Seems like just yesterday the cult was telling us to expect more numerous and more severe tornado seasons due to global warming. And another doomsday prediction bites the dust. "It has been a month since we reported on the latest arrival of the first tornado in a calendar year for Oklahoma during the modern record. Since then, the state has had a few tornadoes, as have other places. Few is the operative word. Nationwide, May has continued the trend of extremely low tornado activity, and it promises to be the first May since 1970 with fewer than 100 tornadoes observed. Closing in on the end of the month, we’re running about 30 percent to 40 percent normal overall, with not too much on the horizon. In fact, the year-to-date count of “intense tornadoes” — EF-3, 4 or 5 (on the Enhanced Fujita scale) — has reached a record low for this late in the season, with just three. This is right on the heels of the longest drought between such tornadoes, which started in May 2017 and ended earlier this year. It has also now been five years since the last EF-5." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-record/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.582324c5e62c "Hail-spitting, tornado-spawning thunderstorms are likely to occur more frequently in the U.S. as the climate changes. That’s according to new research that found the two main ingredients needed to produce these intense storms are likely to occur simultaneously with growing frequency as greenhouse-gas levels continue their meteoric rise". https://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-change-expected-to-bring-more-thunder-hail-and-tornadoes/
AR5 states "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms." That's the scientific consensus. So, you're just attacking another strawman you made up. Again.
So you are saying the cult now says global warming won't cause severe weather and more tornadoes and hurricanes. Hard to keep up because you guys change your story as events on the ground change. You even changed it from global warming to climate change after it stopped warming for over a decade. LMAO
climate change is not the same as global warming, just means all the co2 we pump into the atmosphere will have a impact on climate, will that be good or bad long term remains to be seen
Climate changes constantly. Always has, always will. But the rate at which the climate changes is not constant, and the rate of activity of the climate change cult is not constant.
what is this thread about, I thought it was saying only 3 was out of the norm of what was expected or somethign all we know for sure is we are adding a greenhouse gas to the ozone in large quantities and it will have an effect, for all we knew the effect will be preventing the next ice age, no one knows the end game yet lots of variables, the next huge solar flare or switch of the magnetic field could release some of the atmosphere and clean out the green house gases or something too
This threads about more failed predictions of the cult. Now you say you never predicted severe stirms but seems like just the other day a big hurricane in Florida was evidence of global warming. Pick a story and stick to it.
My interest in tornadoes actually far exceeds that for climate science if you can believe that. Let's just say I'm pretty familiar with tornadoes. Anyway, one thing people often get wrong about tornadoes trends is that the number of EF2+ tornadoes has actually been declining over the last several decades. When you include EF0 and even EF1 tornadoes you get a skewed perspective because most weak tornadoes are identified today whereas in the past they were not. We have much better visibility on weak tornadoes via doppler radar, high resolution satellite imaging, better surveys, and storm chaser reports. I follow a lot of research regarding the climatology of tornadoes. There's still a lot of debate in the academic community regarding how future trends in tornadoes will change. But, the consensus, if there even is one, is that both the frequency and strength may not change much. However, the timing of when they occur is what might change. Today tornadoes are most frequent in the April-May-June period, but by the end of this century that may shift to March-April-May. Also, there are two prime ingredients for tornadoes: instability or convective available potential energy (CAPE) and wind shear. Wind shear is actually the more important and nuanced ingredient for various reasons that I won't bother getting into here. The prevailing theory is that CAPE will likely increase, but wind shear will likely decrease. In the end these two competing processes may washout. However, it would not be unreasonable to think the frequency of strong/violet (EF2+) tornadoes may decline since wind shear modulates the intensity of tornadoes more than instability. And has already been mentioned AR5 makes no statement regarding the frequency or intensity of tornadoes. Not much has changed in regards to a consensus since AR5 was published in 2013 either. So if you're seeing specific predictions regarding the future of tornadoes they are coming from non-experts or have been cherry-picked from academic literature. This study is from 2013 and basically echoes what I said above. Note that the study specifically says that 0-6km and 0-1km shear will likely decrease. However, they say that the increase in CAPE will be timed such that the best overlap of instability/shear days may work more to shift the prime tornado conditions to earlier in the season instead of actually reducing the number of tornadoes. They also say they did not study the orientation of the wind shear. While bulk shear is correlated to tornadogenesis it's actually not the best discriminator. A better metric is storm relative helicity (SRH) which is a wind shear metric that takes the magnitude and the orientation of the shear into account. They did not look at this parameter and were open about in their paper.
And always has a reason. Correct. And it's changing really fast right now. Also correct. The amount of knowledge acquired by the "cult" is always increasing and has been increasing at an ever faster pace. The number of academic publications is probably a good proxy for climate science activity.
It's probably worth repeating. The consensus for tornadoes, if there even is one, is that tornado frequency and intensity may remain relatively unchanged, however the timing of peak occurrence may shift to earlier in the year. Many in the academic community thing tornado frequency and intensity may actually decline. The consensus for hurricanes is that the frequency may decrease, but the intensity may increase. These predictions are valid for 2100. Global Warming - The steady secular upward trend in the global mean surface temperature. Climate Change - The changes that will occur in the biosphere as a result of global warming.
That's a sure sign of global warming. Before it gets really bad it gets really good and stuff. Yeah, that's the ticket.
In general yes. If reality falsifies your hypothesis you either scrap the hypothesis if it's not salvageable or more than likely you adjust it such that it better matches observations and is thus more likely to match future observations as well. That's how theories evolve and become more correct over time. But, in regards to the tornado and hurricane hypothesis they actually haven't changed much or at all over there years. Actually in regards to tornadoes there really hasn't been a consensus established yet so there's not really anything to change yet. And with hurricanes it is a cautious and loose consensus only. More research is required to solidify the consensus on these two points.
Yes. Let me boil the argument down: 1. If it's hot outside, it's global warming 2. If it's normal or better than normal, it's a complex issue.
I think you're misunderstanding what global warming means. It is not in reference to the temperature in your backyard on a particular day. It is in reference to the global mean surface temperature and the trend it acquires over a long period of time. Being hot or cold outside on one particular day is weather. That's different than climate. I'll give you a pass on this misunderstanding if you're getting your definitions from the media or bloggers. They frequently confuse the jargon. The media gets it wrong because they want to sell you a product and the best way to do that is to hype everything. The bloggers get it wrong because they are ideological and find it easier to tear down a strawman than a well reasoned evidence-based argument.
Exactly, you scrap the hypothesis but what the warmers do is change the narrative to match the failures so it seems like they didn't fail. Kind of like when they stopped calling it global warming when it stopped warming and started calling it climate change. Then they predicted severe weather and when that didn't pan out they said well we didn't mean all the time we meant sometimes. You can't lose when you predict climate change and random severe weather events and claim it proves your hypothesis. The climate changes, you get a severe storm and you're King for the day.
First, can you give us an example of a hypothesis that failed? There are a lot that have failed so it should be easy to come up with them. I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're considering here as a failure here. Since there is no consensus on a tornado prediction we can't say there's even a hypothesis yet. For the hurricane consensus we'll have to wait until at least the second half of the century before we can say with confidence if it is true or not. Second, if the hypothesis is something like "there will be 1500 +/- 250 tornadoes in 2020" and the actual observation is 1600 then that's not a failure. Furthermore, if new evidence comes out tomorrow that refines this to "1600 +/- 150" then instead of scraping the hypothesis you just tweak it to incorporate the new information. Global Warming - The secular increase in the global mean surface temperature over a long period of time. Climate Change - The changes to the biosphere as a result of global warming. What specifically didn't pan out here. Show me the prediction and demonstrate that it was well established in the scientific community. Then show me how it failed. Most of the predictions of severe weather have long time horizons so it's not really possible to present supporting or refuting evidence either way...yet. You can lose if you predict an increase in random severe weather events and those events actually decline in frequency. A lot of these predictions are going to be proven wrong IMHO. But, falsifying tertiary or even second hypothesis of AGW doesn't disprove AGW. It just disproves that hypothesis. To disprove AGW you need to falsify the two primary hypothesis which is very unlikely at this point. I will say that a lot of the tertiary and second hypothesis will be falsified. In fact, some of them already have. For example, the mid troposphere was supposed to have warmed by X amount by now, but observation shows the warming at only 0.5*X. That's a pretty bad failure, but again that's not a primary hypothesis and doesn't in anyway refute that the Earth is warming and that humans are responsible. I do admit that this is the viewpoint of the media. The media is wrong and everyone on this forum knows that I am super critical of them. Even some so called climate experts will make off-the-cuff statements like these and I readily repudiate them as well. But, for the most part the consensus (which filters out extreme and irrational opinions) stays pretty spot on and is consistent with their message.
