That's right, 90 tornadoes swung through parts of the USA over the past day and mashed up the place, killing many but we're not to link that tumultuous activity to climate change or the weather extremes the 'warmists' have been warning us about.
That'd be fear-mongering.
Eh.
33 comments:
Apart from the fact that tornadoes are more likely in a cool climate you are probably right ;)
It's all about a temperature gradient. It's all in the gradient :)
What's 'in the gradient', Shunda?
The slippery slope to chaos?
Why don't the tornadoes happen as often during summer in the USA?
The answer is because it is too hot
But at the moment it's just right for tornadoes? Is that where you are going?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120301-night-tornadoes-warm-winter-missouri-science-nation/
There are some truly laughable claims on that "popular science" blog.
Tornadoes are not unusual at this time of year and certainly aren't unusual at night.
The way they form in the USA has to do with upper level instability (cool temperatures) from a trough and they usually occur on the lingering edge or 'end' of a cold front. This creates the ideal conditions for steady state supercells to form the necessary updraughts that create the circulation for tornadoes to form.
They usually occur from late afternoon to about midnight.
This is a seasonal occurrence and it is the season!! :)
Robert, it appears that a warming climate may influence when and where tornadoes can form, but it is an extremely difficult field to draw any conclusive proof.
Here is something I found on Wiki:
Climatic shifts may affect tornadoes via teleconnections in shifting the jet stream and the larger weather patterns. The climate-tornado link is confounded by the forces affecting larger patterns and by the local, nuanced nature of tornadoes. Although it is reasonable that global warming may affect trends in tornado activity,[80] any such effect is not yet identifiable due to the complexity, local nature of the storms, and database quality issues. Any effect would vary by region
"Tornadoes occur all year round in the US, although the strength of this week's storms was unusual for the time of year - the peak period is March to May in the southern US and later further north."
"The US National Weather Service had described the situation as particularly dangerous - the mild winter has created conditions where cold fronts collide with warmer air causing the tornados to form."
"Last year they killed more than 500 people making it the third deadliest year on record."
Normal couse of events, Shunda?
Normal couse of events, Shunda?
Absolutely yes.
Tornado outbreaks are recorded at the start of March throughout the recorded history of the USA, probably after mild winters (which isn't necessarily evidence of climate change).
the mild winter has created conditions where cold fronts collide with warmer air causing the tornados to form.
Ummm, actually this is how tornadoes form every year in the USA during spring, it doesn't happen in summer, why is that Dave?.
"Last year they killed more than 500 people making it the third deadliest year on record."
And?. Tell me, are there more people living in 'tornado alley' now than in the 19th century? think about it.
You guys are like fundamentalist Christians with this stuff, perhaps letting logic settle in for a bit would help people take you more seriously.
Same number of tornadoes.
More people living where tornadoes occur.
More people get killed by tornadoes.
You know, this really really isn't hard.
More people living where tornadoes occur?
There's been a flood of development in those areas recently, Shunda?
Despite knowing it's tornado country, housing projects have sprung up at an extraordinary rate where yesterday's tornadoes hit?
What's hard Shunda, is swallowing your line!
If you don't think the population in tornado alley has grown over the last couple of hundred years, then you my friend are an ignoramus of monumental proportions.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story now.
You 'official' green types appear to be no different to anyone else in politics, you prey upon the ignorance of the masses and you tell half truths and white lies.
None of which have ever led to positive change.
You can't be trusted.
I haven't suggested that, Shunda.
use the word 'recently' to mean 'recently'.
The death toll from weather-related events this past week is a sign of things to come, in my opinion and the increasingly unstable and extreme climate we are now beginning to experience is the result of our pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere through our industries. You will find plenty of information to back up your disbelief in the climate change/global warming science and the warnings of the scientists, Shunda, but I'm betting it won't be long til the weight of evidence, the frequency and intensity of weather events such as the concentration of tornadoes, the floods in Australia and the weather 'bombs' in the North island has you changing your denialist tune.
It's not that I am a "denialist" Robert, just that I am opposed to misinformation masquerading as "evidence".
I think the threat of runaway climate change is scary enough and can accept your "sign of things to come" could be a valuable warning, but people really should educate themselves about these issues before claiming that a yearly occurrence is anything but just that.
Human beings have the tendency to think what we are currently experiencing is unprecedented, but usually that is just the pride of a being that has a fleeting existence and then is gone.
Well I am a, to use the lefts word, "denialist", and proud of it.
The left, rather than sticking to arguing the facts, have used words to warp their arguments with emotion. Trying to link scientific and factual rebuttal of their Gore-bull warmening agenda with the likes of those that deny the Holocaust occured in WW2.
A book you should read is 'Disaster by Design' by Denis Milleti, in which he investigates our propensity for moving into disaster prone areas and then being surprised by the disasters that occur. Such as Florida panhandle & Hurricane Andrew, Turkish building on unsuitable land (previously prohibited by the Ottoman emperor) and the early 90's earthquakes, California and the San Andreas fault, and the American midwest with it's tornado and other issues.
Paranormal
"The left, rather than sticking to arguing the facts, have used words to warp their arguments with emotion. Trying to link scientific and factual rebuttal of their Gore-bull warmening agenda
Oh, para, surely you jest. No serious commentator would make an error so clanging as that, surely!
Shunda, you're a mixed and lumpy bag of contradictions, that's for sure!
On one hand you say that you think 'the threat of runaway climate change is scary enough'. On the other you say belief in such things is the result of pride.
As to your defense of 'yearly occurances', you'll be able to use that excuse forever - 'it's happened before in human history, so these floods/droughts/cyclones/whatever are nothing to be alarmed about'. Handy little denialist tool, that. Those wise people who's opinions I value at all sorts of levels and on all sorts of issues, are saying climate change is happening apace and that it's the result of human activity. Because of the stability that having 'advisors' who I hear from every now and then, I don't have to wrestle with each new 'fact' that appears on the networks. The weight of commonsense anchors me on this issue.
Who's advising you, Shunda?
Para?
Robert I have always had a keen interest in weather, earthquakes, volcanoes and pretty much anything to do with this planet of ours and do quite a bit of reading on this stuff.
I frequently come across articles that present information in a way that is clearly disingenuous (National geographic is not peer reviewed, you do realise that?), and I don't think this is necessary or helpful.
I also don't like how climate change has overwhelmed almost all other valid environmental causes. For example, I would suggest that we in NZ are doing something terribly wrong to the ocean under our control. We are one of the only places in the world where marine mammals are not recovering. This deserves far more attention than it is currently getting, have you read what Mr Talley had to say? appalling stuff.
Shunda- I’m very concerned about the oceans too and the fact (not opinion ) that the oceans are 30% more acidic than they were last century. Someone as well educated as you will know that is due to the increase in CO2 as a result of fossil fuel use.
The reason that climate change “has overwhelmed almost all other valid environmental causes” is that it is a huge global issue that causes so many problems. In many cases (not all) making changes to try &reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have positive benefits on the environment , eg not drilling for deep sea oil will avoid the risk of oil spills and the damage that would cause to marine ecosystems.
I have long held an opinion of Mr Talley and his machinations but I'll keep the details of that to myself. This is a family blog after all.
What clanger is there RG?
The clanger that was an inconvenient truth? Found in a court of law to have a serious lack of factual credibility - factually incorrect on 16 major points? The fact that some of the stuff you base your faith on has been proven as false and full of lies? The Hockey stick graph for example that was so thoroughly disproven that the graph creators publicly apologised. Pachauri and his IPCC lies and deceit - all for a “good” cause?
Where is the clanger there then? The fact that Gore popularised this area of bulldust to line his own pockets is exactly the example your lot are following. Seems quite apropos to me.
Paranormal
Paranormal- Understanding the science about global warming has got nothing to do with faith. Faith involves belief in intangibles, science has measured the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and the oceans. It is the deniers who act more like a cult who drag out the same old arguments long after they have been discredited, while planet warms up and the glaciers melt.
I'm with Viv - she presents her views dispassionately, without the left/right rhetoric. We are well past the 'I'll convince you with this fact' stage and the battle-lines are drawn. The task of those who accept the warming scenario is to do what they can to stop the activity that's creating it and the task of those who don't is to try to prevent them from doing so. The former must look for the weakest links/low hanging fruit and break/pick those and the latter must try to discredit the former. That's about it, I reckon.
Shunda (So what do you say to bj, Shunda?)
Tornadoes YTD (March 3, 2012) = 223.
Average is only 67, with record being 396 in 2008.
This is what the numbers look like…
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/2011/ann/springtorns_2011.png
Now I’m not shouting “Climate Change” but this is indeed one of the things that we expect from that little problem, and it is one that worries me plenty. You’re mileage may vary… but we could get a few more here too.
We just replaced all the CO2 sequestered in 3 million years in 150. We’re adding CO2 50 times faster than any historical or prehistorical event we can identify… except the PETM change and even there we’re 6x higher if I am not mistaken. So so so… you expect that we can do this and NOT have anything bad happen?
That’s the theory you’re supporting, and I for one would like you to prove it is true.
:-)
Viv and RG, human induced climate change is very much still an unproven theory. Those claiming the science is settled are the ones using rhetoric and emotion. As I pointed out the use of the word 'denier' is a prime example.
Those that 'believe' in human induced climate change are not taking a balanced approach. They have taken a leap of faith to believe that it is a reality. When there are so many climate scientists casting so much doubt on the so called settled science it must surely be a matter of faith for you. Especially when so many of the now discredited computer models (that the warmenrs based their science on) forecasts have not been proven over the past 10 years.
RG, the historical CO2 record shows that CO2 increases followed warm periods. CO2 increase has been a result not a cause of warming. And we need to go back to the fact it has littl, if any affect on global warming and atmospherics. It could increase at 1,000 times and still be a small fraction of the atmosphere. CO2 is heavier than air and falls down to ground level. That is why there is a treeline in alpine areas as there is not enough CO2 at altitude to sustain them. Atmospheric Dihydroxide is the main cause of the greenhouse affect and the reason for earth living in the goldilocks zone that supports life. It has proven to have both a warming effect but it is also a limiting factor in global warming.
I could go on but I know you will not be shaken from your faith. fact of the matter is I believe the argument is over. Public attitudes are moving away from global warming being an issue. We see this in Australia and to a lesser extent here. There is only so much sackcloth and ashes people are prepared to put up with. The wisdom of crowds (or apathy) will triumph in spite of your belief.
Paranormal
Paranormal
Viv, the planet hasn't warmed for ten years now.
Whilst some glaciers are retreating, the others are advancing. This has always been the case. Glacier advance or retreat has nothing to do with temperature at the face, it is to do with levels of seasonal snowfall in the catchment years previously.
Paranormal
"Those that 'believe' in human induced climate change are not taking a balanced approach."
That's a foolish statement, paranormal. By your reckoning, nothing can be 'believed' - there's always a chance, no matter how slim, that it won't happen or that there will be an exception to the rule and so on. There comes a point when all reasonable efforts are made, all avenues checked, all care taken and all of one's intelligence applied to an issue so that you are able to say, yes, I believe this is the case.
I too believe 'the argument is over', amongst those posting here. Our corners are selected. I sense no movement at all. All I see and hear is worsening weather world-wide.
Oh for goodness sake Paranormal, CO2 increase follows warming, but there is no warming!!?? And CO2 is heavier than air and falls down to gound level!! There really is no point in debating with you on this topic, may I humbly suggest you find some high school science text books and learn a few basic facts.
Viv, what do you think caused us to come out of the last ice age? what caused the warming?
And increases in CO2 most certainly does follow warming.
I am not arguing about the fact that humans have dramatically 'added' to the natural levels of CO2, that fact is clear, but Para is correct in saying there is a natural increase in CO2 in a warming climate.
Viv - You've proved my point. You don't even have a grasp of basic science so you've made a leap of faith to believe the lies and half truths.
Can you explain to me why there is a treeline in alpine areas that trees do not grow above?
I strongly suggest you find those high school text books as well as widening your own reading.
Paranormal
Re Treeline - temperature.
If CO2 falls down how come Ozone is up there cos it's heavier?
over & out
Viv, you must really read more than just the propaganda broadsheets.
Ozone is up there because that's where it is created. Atmospheric Ozone is created by UV hitting O2 molecules and creating O3 molecules. Greens have used Ozone as a cause celebre for decades whilst ignoring the science and misleading the public.
How did you think it got up there? Did you think someone was holding it up there with a stick, or do you prefer some divine intervention theory?
And temperature is not the reason for the treeline. You obviously won't take my word for it so do some research. Whilst temperature is a limitation, it is more species dependent. CO2 has been determined as a globally consistent reason for alpine treelines. Here's a start for you: http://www.mendeley.com/research/atmospheric-co2-enrichment-alpine-tree-line-conifers/
Paranormal
Post a Comment