere. Just dessert from sea to boiling sea… We’re doomed.. Doomed, I say.. Doomed…
The data they leave out and the manner they display the map speaks volumes as to who their target audience is. (journalists)

Brian Borders
May 26, 2013 2:26 pm

Thanks, Anthony, for posting on this today. I watched the segment and was hoping somebody would comment. It’s simply infuriating how these people have such a monopoly on the mainstream airwaves. I do think it appeared the local Miami weathercaster was trying to keep his comments on the need to adapt—perhaps he’s not a total warmist, but afraid to challenge anybody there. But then he talked about living on South Beach and “We’re dealing with sea level rise.”

Editor
May 26, 2013 2:27 pm

There is indeed a link between Atlantic hurricanes and temperature. See page 34 in
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2008/aug2008/aug2008.pdf

Follow the Money
May 26, 2013 2:27 pm

Every response to these growing loons that does not include the demonstration that they act so because the thermometers are not cooperating with their fears, just becomes part of the gabfest. It’s a wash.
Every response that has evidences some knee jerk generic response about environmentalism or the EPA, is a win for them.
Every time they move you away from the thermometers without you bringing back focus to the thermometers, is a win for them.
They are not ready to pretend “climate change” was never really about increased man-made heat. They might like to slide into that, but it should be stuck in their faces…if you want to win argument points.

John Trigge (in Oz)
May 26, 2013 2:29 pm

From this comment:

I think what we see though the fact that we crossed four hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere just last week. This is the highest it’s been since the Pleistocene era when there were forests in Greenland and sea levels were sixty feet higher than they are now. As recently as 1958, it was only three hundred and fifteen.

Why do we not see the same conditions in Greenland or sea levels 60 feet higher now if CO2 is such an influential controller of weather/climate?
As noted by others, were there no extreme weather events prior to 1958?
Should it be possible to reduce CO2 to whatever level these people think will provide an Earthly paradise, can we sue/tar & feather/place them in stocks whenever there is an extreme weather event?
This is more encouragement for me to wear my “I survived…” t-shirt.

Dave Wendt
May 26, 2013 2:30 pm

profitup10 says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:51 pm
Yes a few billion here, a few billion there and pretty soon you’re looking at serious money!
The question I have had for quite some time is “How much has the profound misallocation of scientific funding that has occurred since anti carbon demonization has become the political bludgeon of choice delayed the time for us arriving at any real understanding of the climate of the Earth?”
Personally, I suspect the answer is probably about double the length of the current CAGW era because, from what I’ve seen, most of the “science” that is monopolizing current funding is actually retarding our understanding, not advancing it. If all the grant money squandered on hyping the “pollutant” CO2 had been invested in expanding our understanding of the real 800 pound gorillas of the climate i.e. the Sun and H2O I don’t know that we’d have achieved real understanding of our climate, but I’m almost certain we would be one Hell of a lot closer than we are at this point.

milodonharlani
May 26, 2013 2:30 pm

Top five deadliest OK tornadoes before Moore, 2013 occurred in 1947, 1905, 1920, 1945 & 1942:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=tornadodata-ok-deadliest
The 1999 killer was #6, followed by tornadoes in 1942, 1893, 1930 & 1882, to round out the Top Ten most lethal OK twisters.
The 2013 Moore tornado killed 24 people (so far), moving it into ninth place, but the cool 1940s remain the worst decade, by far. There was one Top Ten in the hot 1990s & none in the 2000s.
Actual numbers don’t matter to CAGW adherents.

1 2 3 4