Article

2011-05-03 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Killer Tornados Are or Are Not Due to Global Climate Change?

US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.
The progressive Left only listens to experts they agree with. And they try to fire the ones they don't agree with.
Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University, says "If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase. It's having to do with better technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often."
Plus, the Media ia more sensationalized these days.
Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.
And you thought all FEMA drones were useless tools!
Wednesday's deadly tornadoes, according to Imy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were unusual for being "long track," meaning they were on the ground for a longer period of time than usual - in this case, 30 miles or more. An average track would be less than five miles, said Imy.

"However, the stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet's climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.
Amazing! How can they do that - forecast one whole year ahead!
We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."
Wait! Was Al Gore interviewed? What about Doc Hansen? The East Anglia dudes? Do I sense some bias here?

Posted by Bobby 2011-05-03 16:01|| || Front Page|| [12 views ] Top

#1 But my friends at the American Scoiety of Civil Engineers (with strong links to acamdemia) titled their link to this story as - Tornadoes intensify debate over storms' link to global warming. Their posting did include another link, more slanted to the Goracle - Revive Debate. But that group seems to be DC-inclined.

Posted by Bobby 2011-05-03 16:18|| 2011-05-03 16:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Nevermind the fact that this is an 80 year cycle. This same thing happened back in the 20s and 30s, then back in 1880, and etc., etc.

These pinheads need to go back farther than 50-60 years. Oh wait, that would fuck up their narrative.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-05-03 16:56|| 2011-05-03 16:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Now, a deadly tornado has some to do with strength, much more to do with location. Despite being a monster, the Greensburg tornado had a death count of (only) 10. Take that same tornado and run it through, say, Oklahoma City (saw that proposed track as response training assignment for higher ups so that when the next big hit, this one, happens they at least sand boxed a situation). Take an EF2 through a trailor court and it will be horrible.

OK, that is out of the way. Looking at numbers. Notice they don't say worst single-day ever. A tornado is technically a rotating volume of air which must come into contact with the ground. Many times our advanced modern radar systems will see a rotation but without a spotter confirming that rotation reaches the ground it is not (supposed to be) a tornado. That means that even with in-their day technology, not our neat-o vehicle portable doppler and cell phones communications, there have been greater number single day outbreaks. As far as tracks, that is easier today on account of roads and communications and technology. What we have become is more efficient at spotting, at low/no light or high precipitation where the tail may not be visible through rain, or the location so far away from people it is not seen.

Now, the parenthesis above is there because some wonder if some statisticians are using doppler indicated tornados as a tornado, even if not confirmed by a spotter. This is to bump up the numbers for doom shakers.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-05-03 17:24|| 2011-05-03 17:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Essentially, tornado intensity is a function of the temperature difference between warm air to the south and cold air to the north (and the speed at which the cold air is moving south).

So in theory, more intense tornados could result from the warm air getting warmer, or the cold air getting colder (or a combination of course).

Doubtless any evidence the cause is cold air getting colder will be studiously ignored or spun to 'prove' GW is happening..

Posted by phil_b 2011-05-03 20:18|| 2011-05-03 20:18|| Front Page Top

#5 heat islands do occur due to urban development. To say they play a part in global climate change is ridiculous - see the % area of urban development vs undeveloped land/oceans/arctic and antarctic. The determination of global historic temps have been tainted by the fraud and misuse of temp data and their recording station locations. Ima call bullshit

Posted by Frank G 2011-05-03 20:23|| 2011-05-03 20:23|| Front Page Top