As we move into tornado season in the US we are certainly going to hear claims that climate change makes tornadoes more likely, more frequent and more severe. Those claims are false. The ‘New Normal’ That Wasn’t Anthony Watts Guest essay by Dan Sutter Tornadoes killed 553 Americans in 2011, the deadliest year since 1925. May 22nd marked the 10th anniversary of the Joplin, Missouri tornado that killed 161,… Daniel Sutter (dsutter@troy.edu) is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics and the Director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. Addendum by Anthony A picture is worth a thousand words, a graph says even more.
It means the carbon market folks marketing department is going to have to do some overtime this year....
It means that the deniers are lying again. AGW theory never predicted more tornadoes. The denier leaders know this. They know they're lying, just as they know their brainless lapdogs will lap up the lies and repeat them, as they did here. Even after the truth is revealed to them, they'll still lie, because that's how cults roll.
It appears it's not the skeptics who are lying. From the OP link: ". . . Some experts had a ready answer for the devastation: man-made climate change. Bill McKibben took a tongue-in-cheek tack in The Washington Post, with a headline, “A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!” He opined, “When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that.” Researchers Kevin Trenbeth and Michael Mann also stated that global warming is making tornadoes worse in Grist, saying ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’. . . . "
Here is the truth from The Carbon Brief on tornadoes - Tornadoes and climate change: what does the science say? (carbonbrief.org) Individual scientists can have opinions outside of the consensus and I suppose that happened with the 2 scientists mentioned above. The low confidence assessment of a link between tornado activity and climate change has been around for many years. "Scientists have relatively low confidence in detecting a link between tornado activity and climate change. They cannot exclude the possibility of a link; rather, the science is so uncertain that they simply do not know at this point. What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades. At the same time, tornadoes have become more clustered, with outbreaks of multiple tornadoes becoming more common even as the overall number has remained unchanged. There is also evidence that tornado “power” has been increasing in recent years. Some research has suggested that climate change will create conditions more favourable to the formation of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, but such effects are not detectable in observations today."
LOL.... LOL... no wait .... LOL...... of course AGW promoters have. You hear it almost daily now on the weather channel. Climate change, tornadoes. the expansion of tornado alley, etc. All based on the half truths and falsehoods of the church of AGW. which is the byproduct conversation about more and more severe storms to include production of tornadoes over land. Why do you come here with such demonstrably failing narratives?
I would point out that the monitoring of tornadoes is leading to the data showing occurrence deviation from norms, etc. What is clear is we have more data, it doesn't mean that it suggests anymore than we have more data today. It doesn't indicate a pattern modification, or suggest that tornadoes today are any more violent or pack animal than they were in the past.
Is the graph above sufficient evidence to prove that tornado power hasn't been increasing. Do you know how tornado power is defined? One has to consider the duration of the tornado in addition to its maximum wind speeds It took me about 1 minute to find this. Increasingly Powerful Tornadoes in the United States - Elsner - 2019 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library Abstract Storm reports show an upward trend in the power of tornadoes. Quantifying the magnitude of the increase is difficult given diurnal and seasonal influences on tornadoes embedded within natural variations and made worse by changes in practices for rating damage. Here the authors solve this problem by fitting a statistical model to a metric of tornado power during the period 1994–2016. They find an increase of 5.5% [(4.6, 6.5%), 95% CI] per year in power controlling for the diurnal cycle, seasonality, natural climate variability, and the switch to a new damage scale. A portion of the trend is attributed to long-term changes in convective storm environments involving dynamic and thermodynamic variables and their interactions. Increasing power is occurring in environments where the effect of convective available potential energy is enhanced by increasing vertical wind shear. However, a majority of the trend is not attributable to changes in storm environments. How global warming will affect tornadoes remains an open question. It has been argued that because of data inadequacy and limited physical understanding of the processes that cause tornadoes it is difficult to detect trends related to climate change (Kunkel et al., 2013). However, this argument is based on studies that are at least 5 years old, focus exclusively on tornado occurrences, and use methods that lack ways to include intervening factors at multiple levels (e.g., hourly and seasonal). Here we focus on tornado power and use a hierarchical statistical model that controls for the known behavior of tornado activity. Annual energy dissipation (power) by year. The black dot is the median and the red dot is the 90th percentile value each year. The vertical bar extends from the lower to upper quartile numbers 4.1 Tornado Power (Energy Dissipation) We calculate tornado power (P) using the energy dissipation equation defined in Fricker et al. (2017) as (1) where the summation is over the six possible EF ratings (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), Ap is the area of the tornado's path (units of square meters), ρ is air density (1 kg/m3), vj is the midpoint wind speed (m/s) for each damage rating (EF scale) j, wj is the corresponding fraction of path area by damage rating. Multiplying the units from the individual terms results in P having units of power [kg·m−2·s−3 = J/s = Watt (W)]. Path area is the product of path width and path length. Path length is known to a relatively high degree of accuracy (Doswell et al., 2006). Path length and width and maximum EF rating are listed in the Storm Prediction Center's tornado database.
Another modeling construct and your ignorance of what Major tornadoes means in the chart I posted: Just 22 years. LOLOLOL! From here is this website: Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage In the updated chart is a scale showing estimated speeds of Tornadoes and the power it is derived by that estimates speed. When there is a significant 65 years drop in the number of reported 3,4,5 Tornadoes that is a sign of a DROP in intensity, which is why you ran to a modeled construct to minimize the NOAA Tornado data. Here is the paper that explains the EF scale and how they can better use it into the future. TORNADO INTENSITY ESTIMATION Past, Present, and Future
Your reply means you didn't read the article, thus Jacks strong reply showing you up. Like I told you in the other forum, you need to read and think a lot better, then you wouldn't be exposed as a lazy person.
Professor Elsner has been trying for many years to promote his thesis about stronger tornadoes. So far unimpressive. Are Tornadoes Getting Stronger? Rebuttal to Elsner et al. 2013 › 09 › 14 › are-tornadoes-getting-stronger-rebuttal-to-elsner-et-al Model for Tornado Intensity” by James Elsner, Thomas Jagger & Ian Elsner. ... FSU Professor, James Elsner, has attempted to develop a model to determine 2011 tornadoes in Joplin, Mo. and in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, they suggest that tornadoes may be becoming stronger
And you;'re back to your wildly dishonest "Some random person said something, so it's what AGW science says!". What else did you hear from Ed Slobodnic down at the bar? Understand that the rest of us are listening to the climate scientists, who never predicted more tornadoes. Suuuuuuuure they do. Let me guess. You remember seeing it, right? Yes, that's convincing. No, all just stuff you;'re making up.I'd ask you to back up your weird claims, but by now everyone knows you never do that. You just stomp your widdle foot and yell "But I remember it!" and "Everyone knows it!", to deflect from the fact that you're just making it all up. You can show you're not faking it all, of course. Just document some of your fables. (HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Like that will ever happen. I slay me.) Who do you hope to convince with your constant "But I remember it!" gaslighting? After all, the ones brainless enough to fall for that are already on your side. People who pay attention to reality know you're faking it all.
It's well documented. From the OP link: ". . . Some experts had a ready answer for the devastation: man-made climate change. Bill McKibben took a tongue-in-cheek tack in The Washington Post, with a headline, “A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!” He opined, “When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that.” Researchers Kevin Trenbeth and Michael Mann also stated that global warming is making tornadoes worse in Grist, saying ‘It’d be irresponsible not to mention climate change’. . . . "
Hmm.. NPR has been running with this for a while now. Based on, for example, the study link below which they cite in their story. All based on a predicate that cannot be actually demonstrated with actual data. https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/2#8 This is what the AGW team have been suggesting. And more, they are suggesting the causality as climate change. The observation is entirely debunked, and yet, here you are slinging the ad hom stew because someone actually called out one of your more unreliable and demonstrably false narratives.
Hurricanes are down too. Comprehensive Data Analysis Shows Hurricane Hours Is Cyclic…Has Fallen Significantly Past 25 Years! By P Gosselin on 9. July 2021 Share this... An analysis of the most comprehensive datasets on hurricanes show hurricane activity has decreased the past 25 years. Alarmists exposed as frauds… Today we look at an analysis by data analyst expert Zoe Phin here of the largest collection of historic hurricane data available: IBTrACS (International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship), kept by the NOAA. The dataset archives 13,545 storms going back to 1842, from a total of 14 agencies. First Zoe notes that it is definitely true the number of detected hurricanes has increased – but this is mainly due to modern sensing technology. . . .
More about how stronger, more frequent hurricanes are not in our future. New Study Defies Alarmists, Finds “No Notable Changes” Between Present And Future Cyclone Energy By P Gosselin on 10. July 2021 Share this... Good news: a warmer, likely tamer climate, is in the future recent science shows. A new study projects no future increase in tropical storm energy. Lots of government-funded climate scientists like claiming tropical cyclones are getting worse and that in the future we need to expect one supercharged storm after another – due to man heating the climate with carbon dioxide emissions. But as we noted yesterday here, Zoe Phin found that hurricanes have not gone along with this dubious doomsday science over the past 25 years. Now a new study confirms things will continue that way. Image cropped from Die kalte Sonne.
