Is Climate Change in any way shape or form related to more tornadoes?

The USA population has increased from 200 to 300 million in the past 50 years.
50% more targets for tornadoes to hit.
But that aside, there is plenty of activity this year.
All were predicted by observing the Suns magnetic field .Only possible to predict,because they are caused by the Suns magnetic field.

 

Not necessarily. First while the population increased by 50% the populated area did not increase by 50% as most of growth occurred in dense populated areas (cities). Second, there was a reverse growth in some agricultural areas. there are some places on the Plains (for example in North Dakota) which had been completely abandoned went from 2-5,000 living to population zero.

When you get bored google ghost town.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

 

hey I am from Missouri.. suppose they did adjustment but they might have had not, you'd have to back it up with so-called facts. With respect to more weather stations once again do you have data? how many new stations? And it is my understanding tornadoes are mostly reported using radar not necessarily direct siting.

Actually it is not random, the graph you presented follows El Nino/La Nina cycle.

There is evidence that higher temps in western Pacific and Indian ocean influencing El Nino/La Nina cycle, but could we put AGW to rest at the moment? The OP asked "Is Climate Change in any way shape or form related to more tornadoes?" not "Is Global Warming in any way shape or form related to more tornadoes?". El Nino/La Nina are cyclic climate change, stop fighting windmills.

 

Severe weather occurs where thermal gradients are greatest. According to IPCC, cold air in the polar regions is warming relatively more than hot air in the tropics. Thus thermal gradients should overall be weakening.

In my opinion, one season of exceptionally high incidences of severe wx does not support climate changes any more than one season of exceptionally cold winter in the Eastern CONUS (e.g., last winter) refutes it.

 

what is the impact of this weakening on Jetstream? Isn't shear in tornado valley caused by jetstream not polar air masses? Isn't planetary rotation is the main cause of jetstream, not polar/equatorial gradient?

could we please do not use "climate changes" and "global warming" as synonyms? It is like saying "this is a car and it is black, so all cars are black".

 

Less dynamic support for severe weather outbreaks.

Yes, but the strength of the jet stream is driven by thermal gradients on the synoptic scale.

No, planetary rotation deflects flow generally from south-north to west-east (in the Northern Hemisphere). The strength of the flow is dependent on thermal gradients.

OK. AGW as postulated by IPCC should result in less poles-to-tropics thermal gradient. Thus it is my expectation that upper flow would tend to be weaker and severe weather outbreaks less intense.

The main reason why Spring (in the Northern Hemisphere) tends to have more intense severe weather outbreaks than Fall is because the temps in the Arctic tend to be warmer in the Fall than Spring, and the tropics-polar thermal gradient is less in the Fall that it is in the Spring. That's not to say severe weather outbreaks can't occur in Fall (there tends to be a slight spike in severe wx in mid-Fall, but no where near the extent of the spike in Spring, typically).

 

Coriolis effect is 0 at equator and poles the strongest at 45 degrees (actually it is strongest at equator but it is directed downward so it has no impact). Below some pictures illustrating jetstream:



The warming at poles reduces intensity of polar cell.. but this is not what causing the periodic fluctuations in severe weather. If you look majority of tornado activity happens at Ferrel/Hadley boundary (subtropical jet).

Here is what influencing it:


we are in strong El Nino phase,

 

Growth Rings – Maps Of U.S. Population Change, 2000-2010
While cities do grow,
the trend is for populations to sprawl.There has been flight to the suburbs in many areas and a building boom in housing developments in previously unpopulated areas.Which means a much larger target for tornadoes.
I would guess some regions actual residential land use may have doubled or quadrupled or more.At least it has in Northern Ca.Though today a lot of those buildings are empty.



QUOTE=cyclopathic;1333243]Not necessarily. First while the population increased by 50% the populated area did not increase by 50% as most of growth occurred in dense populated areas (cities). Second, there was a reverse growth in some agricultural areas. there are some places on the Plains (for example in North Dakota) which had been completely abandoned went from 2-5,000 living to population zero.

When you get bored google ghost town.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.[/QUOTE]

 

mojo appreciate the effort but with 50% population increase the only way the target could have increased by 50% is if the density of population stayed the same. The only way the occupied area could have stayed the same if the density increased by 50%. It is simple math nothing more nothing less.

With respect to tornado impact you'd need to look at the population/density numbers in the "tornado valley", areas with high probability of tornadoes. What happens in Detroit (1/3 population loss, sprawl, etc) or Bay Area have very little implication to very fact you are trying to prove.

 

Technical ENSO Update

 

@ Cyclopathic...

What you're describing is a very general explanation of upper air flow.

I work with, and write about, this stuff on a daily basis. The atmosphere is three-dimensional and upper air flow is inexorably linked with surface conditions.

Very strong thermal gradients at the surface are reflected in the "heights" (e.g., 500 mb heights) gradients which in turn directly influence the strength of the flow of the jet stream and flow at all other levels of the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is in almost constant flux. There may be periods where the upper flow is exceptionally fast and extremely amplified, and then transition to a relatively slow, nearly zonal flow, in a relatively short time frame, and then transition just as fast back to an extremely fast/amplified flow.

Conditions that favor tornado formation generally include very strong shear which occurs when upper flow is relatively much faster than surface flow (shear is winds increasing with height; also in some cases winds changing direction with height).

I do recall a case where shear was not impressive, yet a very strong tornado formed and caused considerable damage to a town in Texas (Jerrell, TX, IIRC) some 10-15 years ago (don't recall the exact year). In this case, extreme instability overcame the lack of upper flow support. But this is a very rare exception to the rule.

 

United States Population Density : Image of the Day

 

And yet you are arguing a point with no evidence. If you didn't like the first noaa link which said plain out that weather radar can not show tornados, but doplar radar can show likely conditions and investigators can then inspect damage and determine if a tornado hit. We rely on witnesses. Here is the noaa report that was really trying to find any evidence of some link between gw and tornados.

ClimateWatch Magazine » NOAA’s CSI Team Investigates Tornado Outbreak

I think you are the one tilting at windmills. At least educate yourself on the effects of warming on el nino/la nina and how it affects tornados. Then tell me why your theory conflicts with the data and the experts.

There is of course some possibility that noaa is missing something, and things may change in the future. It is not something as simple as the cycles you are looking at. The people pointing to warming are misinterpreting the data sets the same way you are. I have tried to get you better information but fear do not want to or do not have the capacity to look at the data.

 

It was 1997 and a F5. Jarrell is just north of me which makes it south of tornado ally, normally our tornados are smaller.

 

and how it correlates to population density in record tornado years? do you have a gradient?

 

I believe the one who makes the statement carries the burden of prove.

You made the following assertion:
- tornado activity is not related to Climate Change
- the increase in tornado is purely due to increase of population
- mojo made a comment that "Climate Change" is a stupid PR term for AGW
(please do not hesitate to alter the list)

Assertions made on my side were that:
- tornado/severe weather activity is related to jetstream fluctuation
- jetstream fluctuations are influenced by El Nino/La Nina cycle
- El Nino/La Nina cycle is cyclic Climate Change
- "Climate change" and AGW are not synonymic
- the OP was asking about "Climate Change" not "Global Warming"
- tornado severity scale (fujita scale) had been changed so post 2006 data in tornado intensity will show decline

please review the list and then we will settle it one by one.

We will have to set the standards a little bit higher then 6th degree of separation and take use conventional/non-Glen Back logic which mojo favors sometimes, otherwise all will get blamed on Kevin Becon.

 

When did that phase start? All I've heard here in the Pacific Northwest is of a waning La Nina phase.

It is going to be very tough holding this thread to a standard not met by the article referenced in the OP, and the links to which it points.

 

Yes, thanks.

I remember this was made a training case study. To say the least, forecasting tornadoes is tricky!

 

correct it was La Nina from August 2010 through Feb and rated neutral at present. Not much data on how the jetstream shifted since Feb, we will have to wait for data published.

poor Kevin Becon

 

My last reply to you as this is a waste of time. I was responding to incorrect assertions with the best scientific facts. I don't think I need to show how a wheel works. Please read those two web pages I posted and find someone local to explain it if you can't understand.

No I said there is not evidence of increased tornados or intensity over time so there is not evidence of correlation. This year as many others are outliers. To show causation you need to at least show correlation and a theory of causation. Neither work here. That does not mean that in the future new data - future data - and new theories will not come to pass. I can not prove a negative. But there is no evidence of climate change or global warming changing tornado intensity or frequency.

I quoted NOAA that the increase in reports is from increased reporting having to do with more doplar radar, more awareness, and the internet as well as population. More eyes looking cause more reports. There are not any more reports of big tornados as would be expected if climate change were there.

That is between you and mojo. I am limiting climate change to change caused by increased green house gasses, but that does not apply to this discussion. I see no evidence that any climate change is making more tornados or more intense tornados, since there does not appear to be evidence that the number or severity of tornados is increasing over time. We do have a very poor historic data set though.

OK so far

controversial definition. ENSO are affected by sea surface temperture and these are affected by ghg. They and the jet stream are affected by sun spot activity.

Here is NOAA's take on ENSO
2011 Tornado Season Climate Factors

those all seem ok. NOAA did have to estimate strength of tornados done before the scale. NOAA's point was that we should only count big tornados because we expect those to be reported.

OK but lack of correlation does not imply causation.