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

I must admit, that is the first time I have heard the phrase "reducing global cooling"

It sounds vaguely Orwellian.

A quick look into "global cooing" tend to link back to the usual suspects.

 

the theory of "global cooling" is linked to "global dimming".. There are some interesting finding in this field. For example the studies of cooling effects of increased snow fall on reflecting sunlight, aerosols, contrail, volcanic eruptions, smog, etc on global climate. Some of the findings hated on both sides of AGW/non-AGW sides of the isle, or at least being ignored/misquoted.. mostly b/c they complicate the clear cut CO2 model or actually explain some temporary global temperature drops, which anti-AGW guys usually site as prove that GW does not happen.

read this: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming]Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

so basically the amount of smog generated up to 1975, was cooling planet enough to counter green gas emission.

One can only speculate what would happen when China and India will clean their act.

 

The way I understand it global dimming is counteracting global warming to a very small degree and global warming due to raised CO2 is raising sea temperatures. The higher the sea temperatures the more extreme weather is possible. There will always be fluctuations in warming and cooling as there are so many factors but the overall trend shows a delayed but definate effect of raised CO2 on planetary temperatures. It is a pity that there is no magical oracle that could tell us the point of no return. It is too easy to debunk the whole idea of global warming and I have no doubt many lives will pay for our mistakes, when rather than if.

 

Do you mean time magazine, or who are the usual suspects?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It is pretty clear that there was global cooling going on between the medieval warm period and the little ice age, we just do not know the mechanism. If temperatures go down on a climate change scale of time then it is global cooling. The consensus is that lowering temperatures in the middle of this century were variability in the warming trend. Some of this variability was natural and some man made. It is because of jumps to conclusion by the popular press that we should be vigilant to take enough time to establish a trend and not just look at a year or two of weather.

 

just because they fail to investigate connection it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you need to be more specific then vague references to "little ice age" before you jump to conclusions.

 

I am saying that there was great exaggeration and in hindsight the consensus is that the period was variability in the warming trend. I am not saying pollutants did not contribute, and some of these may have been from wwii as the trend started in 1945. What I am saying is they did not look out at a period long enough. We need to go out 30 years to establish climate change, and by the time the popular press started their scare stories the scientific community had already moved on. Many of the bad things with global cooling from the popular press is now presented as problems with global warming. Here is one from newsweek 1975.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

The little ice age is the cooling period that is described in European history and the temperature record. The dates are in dispute but it is thought to have begun at the start of the 14th century and ended in the middle of the 19th. Mann's famous hockey stick removed this period, but since then Mann has revised his temperature estimates to include this and the medieval warming period. There is wide agreement on global warming for the last 400 years beginning in the little ice age.

 

It would be hard not to link these with increases in industrial aerosol byproducts. Considering that CO2 levels were 30% less and the amount of aerosol emissions is now half of what it was 1975.

there reason there is a disagreement on dates b/c indeed there were multiple events during this time period which contributed to cooling.
For example "year without summer" of 1816 several volcanic eruptions in 1815 the Mnt Tambora eruption VEI 7, 1812 La Soufriere, 1812, Awu, 1813, Suwanosejima, 1814, Mayon (all VEI 4).
The 1783 eruption of Laki in Iceland (VEI 6) was the equivalent of 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption every 3 days.. Mt Pinatubo caused global temp drop by 1C and it took 2-3 years to recover.

Taking that aside the LIA as defined by NASA is a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD. It has been linked to of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation disruption, albeit still disputable.

 

I am not quite sure then why you wanted me to be more specific. You seem to understand the term and know that there was a period of global cooling to arrive at the little ice age. I do not believe that there is consensus on the causes of the global cooling.

 

Why? because if you accept the LIA under that definition (global process influenced but not defined by single abnormality) and we agree that LIA trend has been presently reversed, all we need to discuss how much of that reversal is due to anthropogenic activity.

 

And that will in what way go to the blame of weather on climate change? Remember my point is that their are natural causes of global warming and cooling that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels or polution and the cooling into the little ice age and warming to end it happened before significant burning of fossil fuels. So I can only assume that your anthropological causes for the little ice age and its end must be agricultural, and I would say it is unlikely they had a great deal to do with the cooling or warming.

The Time and Newsweek articles clearly show the rush to demonization and need for the media to assign blame to cooling or what ever is the fad of the day. This is not science.

Global Warming Did It! Well, Maybe Not. - washingtonpost.com

So what about gore and his assurance that katrina was caused by warming. And since hurricanes are caused it must be tornadoes too.

So please take a step back before you blame the larger snow pack in the west or tornadoes on climate change.

 

There is no question there are natural causes of global warming and cooling; the point in discussion is your belief that burning fossil fuels or pollution and other anthropogenic activity have no whatsoever implication on planetary climate.

 

That is not my position at all. Burning of fuels and polution affect climate.

But when we are talking about the little ice age that ended in the mid 19th century, we can be assured that most co2 was caused by warming, and not that the warming was caused by co2. This is even though the two events support each other. The facts are different today, and the direction of fossil fuel burning tends to warm the planet, only the size of the contribution is in dispute, and I am not a denier. I just want to stand as a voice of reason when people blame weather events on climate change especially when there is no or contraindicated data.

 

we actually agree? Lets discuss the anthropogenic contribution!

Yes the latest LIA was one of the latest Bond/Dansgaard–Oeschger events which occur every 1500 years or so. However it would be as foolish to blame all of current warming only on natural cyclic occurrence as to peg it all on anthropogenic activity.

really? despite all evidence? Your realize that human contribution could be directly calculated as we know how much fossil fuels we burn?

 

Cyclopathic ,Care to share your "evidence" that CO2 has caused warming in the past?

"Originally Posted by austingreen
we can be assured that most co2 was caused by warming, and not that the warming was caused by co2."

 

[FONT=verdana,arial,serif][FONT=verdana,arial,serif]La Niña[/FONT][/FONT] wasn't declared over until today, though the transition to ENSO Neutral occurred last month. Local version, NOAA version.

 

If one lived on the west coast the end of el Nina was pretty evident. We pretty much skipped spring and went straight to summer if u can call it that. Temps hitting the mid 60's today. I can live with that if the rain holds up as expected

 

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

More tornados since when?
1950?
1850?

It was probably pretty hard to count all of the tornados in 1850, since there were about 270 million fewer people to sight them back then, and they didn't really have all the cool tornado chase vehicles (to say nothing of NEXRAD or doppler radar) back then.

 

There were much more snow accumulated in Rockies due to La Nina.. longer melting, cooler temps, higher temperature gradient.

There was a speculation that the ice retreat at the end of Ice Age caused alot of tornado activity..

 

Pretty severe tornados so early in the season. Wondering how many billion dollar weather events we will experience this year