Fewer Tornadoes in 2012

September 26th, 2012 at 12:48 am by under Bill's Blog, Weather

    Click on the graphic or click here to enlarge.   NOAA/Storm Prediction Center released this statement:  ““After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected normal. The preliminary total of 757 tornadoes is about 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a typical year. This chart shows that in late 2011, the annual running total was over 400 tornadoes above normal. This depicts the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next.”   The state with the most tornadoes this year has been Kansas with 145 (or 19.2% of U.S. tornadoes).  Second is Texas (100), followed by Kentucky (64) and Alabama (61).  Michigan has reported 7 tornadoes in 2012 (none in the WOOD viewing area), 114 reports of hail 1″ or greater, and 252 reports of wind damage.  Forty of the 68 tornado fatalities this year occurred on March 2nd.  Of the 68 fatalities, 48 were people who were in mobile homes, 16 were in permanent home, 2 were in vehicles and 2 out in the open.  Here’s a graph of the number of strong to severe tornadoes (EF3, EF4, EF5) since 1950.

98 Responses to “Fewer Tornadoes in 2012”

  1. KSEA - Caledonia says:

    Yes for weather junkies, this year was rather disappointing.

    1. Swatz_Zoo(Cedar Springs) says:

      Very much agree!

    2. fixxxer says:

      did you expect any different from michigan? come on guys, the past 3 years have been a joke storm wise. you would think you guys would learn to stop getting your hopes soo high.

      1. Cort S. says:

        Wyoming has been spared the worst of the storms the past 3 years, with one notable microburst event that I can think of on July 18, 2010, and another wind event that you experienced on June 21, 2011. People in other communities would disagree with you, especially the I-94 counties in 2010, and Holland which had 100-year floods in 2008 and 2009 and 90-mph microburst in 2011, and the Cutlerville area which had damaging wind events in 2010 and 2011. Your local results will vary, of course.

        I’ve seen you get your hopes up a few times when the meteorological analysis suggested you should feel otherwise. Those are on you. The rest of 2012, though, where the storms split up for no reason and went right around you (I’m taking about May 3rd and such), yeah, Mother Nature has really been screwing with you. And you know what sucks? She doesn’t care what any of us think.

        1. bobcat says:


        2. fixxxer says:

          What does my reply have to do with wyoming only? Quit making assumptions cort.

        3. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          And don’t forget the torrential rainfall up North that wiped out roads all over the place…


        4. Cort S. says:

          Because the past three years has not been a joke storm-wise for many people in West Michigan, only for you in Wyoming. And I provided examples to support that. That was a fair assumption to make. Quit making generalizations, fix. ;)

  2. Crystal says:

    Please take a look at your printable 8 day forecast?? It is way different that WZZM saying it is going to be 81 tomorrow??? Thanks

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      That was a computer glitch. We figured out the problem and it’s now fixed.

      1. joanne says:

        Did you actually just post over me Bill? are we going to start that little game on here?

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Last night the computer decided to put up a long-outdated 5-day forecast on the web last night for a couple hours. I couldn’t fix it from here at the Art Museum studio, so we had to rouse someone from I.T. to fix it.

        2. joanne says:

          Fare enough, thx

  3. michael g (SE GR) says:

    Last seven years of global temps, which way do YOU think they’re trending??


    1. DF (SE Mich) says:


    2. Yup (Grandville) says:

      I agree with Joanne here… we really do need to look at more than just a few years to get a larger picture. In meteorological terms, that is WAY to short of a time frame. Graphs are misleading too, depending on the units of measurement used, it can make two graphs using the same data, in different measuring units look completely different. This leads to a more extreme or less extreme visual.

      1. Brad says:

        The “downward trend” is literally the second half of 2010 to the present…we read over and over again about cyclical weather patterns on this blog, and yet Joe Bastardi’s graph is interpreted to say something about a long-term pattern (global warming). The message is all mixed up.

        1. michael g (SE GR) says:

          The downward trend is literally since 1998. 14 year of the globe NOT warming. Dig it.

        2. Cort S. says:

          Data presentation can be so much fun. We can look at the exact same data sets and, without manipulation of the numbers, we can present the data in the way that can drive completely different conclusions.

          For example, this chart shows a downward trend since 1998 as well:

          [/devil's advocate. I don't hate anybody]

      2. Bill Steffen says:

        Yup…here’s a good example of two truthful graphs that can give you two very different impressions: http://blogs.woodtv.com/2011/01/25/january-temp-by-decade/

        1. Yup (Grandville) says:

          That’s amazing. It’s no wonder the average Joe get’s bamboozled.

    3. fixxxer says:

      boy mike you LOVE that joe guy don’t ya?

      1. Yup (Grandville) says:

        They are bros :)

      2. michael g (SE GR) says:

        Much more than I love you fix.

        1. fixxxer says:

          Im truly heartbroke.

  4. joanne says:

    Give us a break michael g. Why is your temperature graph only a handful of years? Look at the big picture and lay off the cherry picking my friend.

    1. Brad says:

      C’mon, Joanne…we all know “Big Joe” is the world expert on climate!

      1. Bill Steffen says:

        The link that joanne posted is Hansen’s “adjusted data” and I think it has been thoroughly discredited. There are many mainstream climatologists that are unsupportive of Hansen’s graph:

        This is a direct quote from Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the State Climatologist of Texas: “I still disagree with Dr. Hansen, both on his interpretation and some of his analysis.”

      2. big Daddy BC says:

        I believe that’s from NASA. I guess that means NASA endorses his work. Who’s the Texan? lol

        Here’s NOAA’s version.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Hansen has consistently made wrong predictions. Here’s the past State Climatologist of Virginia destroying his claim about droughts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-james-hansen-is-just-wrong-proof-that-there-is-no-increased-drought-in-the-usa-tied-to-temperature/

          His forecast of a “Super Nino” was a complete bust: http://www.real-science.com/hansen-on-the-super-el-nino

          Hansen is a fringe political zealot who’s been arrested more than once: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-29/nasa-s-hansen-arrested-outside-white-house-at-pipeline-protest.html

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          And another Watts link is added to the zillion activist links that Bill posts nightly. Yeah, this guy really wants to talk about weather. LOL

          We don’t care what you and Watts think about Hansen, NASA and NOAA are both publishing the same graphics and they have lots of independent scientists crunching numbers and producing graphs. Your slandering of Hansen’s character is just another right-wing ploy.

        3. Brad says:

          OK, Bill, point us to the data set currently accepted by leading climatologists…

        4. Bill Steffen says:

          Hadcrut has temperatures steady for the past 10 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000 The woodfortrees.org site website is a self-funded personal project by Paul Clark, who describes himself as “a British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist” who says: “I have no particular axe to grind in the “Global Warming Debate” one way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green I think a shift to a efficient and sustainable way of life is a Good Thing whether or not CO2 is a significant problem in and of itself.”

        5. big Daddy BC says:

          Still think I’ll trust NASA, NOAA, and the EPA over a British software developer no matter how unbiased he claims to be. LOL


        6. Steelie says:

          Good Day,

          With all due respect… Then how do (or should) we interpret studies that indicate other planets and moons in the solar system are “warming” at a similar rate?


        7. big Daddy BC says:

          Hi, Steelie. The entire second page of the ’10 article Bill posted explains why this theory is wrong.

        8. Bill Steffen says:

          The primary fact is that the warming here on Earth has stopped. Global temperatures have been flat for over a decade now. Even “Handcuffs” Hansen has had to admit the obvious:

          The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade… – James Hansen et al.

          Here’s the data straight from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

  5. DF (SE Mich) says:

    The reality is tornadoes need cold air along with hot… it was just too darn hot this year. This is why we have averages.

    1. Cort S. says:

      Moisture, don’t forget the moisture. And wind shear. It all has to align just right. And certain years are more favorable for those alignments than others… like throwing a weighted dice every day but changing the weights in some way every year. The weights on the dice are the various oscillations (ENSO, AO, NAO, etc.) and teleconnections resulting in the favored position and wave pattern of the jet stream… that’s what’s involved in trying to figure out the seasonal forecast’s departures from average.

      But you said it… it’ll all average out in the long run.

      1. Cort S. says:

        …Except that in the weights in the long run and the even-longer-run can be changed both naturally and anthropogenically, so there will continually be new averages. And therein starts another debate. How much is natural and how much is anthropogenic? Over what time scales? I’ll get the popcorn…

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          And…how much anthropogenic is specifically from CO2.

  6. kevin. w says:

    They way I see it is if were heading back toward a la nina during winter 2013-14 (so they say) then this winter even with a very weak el nino should just come out to average. So I think will end up with average temperatures and either side of average for moisture for this winter unless were going to have another season of extremes.

    1. fixxxer says:

      its funny becuase most everybody else thinks it may be a repeat of last winter but you insist it will be a bad one. guess we shall have to wait & see whos right! ;)

      1. kevin. w says:

        No I’m not saying that were going to have a bad winter, I’m just saying will just end up being about average you know AVERAGE NORMAL.

      2. Yup (Grandville) says:

        I took a gamble this year, my neighbor wanted $100 to shovel my driveway. We’ll see if it’s worth it.

      3. michael g (SE GR) says:

        EVERYONE thinks that this will be a repeat of last winter? REALLY?

        1. big Daddy BC says:

          It could have more snow, if that makes you feel better, but warm’s a foregone conclusion.

        2. Bill Steffen says:

          Pick a number (average temperature) and we’ll make a little wager…winner gets his money back and loser pays the Salvation Army. They help people when it gets really cold in winter. We can give the money to a third party.

        3. joanne says:

          Be careful Big Daddy. Bill doesn’t stand behind his forecasts. He changes his forecast as it happens and denies that he ever said the original. I guess you probably already have a good idea of Bill’s poor credibility. My guess is that he is just trying to draw your personal information out, such as your address so that he can post it online for all to see.

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Seems like last winter I NAILED the forecast and all you could say was that I got lucky, even when I presented sound science to support my forecast. Give me that one and maybe I’ll go out on a limb and present another detailed forecast for ya. We could even bet since that’s your inclination, although I bet Irish Coffee last year and he never paid up.

        5. fixxxer says:

          Yes mike… REALLY…oh i forgot… your idol mr.joe b says different so it must be true.

        6. Bill Steffen says:

          BigD – you’re a broken clock – always saying the same thing. A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it’s still a broken clock! That’s why you refuse to bet me. You sure were wrong about the Antarctic ice:


          And the Texas Drought: This is from Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the State Climatologist of Texas: “There is no evidence that climate change contributed to the lack of rainfall, because rainfall has risen over the past century in the state.”

        7. joanne says:

          Bill again quotes perennial sea ice. Hardly significant except for clouding the public to reality. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt

          The fact is: The world is loosing ice quickly. the sea ice that comes and goes is like saying we had a big winter so global warming is no longer a threat. Come on Bill, even a child can understand this simple point. No offense kids!!!!

        8. big Daddy BC says:

          …Never refused to bet. In fact I suggested we give the winnings to Greenpeace. Name your stakes, tough guy, but let me remind you, you haven’t gotten a seasonal forecast right in years. I have. In fact I got the last three, even though the summer was even hotter than the hot one I imagined. Of course you predicted a cool one. LOL

        9. Bill Steffen says:

          Perennial sea ice? Check the graph: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png The ice has been growing steadily for 25 years!

          Ice increasing and snow increasing: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/02/Figure41.png

  7. Yup (Grandville) says:

    Bill, do they include water spouts in the tornado counts?

    1. Cort S. says:

      They do not, unless they make it over land and do some appreciable damage.


      1. Yup (Grandville) says:

        Thanks Cort.

  8. Cort S. says:

    Yearly tornado counts by F/EF rating:

    The sharp increase in F-0 tornadoes in the 1980s-90s is primarily due to better detection of weak, short-lived tornadoes… with more-advanced radar, denser spotter networks, and storm chasers following every dark cloud.

    The number of violent tornadoes has remained rather steady. In fact, it seems to have gone down a little. I hypothesize whether much of that may be due to how our rating process has evolved over the decades. We have a much better understanding now of how different types of structures and their quality of construction can fail at certain wind speeds (thank you, engineers!). I wonder if a few tornadoes back in the early years might have been overrated by a category or two compared to what they might have been today. Example: If you saw a house swept off its foundation, you would be tempted to say F5. But what if shoddy construction practices didn’t properly fasten the house to its foundation, if at all? An F2 tornado could push a house off its foundation if it’s not nailed/bolted/fastened down. (Granted, there would be other nearby clues to give you a hint of the actual wind speed. Did the house get shredded or did it roll downwind but remain intact? Are the nearby trees debarked or are they just beat up a little bit?) We seem to have a more rigorous vetting process for strong tornadoes nowadays. That’s not to say that I think all tornadoes back in the early days were rated poorly.

    I’m willing to theorize that the number of violent tornadoes has not gone up or down significantly. A bigger problem is how our population is spreading out so far and wide across the landscape (especially in Dixie Alley). It’s becoming more and more challenging for a tornado to not hit anything human-made down there. Our construction practices and shelter options in tornado-prone regions should reflect the level of risk. Unfortunately, this means more $$$$. How we balance out the risk of tornado damage with the increased cost of more wind-resistant structures is a challenge that our society is facing. But that’s another topic.

    1. GunLakeDeb says:

      “The sharp increase in F-0 tornadoes in the 1980s-90s is primarily due to better detection of weak, short-lived tornadoes… with more-advanced radar, denser spotter networks, and storm chasers following every dark cloud.”

      OK – you made me look because I wondered when Skywarn was formed – amazingly, it goes back to the early ’70s, their website says. I say amazingly, because in 1990, nobody recognized the F-5 tornado that leveled Plainfield, IL (there were no warnings issued).

      Does anyone know if Skywarn was always open to the general public?? Has it simply taken 3 decades to get a good network of spotters established?? I mean, surely one could say “once a Spotter, always a Spotter”. I can’t imagine ANYONE who’s taken the course, looking out and not reporting a funnel cloud….

      I’ll be the old fart in the nursing home, demanding to be wheeled outdoors so I can watch some suspicious clouds….LOL!!!

      1. GunLakeDeb says:

        My Jitterbug cell phone’s emergency number will go to the NWS – NOT 9-1-1….ROFL!!!!

        1. Cort S. says:

          You’ve got 3 or 4 basic types of spotters out there:

          –Storm chasers (hardcore weather weenies)
          –NWS-Skywarn-trained HAM radio spotters (weather weenies and hardcore radio weenies)
          –NWS-Skywarn-trained spotters (weather weenies)
          –Public (they call 911 or WOOD who then call the NWS)

          I don’t know how many more people are trained spotters now vs. then, but:
          –our population is growing and spreading out,
          –society as a whole may evolving in its weather-savviness as we make scientific advances,
          –communications technology (computers and cell phones) has allowed information to flow freely from just about anyone.

          The Plainfield tornado is interesting. It was an out-of-season (only August F5) tornado which was rain-wrapped (people mostly saw a wall of water and there are few photographs or video of it). It was before the NWS deployed their NEXRAD Doppler radars (the WSR-88D network that we currently have), so they could not see the wind velocities inside the storm, only the precipitation. If a tornado is rain-wrapped, you might not see a hook echo. And the structure of NWS offices and their coverage areas were different back then, and reportedly the NWS Chicago office was overworked during that event.

  9. big Daddy BC says:

    Is it interesting how active cyclones were early in the year, following a non-existent winter and oddly hot spring. As someone said above, it takes a combination of warm and cold air to produce a tornado. Plainly we had no cold air this season. If this graphic is supposed to be a win for climate change deniers, I think anyone with a brain can see that extreme hot + extreme hot does not a tornado make. :) I think it’s an argument for the climate change model.

    1. Cort S. says:

      (See also my reply to that someone above.)

      A tornado is a process within a process [thunderstorm] within a process [mesoscale system or mid-latitude cyclone] within a process [hemispheric wave pattern]. It’s incredibly challenging to disentangle how the changes to the largest process will affect the processes three or four layers deep. Especially since the atmosphere is nonlinear (processes feed back on other processes in both directions).

      Note that I’m not taking anybody’s side here. I think the polarization of this debate is stupid when there is so much fascinating stuff about our atmosphere that we (both as individuals and as a society) need to learn.

    2. Bill Steffen says:

      It’s not unusual to have tornadoes in March. Here’s a summary of tornadoes this year so far: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html The number of tornadoes was above average from Jan. to March, then below average since. That’s not surprising since we have moved from La Nina to El Nino. If anyone followed Joe Bastardi – he wrote about the tornado season shutting down.

      You may classify Michigan has having a “non-existent winter”, but much of the world froze last winter: http://www.ktva.com/news/local/Cold-Winter-and-Summer-Have-Some-Ready-to-Leave-Alaska-162668566.html and http://article.wn.com/view/2012/02/03/Europes_cold_snap_claims_more_lives/ and http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fworld%2F2012%2F08%2F07%2Frare-snowfall-shocks-much-south-africa%2F&ei=SIVjUMq1Hsm20QG68oH4DQ&usg=AFQjCNEY3m_U2sz1_JAxLFOL0D5_BRroTg and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8965155/Cold-Australian-summer-sees-swimwear-profits-plummet.html and http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/02/andes-extreme-cold

      Also, if “hot + hot does not a tornado make…how can you claim we’ll global warming will produce so many more strong tornadoes?

      Oh…one more: http://iceagenow.info/2012/09/september-snow-romania-video/

      1. joanne says:

        One consequence of global warming is an increase in both ocean evaporation into the atmosphere, and the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. High levels of water vapor in the atmosphere in turn create conditions more favorable for heavier precipitation in the form of intense rain and snow storms. This completely goes along with your links Bill. Thanks for that input.

        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Lovely little talking point there…except…it ISN’T HAPPENING FROM CO2!!! We can prove that rainfall has increased slightly because we’ve planted much of the country in corn and soybeans. But hurricanes aren’t increasing: http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_pdi.png Accumulated Tropical Cyclone Energy has been at nearly a record LOW level over the past four years. Strong tornadoes actually decreased from the 1970s to the 2000s: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

          You alarmists said that because of global warming, snow would become “a thing of the past”: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

          THAT sure didn’t happen: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201012-201102.gif

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          Oh no, back on the soybeans are causing the climate change, not CO2 mantra. Your argument only makes sense if soy and corn is planted where productivity was low previously. No where in the midwest was productivity lower before corn and soy were planted. In fact much of the areas south of us were wetlands that were drained. Wetlands are much more productive than corn fields. The increase in rain is a direct result of a hotter troposphere, period.

          The ice age now link, my friend is one of your new favorite political activist sites. I looked it up and you’re listed as a contributer there. It’s the place old weathermen go out to pasture. Even Craig James is there. LOL Why embarrass yourself by linking biased sources?

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          Corn and soybeans (land use) have CLEARLY affected temperature (fewer extreme highs over the past 40 years, higher minimum temperatures due to higher dewpoints and slightly higher precipitation. Ocean cycles are a better fit to global temperature than CO2: http://davidpratt.info/climate/clim8-3.jpg vs. http://kellercitylimits.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/co2-increase-while-global-temp-decrease-1997-2007.jpg

          The iceagenow blog links actual current true weather news. Blog readers can check out the iceagenow blog and decide for themselves: http://iceagenow.info/

        4. Brad says:

          WOW…talk about selective information! And, YIKES…I had to clean two viruses off my computer after clicking that link!

        5. Mike M. says:

          An increase in water vapor in the atmosphere will result in more cloud formation which will act as a negative feedback, reflecting more sunlight away from Earth. Your entire apocalyptic fantasy is dependent on more clouds NOT forming. Good luck with that. What a twisted belief system you’ve developed where the increased water vapor makes it rain harder but does not produce more cloudiness.

        6. Mike M. says:

          Antarctica has been gaining ice mass for the last 150 years…


          Antarctic sea ice extent is thisclose to it’s highest ever…


          This fact alone falsifies your pathetic “global warming” hypothesis. According to your own prophet, James Hansen, the effects of AGW would be felt most strongly at the poles, plural. None of you flying monkeys ever said a word about the South Pole going in the opposite direction. Case closed.

        7. Mike M. says:

          The weakest link in your climate models is cloud formation. The science is far from settled there…


        8. joanne says:

          Mike M,
          The ice that you are celebrating in Antarctica is perennial sea ice. This is not land ice. Sea ice comes and goes and there are many scientific explanations for why the perennial ice is growing. The problem is that the land ice is decreasing at an alarming rate. You deniers try to grasp onto the focus of this perennial ice as a way to blow off global warming, but you are completely missing the big picture. As your southern ice grows at roughly 1% per year, the northern ice is decreasing at around 15% per year. All while the land ice in Antarctica is decreasing.
          I love how you are going to jump on the denier cloud band wagon. The problem with this theory is that even the best computer models in the world cannon predict what the increased water vapor, which is inevitable, will do to the heating of the Earth. There have been a couple of scientists that have made big headlines stating that increased clouds will decrease the effects of global warming. The scientists are applauded by the denier groups but are not seen as credible by the scientific community.
          The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space.
          Try doing some research for a change Mike. Regurgitating right wing denier rhetoric is Bill’s job!!!!

        9. Mike M. says:

          Joanne, you are obviously as stupid as big Duddy. That chart shows the anomaly above average. Literally, it’s at the highest level ever recorded, except we know what that really means: since the satellites went up in 1979. Same goes for the North Pole.
          As for the ice mass GAIN, of course you are too mentally deprived to click on the peer-reviewed paper and see the truth. Instead, you give us a link to some commentary. I’m so impressed. Must be what you call research.
          You two are pathetic. “Doing research” does not mean only looking at the massaged results of your favorite “climate scientists.” No wonder why so few people believe in your pagan religion anymore.

        10. joanne says:

          Before you paste links to research, try to take the time to understand what you are linking. I took a quick peek at you research and the first finding has nothing to do with increased ice in Antarctica. It is talking about ice displacement and the effects of Glacial Isostatic adjustments or GIA. GIA is a term referring to the impact that glaciers have on the crust of the earth and the movement of the crust. It is hardly a reference of increased land ice in Antarctica. I understand that you have no scientific background and I do applaud your research. I’m not being condescending here, I would really love to help you understand some of these things in the future if you have questions. Please just ask. Don’t feel bad about it, seriously we all need help understanding things out of our grasp.

        11. big Daddy BC says:

          The other link Mr. Mikey stuck up went to Geophysical Research Letters. I’m not sure he understood that one either. It was an abstract that described the cooling effect of cloud cover. Hmmm. So when the clouds are out as the same time as the sun, it’s cooler? Who knew? What this fudgetard fails to comprehend is the fact that those same clouds block the transmission of I.R. energy when the sun’s down thereby keeping the daily lows higher.

        12. Bill Steffen says:

          You two don’t have a clue! Really! It’s just not working out for you. You can’t explain it away! Look at today:


          Antarctic ice..Highest EVER in history on any Sept. 27th…Highest EVER so late in the season…and (we’re still waiting for confirmation)…possibly the Highest EVER!

          It’s not “seasonal ice”. The ice has been growing for over 25 years! http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

          And more on drought: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/09/drought-and-climate-change.html

        13. Mike M. says:

          How did two people as stupid as joanne and big duddy ever reach adulthood without accidentally killing themselves?

        14. joanne says:

          Great answer Mike M. As I said, don’t feel stupid, just ask and I will help you out.

        15. big Daddy BC says:

          So Mike posts two articles he clearly doesn’t understand. We interpret them for him and he rebuts with how stupid WE are. LOL Well, Mike, you’re in good company with old Bill. He doesn’t get it either. ;)

        16. Bill Steffen says:

          “Handcuffs” Hansen is starting to get it:

          “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…” – James Hansen et al.

          The public is starting to get it: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-fatigue-sets-in-the-world-cools-on-global-warming-8513826.html

          Professors are starting to teach the facts: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/graph-of-day-global-disasters-and-gdp.html

      2. Brad says:

        Here is the parent think tank of iceagenow. It is run by Rush Limbaugh.


        1. Bill Steffen says:

          Not seeing anything related to iceagenow on your link, brad. Not a word, so be honest. http://iceagenow.info/about-the-author/ Iceagenow is run by Robert Felix, who is not affiliated with any corporation or political group.

        2. big Daddy BC says:

          Heritage is also the parent of the American Legislative Exchange Council. They’re the group that funneled all of those great bills into Lansing after the teabaggers took over. Michigan was literally taken over by Heritage. Scary.

        3. Bill Steffen says:

          What’s scary is the tens of millions that George Soros is spending to throw this country into a socialist malaise…he and his greedy followers who will lie to promote their own narrow greedy agenda.

          From the former State Climatologist of Virginia: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/316541/obama-s-drought-facts-patrick-michaels

        4. big Daddy BC says:

          Reminds me of the owner of your favorite network, Ruprecht Murdoch.


        5. Brad says:

          Greed, thy name is Sheldon Adelson. WOW! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81588.html

          That is $100M by election day, by one man. I wonder what he is after?

        6. big Daddy BC says:

          So we can agree that rich guys are the bad guys then? Welcome to the Democratic party, it’s the one that represents the little guy.

        7. Bill Steffen says:

          Hmmm…rich guys are the bad guys, eh…Al Gore? Barack Obama? (he made 5.5 million in one year off of book sales) The Bay City Teachers must be rich to be able to throw 40K into the fund to support Proposal 2 so they can protect drunk and stoned teachers in the classroom: http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2012/10/bay_city_teachers_contract.html

          If the Democratic Party represents the “little guy”, how come all the “little guys” did so much better under Reagan than under Obama (with unemployment higher than when he took office, with millions more on food stamps/bridge cards, with gasoline at double what it was when he took office? Reagan cut unemployment in half. An additional 5% of the public was working and paying taxes rather than getting handouts. That’s how to help the “little guy”…full employment!

  10. john says:

    are water spouts included in number of tornado’s for the year?

    1. Bill Steffen says:

      Usually no…not unless they touch land.

  11. Scott (west olive) says:

    Mmmmmm corn! To bad it ended up to be a 30% something loss this year.

Leave a Reply