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)
Tom Jones says:
January 10, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Until those issues are factored in, destruction and insurance claims are just a meaningless number.
=========
How about damage as a percent of GDP? That would actually have meaning, as it measures the ability of the nation to deal with damages. 1 billion dollars is a lot of damage if your GDP is 1 billion dollars. If your GDP is $100 trillion, then if ranks with the cost of a speeding ticket, or a night out on the town for the average person.
Day By Day says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
“Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”
===========
I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself.
It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing 🙂
I suspect NCDC doesn’t have any choice as to whether or not to include cyclone damage in their SOTC reports in any given year. It’s probably cast in concrete that it must always be reported.
Yes, Bob, I think NOAA is trying to mislead the public and ruin their reputation. So sorry.
@Tom in Indy
>I hope the dollar values are adjusted for inflation. That would be a huge ‘oops’ if they are not.
Of course they aren’t. That’s the whole point. More development means more at risk and it is inevitable that the $ value of destruction will rise. Surely the occurrence of any category of disaster has to be weighted in some way? How was that done?
I loved the bit in the Gleason et al 2008 report where they describe floods as a “moisture surplus.”
Wouldn’t it be really cool if there were similar charts for global climate?
Day By Day says: “Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”
Here’s how NOAA defines their Climate Extremes Index (CEI). It’s found on the webpage link to DEFINITION at the top of this webpage:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Definition
The U.S. CEI is the arithmetic average of the following five or six# indicators of the percentage of the conterminous U.S. area:
1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
3. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States in severe drought (equivalent ot the lowest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI and (b) percentage of the United States with severe moisture surplus (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI.
4. Twice the value of the percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) 1-day precipitation events.
5. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
6. *The sum of squares of U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocities scaled to the mean of the first five indicators.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
My post noted that factor number 6 (landfalling tropical cyclones) was so low (Figure 1 in the post) in 2012 that when they averaged it into the Climate Extremes Index it lowered the ranking for the year.
u.k.(us) says: ” I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself. It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing :)”
Sorry. I thought I had, but refer to my reply to Day By Day above for a clarification.
There’s lots of talk about dollars in the comments. The units in the Climate Extremes Index are not dollars. They’re the percentage of the US with extreme weather as NOAA defines those percentages. See my reply to Day By Day here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/10/another-glitch-on-the-ncdc-state-of-the-climate-report/#comment-1195318
Regards
Theo Barker says: @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm
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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DR says: @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Peter Thorne……that name rings a bell. Climategate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Search of all climategate e-mails for Peter Thorne returns this: (21 pages)
http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=Peter+Thorne&id=7
You can use this to search:
2009 emails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5
2011 e-mails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2
ALL e-mails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4
(I keep them bookmarked)
I really like that Fox News story it actually gave both sides, wow! The Dr. Roy Spencer quotes were great but Anthony’s quote ending the piece was the real killer.
u.k.(us) says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Day By Day says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
“Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”
===========
I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself.
It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing 🙂
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I used to have trouble following what Bob was saying until I saw his videos:
Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/BobTisdale1
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bugpqVan5Q
Website: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/video-drought-hurricanes-and-heat-waves-2012-in-perspective/
The problem with a complicated topic is either you make the assumption people are up to speed and you lose them because they do not understand or you go into the details leading up to your present conclusion, become to wordy and lose them.
Bob ‘solved’ the problem by making videos and writing a book. Me? I am just too wordy.
The New York Times joins the “climate change means more extreme weather worldwide” chorus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/science/earth/extreme-weather-grows-in-frequency-and-intensity-around-world.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130111&_r=0
/Mr Lynn
Is their inclusion of tropical cyclones an attempt to include the non-hurricane Sandy as extreme weather, legitimizing the hype about how terrible it was.
If you live on the shore and do not adequately insure, it’s all your problem. There is no reason to believe that a storm will never hit your part of the coast and also that the rest of the country has to pay for your house or the infrastructure of your town. Adequate funds should have been put aside for such contingencies.
Hi Bob,
I really don’t understand the concept of a “Climate Extreme”. What does that mean? The weather events over a year’s time is NOT climate! Remember the warmist’s meme of “Weather != Climate”? If there was a period of thirty years where tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, floods etc. were abnormal, then we can call that period a “Climate Extreme”.
I think that inserting “Climate” when it really is “Weather” is simply a calculated move on NOAA’s part to keep the climate change machine going before people catch on and the funding dries up…
O/T but VERY important indeed for the sake of humanity.
According to Dr. James Hansen president Obama has just one week left to save the planet.
H/t Marc Morano
barryjo says: January 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm
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?
______________________________
And building wooden shacks instead of houses.
I have said it before, but even the Three Little Pigs realised that houses should be made of brick or concrete. Come on, USA, if the rest of the world can afford ‘stone’ housing, why are you still using sticks?
.
I suspect that inflation has (possibly deliberately) NOT been allowed for – the article certainly doesn’t mention it.
So – apart from all the other factors, such as:
Population increase in the affected areas
Building in stupid flood zones (we get this a lot in the UK – regular houses being built on ‘flood plains’)
– factors which affect the figure:
Everyone has more ‘stuff’
The ‘stuff’ they have is more expensive to replace
More people have insurance.
So – its not difficult to meet the magical $1bn figure….
:
Bob,
Interestingly, if you look at Step 5,
The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/5/01-12
You also get very moderate figures, with very low levels of both category.
The overall claim of “an extreme year” seems to be based largely on warmer weather and PDSI.
Paul
As much of the “higher temperatures”, that are largely driving this index, occurred in the winter/spring and late autumn, I fail to see how these in any way could be regarded as “extreme”.
Would not “mild” be a better description?
Looking at the individual components it looks like the ranking is driven strong by the first two:
1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
Note that both are somewhat misleadingly labeled. The Max and Min “extremes” are variations to *both* sides of normal. In other words more moderate temperatures (Max below norm and Min above norm) are included in the definition of extreme. This is an interesting definition that might be considered Orwellian — “moderate is extreme!”
Of course it would be uncivil to ascribe intentional deception to the authors of the metrics. I would be very interested to know which of those extremes are “moderate” and which are actual extrema.
I would also be interested in the definition of “much” as without that none of it is reproducible.
Theo Barker says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm
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/
I like the use of the word ‘revisions’ with respect to climate data rather than ‘adjustments’; it has such a nice ring to it , don’t you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)
… too busy saving european-butt I reckon …
We’ve been down this subject discussion before, Ralphy-boy …
.
Little benefit to building a concrete-block structure even whose roof is pulled-free in a tornado leaving four bare walls with the contents in shreds … I guess you have not ‘run the economics’ on this subject Ralphy …
.
rogerknights says: “I suspect NCDC doesn’t have any choice as to whether or not to include cyclone damage in their SOTC reports in any given year. It’s probably cast in concrete that it must always be reported.”
Including landfalling tropical cyclone data (not damage) is experimental. See the footnote under the list of “indicators” that are part of the “definition” webpage (there’s no direct link to the webpage):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12
It reads “The sixth indicator is experimental and is included in the experimental version of the CEI.”
Frank K. says: “I really don’t understand the concept of a “Climate Extreme”. What does that mean?”
NOAA defines the Climate Extremes Index on their “definition” webpage here (no direct link. You have to click on the menu at the top of the webpage):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12
They write:
Definition
The U.S. CEI is the arithmetic average of the following five or six# indicators of the percentage of the conterminous U.S. area:
1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
3. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States in severe drought (equivalent ot the lowest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI and (b) percentage of the United States with severe moisture surplus (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI.
4. Twice the value of the percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) 1-day precipitation events.
5. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
6. *The sum of squares of U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocities scaled to the mean of the first five indicators.