I got a chuckle out of this new buzzword that NOAA has created in this press release: “climate disasters”. Personally, I think they’ve been caught up the disaster hype.
Why?
Well, because the term is undefined. It isn’t even in NOAA’s own glossary of meteorological terms, seen here: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm or in the main glossary here: http://weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=c
The AMS glossary doesn’t define it either: http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=%22climate+disaster%22&submit=Search
Unable to find term ‘”climate disaster”‘
Nor the Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/glossary/c.html
NSIDC, that home of that master of disaster “the Arctic is Screaming” Dr. Mark Serreze, doesn’t have it either: http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/glossary/
Why, even the National Climatic Data Center, author of this press release, doesn’t have it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/glossary.html
So what is a “climate disaster”? Something apparently just made up on the spot to sound scary to apply to the “weather is not climate unless we say it is” meme.
NOAA: 2011 a year of climate extremes in the United States
NOAA announces two additional severe weather events reached $1 billion damage threshold, raising 2011’s billion-dollar disaster count from 12 to 14 events
January 19, 2012
Selected Annual Climate Records for 2011 – Green dots show the wettest, yellow dots the driest, red dots the warmest and blue dots the coolest records.High Resolution (Credit: NOAA)
According to NOAA scientists, 2011 was a record-breaking year for climate extremes, as much of the United States faced historic levels of heat, precipitation, flooding and severe weather, while La Niña events at both ends of the year impacted weather patterns at home and around the world.
NOAA’s annual analysis of U.S. and global conditions, conducted by scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, reports that the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 53.8 degrees F, 1.0 degree F above the 20th century average, making it the 23rd warmest year on record. Precipitation across the nation averaged near normal, masking record-breaking extremes in both drought and precipitation.
On a global scale, La Niña events helped keep the average global temperature below recent trends. As a result, 2011 tied with 1997 for the 11th warmest year on record. It was the second coolest year of the 21st century to date, and tied with the second warmest year of the 20th century.
Key highlights of the report include:
U.S. weather and climate disasters
- NOAA has identified two additional events in 2011 that caused an economic impact of $1 billion or greater, bringing the total number of major billion-dollar weather and climate disasters to 14 (not including the pre-Halloween snowstorm in the Northeast, which is still being analyzed).
From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages — and most regrettably, loss of human lives and property.High Resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- Tropical Storm Lee, which made landfall on the Gulf Coast on September 2, caused wind and flood damage across the Southeast, but considerably more damage to housing, business and infrastructure from record flooding across the Northeast states, especially Pennsylvania and New York. The storm occurred in an area that had experienced high rainfall from Hurricane Irene barely a week earlier.
- A Rockies and Midwest severe weather outbreak, which occurred July 10-14, included tornadoes, hail and high winds. Much of the damage was from wind, hail, and flooding impacts to homes, business, and agriculture.
Nationally
- Warmer-than-normal temperatures were anchored across the South, Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast. Delaware had its warmest year on record, while Texas had its second warmest year on record. The U.S. has observed a long-term temperature increase of about 0.12 degrees F per decade since 1895.
- Summer (June-August) 2011 was the second warmest on record for the Lower 48, with an average temperature of 74.5 degrees F, just 0.1 degree F below the record-warm summer of 1936. The epicenter of the heat was the Southern Plains, where Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas all had their warmest summer on record. The 3-month average temperatures for both Oklahoma (86.9 degrees F) and Texas (86.7 degrees F) surpassed the previous record for warmest summer in any state.
- With the exception of Vermont, each state in the contiguous U.S. had at least one location that exceeded 100 degrees F. Summertime temperatures have increased across the U.S. at an average rate of 0.11 degrees F per decade. Much of this trend is due to increases in minimum temperatures (“overnight lows”), with minimum temperature extremes becoming increasingly commonplace in recent decades.
- Despite a “near normal” national precipitation average, regional precipitation outcomes varied wildly. Texas, ravaged by exceptional drought for most of 2011, had its driest year on record. In contrast, seven states in the Ohio Valley and Northeast — Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — had their wettest year on record.
- The past nine years have been particularly wet across the Northeast region – since 2003, the annual precipitation for the region is 48.96 inches, 7.88 inches above the 20th century average. Precipitation averaged across the U.S. is increasing at a rate of about 0.18 inches per decade.
- Precipitation extremes and impacts were most prevalent during spring (March – May) 2011. Across the northern U.S., ten states were record wet, and an additional 11 states had spring precipitation totals ranking among their top ten wettest. These precipitation extremes, combined with meltwater from a near-record snow pack, contributed to historic flooding along several major rivers across the central United States.
- Meanwhile, drought rapidly intensified in the southern Plains, where Texas had only 2.66 inches of precipitation, its driest spring on record. This led to record breaking drought and wildfires, which devastated the southern Plains. Following 2010, during which drought across the country was nearly erased, the 12 percent of the continental U.S. in the most severe category of drought (D4) during July 2011 was the highest in the U.S. Drought Monitor era (1999-2011).
- The spring brought a record breaking tornado season to the United States. Over 1,150 tornadoes were confirmed during the March-May period. The 551 tornado-related fatalities during the year were the most in the 62-year period of record. The deadliest tornado outbreak on record (April 25-28th) and the deadliest single tornado (Joplin, Missouri) contributed to the high fatality count.
Globally
- This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.92 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees F. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 1.15 degrees F above average.
- Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 1.49 degrees F above the 20th century average of 47.3 degrees F and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.72 degrees F above the 20th century average of 60.9 degrees F and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.
- Including 2011, all eleven years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.
- La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasted through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed.
- The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Niña contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia’s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.
- Arctic sea ice extent was below average for all of 2011, and has been since June 2000, a span of 127 consecutive months. Both the maximum ice extent (5.65 million square miles on March 7th) and the minimum extent (1.67 million square miles on September 9th) were the second smallest of the satellite era.
- For the second year running, NCDC asked a panel of climate scientists to determine and rank the year’s ten most significant climate events, for both the United States and for the planet, to include record drought in East Africa and record flooding in Thailand and Australia. The results are at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring.
Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly and annual reports to help track trends and other changes in the world’s climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers’ critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources.
h/t to Dr. Ryan Maue
The preceding Public Service Announcement was brought to you by…..
SmithKline….makers of Thorazine
“Bringing a brighter future to extreme misanthropists…one day at a time”
So what is a “climate disaster”?
It is climate catastrophe lite.
Check the Al Gore glossary.
NOAA should be declared a disaster …
Quote: “From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages…”
A record … my, my!!
Given (1) the $1 billion threshhold being used and (2) the inflationary economic environment in the U.S. over the past 7 decades, has anyone given any thought to the resulting fact that “weather and climate disasters” in the future will continue to set records as the costs of “weather and climate” phenomena continue to escalate … ostensibly caused by inflating levels of CO2 rather than inflating prices?
It was windy here today and I had a hair disaster. Oh, the horror.
NOAA is a Public Institution Disaster.
When your credibility is lower than a snakes belly in a wheel rut, you invent such desperate attempts to torque, distort and sensationalize in order to keep your propaganda efforts going.
“…2011 was a record-breaking year for climate extremes…”
Something is very wrong with this statement (and the press release in general). On the one hand, our climate elites admonish us not to attribute any single weather event to the climate. Yet that is precisely what they are doing here!
It hardly matters since NOAA doesn’t do a very good job predicting climate on a year to year basis…
“This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant…”
Can someone show me a report of farmers deciding when and what to plant based on NOAA’s climate predictions?
I can’t help thinking this is a run up to getting me to buy something.
mmm……
Carbon offsets? GW insurance? … Underground bunker? …Double glazing? … Air conditioning?
…. Real estate in Antarctica?
Come on guys get to the punchline!
Science by hyperbole?
Well, since according to NOAA’s own NCDC, the CONUS climate has cooled considerably over the past 13 years, maybe they mean early frost?
Hey “climate disaster” isn’t even defined in wikidisasterpedia ? Where’s that guy when we need him ?
Show me a trend in temps
http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/
The U.S. has observed a long-term temperature increase of about 0.12 degrees F per decade since 1895.
I thought it felt warmer….now I know why! It’s gone up a whole half a degree since I was born!
From now on all disasters should be scored on a scale of “microGDPs” ((loss*100000)/GDP). Right now $1billion is about 68microGDPs.
All kidding aside, we’ve gone from -38°C at 07:00 today to -22°C a scant 8 hours later at 15:00 hrs. That’s a 16°C rise in 8 hours! Is there someone I should call? Should the authorities be informed? /sarc
Sadly the nature of *science* funding is such that “DOOM is coming”, will get money a lot easier than any kind of solid science. I doubt if more than 10% of our politicians could pass a basic 7th grade level math or physics test. Across the spectrum of voters its probably even worse.
NOAA Publicity paraphrased: “The way we look at weather is unprecedented and we understand the environment from “the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun.” We are all-encompassingly important, and we have important things to say like ‘Weather varies from year to year and place to place – and is often harshly cold, hot, dry or wet – depending on well … the weather. But sometimes it’s OK and doesn’t kill a few people or cost a whole lot and that’s the way it should be. You can make it OK all the time and, as with all government, we’re here to help.’ “
….And now, NASA is piping up with their two cents worth, citing La Nina and the AO….
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/17jan_missingsnow/
Even if you took this estimate at face value, I’d like to see it compared to the estimated cost of green energy subsidies, CO2 taxes and regulations, and the impact that green (i.e. expensive, unreliable) energy policies have had on the economy. (Of course, this estimate would only have to be as accurate as the above climate disaster cost.)
This sort of public relations activity by NOAA is counterproductive in my opinion as their mission is not to scare the crap out of Americans, but provide accurate and timely information required by law.
NOAA deserves to go under the Department of the Interior where the House of Representatives can keep a better eye on it. Though, after January 2013 and new political appointees are put in charge of NOAA, I’d expect a “sea-change” in the mission, attitude, and public perception of NOAA.
Wow, just wow.
NOAA just lost its credibility.
The pressure must have been tremendous.
Under what rational measuring stick can “wettest” year be classified as a “climate disaster”?
Floods? sure, but flooding is only concerned with the wettest DAY, or maybe wettest WEEK. Or better yet, why not measure FLOODING!
I notice no “disaster” dots associated with record snow pack.
With the current administration addinng an additional $5 trillion to the U. S. debt, I expect we’ll have Weimar Republic type inflation in the next few years. THAT will certainly result in new records of quadrillons of dollars of damage caused by weather – no more property damaged than now, just that our money will be worth hundreds of times less.
I believe there has been, and there is, an ongoing “climate disaster”.
The billions of $ flushed down the toilet chasing the CAGW meme has been an unmitigated disaster of biblical proportions.
OK. How about a “NOAA”? Defined as an individual or an entity masquerading as scientific but being in reality a dishonest self-serving fearmongering extortionist.
Or it could also be used as a verb. Like they really NOAA about AGW, don’t they?
Another ‘scientific’ story on climate disasters got published today as well … what a coincidence!
http://www.popsci.com/node/59882/?cmpid=enews011912&spPodID=020
I wonder what the correlation is if you regressed the combined wettest and driest US data versus lat. / lon.? Seems odd most of them would group right along the line from Texas through New England.
Just had this forwarded to me:
An Interior spokesman said the White House would release more details this afternoon.
NOAA conducts oversight of marine mammals, some endangered species and offshore oil and gas drilling and other coastal developments. While NOAA has no organic legislation, it was not immediately clear whether the president would need congressional approval for the move.
“As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater,” Obama said this afternoon, echoing a joke he delivered at last year’s State of the Union speech. “No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it OK in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”
Obama asked Congress to grant him authority that past presidents, as recently as Ronald Reagan, have received in order to streamline and consolidate government agencies.
“Let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government,” he said.
Previous administrations have had discussions about moving NOAA to Interior to create one resource agency. But NOAA officials in the past have quietly opposed the idea. NOAA has some autonomy within the Commerce Department, and the agency’s leaders could have less control when under a new department.
Some oceans advocates have feared what would happen to the agency if swallowed into Interior, which carries the dual mandate to protect and develop the nation’s resources.
Obama proposed merging into one agency Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
Reporters Allison Winter and Jason Plautz contributed.
Steve Glomb, Director
Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior
phone and e-mail redacted
The word “disaster” only applies to people. The climate is just the climate. Just like the weather or the waves in the ocean. What is wrong with these people that they must anthropomorphize everything? I thought we’d gotten past the stage where people were at the center of the universe. Apparently not.
1. WHITE HOUSE:
Parts of NOAA to be transferred to Interior
Sorry, cut and paste is above my current skill level
Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, January 13, 2012
Elements of the Commerce Department agency that oversees everything from daily weather forecasts to storm warnings, climate monitoring and fisheries management would be transferred to the Interior Department under an ambitious plan of government consolidation announced by the president today.
In an address, President Obama proposed merging six government agencies that primarily oversee business and trade into one, a move designed to “help businesses grow, save businesses time and save taxpayer dollars.”
As part of the plan, some functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be transferred to Interior, an agency charged with managing energy development, recreation, wildlife and other resources on roughly one-fifth of the nation’s land and virtually all of its oceans.
A White House spokesman today said the president intends to merge “elements” of NOAA into Interior.
An Interior spokesman said the White House would release more details this afternoon.
NOAA conducts oversight of marine mammals, some endangered species and offshore oil and gas drilling and other coastal developments. While NOAA has no organic legislation, it was not immediately clear whether the president would need congressional approval for the move.
“As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater,” Obama said this afternoon, echoing a joke he delivered at last year’s State of the Union speech. “No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it OK in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”
Obama asked Congress to grant him authority that past presidents, as recently as Ronald Reagan, have received in order to streamline and consolidate government agencies.
“Let me be clear: I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government,” he said.
Previous administrations have had discussions about moving NOAA to Interior to create one resource agency. But NOAA officials in the past have quietly opposed the idea. NOAA has some autonomy within the Commerce Department, and the agency’s leaders could have less control when under a new department.
Some oceans advocates have feared what would happen to the agency if swallowed into Interior, which carries the dual mandate to protect and develop the nation’s resources.
Obama proposed merging into one agency Commerce’s core business and trade functions, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
Reporters Allison Winter and Jason Plautz contributed.
Steve Glomb, Director
Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior
“Precipitation across the nation averaged near normal, masking record-breaking extremes in both drought and precipitation.”
Be afraid, be very afraid….. It’s “near normal”….
I think NOAA has become near nutz….
The Sahara desert is a climate disaster. Ice ages are climate disasters. The rest is just weather.
But…but…It was a disaster! We must do something now!
(And barring actually doing anything, we’ll have to study it more and more so send us money. Lots of money. And, just to be safe, you folks better stop doing anything that actually, you know, makes money. To help with that endeavor, we’ll start by putting a halt to the use of any carbon based energy source.)
***
But seriously, do they index the dollar amounts related to these disasters? Or can what was an awful but ordinary event in the past suddenly become a modern day disaster due to inflation? (If there’s no indexing, can we blame Ben Bernake for the increasing number of disasters?)
This kind of sophistry goes on all the time. It is a political game so don’t play.
In 2005 1 disaster cost $81Billion! Of course Hurricane Katrina was also caused by GlobalWarmingChangeDisasterDestruction!
Climate = the average of Weather over a 10 year period (last I heard).
I’m also guessing that the “climate” referred to here is for the global average?
Oh, what a sudden (averaged) disaster it must be.
Hmmm, does the impact (damage) of the climate also get averaged over a 10 year period over a global surface area scale?
Curiousgeorge said @ January 19, 2012 at 3:14 pm
How about: “Mann is the mismeasurer of all things.”
But Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which is a consortium of universities, said it’s hard not to see the hand of man-made global warming behind the extremes.
“Where these events occur is largely driven by natural variability, but the fact that they are breaking records and causing tremendous damage when they do occur is undoubtedly because of the human stimulus,” Trenberth said in an email.
http://www.krgv.com/news/world-not-quite-as-hot-in-2011-ranks-11th-warmest1
From NOAA’s perspective, I believe the CG email release was a “climate disaster.”
Nolene,
That’s the same Kevin Trenberth who wanted to turn the null hypothesis on its head, and make scientific skeptics prove a negative. Nothing occurring now is outside the parameters of natural variability – the null hypothesis – therefore Trenberth’s imaginary alternative hypothesis fails.
But Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which is a consortium of universities, said it’s hard not to see the hand of man-made global warming behind the extremes.
========================
I thought they were trying to ban religion in schools…………….
OCEANS ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT OCEANS ANALYSIS DATAS: During February 2009, through faxes, letters & E-mails requested to 25 OCEANS ORGANIZATIONS including NOAA for a copy of OCEANS ANALYSIS DATA. Non of them HAD IT SO NON OF THEM REPLIED. The requsted data was for submitting a paper named ” Mushrooming of Desalination Systems in the M..E. & Environmental Disasters Around the World ” to be submitted to DUBROVINIK- 2009 Conference, Corazia.
Without OCEANS Analysis data what types of OCEANS Management Organizations these are?. Publishing a book soon in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H.R. Abuses Lead to Climate Change Control” ( full color- 500 pages )
“Over 1,150 tornadoes were confirmed during the March-May period. ”
Improved detection, IMHO.
@Dr. Maue – What we heard today and what we can expect to hear during the upcoming AMS meeting is just more alarmist propaganda served by the “leadership” of NOAA/NWS to justify the Weather Ready Nation initiative (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/17/noaas-weather-ready-nation/). Extreme is what NOAA defines it to me, apparently. Nothing grounded in science here, just another attempt at milking the taxpayer for more union jobs.
Weather is not climate (except when they say it is), but weather disasters are all climate disasters.
Al Gored says:
January 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm
OK. How about a “NOAA”? Defined as an individual or an entity masquerading as scientific but being in reality a dishonest self-serving fearmongering extortionist.
Or it could also be used as a verb. Like they really NOAA about AGW, don’t they?
=========================
How about a NOAA Award (as in Noah’s Ark) … for hot cold flood drought alarmism?
So what is a “climate disaster”?
I guess NOAA applies the Justice Potter Stewart standard for obscenity, which is that it’s undefinable, but “I know it when I see it.”
Selective application of science driven by an unhealthy mix of politics, paranoia, and public relations. Now, that’s obscene.
Just curious, is the $1 billion damage threshold assessed on whether the damage is repaired by Government or private contractors?
So they went from 12 to 14… that makes sense…
After all, in NOAA’s world, it’s all two by two.
Anyway, if they’re not taking into account both inflation and increased population density in vulnerable areas, then the numbers are completely meaningless.
I predicted they would run out of bad words to describe their alarmism back in 1997 in a satirical article : http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2007/11/26/climate-change-scientists-warn-loads-more-bad-stuff/
“climate disaster”
The word „disaster“ is not the problem, the word CLIMATE is a disaster;
more at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
What is the scientific definition of “climate”?
I will challenge each and every starting point and each and every end point and each and every length of your time window.
I can’t quite figger if it’s us disasterizing the climate, or the climate disasterizing us. It’s all so interactively disruptive!
Was that 17 record maxima and 2 record minima?
Disaster- that’s a misfortune attributable to the unfavourable position of a planet relative to Earth. Little wonder the term “climate disaster” can’t be found in the American Meteorological Society’s glossary.
Although I’m sure you’re not going to like this, I spent some time years ago looking for definitions for “smoking-related illness” and “smoking-related death” and, to my utter perplexity, couldn’t find any. I even asked a couple pneumologists and public health specialists who, after a few seconds of puzzlement, admitted there were no definitions for these, just a vague description for the use of journalists.
I blame Hollywood and all those disaster movies. People can’t diferentiate between fiction and non-fiction now.
Why are local temperature records always broken in a different location to last time?
John Silver says: (January 20, 2012 at 2:05 am ) “What is the scientific definition of “climate”?”
The WMO site has a theme-section. Concerning weather the section “Weather” offers no explanation but has the opening sentence: “Everyone is interested in the weather”, while subsection: What is Climate begins with the sentence: “At the simplest level the weather is what is happening to the atmosphere at any given time.” In the same section the Organization offers for climate three options namely:
• in a narrow sense Climate is usually defined as the “average weather,”
• in a more rigorously way, Climate is the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time, and
• in a broader sense, Climate is the status of the climate system which comprises the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the surface lithosphere and the biosphere.
Sorry that is not a scientific definition, but the best you can find!!
@Anthony
The U.S. illustration looks like weather to me.
Moreover there were no new temperature or precipitation records set in 90% of the U.S. judging from the appearance of that map. A headline could just as easily be “No Climate Change in Vast Majority of States”.
If an insurance companies mathematician took a look at NOAA’s cost calculations how much lower would the end result be I wonder?
‘Climate disaster’ is what CAGW fallacies do to the economy.
The Ozone Fraud, which cost the world a trillion dollars,
is a certifiable climate disaster.
The Rachel Carson Fraud, which banned DDT
and thus killed and sickened billions, was a practice run.
The ultimate enviro-dream is humanity’s extinction,
as spelled out so longingly in the History Channel Series
Life After People.
Keep in mind that a considerable amount of NOAA funding has an interest in maintaining ‘The Alarm’.
I would like to see a trend graph of inflation-adjusted “climate disaster” damages, versus population and normalized for GDP. As the country grows, more and more area is taken from the pool of wilderness/no witnesses/no monitoring group to the populated/economically productive/intense monitoring category. Of course weather will have a larger impact, but compared to what baseline?
I would also like to see a graph showing the number of NOAA alarm reports against its funding level in the next fiscal year.
Stupid attention grabbing media spin to try and maintain top step in funding from dumb politicians is a dual edged sword. NOAA only has to look at the Australian CSIRO to see what happens to what was once an excellent and widely respected scientific body, with a well earned past record revered by most older Australians, and thrown away by a faction of activists who destroyed that reputation by issuing press releases that Australians should get used to rain free seasons and permanent drought all based on corrupted modeling.
Their press releases were triumphantly echoed by the warmist elite as proving their case of doom, then it rained and it rained, just like it had done in the past and we remembered the past floods, the past extremes of variable weather, checked the old newspaper reports, the data and exposed the deceit.
In a nutshell CSIRO lost the confidence of Australians that have lived with such weather all their lives. As of warning to NOAA, forget the Hansen dream of channeling millions of geo engineering windfall dollars from dumb politicians who want spin instead of science – you poison the well of public confidence with such stupidity and it will take years to regain your once proud reputation.
Remember also that within the NOAA organisation, there are genuine scientists who resent the path of distruction and debasement of scientific principles by some leading activists, a path chosen to create and invent fear to feed their own ego’s and financial reward. Observe the growing backlash here in Australia, pent up and fed up, with the politics and lying spin.
The genuine scientists who have been dismayed with the antics of the activists and destruction of trust are slowly and cautiously speaking up, first to like minded colleagues then to friends and finally the public.
That is the true Climate Disaster but let it be the “Team” the “false prophets of science” that bear the reality not NOAA – time to blow the whistle!!
A press release noting that 2011 was one of the hottest years on record, and you think the important thing is to question whether NOAA has glossary entry for climate disaster? Excellent misdirection skills, Anthony.
dvunkannon says:
January 21, 2012 at 9:18 am
“A press release noting that 2011 was one of the hottest years on record, and you think the important thing is to question whether NOAA has glossary entry for climate disaster? Excellent misdirection skills, Anthony.”
You’re starting your comment with a misdirection yourself; as 2011 was the second coolest of the years since 2000; so probably seeing misdirection in what others write is a projection on your side.
When you go down after a maximum, you are close to the maximum for a while. Think about it.
Here’s an excellent graph by NOAA showing the yearly change in temperatures. Try to find a trend.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/new-noaa-data-debunks-establishment-science-msm-claim-of-dangerous-accelerating-warming.html
Something apparently just made up on the spot
English is full of such neologisms. These are really just “natural disasters”, but “climate disasters” communicates the hypothesized link to changes in weather caused by accumulating CO2. You don’t like it, and the causal attribution is not soundly (to my mind) supported by the evidence taken all together, but the meaning is clear.
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth of the hole.
And these jokers seem to have been digging rather a deep rut for themselves.
Time to stop digging and wind your collective neck in, perhaps, fellas??