2018 US tornadoes lowest in 65 years of record-keeping

From the NOAA Storm Prediction Center comes this inconvenient data that pretty much kills the “climate is making weather more severe” claim.

Get this – a record-low 759 tornadoes formed in the U.S. so far this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC). According to the SPC data, there were two fewer tornadoes than the previous annual record-low of 761.

Tornado activity has been unusually low in recent years which goes back 65 years to the early 1950s.

Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama-Huntsville wrote on his website:

“This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S., since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes…”

The annual tornado trends chart is a result of the following methodology applied to the SPC observed tornado dataset by Harold Brooks, NSSL and Greg Carbin, SPC. As tornado reports come in and are reviewed, the actual, or “smoothed”, tornado numbers will be added to this chart.

In related news, meteorologist Steve Bowen noted on Twitter Wednesday

Today marks the 1,961st consecutive day without an F5/EF5 tornado in the United States. Currently ranks as the second-longest streak since 1950.

And added this graph:

That certainly blows a hole in alarmist claims that climate change is making severe weather worse.

And the trend, when adjusted for increases in population, reporting, and improved technology is simply FLAT as this SPC generated graph shows:

This graph only goes to 2007, hopefully they will have an update.

 

 

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “2018 US tornadoes lowest in 65 years of record-keeping

  1. Is there a resource for similar sever weather events for other parts of the globe, e.g. for typhoons/monsoons, or tornado activity in Asia?

  2. Who wants to bet that the same characters who assure us that 30 years is long enough to establish a trend in the arctic, will now tell us that 65 years is not enough time to establish a trend in tornadoes.

          • The “consensus” thought Trump would be a better President than Hillary, look where we are now.

          • No, the “consensus” (popular vote) thought Hillary should be president. See what happens when you ignore the “consensus?”

          • No, the “consensus” (popular vote) thought Hillary should be president. See what happens when you ignore the “consensus?”

            “Good things happen!”

          • That is 2016…after more and more data has embarrassed them. Scientists sang a much different tune in the past. Here are a few examples.

            James Hansen in 2007:
            https://www.wired.com/2007/08/climate-expert/

            “…NASA scientist and Columbia University professor James Hansen is widely acknowledged as the godfather of global warming science, so it made sense to ask him whether climate change caused yesterday’s tornado in Brooklyn. Responded Hansen,

            No, you cannot blame individual events like that on climate change, as it was possible for them to occur even without the human-made changes to the atmosphere. However, it is fair to ask whether the human changes have altered the likelihood of such events. There the answer seems to be yes. Storms driven largely by latent heat, and that includes thunderstorms, are expected to become stronger as the air becomes warmer and contains more moisture. Global warming does cause just such a tendency…”

            Also from 2007, from GISS (lead was Tony Del Genio) https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/moist_convection.html

            “…In the warmer climate simulation there is a small class of the most extreme storms with both strong updrafts and strong horizontal winds at higher levels that occur more often, and thus the model suggests that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common with warming…”

          • Too early for a consensus? What about a model consensus?
            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/climate/tornadoes-climate-change.html

            …climate change may already be affecting tornadoes, Dr. [Noah] Diffenbaugh said. “It’s just that we can’t distinguish the signal from the noise,” he said…

            …When scientists run climate models assuming global average temperatures of one degree Celsius (two degrees Fahrenheit) higher than preindustrial levels — where the Earth currently stands — some show an uptick in tornado frequency, but others do not. That disagreement, however, fades away at two degrees Celsius of warming, the threshold that the Paris climate agreement is intended to avoid. All the models agree that the frequency of tornadoes will increase by that point…

            We MAY not being seeing it now simply because we haven’t approached 2 deg C yet, but it could be happening even though the data says otherwise. But just wait, say the models! If not in your lifetime, it will happen to your children and/or grandchildren!

          • RACookPE1978, “good” and “bad” depend on your point of view. I personally thing ballooning the federal deficit by reducing taxes and increasing spending is a “bad” thing.

          • Remy, why can’t you guys give up. Playing by the same rules, your gal lost.
            If this had been a popular vote election, both camps would have run vastly different campaigns.

            Like socialists everywhere, whenever they lose, they seek to change to rules after the fact.

            Regardless, there is no evidence that had only legal voters voted, that Hillary would have won.

          • Remy, why is it that ballooning deficits are only bad when there is a Republican in the White House.
            Your boy Obama ran up more debt than every single president before him, going all the way back to the founding, and nobody on the left complained.

          • MarkW says: ” there is no evidence that had only legal voters voted”

            There is no evidence that illegals voted either.
            ….
            Sorry MarkW, but you need evidence of illegal voting which doesn’t exist. Pushing a meme without evidence is laughable.

            Until you provide some, you know who won the popular vote (aka “consensus”)

            PS…a good businessman would not pay $150,000 for a one night stand. There are much less expensitive alternatives to choose from.

          • MarkW: “why is it that ballooning deficits are only bad when there is a Republican in the White House.”

            Because the Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal restraint.

            LOL, “borrow and spend” versus “tax and spend.” ……tax and spend is better for the deficit/debt.

            Just remember what happened to the economy the last GOP president we had was….I believe they call it the “Great Recession”

          • the data collection has inhomogenieties (sic) that are hard to remove

            Unlike our historical temperature records which seem to be pretty easy to remove. Just “homogenize” a little here and infill a little there and adjust some over there and make up some data and bingo … inhomogeneities removed!

          • “The “consensus” thought Trump would be a better President than Hillary, look where we are now.

            Lets see.

            The guy who wrote this post didnt even consider ONE science article. He GENERALIZED about climat extremes when the actual science writes about SPECIFIC extremes. And further, even when we have one or two papers claiming X, the best approach is to WAIT and see. wait and see what other scientists come up with.
            After sufficient time, you can establish a consensus. The fact of a consensus doesnt make it TRUE, its true because of the science, because of the data. What the consensus shows is that over time no one has come up with anything that explains the data in a better way.

            This is NOT like voting where you count heads. This is a prolonged debate IN THE LITERATURE, and after prolonged debate in the literature, a common view emerges.

          • “That is 2016…after more and more data has embarrassed them. Scientists sang a much different tune in the past. Here are a few examples.”

            yes Micheal INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES do not represent battle tested ideas.
            thats why we dont look at SINGLE PAPERS.
            thats why we do metastudies that look at ALL THE LITERATURE that stands the test of time.
            thats why science is SELF CORRECTING.

            but hey, you want to slay strawmen

            have it it

            That’s why scientists ignore what you say, because you dont address ALL THE LITERATURE, you selective pick what was wrong. Well guess what
            thats a stupid pet trick because science is always wrong, always improving, always correcting.

          • Steven Mosher October 4, 2018 at 10:18 pm

            After prolonged debate, the geocentric Ptolemaic system was accepted as consensus science.

            After prolonged debate, phlogiston was accepted as consensus science.

            After prolonged debate, that continents don’t move was accepted as consensus science.

            Your beloved belief system that CO2 is the control knob on climate will go the way fo Ptolemaic epicycles, phlogiston and immoveable continents. Sorry, but you are on the losing side of scientific history, because your naive faith isn’t science.

          • “Unlike our historical temperature records which seem to be pretty easy to remove. Just “homogenize” a little here and infill a little there and adjust some over there and make up some data and bingo … inhomogeneities removed!”

            Inhomogenieties are never removed.

            Its pretty simple; Take MMTS. you have one sensor (LIG) and you replace it with another
            (MMTS) you do a side by side comparison.

            you find out that MMTS is cooler by .24 +-.05

            you can remove SOME of the bias by correcting for this, but you can never remove all of the bias. And you can also TEST the objectivity of the adjustment methods.

            See the GHCN v4 V&V documents.

            You can try to do this with tornados, in fact the chart shown here does try.

            the stats are not as robust so conservative scientists make note of that.

            you missed that I guess,

          • “The changes in observation and recording of tornadoes only really affects the most insignificant events. No misses an EF4 or EF5 !”

            watch the over confident skeptic

            Prior to 1950 if an EF5 happens in an unpopulated area who reports it?

            think carefully

          • “Steven Mosher October 4, 2018 at 10:18 pm

            After prolonged debate, the geocentric Ptolemaic system was accepted as consensus science.

            After prolonged debate, phlogiston was accepted as consensus science.

            After prolonged debate, that continents don’t move was accepted as consensus science.

            Your beloved belief system that CO2 is the control knob on climate will go the way fo Ptolemaic epicycles, phlogiston and immoveable continents. Sorry, but you are on the losing side of scientific history, because your naive faith isn’t science.”

            Nobody believes c02 is THE control knob. Its is ONE OF the control knobs, the most important one. So your first fail is killing a strawman.

            Second, no scientist believes in AGW, BECAUSE OF the consensus. They believe it because of physics and data. The Consensus is a RESULT, not a cause of the belief.

            Third, every consensus is SUBJECT TO revision. That is the inherent character of science: provisional truth, subject to change.

            but consensus science does not change, because you merely say so. It changes when someone proposes a better explanation. Pointing out that science progressess, is no great insight on your part. do some science instead.

          • Mosher:
            ***Nobody believes c02 is THE control knob. Its is ONE OF the control knobs, the most important one. So your first fail is killing a strawman.****
            WRONG! MOST OF THE CAGW PEOPLE BELIEVE IT OR STATE IT (NOT MY CHOICE)

            **Second, no scientist believes in AGW, BECAUSE OF the consensus. They believe it because of physics and data. The Consensus is a RESULT, not a cause of the belief.**
            WRONG AGAIN! THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA, JUST A graph. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE AS THEY MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US TO BELIEVE THEM AS THEY HAVE SCANT EVIDENCE.

            **Third, every consensus is SUBJECT TO revision. That is the inherent character of science: provisional truth, subject to change.**
            I AGREE, THEY REVISE IT AS THE WEATHER CHANGES. FIRST, THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO SNOW IN ENGLAND DUE TO WARMING (DR. VINER), NOW WARMING CAUSES SNOW. COLD CAUSED THE ARCTIC VORTEX, NOW WARMING CAUSES IT. AND ON AND ON.

            **but consensus science does not change, because you merely say so. It changes when someone proposes a better explanation. Pointing out that science progressess, is no great insight on your part. do some science instead.**
            HAHAHAHA. WRONG AGAIN. BETTER EXPLANATION=DIFFERENT EXCUSE.

            AS YOU TOLD SOMEONE HERE – READ MORE COMMENT LESS STEVE. AMEN.

          • Remy, Remy, Remy. Why do you have to lie about things that are so easily checked.
            That there were illegal voters has been proven.

          • Prior to 1950 if an EF5 happens in an unpopulated area who reports it?

            think carefully

            Wait a minute. There are extremely large areas of the world that has no land or sea based temperature recording device RIGHT NOW, yet somehow the temperatures are reported to within a degree. How does that happen? think carefully.

          • Was having a late night coffee in OZ watching the US senate vote on Kavanaugh which got up. They were also saying Trumps supporters were coming out with cash because they have had enough of the left. I wonder how Remmy will go if they do well in the midterms or probably more pain if he gets elected again.

          • rbabcock:
            Not just to within a degree, but to within a 10th of a degree.
            Not only is most of the earth not even measured, but the result is more accurate than any of the thermometers being used. (Especially 50 to 200 years ago.)

        • FFS

          http://www.climatecentral.org/news/tornado-outbreaks-becoming-more-extreme-20926

          Let me explain how most WUWT readers read.

          They read the post.

          They Think? How does this FIT into my world view and then they pile on and agree.
          hence the echo chamber.

          The approach I sugest you use at all sites ( AGW or otherwise ) is the opposite.

          start by SUSPENDING JUDGEMENT.

          dont believe. dont disbelieve.

          Suspend judgment ( like Pyhrro )

          Then do what you are suppose to do. Check sources, go to the data.

          read more comment less

          • “…Then do what you are suppose to do. Check sources, go to the data…”

            The data is as plain as the nose on your face in this case. We’ve seen the data. You acted like you had something to add.

          • Once again, Mosh decides he’s going to read minds and insult anyone who doesn’t worship as he does.

            Then again, when the science doesn’t back you, you need something to distract the proles.

          • “FFS”, “Check sources, go to the data”

            Been there , done that ( 2013 ):
            https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tornado_compare_ef2341.png
            https://climategrog.wordpress.com/tornado_compare_ef234-2/

            instead of hiding by claims of” homogeneous” follow you own advice.

            There is a very clear change after 1974 in all categories. The post war cooling period was far more active than the later warming period.

            The data shows the fallacy of the frequent claims that a warming of the climate will lead to more frequent and more intense storms. At least the evidence is clear that this is not true for tornadoes in the continental U.S.A.

            Having been slandered, snipped, edited and banned on every AGW site I bothered to comment on I have long since given up even bothering to read them. Bigotry is not how knowledge advances.

            At least on WUWT , if I disagree, I can say so and the comment will not disappear 5 minutes later.

          • “The data shows the fallacy of the frequent claims that a warming of the climate will lead to more frequent and more intense storms. At least the evidence is clear that this is not true for tornadoes in the continental U.S.A.”

            Execpt the science does not MAKE THAT CLAIM ABOUT TORNADOS , you clown

            IPCC ar4, ar5, and SPEX

            all say with regard to tornados that it is inconclusive

            But now you are the certain one.

            Publish a paper. Even on an open source journal. See how it stands up to criticism, from experience folks
            not on a blog that clowns read.

            heck, you want help getting published?
            I’ll help you get it published.

            you wont try, you dont have the stones, you’ll swim around in this tiny pool, guppy

          • Great advice, Mosher! That is precisely how I became skeptical of a climate crisis 29 years ago. My continued reading and constant checking of the data has made it clear than ever: there is no crisis.

        • Mosh: .

          Second, no scientist believes in AGW, BECAUSE OF the consensus.

          Very many scientists have a do do exactly that. They (naively) trust experts in other fields.

          There have been several scientists who had a nasty surprise when they took the time to verify the evidence. Once well known example being your co-author at BEST. Judith Curry.

          I assume that you are aware of her position so that claim in not only wrong it is dishonest.

          • “Very many scientists have a do do exactly that. They (naively) trust experts in other fields.”

            Exactly. And when those whose belief is so founded take a look at the so-called science basis for AGW, they become skeptical very quickly.

      • “What they say” NOW, after many “Oh shite” moments and a need for CYA? Or what the science used to say?

        Here’s a famous/infamous “climate scientist” and what he has to say, even with all of the data showing otherwise…“If you’re a betting person — or the insurance or reinsurance industry, for that matter — you’d probably go with a prediction of greater frequency and intensity of tornadoes as a result of human-­caused climate change.” -Michael Mann

  3. Is there a reliable resource for other severe weather across the globe, e.g. typhoons/monsoons and tornado activity in Asia?

  4. Oh! dear.
    Events in the real world are just not working out for alarmists at the moment.
    This September has seen the highest ever N American snow cover extent recorded since the record began in 1967.

    • Yeah but they changed their story on that – from (and I’m paraphrasing) “The children aren’t going to know what snow is” (when we were having winters with little snowfall) to “Heavier snowfall is “consistent with” global warming” (when we started having winters where we getting BURIED with snow).

      So you see, no matter what happens, it’s AGW.

      Which is how you know it’s complete and utter BS.

  5. I wonder what is the driver for more or fewer? Not temperature alone, not ENSO alone, not the sun alone, but likely many things, each a bit random, with some feedback loops within and gains variable, I suppose.

    • John
      l think the fact that there has been fair amount of blocking highs over the USA this summer may have been a factor. Also the jet stream has been fairly northern tracking and zonal during the summer which reduces the wind shear that helps tornadoes to form. But that’s just my best guess, as have not followed to closely what’s been going on.

      • We can get big tornado outbreaks when the jet stream is coming in from the southwest on a line from say Phoenix Arizona to Chicago Illinois, and then advances as a diagonal across the country. And along that jet stream strong storms will form along with strong tornados.

        The main jet stream this year has been blowing west to east across the northern tier of states, and it’s not really at the right angle to generate very many strong storms. Local areas along this jetstream can build up some strong storms but you don’t get as much activity this way. Storms that move from south to north are the weakest storms. The storms that move southwest to northeast are the strongest and if they have a jet stream driving them from behind then they can get really strong..

        • Another thing about tornados: During extended heatwaves, we don’t get many tornados because when you have a high-pressure system hoving overhead for an extended period of time (which is what causes heatwaves), the high-pressure system prevents low-pressure storm fronts from entering the area covered by the high-pressure system. So under these circumstances, if you don’t get storm fronts coming through your area, then you don’t get any tornados. What you do get is high heat and drought.

  6. I well remember the climate alarmist news media hyping the higher 2008 tornado year with ignorant claims almost every night about global warming creating another tornado. Complete alarmist garbage. Disgraced news “maker upper” Brian Williams was the champion of this alarmist garbage.

    With resent years declining dramatically the news media has gone silent about most tornadoes unless it’s a really big one. The media of course had been absolutely quiet about the declining trend.

    The complete idiocy of climate alarmism was clearly on display for all to see back in those good ole days.

  7. What claims about extreme weather?

    specifically, citable scientific claims? what claims? where? by who? specifically

    ya, ya, Al gore said, Mann said, ya ya climate extremist said, blah blah blah

    Stick to the science. published science or sanctioned reviews of the science.

    Day to day you will see clowns in the media expressing a single view. ignore them
    You cant criticize the science without focusing on the actual science rather than news clippings from
    individuals. what kind of skeptic gets their science from the news?

    Start here with a review of the science and then follow the footnotes to the real science

    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/9/

    or here

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf

    “Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability (including phenomena
    such as El Niño), and natural decadal or multi-decadal variations in the climate provide the backdrop for
    anthropogenic climate changes. Even if there were no anthropogenic changes in climate, a wide variety of natural
    weather and climate extremes would still occur. [3.1]”

    “Many factors affect confidence in observed and projected changes in extremes. Our confidence in observed
    changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of available data and the availability of studies analyzing
    these data. It consequently varies between regions and for different extremes. Similarly, our confidence in projecting
    changes (including the direction and magnitude of changes in extremes) varies with the type of extreme, as well as
    the considered region and season, depending on the amount and quality of relevant observational data and model
    projections, the level of understanding of the underlying processes, and the reliability of their simulation in models
    (assessed from expert judgment, model validation, and model agreement). Global-scale trends in a specific extreme
    may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regionalscale
    trends, depending on the geographical uniformity of the trends in the specific extreme. ‘Low confidence’ in
    observed or projected changes in a specific extreme neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this
    extreme. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.3; Box 3-2; Figures 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10]”

    There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring
    systems. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to
    more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts
    have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.
    There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
    frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited
    in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is
    low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these
    changes. It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea
    level in the late 20th century. [3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3; Tables 3-1, 3-2]

    “There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
    increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
    to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
    that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is
    likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in
    mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical
    mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide
    only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic
    influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,
    3.4.4, 3.5.3; Table 3-1]”

    “Thunderstorms, tornadoes, and related phenomena are not well
    observed in many parts of the world. Tornado occurrence since 1950 in
    the United States, for instance, displays an increasing trend that mainly
    reflects increased population density and increased numbers of people
    in remote areas (Trenberth et al., 2007; Kunkel et al., 2008). Such trends
    increase the likelihood that a tornado would be observed. A similar
    problem occurs with thunderstorms. Changes in reporting practices,
    increased population density, and even changes in the ambient noise
    level at an observing station all have led to inconsistencies in the
    observed record of thunderstorms. ”

    When folks talk about extreme events, just tell refer them to the IPCC reports.

    • “Thunderstorms, tornadoes, and related phenomena are not well
      observed in many parts of the world. [Tornado occurrence since 1950 in
      the United States, for instance, displays an increasing trend] that mainly
      reflects increased population density and increased numbers of people
      in remote areas (Trenberth et al., 2007; Kunkel et al., 2008).”

      So is the IPPC lying to us since the data above shows a decreasing trend??

      Oh I forgot about all of the infilled guessed data that was added….

    • Scientists started to back-pedal with tornados years ago…even before they got the message with hurricanes.

      But whenever one hits, the piling-on about climate change starts anew.

    • Day to day you will see clowns in the media expressing a single view. ignore them

      EXCUSE ME?

      Are you quite serious? Are the carbon taxes that are being applied in concert with the science? Or with the media clowns? Are electricity rates sky rocketing in concert with the science? Or the media clowns? Are tax payer funded solar farms / windmill farms / electric cars / and a host of “green” projects sprouting up all about in concert with the science? Or the media clowns? Do children come home from school worried about their futures in concert with the science? Or the media clowns? Shall I go on?

      Fact is that alarmist media is in the thrall of alarmist scientists and the politicians are succumbing to idiotic decisions based not on the science, but on the media clowns you say we should ignore.

      I say ignore the people who are f***ing with your livelihood at your peril.

      Oh wait… who do you work for again?

      • Agreed! The propaganda needs to be exposed and ridiculed until it is rejected by those who haven’t the interest or the will to go and “read IPCC reports.”

    • Steven Mosher

      Hubert Lamb reckoned there was probably more tornado activity during the LIA, what is your opinion?

    • Mosher, you seem to have a weird twist on reality as to what goes on here. We DO look at the science. No one here has a problem with the science because it shows NO discernable manmade climate change. (As a note, you can make models based on science, but the output of models is not science. It is, at best, a hypothesis which could possibly be studied by science).

      Our problems are with the SCIENTISTS, a few of whom are mentioned above, who distort, exaggerate, and mislead people, claiming their statements are backed-up by the science. When we call them on their vapor-science, we are called the d-word. It is THEY who need to look at the science, not us. When they get on TV and say xyz is worse because of climate change, THEY are the ones not looking at the science.

      • Well said.

        As Michael Crichton so aptly put it, (paraphrasing) “When science disagrees with observation, it’s not science.”

    • Steve Mosher wrote, “What claims about extreme weather?”

      James Hansen entitled his 2009 book, “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity Here’s the cover:
      https://sealevel.info/Hansen_book_cover_798x1231.png

      The prediction that Climate Change will cause stronger and more frequent extreme weather events is a central tenet of the Climate Cult Faith, and Hansen was one of its loudest early promoters. In his book he claimed that global warming would warm higher latitude oceans less than lower latitudes, which would cause stronger storms.

      Here’s Hansen on Letterman, plugging his book and explaining how climate change will cause worsening storms; it’s at 7 minutes 25 seconds in the video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOKBOFLhgqM#t=7m25s

      Hansen said that the “increasing temperature gradient [between high and low latitudes] is going to drive stronger storms” as lower latitudes warm faster than higher latitudes. (He seems to have been unaware of the fact that half a decade earlier, in 2004, the Arctic Impact Climate Assessment already discussed “amplification” of global warming in the Arctic, and reported that, “Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades.” Or perhaps he’s just so smart that he doesn’t need evidence to inform his knowledge.)

      A few weeks before Hansen’s book hit the streets, Al Gore published his own book, “Our Choice: a plan to solve the climate crisis,” with air-brushed-in hurricanes all over the cover (including one rotating the wrong way).

      Kids are being taught this nonsense in public secondary schools and colleges, and contrary opinions are being systematically suppressed when possible, and ridiculed when not, “for the sake of the planet.” Most journalists come out of J-schools fully indoctrinated — really, there’s no better word for it — in the tenets of climate alarmism, including the extreme weather myth. Most of them are utterly convinced that extreme weather is caused by anthropogenic climate change. They are certain that anyone who rides out a severe storm yet remains unconvinced that manmade climate change is a crisis is at the very least “biased,” if not a complete idiot, or an oil company shill.

      It’s easy to see where they “learn” such nonsense. The Big Lie is endlessly repeated by leftist academicians and “science communicators.” E.g, a couple of days ago the University of Exeter blasted out a press release / article entitled, “Experiencing extreme weather is not enough to convince climate change skeptics.”

      Excerpt:

      Oct. 2, 2018 – Experiencing extreme weather is not enough to convince climate change skeptics that humans are damaging the environment, a new study shows. …
      Dr Ben Lyons, from the University of Exeter, who led the research, said: “”Extreme weather plays a limited long-term role in forming people’s beliefs about climate change. Instead, their views and beliefs can alter the way they perceive the weather. We have found when an extreme weather event is ambiguous, as with polar vortex and drought, people are more likely to see the event through a partisan lens…
      The University of Exeter, University of Michigan and University of Texas research found that Republicans were less likely to report experiencing a polar vortex, while those exposed to liberal media were more likely.
      However the weather can be sometimes so extreme that it overshadows personal views…
      Dr Lyons said: “Very extreme weather accompanied by constant media coverage is harder for people to deny. But on the other end of the scale, droughts can take longer to have an effect, so people have some difficulty perceiving their onset and this may allow them to bring their biases to the table.”

      This drek is what passes for scholarship, in liberal universities. It’s a summary of peer-reviewed research, just published in the journal, Environmental Communications. (“Enduring Extremes? Polar Vortex, Drought, and Climate Change Beliefs,” doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1520735 )

      • Terrific summary of the sorry state of the highly politicized and over-hyped “climate science” field. It’s sickening how people are being indoctrinated with this sh!t.

      • Outstanding. Regardless of the science the hypesters have hijacked the airwaves and used the half truths to attempt to influence public opinion and thus public policy. Mosher has succumbed to the oldest political trick in the book- he has been co-opted. He knows it but is struggling with it subconsciously.
        The mounting evidence of falsification of the CAGW horror predictions is getting to him. That’s why he lashes out with these incoherent rants.

    • Sorry, but “published” and “sanctioned” have been degraded by all the climate science shenanigans to the point where they have become all but meaningless. The “game” has been rigged to exclude any point of view the Climate Nazis don’t like for the most part, so the appeal to authority is more akin to an appeal to accept the group-think.

    • Mosher said,” When folks talk about extreme events, just tell refer them to the IPCC reports.**
      Sure, so we get the WAFFLE WORDS – LIKELY, EVIDENCE, LOW, MEDIUM, CONFIDENCE, ETC.
      However, no real science as Mosher tried to imply. The lead writers have put their OPINION into the summary.
      So as usual Mosher is grasping at thin air.

  8. Strawman murder at WUWT!

    Live coverage at the top of the hour.

    (You have a problem with real people?) MOD

  9. Despite hundreds of millions of years of widely-swinging climate cycles, myopic Millennials believe extreme weather events only began when they were old enough to witness them on TV.

  10. And the trend, when adjusted for increases in population, reporting, and improved technology is …

    Anthony, I instinctively ignore any claims with that many caveats and qualifiers. It’s usually a sure sign of statistical manipulation to support a preconceived position. Maybe you could at least say where that graph comes from and who made this claim.

    I doubt all this ‘adjustment’ is needed. You simply eliminate all the weaker events that are subject to changes in observation. No one misses an EF4/5 event.

    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tornado_compare_ef2341.png
    https://climategrog.wordpress.com/tornado_compare_ef234-2/

    PS is it still possible to get an image to show directly? How? thx.

    • As I conclude in the above linked article:

      There is a very clear change after 1974 in all categories. The post war cooling period was far more active than the later warming period.

      The data shows the fallacy of the frequent claims that a warming of the climate will lead to more frequent and more intense storms. At least the evidence is clear that this is not true for tornadoes in the continental U.S.A.

      Not only is the unattributed, manipulated data questionable, it’s conclusions are clearly wrong. It’s not “flat”, there is notably less tornado activity since 1975.

      • The great climate shift of 1976 created a warmer world and for a couple of decades we have been on this high plateau with fewer tornadoes.

        We can expect a return to the 1950s and 60s any minute now, blame the meandering jet stream.

    • RFromOz: Maybe where YOU live. I have just as many now as I did formerly! I have seen no reduction in Sharknados in my area. I’ve checked the long-term and short term data…

      Oh, BTW, still 0.

  11. It’s worse than we thought – now there’s less bad weather events to blame on Climate Change (TM)./sarc

  12. Mosh:
    **Prior to 1950 if an EF5 happens in an unpopulated area who reports it?

    think carefully**
    Look in the mirror. That statement makes all your current work and statements nonsense.

  13. “This graph only goes to 2007, hopefully they will have an update.”

     
    hopefully they don’t get bored with presenting flatlined graphs.

  14. [quote Steve Mosher] “Nobody believes c02 is THE control knob. Its is ONE OF the control knobs, the most important one. So your first fail is killing a strawman.”

    And your fist fail is assuming what is known in a courtroom as “facts not in evidence.” There is NOT A SCRAP OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CO2 DRIVES TEMPERATURE. NONE. Such a notion is NOTHING MORE THAN HYPOTHETICAL BULLSHIT. If you have some proof of CO2’s supposed “climate driving power,” then it’s time to allow it to see the light of day.

    Where is the climate driving power of the “most important control knob” in the Earth’s climate history??

    https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/nova_past_climate3.gif

    Looks like temperature is completely indifferent to CO2 level and as to whether CO2 levels are rising, falling, or stable.

    [quote Steve Mosher] “Second, no scientist believes in AGW, BECAUSE OF the consensus. They believe it because of physics and data. The Consensus is a RESULT, not a cause of the belief.”

    First, there is no “consensus;” there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the notion of CAGW. Not that this matters one bit, because consensus is antithetical to science. The mere fact that the Climate Nazis endlessly refer to it as some kind of meaningful cornerstone of the so-called “science” basis for AGW tells anyone smart enough to think for themselves that said “science” is WEAK, UTTER GARBAGE. Because if they had good science nobody would need to talk about “consensus” to try and drown out opposing viewpoints.

    Second, those who “believe it” certainly aren’t basing their belief on “physics and data,” since the Earth’s paleoclimate history shows NO relationship between CO2 and temperature on geologic time scales (hundreds of millions of year, Geocarb reconstructions), and shows temperature driving CO2 levels, NOT the other way around, on shorter time scales (tens of thousands of years, ice core reconstructions, which show CO2 FOLLOWING temperature, like a DOG on a LEASH, up AND down, with a time lag of ~800 years).

    Third, if it were actual science, “belief” wouldn’t be required; the “science” would speak for itself and would withstand scrutiny without excuses.

    [quote Steve Mosher] “Third, every consensus is SUBJECT TO revision. That is the inherent character of science: provisional truth, subject to change.

    If the science is wrong, it’s wrong. It isn’t “truth” until the gatekeepers of a given paradigm finally are forced to admit they don’t know what they’re talking about.

    [quote Steve Mosher] “but consensus science does not change, because you merely say so. It changes when someone proposes a better explanation. Pointing out that science progressess, is no great insight on your part. do some science instead.”

    Nobody needs to provide a “better explanation” in order to show the so-called “consensus” explanation is wrong. All they have to do is point out the mistakes, the fallacies, the malfeasance, the misapplied statistical techniques, the data fiddling without justification, etc. ad nauseum. The so-called “consensus science” is crap. Extraordinary claims, especially when used as justification for extraordinary and economically ruinous actions, require extraordinary PROOF, not speculation and models which ASSUME pet hypotheses to be facts.

  15. Wrote the Mosh:
    “but consensus science does not change, because you merely say so. It changes when someone proposes a better explanation.”

    Once again, the climate alarmists demonstrate that they can’t even do simple science.

    You don’t have to come up with a better theory in order to show that the current theory is full of holes.
    Even first year science students know that much.

  16. Darn, and I wasted all of my retirement 401k and everything with solar panels and windmills to save the USA from Cat 6 hurricanes and F6 tornadoes of the future. I was also thinking that all the Coal generating plants were going to shut down soon. WOW

  17. Seems to be a lot of Steven Mosher saying, “But, but, but climate science is different.”

    People like him love pointing put how science is supposed to work, then lead you to believe that climate science is following the scientific method. Even after being shown example upon example of the breakdown of the scientific method in climate science Steven Mosher, and others, still cling to the idea that “This is how science works.”

  18. I would say this year is merely a low tornado count year, not a record-breaking or record-pushing low one due to the nature of the “inflation adjustment”. I followed through a link in a graphic published in the Dr. Roy Spencer article, this link being https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html

    The inflation adjustment is based on the linear trend from 1954 to 2007, without concern for whether the inflation trend is from an actual increase in tornadoes (may not have happened at all, ones F2/EF2 and stronger decreased in occurrence) or from improved detection of them. This inflation adjustment is applied as if the linear trend continues being valid after 2007. I think this is not valid, because the improvement of detection slowed down after the WSR-88D (named in part for the year 1988) doppler radar network was largely completed in 1997, and slowed down even more after each of its upgrades generally contributed to a trend of diminishing returns as the improvements continued, with its most recent significant upgrade (dual polarization) being completed in 2013. I think the inflation adjustment in recent years has been excessive, although I see all years so far after 2011 as actually being low-tornado years.

    • Donald – look at the synoptic setups for tornado formation. The changes are indicative of climate change.

  19. “Today marks the 1,961st consecutive day without an F5/EF5 tornado in the United States. Currently ranks as the second-longest streak since 1950.”

    Is that an indicator of climate change?

Comments are closed.