Another inconvenient truth – 2012 US tornado count well below normal

P. Solar says:
December 1, 2012 at 6:15 am
http://climaterealists.com/?id=10681
cherry picking. On what basis were these periods chosen? If you have the data to do a plot ,plot it all, not the bits that make a point.
cf
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
Do you actually believe that in 1860-70 there was a global network of observers recording cyclones, by whatever name called and calculating the ACE for each year?

bill mckibben;
I’m in Omaha, where last week 99.69% of the state was in severe drought, but this week it’s up to 100%. >>>>
Proving that you still cannot understand that an anecdotal remark about a tiny portion of the planet is meaningless.
Can you explain how 16 years of ZERO change in the global temperature cause a drought in one area representing less than 1% of the globe?
There’s increased flooding in many parts of the world this year such as remarked on upthread. Do you suppose that the ZERO change in global temperature over the last 16 years caused this too?
Which is it? Did the ZERO temp increase cause increased flooding or increased drought?
Did the ZERO temp increase cause both less ice in the Arctic and more ice in the Antarctic?
There were several points of fact and science that were made to you in this thread, and your only response is to whine that Anthony made a mistake regarding your twitter feed? That’s it? Confronted with a list of errors YOU made all you can do is deflect? That’s all you got? A bit of yipping about a minor computer setting? But on science and facts…. ZERO.

Gunga Din;
Missing heat. Missing tornadoes. Missing hurricanes. What are they missing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Missing increased drought index (the planetary average matters, not weepy bill’s anecdotal evidence), the tropospheric hot spot, accelerating sea level rise, increased temps…. all missing.
You know what else is missing? The ability of Bill McKibben to come up with a response other than “oh yeah? well Anthony made a mistake about my twitter feed”.
Go get ‘um Bill. That’ll make you look like you know what you are talking about.
Keep coming around, you make a great poster child for the inability of the warmists to spout anything other than excuses.

Bruce Cobb says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:23 am
I’m fully aware of why Anthony uses the ‘weepy’ adjective. I understand that Bill’s tears may well have been somewhat crocodilian. My point is that using such terminology does not advance his/our argument in any way.
Getting personal in this way both detracts from the argument and undermines the sceptical case. I strongly believe that sticking to the science and avoiding ad hominem is the best way forward.
I’ve been following this great site for many years. I’ve learned a lot from from Anthony’s hard work and dedication and I am very grateful. If we stay focused we can win. If we get personal it only exposes our soft underbelly. What’s the point of doing that other than creating some short term, shallow satisfaction.

@mkelly
“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, told the website. “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”
+++++++++
One of the main Canadian activist groups in Vancouver admitted on national radio they had accepted $3.6m by US funders to generate opposition to the pipeline from Alberta to the BC Coast. The timeline works out to $17,000 a week for a few years. They had no shame admitting they were shilling for foreign interests, whipping up the local populations in towns and reserves to serve some US interest. Is Bill and 350.org involved or perhaps some other group?
As the US apparently doesn’t want more Canadian oil via new pipelines it seems reasonable they should not concern themselves where it is sold. Now there is talk about piping it to the East Coast to ‘supply Eastern Canada’ which is the same as saying, we will ship it East if agitators and shills prevent us shipping it West. The middle of Canada has no problem taxing the pipelines across their land (it is called linear property taxes). If the BC government doesn’t want it, no problem.

small minds look at one year and say its proof that the earth is ok. small minds

The problem with alot of climatologists on the agw side is they are closed minded weather voyeurs, only peaking in when it delights them enough to try to prove their point. They dare not mention the severe cold that is engulfing other areas of the world, nor understand that the US may go into the same kind of pattern Dec 15-Jan 14, though if we do, I am sure a) an excuse that involves warming or climate change will come up and b) we will hear about some place that is warm. They obviously have not looked at the past facts of what the weather has done in similar cycles ( example the 1950s) when the pdo flipped and there was onslaughts of heavy rain and snow in the northwest US drought and heat in our summers and hurricanes on the east coast. Nor will they even say boo about the severe cold that is overtaking larger areas than the US already, the far east, Europe into now Asia and nw North America While I dig in and look at everything they look at, the more you look at it, the more you realize how lacking their ideas are, I realize that they dont even look at, or if they do, simply ignore , anything that goes against them. Sea level rise? Since the gulf was at one time covering all the lower Mississippi valley, that is certainly something that can happen again. so much for your 8 inch rise or whatever since the sunspot cycle started ramping up after the little ice age. Arctic melting. lets see what happens when the AMO flips in 5-10 years. And by the way you need not look any further for the answer than Alaska and Europe. These people should be dragged outside in the cold that is making life miserable, and be made to explain what happened to the canary in the coal mine in Alaska now that the PDO has flipped and one brutal winter after another has started, and perhaps the most absurd of all the comments, though given some on hurricanes I have heard, its tough to say what is the most ignorant, that snow and cold would soon be a thing of the past in europe ( try telling them that now, its the 4th winter in a row of a major period of severe cold) Given they have no clue as to how the climate cycle works naturally, or could not have taken a class in it.. they run to blame warming for the cooling. And all the while, massive amounts of people are meant to suffer as economies are handcuffed by draconian laws that are fighting ghosts, while lining peoples pockets with the money of the people that are most affected.. the workers.
And by the way, cut with the natural variability excuse. Because that argument is nonsense. What are you trying to say, that if co2 was not as high as it is, we would be in an ice age?
These people are like children that have to have their way, have to make sure that feelings are more important than facts. Those of us brought up in the real world where right and wrong matter and jobs are on the line, understand that. So at the risk of hurting the feelings of the climate voyeurs let me leave you with this chart
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg
read it and weep, you are dead wrong, and most of us dont want to see this planet thrown into the misery your regressive. NOT PROGRESSIVE ideas will lead too.
As blackouts start in the Arctic cold in europe you think about that in your still warm home, and face the facts as to who cares more about their fellow man

rob says:
December 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm
small minds look at one year and say its proof that the earth is ok. small minds
_________________________________
graph 10,000 yrs
graph 140,000 years
graph 450,000 years
flick graph
STILL looks O.K.

Joseph Bastardi says:
December 1, 2012 at 2:50 pm
The problem with a lot of climatologists on the agw side is they are closed minded weather voyeurs…
_______________________________
Thank you Joe.
We all have to keep in mind that these CO2 restriction measures in the UK alone have cause:
25,700 excess winter deaths in the UK in 2010-11
George Monbiot: The level of excess winter deaths in the UK is higher than Siberia’s.

The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.
Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day…. link

A household is defined as being fuel poor if it has to spend 10 per cent or more of its income on paying to keep the home adequately warm.
In 2003 the number of households hit a low of two million, but it climbed to four million in 2007 and then 4.5 million in 2008, the figures for which were published today by the Department of Energy & Climate Change.
This figure suggests that one in six households were fuel poor during 2008, a year which saw energy bills shoot up by 45 per cent…. link

Mean while the World Bank who is crying THE SKY IS FALLING, it has increased loans to build COAL fired plants from $100 million in 2005 to $4,270 million in 2010 link
The USA funds 1 in five dollars of these loans. So as our coal powered plants are shut down our tax go dollars go to build new COAL PLANTS in India, China and other countries!!!!

From bill mckibben on December 1, 2012 at 9:24 am:
At any rate, that’s all from weepy me today–I’m in Omaha, where last week 99.69% of the state was in severe drought, but this week it’s up to 100%.
http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202/area_drought_information?mode=2&state=NE
“Severe” is #3 of the 5 designations of drought. For the week of 11/27, currently 100% of the state of Nebraska is in the D2 to D4 range, “severe” to “exceptional”.
As it was three months ago (8/28), at the start of the water year (9/25/2012)… Last week (11/20) only being 99.69% was a slight improvement.
Tables: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_tables.htm?NE
You can see the changeover to D2-D4 range came pretty quick, from only 4.94% on 6/19 to 100% on 7/24. Bad bout of weather. This year was the worst, but as seen in the tables which only go back to 2000, 2002 had a similar spike.
From Curious George on December 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm:
Bill McKibben – I have been trying to find out, 1. What definition of “drought” the US Drought Monitor uses, 2. How they measure its intensity. So far unsuccessfully. I’ll appreciate your help.
Much searching later, I found here a passing description:

The U.S. Drought Monitor is unique, blending numeric measures of drought and experts’ best judgment into a single map every week. It started in 1999 as a federal, state, and academic partnership, growing out of a Western Governors’ Association initiative to provide timely and understandable scientific information on water supply and drought for policymakers.
The Monitor is produced by a rotating group of authors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. It incorporates review from a group of 250 climatologists, extension agents, and others across the nation. Each week the author revises the previous map based on rain, snow and other events, observers’ reports of how drought is affecting crops, wildlife and other indicators. Authors balance conflicting data and reports to come up with a new map every Wednesday afternoon. It is released the following Thursday morning.

As it combines numbers with “best judgement”, the levels of drought are “informed opinions”. As there is a subjective component, good luck finding those definitions.

Hey Bill!
Bill McKibben!
Have you seen ZERO?
THIS is what ZERO looks like:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/
Can you explain to us Bill, in your own words, how the exact same temperatures we have today as we had 16 years ago caused all the weather you insist on weeping about? C’mon Bill, give it a shot. Use grown up words and explanations please, none of this appeal to emotion that earned you your nickname.
Please explain also how, in that same time period, CO2 went from 364 ppm to 391 ppm without changing the temperature. Again, use big people words, just the facts, no weeping, no pointing to one spot on earth and screaming look! look! warming! Just the data sir, and global data.
And no, it isn’t hiding in the oceans, we have the Argo buoys carpeting the ocean and they’re not detecting squat. No, it isn’t in the ocean depths below the Argo buoys because it would have to pass by the Argo buoys to get there, and they’d detect that. No, it isn’t more aerosols from China because their aerosol production is a fraction of what we cleaned up in the western world over the last few decades. Remember when major cities in Europe and North America had stand up comics zipping one liners like “I shot an arrow into the sky, and it stuck there” and “I’m not sick, it’s the smog, I inhaled a piece”? Do we have jokes like that anymore? No! We cleaned up ten times what China is putting out.
So explain Bill. Please. With real grown up words, facts, and reasoning.
I bet you’ll ignore me, because you cannot answer. You’ve got nothing. Bupkiss. Nada. ZERO.
Yes, you’ve got ZERO.