“Another tornado outbreak expected” (May 25th, 2011). Extreme weather events have nothing to do with climate change, right Anthony Watts? Well, maybe not individual events, but 2011 has been a bit… unusual. Anthony blandly natters on about tornado ratings and historical examples. More people have died in past extreme tornadoes. Nothing to see here folks, move along!
I guess “the deadliest single tornado to strike the U.S. since modern tornado recordkeeping began in 1950″ last Sunday in Joplin, Mo. is just an example of howpeople will “adapt” to (hell, embrace) warmer climates. 116 dead and counting. The dogmatic denialist rejection of risk and refusal to take responsibility for their obstructionism is why I work to expose their dishonesty and amorality.
And this is connected to CO2 increases how? If CO2 wasnt there, what would the tornado count have been?
[There’s a crazy rumor out there that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, of which weather is a product. Entertaining Watts-ian wind power denial website you run. – Ben]
As usual you people dodge the question. Show me what percent increase CO2 had on this spring’s tornado numbers. If CO2 wasn’t an issue how many would here have been this year? Normal, 50% more than normal, all of them? You want to take on WUWT you better provide the numbers on each weather event that CO2 contributes. With out that you are just another reality denialist AGW True Believer living in a fantacy world.
[“As usual you people” – such a knee-jerk start. Do you understand that “CO2 levels” are not the same as “climate”? Increasing CO2 is affecting our climate, it does not define it. – Ben]
Show me what percent of my grandmother’s lung disease was caused by her smoking. If she didn’t smoke, how bad would her lungs have been when she died? If you want to take on the cigarette companies you better provide the numbers on each individual harmed by smoking.
That’s nonsense. Typical logical falacy of True Believers. One can look a lungs of smokers and compare them to non-smokers. Something you cannot do with the climate. Try again.
[Typical denialist logical fallacy (note spelling). Our climate is not as inscrutable as they would have us believe. – Ben]
The relationship between tornado outbreaks and ENSO is described within the following article entitled:
“Impacts Of ENSO On United States Tornadic Activity” by Mark C. Bove of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) at The Florida State University
(See: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/papers/impacts_enso_tornadic_activity/ )
Bove (1999) found most large outbreaks and major tornadoes occur in cold (La Nina) or neutral (La Nada) years. He refers to the analyses by Grazulis in 1991.
The important figures to be taken from it are:
Between 1950 and 1988 with regard to F4 – F5 tornados the relationship with ENSO is as follows:
ENSO Cold Phase = 162 Tornadoes
ENSO Neutral Phase = 146 Tornadoes
ENSO Warm Phase = 82 Tornadoes
Although an old paper (1999)the relationship likley still holds true. As we are currently still in a La Nina (ENSO Cold Phase) moving to neutral conditions the large number of tornados this year should not be totally unexpected.Importantly it is windshear associated with the intrusion of cold air that results in tornado formation – see for instance:
The laws of physics state for a given temperature the moisture content or water vapor, cannot exceed the super saturation level.
Studies and peer reviewed science papers show us the following facts “A hotter planet also means more evaporation of ocean water. And a hotter atmosphere can hold more of that water as vapor in the air. It’s basic physics. And what goes up must come down. It’s not our imagination that rainstorm intensity is rising in our region. In a study released last March, scientists examined precipitation patterns from Maine to New Jersey over the past 60 years. The study revealed an amazing uptick in multi-inch rain events across the region, with strong evidence pointing to rising temperatures as a key culprit. Since 1970, global warming has added at least four percent more moisture to the atmosphere, according to studies.”.
Hmm, a quick google scholar check shows an interesting paper written by Kevin Trenberth on the subject of atmospheric moisture found here:-http://www.springerlink.com/content/vllu5p87j475605m/
The fingerprint of global warming is there, just some people prefer to live in comfortable denial of reality, to deliberately avoid holding conflicting ideas or concepts, so they do not think of the long term trends beyond the next weekly/monthly pay/pension packet!
As, for all the ersatz climate in denial HBGary spam bot Watts-ian explanations of much hot air about nothing, I prefer to ask the real experts in the real world, thank you very much.
Now, it is a given all radio/TV weatherman, 95% of the work has been done by the real experts in the real world and all he or she does, is merely report the facts as told by the teleprompter in parrot fashion repeat after me!
Should one consult ones friendly TV/radio weatherman about the perils of smoking a lit cigarette in a gun powder storage depot? Using common sense, I would estimate a 95% confidence factor for a much faster rocket propelled exit then entry for doing something that stupid!
There is no increase in the precipitation trend:
There may be “global warming” in that the AVERAGE is increasing, but summer TMax in Canada is DROPPING, with winters becoming less cold. Summer TMax is not increasing anywhere on the planet since 1900. That is, the number of heat waves is not increasing. What we are seeing is the planet RETURNING to a more tropical climate with short mild winters.
You also seem to forget a basic law of physics. Rising moist air COOLS the planet, it’s the great buffering system that prevents the planet from getting too “hot”.
[So if GLOBAL warming isn’t happening IN CANADA it’s not happening anywhere. And the averages are are rising but not the the summer max (well, sort of not) so it’s not happening anyway. Also, it’s going to be better! Why is all that moist air rising, I wonder? – Ben]
Since you have provided no references or citations to back up your personal opinion on the subject of precipitation changes for Canada.
Let me check your comments in regard to precipitation pattern changes in Canada with google scholar and ask one Xuebin Zhang et al circa 2000 :http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a929977446
Link to the full pdf paper :Temperature and Precipitation Trends in Canada
During the 20th Century
Xuebin Zhang,* Lucie A. Vincent, W.D. Hogg and Ain Niitsoo :-http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.8187&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Then of course there is “GISS” :-http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
I reiterate my previous comment, I prefer to consult with the real experts with real academic qualifications from real universities!
You did not check my link. I have downloaded all the data from 1900 for all 1300 stations from Environment Canada’s website. I have been doing data analysis professionaly for more than 25 years so I know what I’m doing and my analysis is correct.
Besides, I already reviewed that paper:
“This indicates that southern Canada has not become hotter but less cold.”
[So your point is that there is global warming but not exactly like a specific prediction, so it doesn’t count? You are committing the cardinal sin of “professional analysis” and working backwards from your conclusion. – Ben]
Then the Netherlands (and the rest of Europe, of course) are not of this earth.
You mean, they just doubled up in length? In the Netherlands (not of this earth as mentioned) heat waves have increased to one per year this century, as opposed to less than one per three years until the 19nineties.
That would explain two things clearly. First, there is no temperature increase (we’re just RETURNING to tropical climate, remember?). Second, Europe’s is not of this earth.
Show me the data on the Netherlands. I have downloaded EU data and I see no such trend since 1900.
@jrwakefield, which data exactly please? We can search http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/
Or, same data put together more conveniently though updated only until 2006: nlweer.com/index_oud.htm.
E.g. date records T, min, max and avg per decennium 1901- autumn 2006:
Since I can’t read it I have no idea what you are plotting.
I did do Paris:
But that data doesn’t go before the 1940’s vry little of it does.
@jrwakefield, so I explained that plot above it. The numbers are arabic. If you are really that interested, then please do the legwork. Else, just take the facts from people who know them, like me.
[Perhaps he can research his way to translate.google.com. – Ben]
Getting back to topic, when are you guys going to show us now much worse these tornados have been because of CO2? What percent of these tornadoes is because of CO2?
[You understand that we don’t blame “CO2” for tornadoes, don’t you? – Ben]
Then what’s your problem? What happening is perfectly normal right?
[You’re arguing in circles now. See heystoopid’s comment above. – Ben]
“Joplin was the worst tornado since modern records began in 1950”
Warmists and their convenient memories/stats and manipulation of information to make it conform.
Somehow, you forget the Great Tri State tornado in 1925. I’m a retired tv meteorologist from Indiana that did several stories with interviews of some that lived through it (this was done 20 years ago, the survivors were in their 70’s/80’s and most just children at the time).
How the heck did that one happen 87 years ago before CO2 and global temps went way up? Answer. It was weather dude. Anybody that understands tornadoes would also know they are more likely with extreme temp disparities that become LESS with global warming.
[Did you read what you quoted? The rest of your comment is simply a demonstration of the expression “when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” – Ben]