NOAA: The planet has a fever, and the U.S. had another record hurricane and tornado season

Posted on  

"NOAA: The planet has a fever, and the U.S. had another record hurricane and tornado season"

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual climate report tells the warming tale:

  • For November alone, the month is fourth warmest all-time globally.” This comes on the heels of last month’s report of the second warmest October on record. Since the deniers have become overly fond of 60-day trend lines (see here), one can safely conclude they will be reporting that the earth is a over-heating again.
  • The global land surface temperature for 2008 was the fifth warmest, with an average temperature 1.44 degrees F (0.80 degree C) above the 20th century mean of 48.1 degrees F (9.0 degrees C).” Looking at the land data alone is one way to factor out the cooling impact of the La Ni±a that gripped the Pacific in the first half of the year.

And the United States saw another record-breaking year for extreme storms:

  • The United States recorded a preliminary total of just under 1,700 tornadoes from January – November. This ranks 2008 second behind 2004 for the most tornadoes in a year, since reliable records began in 1953.
  • The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most costly on record in current dollars, after 2005 and 2004, and the fourth most active year since 1944. This was the first season with a major hurricane (Category 3 or above) each month from July through November.

Whatever year-to-year fluctuations there may be, the bottom line is the weather is getting hotter and more extreme, just as the science predicted it would.

UPDATE: Not everybody thinks the tornado data is reliable enough to draw any conclusions from, see this post by NYT‘s Andy Revkin.

Related Posts:

« »

9 Responses to NOAA: The planet has a fever, and the U.S. had another record hurricane and tornado season

  1. paulm says:

    The answer is NO.
    But the realization is causing many to move from disbelief to dispare..

    So many of my friends just dont realize or dont want to, what 2C rise in global temp means. Thing is its going to be probably around 3C or more.

    Time to give up on saving the planet?
    Doom and gloom climate change reports, gathering pessimism and a sense that time is running out – is it okay to admit that you feel like giving up on saving the planet?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2008/dec/17/climatechange

  2. groweg says:

    Dream on you guys. You say that November was the fourth warmest all-time globally and that 2008 was the fifth warmest. Take a look at:

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/noaa_and_nasa_estimate_2008_will_be_9th_warmest_for_the_globe_dont_buy_it1/

    Joe D’Aleo states that UAH MSU satellite data suggerst 2008 will end up about the 15th warmest in their 30 years of lower tropospheric data. The NASA, NOAA, and Hadley data bses are severely contaminated. Go to the above link to get some real science and enlighten yourselves on this topic.

    Meanwhile, here in Michigan the temperatures are decidedly below average as the have been for some months now. More cold and snow for this time of year than I have seen in my 30+ years in the area. Your credibility with this global warming nonsense is as low as the temperature.

    [JR: I’ll leave this revealing comment in because anybody who thinks their little spot on the Earth is special is … well, special. “It’s cold outside, so the planet can’t be warming!” Anyway, it is particularly laughable to have the UAH people criticize anyone else’s data, given how for many, many years they wouldn’t let anyone else analyze their data and they themselves mis-analyzed it to create the long-standing myth that the satellite data doesn’t show warming (see “Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?]

  3. groweg says:

    J.R. I think observing the weather outside my own window and generalizing about global climate has at least as much credibility as the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley datasets. Stay warm!

    [JR: If you “think” that, then you are the quintessential anti-scientific denier, and this is probably not the website for you.]

  4. Bob Wallace says:

    groweg –

    You seem to not have grasped the concept of “average”.

    Look at the figure on this page. Notice that where you live – Michigan did not experience a hot year. Then take a look at the upper right – lot hotter there.

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/17/nasa-another-brutally-hot-year-for-the-siberian-tundra/

    Now look at the yellow/orange/brown vs. shades of blue. Notice how some parts of the globe cooled while others warmed?

    Global warming adds up the temperatures from everywhere and reports the average higher.

    BTW, November/early December here? Very warm. No snow until last Saturday.

    Does that prove global warming? No.

    It’s just one little piece of the puzzle. It gets averaged in….

  5. mauri pelto says:

    This warm in a la nina year, makes me wary of what will happen in the next el nino.

  6. groweg says:

    Bob and J.R.

    I am fully aware of averages and of scientific methodology. I am also aware that there is a lot of questioning of the validity of the temperature datasets you are basing your assetions of global warming on. The link to the D’ Aleo article in my earlier post details some of the problems in the datasets showing the purported “warming.”

    The NASA, NOAA, and Hadley databases have no credibility.

    [JR: I assume you self-medicate, since if those databases have no credibility to you, then you can pretty much throw out the scientific method and all of modern medicine. I’m glad you have unmasked the conspiracy to fake the evidence that the Arctic has record melting, Greenland ice sheet has record melting, the inland glaciers have record melting.]

  7. darth says:

    well gee wilickers it’s been pretty warm this autumn where I live, so I guess that negates groweg’s data point.

    I love throw-away lines like this: “The NASA, NOAA, and Hadley data bses are severely contaminated.”

    Really? On what exactly is that statement based? You’re telling me that these people who do this stuff for decades professionally are wrong and you’re right? Uh huh, yeah, i’m buyin that…..

  8. Harold Brooks says:

    If you adjust for long-term changes in reporting practices, the 2008 tornado year comes after two below average years. There’s a paper in press in EOS discussing the 2008 season in historical perspective.

    I know of no papers in the literature that have predicted an increase in tornadoes with global warming. The NASA press release in the link above refers to a paper that talks about potential changes in the strongest updrafts in severe thunderstorms, but there’s weak evidence of a connection between the updraft strength and tornado occurrence. As far as intensity is concerned, if you look at the parameter that the paper says will change (updraft strength, which is related to the convective available potential energy in the model), intensity of tornadoes is not a function of it in the observed world.

  9. llewelly says:

    I love throw-away lines like this: “The NASA, NOAA, and Hadley data bses are severely contaminated.”

    Really? On what exactly is that statement based?

    Haven’t you heard? There are thousands of reports of black helicopters hovering suspiciously over weather stations all over the world.