2018 – One Of The Least Extreme Weather Years On Record

Last year was the first year with no EF4 or EF5 tornadoes in the US.

2018 will be the first year with no violent tornadoes in the United States – The Washington Post

The percent of days above 95 degrees was well below average since 1895, and among the lowest on record.

The percent of nights below 0F was also below the the post-1895 average.

The average daily temperature range (difference between maximum and minimum temperatures) was the lowest on record.

Forest fire burn acreage was well below average for the past century.

Spreadsheet

At the end of the year, very little of the US was in extreme drought, and much of that area is now buried in record deep snow.

U.S. Drought Monitor

Compare vs. December 1956.

The number of hurricanes was average since 1850, with a downwards trend.

The only metric which was above average was major hurricanes, which were at a record low two years ago.

Spreadsheet

Academics and journalist describe the very mild weather of 2018 as being a wake-up call requiring immediate world communism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to 2018 – One Of The Least Extreme Weather Years On Record

  1. GW Smith says:

    It’s absolutely insane!

  2. But everyone knows that AGW causes LESS extreme weather. Until more extreme weather happens, then AGW causes that, too.

  3. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    I no longer trust the US drought monitor. It often shows the area of the southeast where I live under moderate drought when it clearly is not.

    • rah says:

      The Palmer Drought Index is not real time, there is a delay between the time things actually change for wetter or dryer and the time it reports such a change.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        And also the Palmer Drought Index uses temperature in the calculation, so small tweaks in the temp affect the index.

  4. DCA says:

    Tony,
    Maybe you could challenge folks in the CAGW Club to pick a year – or perhaps a 5-year period – that they would have rather had climate-wise than 2018, if they could choose what to have.
    It would be interesting to see what they pick, and why.

  5. Norilsk says:

    Al Gore owes the world an apology.

  6. Johansen says:

    I have a sort of naïve question for you experts:
    Are there **any** respectable, generally recognized papers which link rising atmospheric CO2 to rising surface temperatures??
    Does anyone know of ANY??
    (honest question)

    • Steven Fraser says:

      I had 1.25″ of permanent drought fall on my DFW lawn today, so far. Could have more overnight and tomorrow morning.

      See all the white on the drought map of Texas? :-)

      • Johansen says:

        okay okay, but seriously, anyone?

        • Disillusioned says:

          “Are there **any**respectable, generally recognized papers which link rising atmospheric CO2 to rising surface temperatures??”

          Johansen, here’s my .02

          1.) Who is respectable? Who is generally recognized?
          2.) Seems to me most peer reviewed papers that get funding/published, ‘link’ it as understood, settled science). But I don’t recall any papers showing evidence, let alone quantification of this effect. It appears to be mostly about assumptions based on assumed (Tony has shown their own data proving that it is FALSELY assumed) temperature rise and atmospheric CO2 rise.

          3.) I recall Gator asking CAGW Apologist believers many times to quantify the radiative forcing of greenhouse gas compounds from least to most efficient (or, something to that effect – I reserve the right to be wrong about that). So far, I have not seen one reply.

          • Johansen says:

            Disi: Okay, on answer #3…. the “concept” of radiative forcing is basically sound, correct? I vaguely remember someone claiming on this forum that the whole concept was wrong, or was being misused…. If you have time can you comment?

          • Disillusioned says:

            Johansen: “… the “concept” of radiative forcing is basically sound, correct?”

            Please provide any evidence of that, if you can.

            Except for up to 20 ppm (that’s a very, very low concentration their, my friend), all other studies I have seen show that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes. Think of a hot can of beer and a cold can of beer. Open both. See the difference. What makes that foam is CO2.

            At today’s atmospheric concentrations, it appears CO2 follows what temperature does. Not the other way around.

          • Disillusioned says:

            In other words, the ‘forcing’ you seem to be asking about maxed itself out a long time ago. Or never. I don’t recall seeing a graph of ancient temps with atmospheric CO2 ever near 20 ppm. I only (seem to) recall that amount in supposed lab experiments.

            There is an awful lot of assuming going on with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (CAGW). Whenever somebody says it is settled, you know they are a con.

          • Johansen says:

            So what you’re saying is, it’s saturated (at that bandwidth anyway) around 20 ppm CO2. Anything above that has little if any additional effect.
            What about the climate sensitivity factor? I’m looking at a rather old book, which gives lambda at 0.57. Has that been modified or scrapped since 1996 (the date of this book)?

          • Disillusioned says:

            It is logarithmic. The effect maxes and begins to fall away rapidly after 20 ppm. So, what I understand is yes, there is absolutely forcing above 20 ppm. I have seen the graphs. But it falls away quickly. Even now, at 400 ppm there is some forcing. But it is so infinitesimal – temperature has the upper hand. It slaps CO2. Not the other way around. The alarmists don’t recognize this. They say CO2 causes forcing, period. And more of it will cause even more forcing – never admitting lab studies show it begins to max at 20 ppm. It is what makes the CAGW argument so irresponsible, IMHO.

            Perhaps another can answer your last paragraph.

          • Johansen says:

            Got it…. many many thanks

  7. AndyDC says:

    This is an era of unprecedented climate stability, record crops and with nothing “bad” increasing (without blatant cherry picking or data manipulation). We can’t stay this blessed forever, regardless of whatever humans do or don’t do.

Leave a Reply to Louis Hooffstetter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.