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:
The data so far this year says otherwise:
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.
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.

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 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
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.


![Temp-Insolation[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/temp-insolation1.png?resize=640%2C678&quality=75)
![tornadoes_bymonth[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tornadoes_bymonth1.png?resize=640%2C480&quality=75)
I stopped reading at “Heidi Cullen”….
Joseph A Olson says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Nothing is more enlightening than a mono-tribe among sock-puppets.
____________________
Care to tell us where you found sock puppets (and how you know them?)
milodonharlani says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:30 pm
“…Actual numbers don’t matter to CAGW adherents.”
______________________
It’s the (precautionary) principle of the thing.
What caused this (from Wiki – my bold)?
Theo Goodwin says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:31 pm
It is unseasonally cold here in Germany, I would say 5 degrees C less than usual at this time of year. If my kid had a body temperature of 32 deg C I would be pretty worried. And I don’t even have to wait a hundred years. Wait, Cullen says in a hundred years it’ll be back to normal? Now that’s good.
Ambulance Chasers.
Expecting a nice payoff.
Nothing more than that.
So many things, so terribly backwards, I hardly know where to start.
OK, I’ll give one “human anecdote” rather than more numbers and all (since the Warmers seem unable to grasp that the numbers are against them…)
The Mother In Law recently died at about 85? Something like that. She grew up in Oklahoma. One of her stories was about a giant tornado that came through when she was about 4 or 5 years old. It picked her up and carried her about 100 yards, then plopped her on the ground. (They were, luckily, only on the edge of it…) It caused horrid destruction for miles, including their home, but they picked themselves back up and carried on. So take 2013-85 and I get about 1928. I do remember her saying it was about the time of the Great Depression too (and don’t forget The Dust Bowl). In her opinion prior to her demise she said that Oklahoma had gotten a whole lot nicer since then. That things were LESS extreme, and that the ’20s and ’30s had been worse.
Her family grew up in California, as, after W.W.II, they moved out here. Anyone remember The Grapes Of Wrath? The vast convoys of “climate refugees” flooding out of Oklahoma and nearby States and into California? Escaping the horrific drought and The Dust Bowl? Where clouds of dust so thick you could not see the sun blew all the way to Chicago and even the East Coast?
How about the Labor Day Hurricane in the Keys?
IMHO, all we have here is normal cyclical weather. It got warmer a little bit in the ’80s and ’90s (after a significant cold turn in the ’60s and ’70s when it snowed in my home town in the Central Valley of California – a place it practically never snows…) and during that warm spell, things quieted down. (Yes, Virginia, the “bad weather” gets damped by hot cycles… when the ‘cold pole’ of the heat engine warms up, the engine slows down…) Now we have simply started a return to the prior cooler status, and that gives a more normal weather pattern.
I’m only 60, so have only barely seen one whole PDO cycle. Yet I have a pretty decent memory. Right now, the winds are more “blustery”. Almost exactly like they were in the ’50s when I was a kid. I’d noticed them become more soft and subdued. In the ’60s and early ’70s there was a big scare on about “Clear Air Turbulence” for aviation (and a fair number of crashes). Then that just kind of went away. The turbulence dropped (on average). At the latest cold turn / solar funk, the atmospheric height shortened, and the “blustery” came back to the winds as it was 60 years ago. At about the same time we had 2 major airplane crashes after a couple of years of not one. Turbulence and a plugged pitot tube in one case.
So from my perspective on climate, all that’s happened is a turn of the cycle back to the cooling 1/2 wave. That has deeper Rossby Waves (as I remember seeing illustrated on my B&W TV in the early ’60s when weathermen did real weather charts on camera, live) and more wind driven weather. I remember when those deep waves moderated (on average) in the late ’60s to early ’70s and the talk was all about that “flat jet stream”. My Mum made a return visit to England then. Her flight (a 707 IIRC) made a record of it. Something like 9 hours from SFO to England. They were able to sit in the Jet Stream the whole way and arrived at a refueling in Iceland or Greenland or some such way early and had to wake up the crew. (It’s a bit hazy as I was a kid then and not that interested in just which country they were in; just that they had to wake up some guy to get gas a few hours early).
So I’ve seen, and observed, this whole cycle. Not a single thing is different now, in terms of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, wind, storms. Nothing. Yes, we had a different pattern for a couple of decades in the ’60s and ’70s cold. I asked the local “old folks” about it. They thought back and said “no, not new… like it was back in…” and cited some date in the late 1800s to early 1900s. They were in their 70s and 80s and that was ’63 or so. So they were remembering “when they were my age” in the late 1800s.
And that was one of my very first introductions to the cyclical nature of weather. We had a restaurant in a farm town with folks from many parts of the country who had moved to California. They liked talking to “the kids”. I listened. What I learned was that the “Old Folks” had seen it all before. And that they had seen a whole cycle. That the younger folks had only seen parts of cycles, so thought this was “new” or “different”. But it isn’t.
I asked my Dad about heat during the “hot times”. He pointed out that nothing came close to the 1930s. IMHO, still doesn’t. Almost, but not quite. Similarly I asked my wife’s Dad. He, too, said it was nice weather now, not as cold as before, but not as hot as the ’30s; and that this was some of the best weather of his lifetime. Not too cold or too hot. (He passed away about a decade back – so we’ve not warmed since as it was about 5 years into the ‘flat not warming’ tail).
All this, IMHO, simply points out that these folks on the TV are not able to see beyond their own short life spans, were not paying attention to The Old Folks when they were kids; and now have an ambulance to chase.
FWIW, we are now in the start of a “cold cycle”. The poles are cooling (that’s where the net heat leaves) and that cools the “cold pole” of the heat engine. The oceans hold a lot of heat, so for the next decade or so it will be leaving. That will involve a lot of water evaporation from the oceans (falling as rain and snow as in the UK and Australia recently) as the oceans cool. In about 20 years the oceans will have cooled and overall things will be colder and snowy. Then the tendency to storms will fade and the “Loopy Jet Stream” will once again flatten. Then we will take another 1/2 cycle of the next 30 years after that as things “warm” again. It’s 30 years of cooling, then 30 years of warming, then 30 years of cooling again… Folks over 60 have seen it (though some didn’t pay attention) and the “Climate Scientists” are trying to exploit it for gain and influence (or are dupes).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/why-weather-has-a-60-year-lunar-beat/
For them to attempt to fear monger like that is just offensive.
I was old with grey hair when the Blather began.
Now this old child has no hair!
John Trigge (in Oz) says:
May 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm
What caused this (from Wiki – my bold)?
The Great Tri-State Tornado of Wednesday, March 18, 1925…
All you want to know about the Tri-State tornado
http://www.ejssm.org/ojs/index.php/ejssm/article/view/114
Dear Mr. Kluger:
You belie your name. Far from being clever, you are ignorant of climate history & incapable of reasoning cogently therefrom.
“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.”
You mean the Pliocene. But your statement (corrected) shows that CO2 clearly is not a major driver of climate change. The reason that forests haven’t returned to the Canadian Arctic nor the Greenland Ice Sheet melted is that carbon dioxide concentrations have little effect on global average temperature. What caused the Pleistocene glaciations was the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, interrupting oceanic circulation, & other natural events, such as orbital mechanics. CO2 fell as a result of a colder climate.
Similarly, the Antarctic Ice Sheets formed in the Oligocene Epoch when that continent was cut off from Australia & South America by the formation of deep channels in the Southern Ocean. Again, the climate cooled & the oceans absorbed more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Joseph A Olson …..
What’s that about?
Thanks to CBS for providing a chart without scale.
Ah…that map shows only the USofA.Since when is 2% of the land in the world global?? Oh.And we here in Alberta just had a “severe” wx event.It rained!! Thank God.It helped put out the other “severe” event….wild fires,caused by cAGW drought.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:17 pm
The damage that they cause has increased greatly because wealth and population have increased greatly.
Exactly, this is the part progressives have the biggest issue getting over. They are not doing enough to redistribute the wealth, otherwise these red states would have less to loose.
The 10 deadliest tornadoes to hit the US, according to the NOAA:
1. The “Tri-State Tornado” killed 695 people and injured 2,027, traveling more than 300 miles through Missouri, Illinois and Indiana on March 18, 1925. It was rated an F5 at the top of the old Fujita scale (with winds of 260-plus mph).
2. The “Natchez Tornado” killed 317 people and injured 109 on May 6, 1840, along the Mississippi River in Louisiana and Mississippi. The official death toll may not have included slaves, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
3. The “St. Louis Tornado” killed 255 people and injured 1,000 on May 27, 1896, in Missouri and Illinois. It had winds of between 207 mph and 260 mph.
4. The “Tupelo Tornado” killed 216 people and injured 700 on April 5, 1936, in the northeastern Mississippi city.
5. The “Gainesville Tornado” was a pair of storms that converged April 6, 1936, in Gainesville, Georgia, killing 203 people and injuring 1,600. The tornado destroyed four blocks and 750 houses in the northern Georgia town.
6. The “Woodward Tornado” wreaked havoc across parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas on April 9, 1947. The storm, which killed 181 people and injured 970, reportedly was more than a mile wide in places (previously cited as worst OK tornado).
7. The tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri, on May 22, 2011, killed 158 people and injured more than a thousand. The storm packed winds in excess of 200 mph and was on the ground for more than 22 miles.
8. The “Amite/Pine/Purvis Tornado” killed 143 people and injured 770 on April 24, 1908. The storm left only seven houses intact in Purvis, Mississippi, and also caused damage in Amite, Louisiana.
9. The “New Richmond Tornado” killed 117 people and injured 200 on June 12, 1899, in New Richmond, Wisconsin.
10. The “Flint Tornado” killed 115 people and injured 844 on June 8, 1953, in Flint, Michigan. The tornado was the deadliest twister ever recorded in the state.
Numbers four & five were back to back in 1936. Only other decade with two among the Top Ten was the 1890s. None occurred in the allegedly hot decades of the 1990s & 2000s, nor the cooler 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, but, presumably with less population (generally; OK lost from 1930-50), the 1890s, 1900s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s & 1950s suffered individual disasters killing over 100 to hundreds of people.
“Weather now has personality,”
Its all comparative..
The CAGW bletheren look at themselves. and in comparison, a dead newt would have more character. !!
These liars are hoping we mere sheeples don’t have a memory that spans back 20 years or they’ll be caught out. Unfortunately, it appears to be true. Everything people learned in science class has been erased by this scam. The majority of humans don’t appear smart enough to question such ridiculous claims of the CAGWist front.
“I guess, you know, if it starts raining frogs that’s probably the only thing we haven’t had so far.”
Frog rain has been reported on since Pliny The Elder, caused by waterspouts sucking them up.
But, what do facts matter to them, when they are trying to give weather “personality”?
I had to force myself to read that echo-chamber of doom crap. Sickening.
To be fair I think the AGW movement mainly is comprised of younger people/ scientists who have always needed an “ideology or Goal” to replace socialism which has failed everywhere especially when the creators of communism (Russia) decided it was after all just BS in the 80’s. As I mentioned I think about 10 years ago in this site the only thing that will stop it is the climate itself which people are now noticing ain’t changing. Slowly but surely less and less people are convinced. OK so lets say that in 5 years AGW believers will comprise 3% of the worlds population LOL
Now that the GHG climate sensitivity has been cut by 33% to 50%, we can start to embrace the beneficial impact higher CO2 will have for C3 plant productivity.
The doom-mongers can’t really be against increased plant productivity can they?
The issue can almost shift now to how much CO2 do we want in the atmosphere to maximize the biome’s productivity.
It will be good for everything (even weeds in your grass which might allow some communities to bring back 2,4-D). See how things could change with just a subtle change in a person’s viewpoint.
via mediahint.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jrv9l/Coast_Series_7_Peril_from_the_Seas/
The weather now has so much personality they give it personal names.
Bill Illis says:
May 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm
______________________
Yessirree, you make a point or two. Why, already, the decision has been made that we no longer need to protect California Condors, or Whooping Cranes, or Bald Eagles, or Golden Eagles or any other kind of raptor. Blessed CO2 mitigation…
clipe says:
May 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Coast ventures to the furthest flung reaches of the British Isles. Nick Crane tells the astonishing tale of the Great Storm of 1703.
My respect for the news media went out the window YEARS ago. Sorry, but most of what I’m hearing from the is rehashed propaganda. However, the internet has proven to still be an open channel for a wide range of information.
RE: Theo Goodwin says:
May 26, 2013 at 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…”
One response to that sort of logic is to state, “The most recent satellite data shows temperatures have dipped, and are a mere tenth of a degree above normal. Your child’s body varies more than that on any given day. Would you put your child in the hospital for a tenth of a degree? How about undergo amputation, which is what closing coal mines and erecting wind turbines amounts to, in an economic sense.”
Another response is: “Temperatures at any given spot usually vary between twenty and forty degrees on any given day. If your child’s temperature varied that much, your child would be dead. Could you please stop using the children to prop up your politics?”