Claim: 400 PPM CO2 gives the weather 'personality' of the extreme kind – rebuttal to CBS News Face the Nation

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:

CBS_News_UStemp

The data so far this year says otherwise:

USTemperature_2013

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.

Temp-Insolation[1]

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.

Latitude influence on mean monthly temperature. Mean monthly temperatures of five Northern Hemisphere locations with different latitudes. The graph suggests that monthly temperatures generally become higher as one moves toward the equator. Also, note that seasonal temperature variations between summer (June, July, and August) and winter (December, January, and February) become more extreme as latitude increases. (Image Copyright: Michael Pidwirny).
Latitude influence on mean monthly temperature. Mean monthly temperatures of five Northern Hemisphere locations with different latitudes. The graph suggests that monthly temperatures generally become higher as one moves toward the equator. Also, note that seasonal temperature variations between summer (June, July, and August) and winter (December, January, and February) become more extreme as latitude increases. (Image Copyright: Michael Pidwirny).

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_bymonth[1]

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

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse From Rhode Island Provides Erroneous Information To American Public in Global Warming Rant

Stunning map of NOAA data showing 56 years of tornado tracks sheds light on the folly of linking “global warming” to severe weather

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.

Source: http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-tornadoes/2013/05/24/21f39502-c329-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard M
May 26, 2013 7:33 pm

The feeling I am getting at various general websites is that people are fed up with this kind of alarmism. The more these lies are stated while the general population is experiencing cooler than normal conditions, the lower their credibility. These people are making caricatures of themselves. I’d call this another own goal. The average person is starting to wise up.

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 7:45 pm

rogerknights says:
May 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm
Good criticism of Heidi. The humidity levels are not higher.

May 26, 2013 7:52 pm

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.

No actual Scientist could use those words: “add additional heat” in any context unless they are talking about a cooking recipe or bunsen burner experiment. If CO2 could “add additional heat” to anything we could rewrite conservation of energy laws and start using CO2 in home heating. Heck, we could have CO2 winter parkas and socks and gloves and etc. If Heidi Cullen had an IQ above a valley girl she would have said CO2 ‘can delay the cooling of the sun-supplied heat’ in the atmosphere. With emphasis on delay because you can’t create more sun-supplied energy, you can only process what it sends us.
Heidi Cullen has to be among the dumbest people on Planet Earth. She has proven impenetrable to facts and even common sense. Heidi Cullen is an agenda driven activist and has no business being vaguely associated with Science. She should be editor for Omni magazine in the late 1970’s.

J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD (American Meteorological Society): … 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.

Completely stuck on stupid. There is no other way to describe these people. Here is what they are saying without ever really saying the exact words: ‘The CO2 levels of the Little Ice Age (and all the previous time periods!) are what we really need today. Period. We need those CO2 levels of the Little Ice Age (and all the previous time periods!) so that today’s weather will be as static and consistent and predictable as the climate during the Little Ice Age (and all the previous time periods!). Period.’ Now if those CO2 levels of the Little Ice Age (and all the previous time periods!) were as constant and unchanging as they say, how can they possibly account for all the dramatic climate swings that occurred during those times?
So we can further state that what they are really saying is this: ‘We need those CO2 levels of the Little Ice Age (and all the previous time periods!) so that today’s climate will be allowed to have dramatic swings similar to the shifts from Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age without any possible interferrence from human beings. Period.’ In a real sense they are religious cult worshipping a deity over human beings, their deity being a hypothetically unspoiled mother nature free to throw angry climate changes at the planet at her leisure. They are right on the cusp of being a full-out Jonestown death cult distributing cyanide to their fellow worshippers. In fact these despicable vermin already have blood on their hands.

J. MARSHALL SHEPHERD (American Meteorological Society): … I should send my degree back to Florida State University

Finally something uttered by the AGW cult that I can fully agree with.

May 26, 2013 7:54 pm

milodonharlani says May 26, 2013 at 5:41 pm
…this may have been offset by flimsier housing. Surely lots of ramshackle shacks existed in the first half of the last century, but at least they used nails instead of staples to attach roofs, & the less said about “manufactured homes”, the better.

Been studied. A Mr. Tim Marshall (a licensed P.E.) did some reports, write-ups on this subject after reviewing tornado storm damage to houses and see how the structure ‘failed’ if you will. One of his reports is cited below:
Lessons Learned From Analyzing Tornado Damage
See esp. paragraphs 5-8. Five is titled: “5. TYPICAL WOOD FRAME BUILDING FAILURES”
Paragraph 7, titled: “7. UNREINFORCED MASONRY PROBLEMS” is applicable to one of the schools that was demolished:

The absence of steel reinforcement in concrete block masonry makes such a system vulnerable to lateral wind loads. Even load-bearing block masonry walls have often collapsed owing to the lack of steel reinforcement and cell grouting.
Examples of such failures have been shown by Sparks et al. [1989] and Hogan and Karwoski [1990] in both tornado and hurricane damage.
Bond beams atop masonry walls have performed poorly in past windstorms. McDonald and Marshall [1983] had attributed the failure of an entire roof system to a failed bond beam system on a masonry structure. Failure initiated as the mortar joint below the bond beam failed in tension.

Commercial products (for home builders) that are meant to address some of the issues found by Tim Marshall during post-storm inspection of wood-frame (residential) structures:
http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/catalogs/c-hw12/C-HW12.pdf
Now, a direct hit by an EF4 or 5 tornado may decimate a house properly built according to recommendations, but, house survival at the periphery of such a tornado or in lesser tornadoes becomes a possibility rather than just another ‘damage statistic’.
.

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 8:07 pm

_Jim says:
May 26, 2013 at 6:31 pm
milodonharlani says May 26, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Maybe milodonharlani believes that if you live in Tornado Alley then you will get hit. It would seem that way but it is not. I lived in Tornado Alley for 18 years and was not hit. My parents lived there seventy years and were not hit. None of our dear relatives or friends were hit. Yet there were tornadoes all over the region every Spring. Tornadoes are rather limited events. Sure, some are a mile wide and stay on the ground for twenty miles. But compare that to a hurricane. A hurricane can be a 100 miles wide and have a track that is hundreds of miles long. I think that milodonharlani is imagining something more like a hurricane than a tornado. (Yes, my 1600 hours in a storm cellar was a tad excessive.)

Bill H
May 26, 2013 8:11 pm

There is a reason its nick name is “Slay the Nation”. Its whole purpose is propaganda to ensure we are enslaved…

Theo Goodwin
May 26, 2013 8:21 pm

Blade says:
May 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm
In other words, they are howling in full activist mode – maybe turbo. The end is near.

rogerknights
May 26, 2013 9:09 pm

Oops, I messed up my indentation above. here’s a corrected version:

JEFFREY KLUGER (TIME): 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.

And the slow transition to natural gas–funny he skipped that one.

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.

With windmills and solar panels? That hasn’t worked in windy, sunny Spain. See here, a commentary by a Spanish expert who formerly believed those were the solution: http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/01/Solar-Dreams/
Only a transition to nuclear will work.

May 26, 2013 9:10 pm

Theo Goodwin says May 26, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Maybe milodonharlani believes that if you live in Tornado Alley …

Yes, well, I probably wouldn’t take too well to the ‘hazards’ milodonharlani takes for granted in his (or her) life either! And these come in many forms and varieties besides just the ‘weather’ …
.

John F. Hultquist
May 26, 2013 9:25 pm

_Jim says:
May 26, 2013 at 6:58 pm “Let’s get real . . .

I guess you missed this: The above is deliberately short.
I was unsure if ‘Jack Hydrazine’ was just passing through or whether he was asking a question seriously and should be answered. Why not read Jack’s comment at 1:40 pm and then provide the answer you feel it deserves. Thanks.

milodonharlani
May 26, 2013 10:39 pm

In the places where I live, tornadoes are rare, but earthquakes, cyclones & other severe windstorms frequent.
I know how tornadoes differ from hurricanes, but at least the half dozen zones around the country in which any 100 sq mi area has been hit by three F2s or stronger storms more than three times in the past 50 years might economically encourage sounder construction, IMO.
I feel that any reasonable cost benefit analysis would find the expense justified, as would using rebar in new cinder block construction. Earthquake codes are expensive, but they’re why a 9 earthquake kills so many fewer people in Chile than a 7 in Haiti, despite being 100 times more energetic.
http://www.disastersafety.org/tornado/reality-of-tornadoes_ibhs/
Some people in Moore chose to build shelters after the 1999 tornado devastated the suburb, saving their own & neighbors’ lives:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/us/sutter-oklahoma-tornado-block
New York City IMO should have emulated Providence, RI & built a storm surge barrier in the 1960s, realizing that hurricanes would once again hit the region. The cost of repairing & cleaning up after Sandy, to say nothing of lives lost, exceeds the expense of a barrier.

Gail Combs
May 27, 2013 4:11 am

Olaf Koenders says:
May 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm
…. 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately that is true. 50% of the human race has IQ’s lower than 100…. and they vote. 14% of adults in the USA are functionally illiterate but I am sure they can manage to mark the ballot correctly if paid enough or threatened… Voter Fraud is Real

H.R.
May 27, 2013 5:48 am

“BOB SCHIEFFER: Well– well, Jeff, is there any consensus about what is causing this?”
Bob’s first question, right out of the gate, and he goes straight for consensus. I’m beginning to suspect that consensus causes CAGW.

CodeTech
May 27, 2013 6:04 am

Just for point of interest, tornadoes occur in Canada as well, farther north than many people realize. In fact, one of the worst was in Edmonton, which is the farthest North of any large city in North America. It happened on July 31, 1987. Although it was considered an F4, it was definitely an EF5, with peak wind speeds measured at 258 MPH.
Another was in Barrie, Ontario on May 31, 1985. Barrie is about an hour North of Toronto, and was the headquarters for Radio Shack (HUGE warehouse). When I was there for a course in 1989 they toured us through the devastated area, and that was sobering. Most of the time it was on the ground it was F3, but some areas had F4 damage.
There was also a horrific tornado at Pine Lake, Alberta, about halfway between Calgary and Edmonton.That one was July 14, 2000. My parents were in the vicinity for a concert, and several friends were at the campground that was most directly affected. It was an F3. I can personally attest that those clouds were visible from here, almost 100 miles away.
The only reason tornadoes aren’t as deadly here as in Tornado Alley is that there are fewer people and less property in the areas they frequent, but this is changing. My brother-in-law owns a small airplane, and when we fly I’m amazed at how many tornado tracks you can see from the air over Alberta. They’re especially obvious in forest areas. As more people move here and more build luxury homes in formerly uninhabited areas, expect the damage to increase… and expect people to claim that tornadoes are increasing.
Generally speaking, most cold fronts that power Tornado Alley come past here, so technically we’re the entrance to the Alley.
A scan through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_tornadoes
shows that there is a tremendous increase in reporting… although I admit some of the reports sound a bit ridiculous.

beng
May 27, 2013 7:43 am

Maybe a “personality”, but not one espoused by the warmers. Last 2 mornings here in western MD were 37F & 36F. Barely escaping frosts in late May…

John Tillman
May 27, 2013 9:14 am

A cartoon by Josh would be unseemly, given the terrible loss of life in Moore, OK, had Senators Boxer & Whitehouse not already shamelessly tried to exploit the tragedy by blaming the tornado on “climate change”.
So how about Gore as the Wizard of Oz & Boxer as the Wicked Witch of the West whose flying monkeys, led by Whitehouse and including Mann, pursue Dorothy & Toto, plus the Scarecrow, the Tin Man & Cowardly Lion, representing, as in the book, farmers, workers &, instead of William Jennings Bryan, Mitt Romney, on the gold-bricked road to the Emerald City, shining green upon a hill?
In Baum’s 1900 book, the slippers are silver. Oz is of course the abbreviation for ounce.
The 1890s had been a bad decade for tornadoes. It also saw the rise of the Populists, who wanted to debase the currency. Imaginary Bernanke Bucks unhinged not only from gold but reason have succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of bimetallists like Bryan in inflating the dollar supply, & most of the world is in a race to debase further their fictitious funny money.

Tom
May 27, 2013 9:17 am

Here in Michigan we’ve had 3 “non-summer” summers where people on the lack didn’t even take their boats out it was so cool. My daughter turned 20 on April 21st and every single year the trees burst into leaf one or two days before that. This year it was May 7th, 2 and a half weeks late. Anecdotal i know but interesting no less.

May 27, 2013 10:04 am

I am going to do what Anthony does: “I don’t even need to look at long-term data to falsify this nonsense, just looking at seasonal variations is more than enough.”
This from ask.com: “Tornadoes form during certain weather conditions. Tornadoes form when warm air mixes with cold, dry air during certain wind direction conditions. All weather conditions must meet certain requirements to form a tornado.”
I submit that tornados are more likely to form during that part of the year when temperatures are rising to maximize the possibility of the warm/cold air collisions. Hence, May and June would be most likely. Now, whether more/stronger tornadoes would form as the AVERAGE yearly temperature increases would need long-term data analysis…but we certainly would not want to go there, now would we?

u.k.(us)
May 27, 2013 10:36 am

I hate to gush, but, great thread everyone !

May 27, 2013 12:18 pm

“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.”
That’s been proven by this angry climate study: http://shpud.com/weather/main.php?g2_itemId=179

mark ro
May 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Carbon dioxide puts a spell on some people. You can recognize them by the dollar signs in their eyes. Carbon dioxide in action…..
http://www.dump.com/dramaticlipsync/

May 27, 2013 4:23 pm

Quoting Kenneth Trenberth of NCAR: “Of course tornadoes are very much a weather phenomenon. They come from certain thunderstorms, usually super-cell thunderstorms that are in a wind shear environment that promotes rotation. That environment is most common in spring across the US: when the storm track is just the right distance from the Gulf and other sources of moisture.”
So Anthony Watts’ argument and graphs mean nothing. If Mr. Watts wants to dispute the warming/tornado connection, he should use the long term data that he so casually dismisses.

rogerknights
May 27, 2013 6:02 pm

BOB SCHIEFFER: Doctor Cullen, there’s no question that it’s getting warmer.

Actually, there’s no question that its NOT getting warmer globally. According to various IPCC bigshots, the average global mean temperature has been flat for the past ten years, and there’s been no significant warming for the past 16. According to the Met Office, we can look forward to another five flat years, from 2013 through 2017.
The line I quoted, and the next one, which brought in the record-high US temperature of 2012 as proof that it’s getting warmer, were undoubtedly scripted for Schieffer by one of the environmental reporters or consultants affiliated with CBS. The MSM at work. (And we’re supposed to be wacky for looking askance at them.)

May 28, 2013 10:54 am

The sensors elsewhere around the world have been running around 270ppm, just as they have for some years.
The 400 comes from the sensors at Mauna Loa, which is conveniently near Mauna Kea/Kilauea Iki, which has been in a major eruptive cycle.
The sensors are measuring the outgassing from Kilauea.
To get an idea of how much gas it is, consider that in order of magnitude, volcanic gases typically run from water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide alone has been causing VOG, volcanic fog, on Oahu some 200 miles away for more than ten years. The recent upsurge in gases has caused parts of the Park to close.
Consistently, the sensors at Mauna Loa have read higher than the world’s average. It makes sense because they are mainly measuring Iki’s outgassing.
As such, it’s nothing less than criminal data misrepresentation to claim that the world is at 400ppm, with the claim that it’s man who did it.
REPLY: please point out what “sensors” are reading 270PPM, because I simply don’t believe your claim without hard data to show it. – Anthony

Reply to  Nabuquduriuzhur
May 28, 2013 3:02 pm