Record low extreme weather in 2013 despite record high CO2

The CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere hit record high this year averaging at 400 ppm (parts per million).  Climate change activists — formerly known as global warming activists until the Earth stopped warming — have been claiming that with the rise of CO2 comes the rise of extreme weather patterns.  However, this isn’t panning out.

2013 has set the record for the highest concentration of CO2 while posting significantly low numbers of incidents of extreme weather which should have been higher…if CO2 causes the mayhem climate activists suggest.  So far we have seen low numbers of tornadoes, hurricanes, and days with temperatures greater than 100°.

The average number of tornadoes in the US at this time of year is 1369.  As of Oct. 20th, there have been 772, only a little more than half.

tornado trend


Climate activists have also assured us that with rising CO2 concentrations would bring an increase of hurricanes and tropical storms.  Not only would there be more, they would be more severe.  Over the course of the past 44 years, on average the Atlantic Basin sees 11.8 named storms, 6.3 hurricanes, and 2.4 major hurricanes.  However, this year tropical storm and hurricane activity has been significantly less.  So far we have had only two hurricanes (average through early October is 5) and neither of them reached major hurricane status.  Even the Accumulated Cyclone Energy is 70% lower than normal measurement at this same time on the average year.

100 degree days


Lastly, it also turns out that 2013 has given us the lowest number of days with temperatures greater than 100°.  With the CO2 levels at all-time record highs, we have nearly an all time record low number of extreme heat days.

Here’s why this is all significant.  If high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in fact causes warming and extreme weather events in both quantity and severity, then the weather must reflect the increased CO2 levels.  If not, then high CO2 levels do not cause extreme weather, but is instead a mere correlation.


  1. Weather is not climate and climate is not weather. One year doesn’t mean anything. You have to take all the years in aggregate to see any meaningful trend. One extremely hot year or abnormally cool year means nothing. One bad hurricane or a year without hurricanes means nothing in and of itself. I wish both climate change deniers and supporters would get that and stop cherry picking statistical data that supports their argument.

    • Heres the thing Atticus. If co2 is a causal factor in climate then it causes, there arent year long anomalies that run opoosite to projections. Its like saying high fat diets and no exercise causes obesity but then eating a really high fat diet and no exercise at all made you fit, muscular, and athletic. You cant just say it only happens sometimes.

      • I do not know if co2 is a factor in climate change or not, but I do think that the ecosystem is complex enough that multiple variable could cause anomalies in the weather to overcome a causal factor.

        We think of cycles as year over year cycles in the form of seasons, but weather patterns could be over decades or millennium. The sun, cloud cover, the ocean, the moon, natural and cyclical weather patterns, all effect the weather from year to year. So I hesitate to take any one year and hold it on a pedestal as evidence for or against climate change.

        • I am addressing those who insist co2 is an absolute causal factor in the frequency and severity of weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, and warming. If it were so causal then it couldnt not get worse if the co2 levels were rising and at record highs. It would have to cause extreme weather.

          • That is the point where I disagree. I think the ecosystem is too complex to say that a causal factor cannot be overcome for a single year. If co2 is a casual factor perhaps multiple other factors aligned which remove the necessary ingredients for tornadoes and hurricanes.

            Picking issues like climate change and saying its fake b/c of xyz is merely pandering to a conservative audience. If we want to have a real conversation we should say here are the facts and they seem inconclusive. Not say – “hey the weather this year has been great so obviously people who think co2 is the cause are wrong.”

            That line of thinking and arguing is intellectually dishonest and ultimately serves no purpose except to be contrary to the perceived liberal enemy. It is the same tactic used by people who want to promote an agenda. It’s anti-conservative.

            This rant isn’t about you in particular. I am just so tired of all the pandering going on in both the conservative and liberal ranks. We desperately need level headed, logical, discussion.

            Sorry my rant happened to take place on your blog. :)

            • Atticus, If thats the case then you should argue with vlimate activists. They are the ones making the claim that high co2 is a dire cause. They are the ones saying calamity is afoot when the rates rise and its unavoidable. Take it up with them.

              When I show that the numbers dont match the hysteria, I’m not the bad guy.

  2. I often wonder John, how is it that you can write anything on this subject, when you are devoid of a degree in the meteorological sciences, and none of what you post on it meets the criteria that you often use to “prove” the “truth” and validity of the Gospels.

    I also am confounded that right wing christians take such an interest in this subject at all, to what end? Why do you care? You seem to spend almost as much energy refuting even the possibility of anthropogenic climatic events as you do on abortion and gay marriage. Why?

    Couldn’t we argue that your skepticism is unwarranted because of your bias, etc?

    • I dont need a degree to look at reports and measurements and see if it jives with what those activists are claiming.

      I follow it because it affects me. The government uses this issue to regulate light bulbs, my car, the cost of gas, funding with my tax $$$ given to green companies that promptly fail and go bankrupt.

      I think conservative christians follow the issue because they follow the news more than liberals. Thats not a jab or accusation, surveys show that. Im not even saying its good or bad, just that its the case.

      I view this environmentalism as a political issue so thats why I post on it.

      • But John, the government uses all sorts of data to regulate all sorts of things.
        In the past we had MBTE, arsenic, lead, mercury and cesium in our water. There was a cacophony of chemical manufacturing lobby’s that said these chemicals were harmless, then the “activists” said they were full of it. It took 45 years but finally the government used this new radical information and curbed how much lead could be in our water. This affected and affects you now, today. The same scenario played out with the 3 Clean Air Acts. You have the quality of air and water you do because radical environmental activists called out unchecked conservative corporate interests.

        What if we could jointly say that 80 billion metric tons of carbon particulate annually is bad, it makes bad air, it alters the PH of bodies of water. Can we agree that carbon reacts negatively with methane from the mesosphere to the surface? Can we agree that the mixture of methane and CO2 in the troposphere is a negative thing?

        I often skip these conversations because they are filled with these sorts of generalizations: “The government uses this issue to regulate light bulbs, my car, the cost of gas, funding with my tax $$$ given to green companies that promptly fail and go bankrupt.” – Why again do you not recognize your own bias here? Your tax dollars go to all sorts of corporate welfare! And now you have solyndrya to hold up as an example of the entire green energy sector of research and use? How could anyone take you seriously when such generalizations, when made to or on you, are so readily dismissed? I will match your 1 green example with 100 non green examples. Let’s start with government subsidized GE and what they did to the Hudson. I could cite their court testimony in which they “proved” that PCB’s were harmless and these “liberal” scientists just had an agenda.

        Why don’t you have a problem with the fact that the coal industry was forced to put in scrubbers to prevent acid rain, and then got those scrubbers subsidized by you and I? Thats subsidizing green tech John? Lead removed from gas? Same thing. The list is really long.

        For the record I do think we have an affect on the climate, I am on the fence when it comes to how much.

    • And I dont have a bias against AGW, I just see alarmism that isnt meshing with the actual data. I think their conclusions are wrong. If AGW were true, it woildnt matter much to me. Just like gravity is what it is, I dont have a bias against it. But if people were claiming gravity was lessening yet I wasnt losing weight, I’d buck those claims too.

  3. I think it is hilarious that the people who argue most about all of this, on both side of the fence, probably know next to nothing about any of it! I agree with John on the fact that the media is obviously full of crap on the subject and also that it does effect us when our government officials use the hype to justify taxing us more. But, the way people go about arguing over this is fruitless and almost pointless. People also obviously don’t understand that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    Quick quiz, how many of you can name all the layers of the atmosphere off the top of your head? There aren’t too many.

    How many of you know what the most abundant gas is in the atmosphere? It isn’t CO2.

    How many of you actually understand the difference between climate and weather?

    • I know the difference between climate and weather, and I also know co2 is not the most abundant, not even close. But I cant name all the layers off the top of my head. I might know a couple.

      Like I said, it would be one thing if it were indisputable, but it isnt. It would be another if spending money on it fixed what they claim is the problem, but it doesnt. I just read a report that world wide, $1 billion per day is spent on global warming prevention and look what it gets us. A billion.

    • After looking it up, I knew strato-, meso-, and thermosphere but not troposphere. I also didnt know there were only 4, but 3/4 aint too bad.

  4. I wish people would use realities like such presented as a means of discovery. As in, discovering that, gasp, the climate and atmosphere is far more complicated than realized and that human beings haven’t even begun to understand it.

    Instead, we have alarmists on either side of the issue making statements that may or may not be true.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: