IF NOT, THE PRESS AND PUBLIC WILL CERTAINLY GET THE WRONG IDEA
The Summary Information of the NOAA State of the Climate report reads with respect to extremes:
The U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation. The index, which evaluates extremes in temperature and precipitation, as well as landfalling tropical cyclones, was nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. To date, 2012 has seen 11 disasters that have reached the $1 billion threshold in losses, to include Sandy, Isaac, and tornado outbreaks experienced in the Great Plains, Texas and Southeast/Ohio Valley.
This gives the reader the impression that landfalling tropical cyclones were a contributor to the high ranking. They were not. NOAA fails to note in the summary that the landfalling tropical cyclones were so low that NOAA lowered the ranking on its Climate Extremes Index by including them. That is, without landfalling tropical cyclones, 2012 would have ranked number one on Climate Extremes Index.
Using the drop-down menu on the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph webpage, we can plot NOAA climate Extremes indicator graphs. Figure 1 is the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph for landfalling tropical “systems”. 2012 was extremely low, far below average. I included this data through November in my Video: Drought, Hurricanes and Heat Waves – 2012 in Perspective. I was therefore surprised when NOAA included tropical cyclones in their 2012 State of the Climate summary.
Figure 1
If we plot the NOAA Climate Extremes Index for 2012 with landfalling tropical cyclones, Figure 2, 2012 does in fact rank number 2 behind 1998. This confirms NOAA’s statement in their summary.
Figure 2
But if we exclude landfalling tropical cyclones from the Climate Extremes Index, Figure 3, 2012 rises to a ranking of number 1.
Figure 3
Therefore, by including landfalling tropical cyclones in the Climate Extremes Index for 2012, NOAA lowered the ranking, but gives the public the impression that landfalling tropical cyclones contributed to the high ranking—when, in reality, tropical cyclones lowered the 2012 ranking.
Related articles
- NOAA SOTC release – December 2012 CONUS Tavg value missing? (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Update: ‘Hottest Year’ in U.S. Called into Question — 1930s Still Reign as Hottest? — Global Temps remain stagnant (climatedepot.com)
- More bad news for alarmists – no trend in global hurricane landfalls (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The question is with hurricanes and tornados practically non-existant, what was so “EXTREME!!!”?
“IF NOT, THE PRESS AND PUBLIC WILL CERTAINLY GET THE WRONG IDEA”
I’m trying to decide if this is Bob Tisdale being ironic?
I hope the dollar values are adjusted for inflation. That would be a huge ‘oops’ if they are not.
Well if you live on a sand spit eventually it’s going to get expensive….
Is this index adjusted for inflation and increase in population and buildings?? If it were we would see that 2012 and the mid 2000’s is not that big of a deal!!
Damage dollars as a weather severity metric/proxy confounds logic.
For NOAA’s description of the Climate Extremes Index, click on the INTRODUCTION link near the top of the webpage here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12
The Climate Extremes Index was presented in Karl et al (1995), available here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0279%3AIOCCFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
oldfossil says: “I’m trying to decide if this is Bob Tisdale being ironic?”
Not intentionally. I was just stating a logical response. I would have assumed that tropical storms contributed to the number 2 ranking, if I had not discovered that the low tropical storm ranking actually lowered the overall rank.
Their charts need to be audited. First, though Sandy wasn’t as bad as a hurricvane could get, it’s full-moon-high-tide timing and NYC location made it very expensive. So that graph seems too low. The other graph seems too high, for the primary damage was due to crops, (due to the drought, I am assuming.) Or am I missing something?
I am so uncomfortable with the entire way science is driven by “policy” these days that I really need to see the formula they use to crank out their numbers, before the numbers have any meaning to me. My trust is so shot full of holes that holes is all I see. When I run across the good, hard-working and honest government scientists (and they do exist) I am always filled with a sense of gratitude.
Example: The Discovery News article yesterday titled “2012 Warmest Year on Record”:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2012-warmest-on-record-for-us-130108.htm
They open with, “2012 marked the warmest year on record for the United States and was also the second most extreme ever, the U.S. government agency charged with monitoring weather events said Tuesday.”
A few paragraphs down, they note, “The nation suffered through 11 weather disasters that caused $1 billion in damage or more, including hurricanes Sandy and Isaac and deadly tornado outbreaks in the Great Plains, Texas and the Ohio Valley,” and “Sandy proved the most destructive as it made landfall near New York, killing 131 people, knocking out power to eight million people and destroying tens of thousands of homes and businesses.”
But Discovery News failed to note the reason for the number 2 ranking on the overall Climate extremes Index, which was the low landfalling hurricane ranking.
Someone should invent an Extreme Cupidity Index for self-interested bureaucratic organizations who profit from their output. Oh wait, I just did.
Tom in Indy raises a point I have often wondered about, but never seen any commentary on. In fact, it’s worse than inflation. Even taking inflation into account, the capital value of what has been destroyed keep rising, as we pour more and more investment into the US, and the world. Until those issues are factored in, destruction and insurance claims are just a meaningless number.
Tangled webs.
Inflation will be a real problem for this index.
As Obama tanks the US dollar to Zimbabwe equivalents, it will only take 1 tornado to cause Gazzillions of dollars damage.
Since these people always like to point out the dollar value of the damage done by “extreme” weather, shouldn’t there be a concomitant value for stupidity? Such as building near the water, REbuilding near the water, not installing sufficient protections, etc?
Seems this would serve to greatly mitigate the “extreme” thing.
I’m not sure if this is a satirical comedy or a “soap opera” masquerading as melodrama. All this cost emphasis is little more then the insurance industry attempting to justify higher rates to more quickly recover their costs. Heaven forbid they might keep sufficient assets in reserve. I’ve seen how these guys add stuff up, maybe we need some interdependent source for the normalized dollars they are using. It simply makes no difference one way or other. First, second, or what ever; done, gone and pass on. The true measure is how well had we prepared for what we know will eventually happen. Lets see that index.
Anthony, Roy, and Goddard made the Fox News web site headlines questioning NOAA’s over-the-top BS SOTC:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/
The below has been entered in the other post as well. I thought I would give it here as well because although it does not deal with the specific topic in this post, it does seem to suggest another case of Misleading the Public Is there a trend here?
Graham W says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Here you go, a more useful link!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
According to Figure 1, the data is from “the Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC”. So…pretty vague.
Thank you very much! Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I am becoming increasingly convinced someone is trying to hide something. They say:
“The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average.”
So that means they are talking about Hadcrut3 and not Hadcrut4. I am aware of three different versions of Hadcrut3. They are listed below along with the 1998 anomaly for each. The range is from 0.52 to 0.548. All of these are above 0.40. Can someone please tell me what I am missing?
This version has 1998 at 0.529 and 2010 at 0.470.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
This version has 1998 at 0.548 and 2010 at 0.478.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
This version has 1998 at 0.52 and 2010 at 0.50.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates
By the way, Hadsst2 for 1998 was 0.451.
10 Jan: Daily Mail: James Delingpole: The crazy climate change obsession that’s made the Met Office a menace•The £200 million-a-year official weather forecaster often gets it wrong
•This week it has admitted there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening
•The Met Office quietly readjusted its temperature projections on its website on Christmas Eve
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html
——————————————————————————–
I’m having a very hard time reading the graphs and understanding what you and NOAA are saying.
“Figure 1 is the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph for landfalling tropical “systems”. 2012 was extremely low, far below average.”
“If we plot the NOAA Climate Extremes Index for 2012 with landfalling tropical cyclones, Figure 2, 2012 does in fact rank number 2 behind 1998. This confirms NOAA’s statement in their summary.”
“But if we exclude landfalling tropical cyclones from the Climate Extremes Index, Figure 3, 2012 rises to a ranking of number 1.”
It sounds like you are saying that if you take out tropoical cyclones, which were low, you get more extereme weather. I’m sure I just don’t undetrstand how to read the darn things–it seems that if they included the cyclones–it would make it more extreme, not rank number one by excluding them.
Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?
10 Jan: Daily Mail: Sean Poulter: Enough to make you shudder! Temperatures set for sudden plunge to minus 10C… as average heating bill for the elderly soars to £1,350
•Cold snap will put huge pressure on elderly, fearful of turning up heating
•Average gas and electricity bill for over-65s reached £1,356 last year
•Five of ‘Big Six’ energy firms put up tariffs as winter began
•Experts warn thousands will die from medical conditions worsened by chill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260490/UK-temperatures-plunge-minus-10–average-heating-elderly-soars-1-350.html
Are tides considered weather?
Peter Thorne……that name rings a bell. Climategate?
The CEI index says they base it in part on high and low temp. readings. I wonder if they normalize for an increasing # of weather stations over time or if we simply get a higher count of these “extreme” because we have more “counting stations”.
The reason I ask is because the Sandy expense was largely due to high tide, not to mention other reasons that have nothing to do with weather.