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

Who mentioned Piers Corbyn? So now are you admitting that Spencer's work is now suspect, ergo you now wish to defend Corbyn? (a man that won't allow his work to be peer reviewed? Sounds like good scientific method to me)

Strike two!

Icarus

PS Climate change is not a left or right issue, it just seems that many on the right largely due to dogma, live in the State of Denial!

 

Ah yes - and the left are in denial anything other than climate models. For instance, real world data:

No upward trend in tornadoes:




While we're at it, record Western snowpack:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22snow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Decrease in the rate of ocean rise despite ever increasing levels of greenhouse gasses (now down to about a mm / yr. over the past 5 years and probably on the order of about 2mm / yr over the past decade, vs. over 3 mm year in the prior decade.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

Ah yes - and the left are in denial anything other than climate models. For instance, real world data:

No upward trend in tornadoes:




While we're at it, record Western snowpack:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/us/22snow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Decrease in the rate of ocean rise despite ever increasing levels of greenhouse gasses (now down to about a mm / yr. over the past 5 years and probably on the order of about 2mm / yr over the past decade, vs. over 3 mm year in the prior decade.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

FYI, according to some, record snowpack in various parts of the country, (not just in the west) is a possible indication of CLIMATE CHANGE. Do remember, human caused climate change will not just manifest I tself in obvious warming.

Icarus

PS. This is not a left/right issue, but a rational/irrational issue

 

Icarus you are confusing the two men.
Spencer doesnt make predictions.
Here's your quote...
"Just because, on the day of a tornado outbreak, he "predicted" the possibility of tornadic activity on that same day, (just like every other weather forecaster in the country) is no great feat of science! Just turn on the weather channel."
BTW Piers Corbyn makes his precise date predictions weeks and months in advance.Something that no other person has the capability of performing.

 

Mojo,

I'm sorry, but you provided this link, in your post #106 on this very thread, where SPENCER seem to predict that that particular day would have significant tornadic activity in the US Midwest:Today’s Tornado Outlook: High Risk of Global Warming Hype « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

So it was you who first mentioned Spencer and Corbyn

And just so you don't try to pull a TREB on me, here is the link to that post, with the link to Spencer: http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...way-shape-form-related-more-tornadoes-11.html

The fact that you don't dispute any if the links that I have provided (in this thread and others) addressing the short comings in both of their scientific methods tells me that you are so blinded by your wish to believe that AGW is not real, that you are un willing to confront sources that contradict your own prejudice.

Icarus

 

My god you can't have actually read the link.Or if you did,I'm actually embarrassed for you.hint there is nothing about prediction in the article.

 

Dozens of tornadoes kill at least 297 people in South - USATODAY.com

you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. :der:

 

Tim,

there are several issues with data you are referencing.. For example the Fujita scale has been changed in 2005 (complete shift was made in 2007). I know for the fact they went back and adjusted some tornadoes back in early 2000. For example the F5 tornado which carved it's way near by in 2002 was downgraded to F4. However they could not go back and do it several decades back, so yes from that point of view it may look there were more F3-F5 tornadoes back in 70s.

There is a problem with making assumptions about annual increase rate in ocean level. Ocean level rises almost instantaneously when the huge piece of ice slides in Arctic/Antarctic, then rate slows down for a while. It is a normal fluctuation. It does not mean that the ice stopped melting, it just means that while ice is floating and melting it does not affect sea level.

With respect to record snow fall, again it does not mean that the planet is cooling and more snow falling. Actually if planet was cooling there will be less moisture in the air and there would be less snow.

We had record snow fall b/c of jetstream shift to NW, and higher water temp in west pacific. More moisture in the air equals more snow, as long as temperatures are below freezing.

You are correct linking record snow falls to tornado outburst this spring, but this is how it works:
1. higher temp in west Pacific => more moisture in the air => favorable jetstream conditions (El Nino/La Nina cycle) => high snow fall in NW/Rockies/North
2. higher temp in Gulf of Mexico + record snow fall = higher temp gradient = more tornadoes.

And if you wanna link GW to this, would you think that higher temperatures in west Pacific and Gulf of Mexico somehow connected?

 

Mojo,

I plead guilty to missing the gist of the link, especially the healing words. On a cursory glance I took it to be a prediction. Sorry for that confusion.

That said however, I still think that Spencer's methods and motivations are suspect. By the way, I am not making the assertion that todays tornado activity is directly related to AGW. (I bot convinced it isn't either) but merely suggesting that AGW is not happening and is based on Spencer and Corbyn is not convincing.

Icarus

 

I don't know why mojo insist that Climate Change = to AGW or according to him "Climate Change is a PR moniker for AGW". And the question in OP was asked about "Climate Change" not about AGW

 

Very true, but climate change was blamed for the decline of the western snow pack.
Decline in Snowpack Is Blamed On Warming - washingtonpost.com

Both theories can not be right that climate change is responsible for a decline, and for an increase of the same snow pack. The answer is quite obvious though, 2011 is an exceptional year most likely caused by natural variability and volcano activity. There is not evidence that this year is the start of a new trend.

yes there is enough irrationality on both sides, lets look at the facts and not look at every outlier as an example of climate change.

 

Actually, both can be true. As climate changes in general, and air and water patterns change due to climate change, the snow pac could change annually. For example, in the north Cascades, the line between rain and snow is quite small. A few degrees difference means the difference between rain and snow. El Nino/La Nina years can have a considerable effect on the Cascade snowpack, from historical averages, and indeed one could have record snow pack one year, and record low snow pack the next, with both being somewhat related to climate change.

Once again, the myth is that "the earth is getting warmer, ergo I shou ld be getting warmer".. This is fundamentally an incorrect conclusion, and highlight an ego centric view of the planet.

Bottom line is, what did climate scientists predict the effects of global warming were/are likely to be, and are they/have they come to pass? The conclusions are clear, as one only has to look at the hi arctic to confirm.

Icarus

 

Climate change should look at at least 30 years as that study looked at 50. You are rationalizing weather to climate. We can have years that go against the trend, but we can not have climate change causing both a smaller and larger snow pack. If it is going in one direction then another it is not climate change. The larger snow pack does not mean the trend is not decreasing, but we can not point to year to year variability and claim it is climate.

Those deciding that increasing or more dangerous tornados are climate change clearly are not looking at the data or think that 1 year makes a climate. I hope that we can at least agree on terms, and look for at least a long trend of years of change before declaring something climate.

 

First, I absolute they agree that any climate trend must have a long term view, decades at least, that said trends are trends.

I am not rationalizing anything. It I'd perfectly conceivable that snow packs can be both increasing and decreasing at essentially the same time. Once again, we tend to look at weather (and indeed climatic ) events through oour local eyes. I am very aware of snow pack issues in the North Cascades and Northern Rockies,, as well as in the Hudson's Bay basin. I have no personal connection to New England or the Ohio Valley. (not to mention much of the rest of the world!).

So when one is mentioning snow pack, unless you are very locale specific it doesn't mean much. You link WAPO piece speaks specifically to the inter mountain west. Do you have an idea what is going on with historical snow pack in the Andes, or the Himalayas, of Greenland fir tht matter? With the limited exception of Greenland, I certainy don't.

So, I stand by my opinion, "snow pack" can be both increasing and decreasing as a function of global climate change. (even locally).

 

I wasn't talking about snow packs in general, I was talking specifically about the western snow pack where there have been studies linking its decreasing size over a 50 year period to climate change. This snow pack was the subject of the NYT, Washington Post, and Science articles. If you claim that this years increase of the snow pack was also caused by climate change you are claiming that we need to throw away that data and create a new trend, perhaps starting in 2008, or 3 years. This requires an almost religions belief that any variability is caused by ghg, or a confusion between weather and climate.

Which forces me to assume you do not understand the difference between climate and weather. That seems to be a problem with a large percentage of the population.

 

Once again, and I don't think I can make it any clearer. It is entirely logical that average snowpack can be both growing and shrinking, if you consider it world wide, and that climate change is of course a possible cause. Is it always the cause, of course not, can it be evidence of climate change? Of course.

I also contend that it s not out the the realm of logic that local snowpacks can do the same over a number if seasons.

I suspect we are arguing semantics however. Like I said before, the proof lies in the evidence (particularly if the predictions are or have come true).

Te best description of future Global warming, is that it will bring increases weather anomalies/events in various places in the globe. Warmer some places, some times, cooler some places, some times. Clearly this has been happening around the world. Can this produce floods one year, followed by drought the next? Could it mean record snow one year, and record low snow the next? It certainly sounds logical to me, given the predictions of increased significant weather events/anomalies.

There is no logical disconnect, nor a misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate.

Icarus

 

Well no, by definition if there is not a trend, just variability that is not climate change its weather.

They certainly can, but that is not climate change. If the theory is ghg raise global tempertures causing the climate change of melting artic ice, but the artic ice increases in thickness it would be evidence that this climate change is not happening. If it is only for a short period this would be weather, if the sheets grow for decades it would be evidence against the climate change of decreasing ice sheets caused by increased ghg.

yes so the increased western snow pack this year is counter to the climate change predictions and not evidence that that prediction is true.

This is one theory, but I would say that variation is only evidence of variation. Specific type of events must be evidence of ghg causing climate change. A new ice age would be counter evidence.

Well sure, but then aren't you just attributing anything bad to climate change? That does not sound scientific in the least.

It certainly seems that way to me.

 

Let me see if I understand you, are you claiming that arctic ice is indeed expanding, or are you only citing that as an example?

Icarus

 

No, the climate change is decreasing artic ice. There is ample data to support this.

It is an example of a phenomenon that would contradict the current idea that ghg are causing climate change. If it happens for a few years it could just be variability, but over the long term (30 or more years) it would indicate that ghg are reducing global cooling. Some people including those on prius chat seem to indicate that every change is somehow supports climate change even if it is just natural variation.