Image: AccuWeather.com
An active severe weather season is anticipated in the U.S. during spring of 2012 with the most widespread warmth since 2004.
"As far as the forecast for the spring of 2012, we do feel like it's going to be a mild spring for most of the nation from the eastern Rockies into the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes area," Paul Pastelok, expert long-range meteorologist and leader of the AccuWeather.com Long-Range Forecasting Team, said. "At least two-thirds of the nation could wind up with above-normal temperatures."
The Northeast will be mild to start, while the central Plains and western Texas will be a particularly warm zone this spring.
An exception to the mild weather will be the Pacific Northwest, where temperatures will be below normal.
Active Severe Weather Season Forecast
An above-normal number of tornadoes is forecast for this season with water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico running above normal for this time of year. The active severe weather season follows a deadly year with a near-record number of tornadoes in 2011.
Typically, 1,300 tornadoes strike the U.S. a year. There were nearly 1,700 tornadoes in 2011, falling short of the record 1,817 tornadoes set in 2004.
Rounds of wet weather with an active start to the severe weather season are in store for the Deep South, including eastern Texas and the Gulf states, during March.
The rain early in the season will be beneficial for drought-stricken areas, including southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Alabama, southwestern Georgia and the western Florida Panhandle. Near-normal precipitation is expected in this zone for the entire spring.
"Areas that seemed to miss out on frequent severe weather last year may see an uptick this year," AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Dan Kottlowski said.
More frequent bouts of rain and severe weather will migrate northward to the mid-Mississippi and Ohio valleys, which were not hit as hard as the Deep South in 2011, mainly during April and May.
Above-normal rainfall is in store for the Tennessee and Ohio valleys as cooler, unsettled weather settles in the region during May.
"The Tennessee Valley wild card will be whether cut-off lows bring below-normal temperatures and unsettled weather to the region during May," according to Pastelok.
While portions of the South will have welcome rain and above-normal rainfall this spring, drought conditions may worsen in central and southern portions of Florida. Dry conditions are expected for central and southern Florida for most of the season. The increasing dry conditions may also lead to a high fire danger throughout this spring season.
"By the summer, the pattern in Florida may flip around with more episodes of wet weather," Pastelok added.
Warming Up in the Rockies, Plains
The central Plains and western and central parts of Texas will be particularly warm this spring, once a large dome of high pressure shifts westward and dominates the weather.
The change to drier, milder weather is expected to occur in April and May. Temperatures will climb above-normal, especially across Nebraska and Kansas and western and central Texas, with below-normal rainfall. The persistent dry and mild weather is not good news for the already drought-stricken Texas and the Four Corners region.
However, across eastern Texas, episodes of rain this winter have already begun to chip away at drought conditions. Some more episodes of wet weather, especially earlier in the season, will continue to provide some relief to communities in eastern Texas.
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add Commentwot AGW?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell I'm old and withering whether the weather wins or the weather wains. woes me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess SA has to put out a stream of this type of article. It provides a focal point for the pro & anti AGW supporters. The actual article is fairly neutral & does not predict anything outside the normal weather range. As a matter of fact it predicts very little. Rather, pointing out a range of possibilities. That is much better than the usual dire predictions & I have no problem with it on first reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what you are saying is if the predictions had been dire or more serious it would be unacceptable to you, irregardless of the possibility that they were accurate.Why bother reading a publication that is named Scientific American when science is not ones interest? Hmm Ok all is sunny and stay that way, and maybe warmer, a little warmer, maybe ALOT warmer,and the water could be higher, a little higher or maybe alot higher, but don't be alarmed cause this is the range of possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget the alarmist headlines. All publications do it unfortunately. There is nothing unusual about the weather outside normal variability. If you enjoy alarmism so much, go get yourself a horror movie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"well I'm old and withering whether the weather wins or the weather wains. woes me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour witty words of warm weather woe posted on the world wide web warrant widespread wondering.
I too have copied it to my quotable quotes:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdon't pay attention to carlylee - to him floods result from scientists' letting their taps run all day long to secure government funding for dam management and that to rid the world of these floods you only need to lift the dish on one side - all it takes is a really, really strong power-ranger
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOthers say he'd freak out if he ever accepted the evidence; considering science the work of the devil is his last shield against those satanic forces that want to shatter what's left of his illusions... but it's only a last effort before those diabolically snickering scientists will get him with their made-up numbers and communist ideas hehe and then we will rub his nose in all his comments. How about meeting again in ... oh, let's say early June... and compare the latest notes and news?
I can see you now. Sitting there reading & re-reading your own post. Chortling at your own stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to wonder whether Carlyle and a few other names I regularly see out here are simply sockpuppets of the same guy, sitting in a cube sea, paid to post their BS on science and news sites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdclarke's right on - that you consider yourself somehow worthy enough to pass approval or rejection on the articles posted here indicates an arrogation you don't deserve.
If you're so concerned about the output here, perhaps you would be better served if you simply left and frequented something more fitting to your ideology. Like "Conservapedia" or whatever they call that toilet-bowl these days.
T
<I can see you now.>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm afraid you don't. AGW is NOT a matter of belief and the debate on AGW has been closed for a time now, full stop. Why do I then comment on your lines? The truth is I am higly intrigued by your and others from your by now minority refusal to accept scientific evidence and how you use the science in your daily life to debunk the science that you do not "believe" in although it is based in essence on the same scientific approach. You believe that science and evidence is like religion or magic trickery, something in the eye of the reader that can be accepted, refused or debated endlessly because for you science is like political opinion and funny ideas. When you talk about AGW "believers" you are in fact projecting your "understanding" of climate science. Believing that science is a matter of belief is pure nonsense. At best do you remind me of people who refuse certain things because they find them "unimaginable" for whatever psychological reason. Strangely enough quite similar to the process that makes many ivory tower intellectuals abhorr mad comedy. I am interested what makes people seemingly capable of basic logic and a certain mastery of the written world believe to get away in a serious debate with "the world is flat else we would fall off".
And yes I do admit to testing intelligent and entertaining variations of the tactics that I've seen over the years used by climate deniers. You are impenetrable to evidence so if I have to read your brainless comments while scanning the others' I might as well have a little fun. Deniers have been humourless pains in the neck for far too long and warmists have far too long overlooked the funny side of it. (hehehe)
Also, frankly, some of your comments had me in stitches. Which is possibly why I keep reading your comments, often looking forward to what good line you will come up next. To me you are, and take it as a compliment, the Andy Kaufman of climate deniers.
and another piece of the puzzle, or a meaningless coïncidence as it's known to the minority here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Driven by record-high temperatures and frequent drought, beetle kill has expanded more than twentyfold across the American West.
In central British Columbia, the insects have destroyed more than 14 million hectares of trees -- an area the size of Connecticut -- in the single largest outbreak the world has ever seen."
And in case you wonder where that fiction comes from:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=computer-modeler-predicted-the-mountain-pine-beetle-rampage
or as carlylee will put it, SciAm only falling yet again for another stupid politically motivated fund-grabbing article combining bad luck, religion, alarmism, cheap computers and a nice early warm weather spell to explain what ruins a few bears' outhouse.
@JCTYLER,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only ideologically motivated talk I see here is coming from the anti-science types like you and Carlyle. Your expressions of incredulity, personal ignorance and insult are not substitutes for reasoned discourse.
I must say I find it endlessly amusing that you clowns think that the worlds geophysicists have over a century of time teamed up with the planets biologist to concoct a hoax to fool the entire world for monetary gain. This should be absurdist comedy written by a mental midget alas it is reality.
A reality in which fools, such as yourself, and Carlyle willingly, with all due disregard for the tenets of real skepticism portray yourselves as brave Galileo's while the whole time you mindlessly spout the trillion dollar a year fossil fuel corporations propaganda.
Amazing.
Oh, darn! I really put my foot in it. JCtyler I did not read your post with the proper amount of sarcasm. My apologies. That is what I get for not reading the thread and only the first and last post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent, putting carlyle, the archetypical crusader against the AGW hoax, and me, a warmist joker, in the same camp is really insulting his scientific integrity. Now look what you've done, him softly moaning in the corner, idealist softee that he is... where just seconds ago a British Columbian bear had a poo for lack of a proper forest...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jctyler,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMea Culpa. You are a funny guy.
So now you have to ingratiate yourself & laugh at all his jokes? :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI take it as a compliment but I'm really laughing in the face of adversity as I'm sh...ing myself when I think of the looming catastrophy which IMO is vastly underrated both in speed and impact. Like a transfixed tourist on a Thai beach laughing at that little wave on the horizon which just capsized that little toy military shippie thing. I'm not even discussing AGW anymore, right now I'm simply intrigued by the carlyles of this world as I fear they will be in the way of emergencies when the wave hits the beach. Looking for an angle...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo lets get to the crux of the issue. What is your solution? I do not deny that the climate is changing. I am dubious that the actions of mankind are the primary driving force, but that is largely irrelevant. Do you think that waving a green fairy solar powered wand about is the solution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why logic re AGW fails you. You write:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is your solution?"
If the problem is human-made the solution must address the human causes.
"I do not deny that the climate is changing."
One step in the right direction, two steps short of understanding the problem.
Step 1: No one can deny climate change. Done.
Step 2: It is man-made. Not done.
Step 3: Combat the causes. Not done.
"I am dubious that the actions of mankind are the primary driving force"
You don't do step 2 because you refuse the evidence. You can therefore not be counted on to do Step 3. IOW you are not helping the real-life issue. You have therefore to be disregarded, at best serving as example of the problems one may face when the wave hits the beach and urgent decisions need to be made, such as dealing with people standing in the way of the ambulances.
"but that is largely irrelevant"
do you mean that:
a) you consider that your opinion is largely irrelevant? I agree.
or
b) that "actions of mankind are the primary driving force"? If you think that this is largely irrelevant then you have not understood the problem and can therefore not be part of the solution. But at present, as I said, there is still some time to be interested by people who stand in the way.
Next time you see a documentary on the tsunami hitting the Thai beaches, watch closely. On every beach there is one guy simply standing there watching the wave come. Does he not understand what is happening? Does he think he is invulnerable? Defying the element? Or did his brain simply stop working? Anyway, watch what happens next. You are that guy.
Carlyle Says: I do not deny that the climate is changing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJctyler: One step in the right direction, two steps short of understanding the problem.
Trent Says: The problem is that he is being disingenuous. He regularly spouts such denialist memes as "Their has been no warming since 1998". His objections on many articles regularly revolve around the implicit assumption that their is no warming. He regularly spouts such nonsense as "Sea levels are not increasing" and "Sea ice is not decreasing".
Jctyler Says: You don't do step 2 because you refuse the evidence. You can therefore not be counted on to do Step 3.
Trent Says: Exactly.
There is no such word as "irregardless". The word you want is "regardless". "A" and "lot" are two separate words. "alot" is not a word. You are confusing it with the word "allot" which you might recall from having an "allotment". An "allotment" does not mean a great quantity. Again, there is no such word as "alot" which you are inferring to mean a great quantity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote: No solutions offered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo according to you I am wrong & you are right. What are your solutions? I am confident that with your superior knowledge & intellect that your solution to the problem will be a gem of wisdom & of illuminating simplicity. Wiping out the human race, except for cave dwelling non breeding greenies perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who can be bothered, this is the direct link to your solution. Why do you beat about the bush? Unfortunately it is a rambling wish list. Fusion not fission, that kind of thing. Laws to force the world to follow the green agenda. Looks like a uni students well meaning but unworkable ideas. http://climateagency.net/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had missed it previously as it was posted after I had ceased visiting that site.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust how do you explain the red line? There has been no heating for at least ten years.
carlylee pretends without offering any proof that "There has been no heating for at least ten years."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas the WMO says that "The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)"
This statement/conclusion by the WMO was already posted in the comments section of the 'Gleick incident' where you read it. It is not contested by anyone, not even deniers, and yet you come again with the same stupity that "There has been no heating for at least ten years". Evidence does not matter to you, logic has no influence on you, if you are not an idiot you are the most brainless troll ever.
Since you start repeating the same garbage you already used on the 'Gleick Incident'/stop being funny there is no reason to acknowledge your existence anymore.
I see that Carlyle has cited NASA as source for his "Global Warming Stopped in the 21st century" argument. I say let us go see what NASA has to actually say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
"The global temperature anomaly from 1880 through 2011 is shown in Fig. 2 for the standard (1200 km resolution data) GISS analysis (note 2). The year 2011 is the 9th warmest in the GISS analysis. Nine of the ten warmest years are in the 21st century, the only exception being 1998, which was warmed by the strongest El Niño of the past century."
Funny how your cited sources do not bear out what you claim, eh?
They are not the only organisation that put out conflicting statments. I asked you to explain their graph which shows no warming for ten years. Also what are your solutions to the problem you perceive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, Ice Extent in the Arctic has now reached the highest level in five years & is still increasing. Only a few years ago, climate scientists were predicting that the Arctic could be ice free this northern summer. Explain that while you are at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Some idiot has posted this link
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.pn
and then said that “Ice Extent in the Arctic has now reached the highest level in five years & is still increasing”.
The idiot* forgot to read the article from which he pulled the graph and where it says:
“Overview of conditions – Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.”
The idiot* has done it again!
—
* idiot: a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way (wikipedia)
Obviously you have a mirror.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: They are not the only organisation that put out conflicting statments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Conflicting? Perhaps it is time you read the link I gave. If you had bothered to read it then you would have known that the graph comes from the same analysis. It is not my fault that you suffer from incompetency.
Carlyle Says: Also what are your solutions to the problem you perceive?
Trent Says: Why would anyone bother answering such an ingenious question from someone who is in obvious denial?
1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(based on papers from various sources obtained by careff, compiled and commented by poster - feel free to copy)
summary of memos on
Climate change denial public strategy summer/pre-election 2012
In the last weeks a number of events formed a rather unfortunate constellation for climate change deniers.
First were the latest polls showing that in February 2012 around 70% of the US population now believe in climate change, an increase of nearly 20% over the last two years and that more than 50% believe now that this is man-made.
(This of course goes against the interests of those companies that make serious profits from environmental abuse, in other words those highly interested in blocking environmental legislation. One only needs to consider that every month gained is washing millions into their accounts. Funding climage change denier organizations with a few millions per year is negligeable compared to the profits.)
(The Gleick incident showed the aware public that deniers will increasingly attempt to influence adolescents using tactics that the tobacco industry used with great success for a long time.) Then came the Gleick incident which was for a while compared to the University of East Anglia e-mail account hacking. (Unfortunately) The mails' content proved to be scientifically sound even if their style was not meant for the unscientific reader whereas the documents obtained by Gleick proved that the deniers resort to (dirty tactics). It has therefore become counterproductive to compare the two incidents directly.
Also, a number of unfortunate events have struck public opinion such as the continuous press coverage of endangered animals, i.e. the fate of the ice bear population, coverage of climate problems affecting American farmers, floods and devastated crops in Australia and the consequences on climate, sea life and the environment of the nuclear incident at Fukushima, all of which having a negative effect on any climate change denial campaigns.
(This affects mainly two own-interest groups. First are those industries that thrive on environmental abuse and which stand to lose substantial profits from updated environmental laws. Then there are quite a number of people drawing substantial paychecks for public relations work for these companies. These two groups focus mainly on that part of the population that is undecided and the goal is to switch their opinions to climate change denial and their votes to those political candidates favourable to the polluting industry.)
2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(This shows that there are in fact three interest groups within the denial movement: certain industries and companies , people paid for denial campaigning, e.g. PR consultants and certain media figures, and politicians. Advice is that industries can use anti-Americanism, PR should use opinion rather than fact and politicians should use the negative effect on the economy rather than anti-Americanism as too many incumbents are perceived as core American. Avoid drawing any attention to the increasing benefits and technological advance of the European green economy and industry.)
Politically, current events seem to prove the negative consequences of pollution. This gives the undecided voters a special weight in the context. Within this leaderless group deniers should now focus on shaping opinions by taking over the role of opinion makers.
This is even more important in the light of the latest findings that that more and more of these undecided voters turn away from pure opinion and press coverage and look for hard facts. As a result swing voters turn increasingly to scientific magazines and programs perceived as neutral for better information. It is therefore important for (the climage change deniers) that these people should find (denier) opinions and comments on magazine websites and that deniers should strongly express their views whenever possible on all media.
3.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has then been convened that (denier) organizations and interested companies step up opinion making. Furthermore, as by the sheer richness of data available it has become near impossible to counter those with denier-supporting data of any kind the tactic of choice will be the mass posting of all types of opinions and comments disregarding any and all facts on the subject to give the impression that climate deniers represent a public majority or at least a major and election-deciding group. (Denier spin) should stay away from rational discussions and instead use emotions, opinions, papers from deniers of all backgrounds, preferably from those with a degree, any degree, as long as it looks scientific or educated (turn engineers into scientists, describe scientists as technocrats), patriotism if the context is right and in general use anything make all comments look like educated opinions (insist on style rather than argument).
(Why this sudden interest?) If one looks at the general situation it becomes clear that the public seems to turn into a solid majority of climate change believers. This has to be avoided at all cost. The one advantage of denier spin is that the deniers profit from substantial financial support to promote their agenda while changists act on their own. The advantage of using office time and being paid to comment should be used for greatest effect, confident that many in the media will always give someone making a big splash more airtime or reading space than they actually deserve. Deniers will peferably approach those journalists known to prefer to be handed ready-made material instead of those doing their own research.
4.fin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Inner circle considerations included a tactic whereby a denier would pose as a warmist but admit to sometimes doubting the figures or the procedure or findings or misrepresenting articles and graphics even when providing the correct link as many readers/viewers will not bother to check the link. It is strongly recommended to create domains that offer official charts and such and have them explained in our (denier) sense as most civilians will not have the education to understand the data or be interested in in-depth analysis.
(The aware reader may have or will in the near future notice that quite suddenly denier comments will appear in the public place. An excellent illustration of this new strategy are the comments on articles in this magazine. Where usually both sides would argue from the the moment the article was published, the slicker denier comments have only appeared quite late (in general since 12 march) but suddenly and massively in a tactical attempt to drown educated opinion under the sheer mass of climate denial text. This can be easily verified by comparing the comments on various articles before/after 12 March.)
@Jctyler,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere does this come from and what magazine is being talked about?
The “unusual warmth” will be due to dry air caused by global cooling. Global cooling appears as “unusual warmth” because fewer clouds permit sunlight to warm the Earth’s surface. Climate scientists ignore clouds in temperature measurements. Naturally, temperature is lower below clouds because clouds block sunlight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, decline in Arctic sea ice is due to global cooling not warming. This is because global cooling means less snow is falling in the Arctic. Less snow in the Artic means that moisture drops out before it reaches the Artic. There is less snow in Canada this year for the same reason.
Our temperature measurements are flawed because they always occur in shaded areas. Clouds capture sunlight, and this makes our temperature measurements wrong. Global cooling thus seems to be global warming. When we get real global warming, we will be in another ice age, and the amount of snow falling in the Arctic will be incredible!
@R. Blakely,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you ever listen to yourself? It is unusually warm because it is cooling? That is crazy talk.