General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes, the tornadoes and other extreme weather events are generally linked to climate change
Our current climate is the average of our weather.
Our weather everywhere on earth now includes all the human contributions that help shape it. If we can alter the climate over decades in substantial ways, we are also altering the climate at the micro scale, over short periods of time and in small weather events.
They say that climate does not equal weather, but I've seen that true phrase used as propaganda lately, used to suggest that climate is not related to weather, and that's not true.
These tornadoes, Hurricane Sandy, higher sea levels, the varying jet stream of this year, etc. etc. are all becoming ledger entries in what we all experience as "climate" today.
The idea that one can say that a weather event is unrelated to climate change is nonsense. Our climate as we know it includes some level of anthropogenically contributed factors and once those are in the system, the system includes them, period.
To the extent that we see more or less, or differing magnitudes, timing or anything else in our daily weather that we did not see in the past, climate change is a factor, because climate change has influenced our climate as we experience it presently.
To argue that climate change does not impact storm events and the like is logically denying that climate change has altered the climate. To alter the climate, you must alter the weather day to day, and we are altering both, directly and indirectly.
To those who say climate change is real but not a factor in extreme weather events, they are stating a logical fallacy. When they say "prove it", the burden is on them to prove that forces which can alter a planet's climate for decades won't also alter the weather events on that planet in a moment or in an area.
Weather is how we experience climate, day to day, place to place. Climate change affects our weather, that's our reality. We may like to think that we are just raising the global temperature a few degrees and that doesn't sound so bad but to raise it a few degrees after it's all averaged out, means there are a lot of extreme values now introduced to bump that average up.
Weather disasters are part of our climate. Are we influencing them by driving climate change? Yup. They are linked. The burden of proof is on those who say otherwise.
gopiscrap
(23,674 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)sure.
clarice
(5,504 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)clarice
(5,504 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)then you said, "You don't think it's the weather's fault?"
the game you're playing -- not as clever as you think it is.
clarice
(5,504 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)make a joke of the topic? derail it a little?
clarice
(5,504 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)whatever it was, it was not clever.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)He's been pulling a similar schtick with other people, too, myself included.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if you want to single me out as the only one who thinks you engage in climate change denial, you can't do so honestly.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)This is getting tiring, honestly. Not everybody who disagrees with you is being dishonest or "playing games".....
Skittles
(152,967 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the group where you could talk about all the arguments against the seriousness or existence of global climate change?
and why did you support that, when the Environment and Energy group talks about Climate Change all the time?
because you couldn't post denialist talking points and evidence against climate change in our E and E group, so you wanted your own, with Nederland, so that you could post those talking points there.
obfuscation mannnnnnnnnn.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But then again, that is QUITE typical behavior from you.
I have continue to ask you, over and over again, what you thought were "denialist talking points". And in at least most cases, you either scurried away, changed the subject, or gave a half-ass bullshit answer. Because you know what? You don't have any proof whatsoever. NONE.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)to do so.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Because, God knows, they never blame *anything* on Clinton or Obama. And thus the interest in your post. Assuming that you are neither wingnut nor bagger, you might want to avoid the term "Democrat Party" (sic) as well.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Is there something I'm missing? What's wrong with saying Democrat Party? Thanks for your help.
VOX
(22,976 posts)If you're a true Democrat, or even a literate individual, there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" -- the correct term is "Democratic Party." Your congressperson may be a Democrat, but s/he is a member of the Democratic Party. This isn't just some silly grammar-nazi stuff. Starting with the infamous Joseph McCarthy some 60 years ago, the "Democrat Party" term was cooked up as a slur, used solely by right-wingers who use it as a kind of code, simultaneously identifying themselves to each other as "patriots," while getting in what they perceive to be a dig at "leftists."
If you truly don't know this, pay attention to who's using this term. You will *never* hear a Democrat utter it -- to us, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard, which is precisely why right-wing talking heads and candidates spit it out at every chance.
clarice
(5,504 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,361 posts)But I bet you knew that.
clarice
(5,504 posts)How would I know that?
BadgerKid
(4,541 posts)who claim they are linked. There have been extreme weather events long before climate change became more widely mentioned.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how can you claim weather events and climate aren't linked? climate is the sum total of weather, day in and day out that differs from previously.
mathematically you can't even argue that weather events do not comprise climate. if you try to separate climate change from weather, the burden is on you.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)You need to show that the frequency and intensity of tornados is different from past years with sound statistical methods and your degree of confidence at the 95% or higher level.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)however, if you are trying to say that climate is changing but weather does not, then you don't even know what weather and climate is (hint: climate is the average of the weather).
if you say climate is changing but the weather events that comprise climate don't change or are unrelated or de-linked from the larger change you have no understanding of the terms "climate" and "weather".
and based on that, you shouldn't be throwing around statements like "95 percent confidence interval is required", when you don't even understand the basis of what you're saying --or you're doing so to obfuscate.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Pot, meet kettle. And that's all I gotta say.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)trolls spread false information --where did i do that?
ok, is that not why you're calling me a troll?
what have i said that is against the liberal/Democratic position on climate change?
ok, that's not why you're calling me a troll...
then what?
you wanted a group on DU where you could talk about climate denial and the arguments against climate change being what you think is the "doomer" position.
oh yeah, you don't like being thought of as a troll, but you called me one two months ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2478324
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Well, this is what you said first:
you are fighting those who say it exists.
And here's what I said in response to that:
Now this is a load of crap, CD, and you know it.
I dare you to find ONE recent comment of mine that implies that I don't believe that AGW exists.....but then again, you've never been able to.
And as for this problem, I'll have you know that the Yale Climate Media Forum, of all organizations, has pointed out the facts of the matter:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/10/is-climate-fatigue-setting-in/
If that's not a good enough source for you, I don't know what is.
And every word I said was true, by the way. And you never could prove your accusations, either. I've never once disagreed with mitigating climate change. In fact, I wholeheartedly support it. What you have really taken issue with, is my calling out of some of the wackier things that your little clique has said, and B.S. that some of you have posted every so often. If you're going to disagree with me, at least be honest about it.....
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)are you really on our side?
uh huh.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Nice strawman, by the way. Your assertion that I apply this term to ALL fellow climate change "believers" is ludicrous in two ways: 1.)I'm a "believer" myself. And 2.)"Doomer" is really a more specific term anyway; namely, it demotes those who believe, and, usually, actively propagate, such general things like "total human extinction by AGW alone is either possible and/or inevitable", "The IPCC is hiding from us and/or lying to us about the true severity of climate change", "We cannot stop the climate change" which, ironically, is a position held by many skeptics as well), etc., as well as specifics, such as the Malcolm P.R. Light methane fearmongering piece from this last summer, or the various agitprop, poorly-researched, etc. crap pieces put out by Guy McPherson, David Wasdell, etc.
I mean, you DO know all of this by now, you've been around me long enough. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and you guessed maybe 10-15% of the total population.
so this "doomer" label that you use constantly and post constantly about is about a small minority (though to be fair you pulled that number out of your...brain) of the population.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022477708#op
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Same problem with hardcore deniers, too: they only make up a small percentage of the population as well, but they too, are extremely vocal in proportion to their actual numbers.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the E and E group was open and ready to talk about climate change, even to be used to dismantle denialist talking points.
but that wasn't enough.
you wanted a group where the denialist talking points would be allowed and taken at face value and accepted.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What I wanted was a group in which a more even-handed approach to the issue of climate change could be undertaken. And there were some people who did have a pretty good response to that(obviously because they understood what my intentions actually were).
BTW, actual denialism would have been banned in the group as well as doomerism. Neither extreme would be acceptable.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because climate includes all weather events.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But, again, as I and others have pointed out, the burden of proof, again, lies at least mostly, if not entirely, on the shoulders of the person who claims that individual weather events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc. are necessarily linked to climate change somehow, instead of just random, coincidental occurrences.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how does that work?
day to day, nothing changes, yet we look back at the data and add all those days up and BAM --the average day is changed from the long term normal?
how does that work.
how do you change the climate over the long term without on average, changing each day?
you're in over your head. and this is the shallow end.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Are you seriously this naive and ignorant or are you just being a troll?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that makes less than no sense.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)there's nothing wrong with you not understanding, but lecturing me on what you don't understand is where you messed up.
by the way:
global warming can mean more snow in cold regions because optimal temperature for snowflake formation is not far below freezing, therefore in colder regions, it's often below that. so in such places, snowfall will often increase. quite scientific.
global warming in warmer, but still cool areas, can result in less snow because take all those prime snow formation days just below freezing and bump them up a few degrees C and you get rain, not snow. ergo, less snow.
so the scientific answer to global warming and snow is it can lead to both. just because you can't understand it doesn't make it unscientific, it makes you unscientific.
DesMoinesDem (336 posts)
4. So now lack of snow is do to global warming again?
Last year the large amount of snowfall was due to global warming. I remember reading here on DU that it was OBVIOUS that warmer weather would lead to more snow. Something about more evaporation, so more moisture in the air making more snow. It's hard to keep up.
7. OK, climate change causes more snow and less snow
due to 'more energy' in the 'weather engine'. That sounds so scientific. My friends will definitely buy that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=375698
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)and every post you made in it. You offer no evidence that tornadoes can be linked to climate change. Maybe because there has been no increase in tornado frequency or strength. You then place the burden of proof on others to prove you wrong, proving you have no understanding of science. And your explanation of why global warming can cause more snow and less snow fails because those claims are not region specific like say they are. In every single region people blame global warming no matter what amount of snow they get.
So why don't you provide some actual studies that show that global warming and tornadoes are connected. You know, actual science.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It cannot, however, contrary to some opinions, necessarily be linked to any one specific event of any kind(well, at least not directly so). And to be perfectly honest, there hasn't been a lot of convincing, solid evidence to suggest otherwise, at least in most cases.
To make a long story short: the burden of proof is entirely on those who claim that specific weather events are, for sure, positively linked to climate change,.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you are saying climate change can be happening at the macro level, which is simply the average of all the micro level events and *weather*.
climate is averaged weather.
if you say weather doesn't change you are arguing that climate does not either.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)All I said, was that specific weather events, in of themselves, cannot necessarily be solidly linked to climate change(which, btw, nobody's ever offered any actual, applicable proof to the contrary.).
0rganism
(23,856 posts)Averages are a limited statement about a population, not a complete description of that population. Alone, averages don't help you qualify statements about what's usual or unusual for that population. The old "Bill Gates walks into a bar" adage applies here.
In order to link a specific weather event to a change in climate, you need a lot of evidence that most of us are ill-equipped to collect. It's rarely done, tricky to pin down. For instance, Oklahoma is in a region that tends to have tornadoes in the spring, so statements that the recent disaster was due to climate change rather than climate as usual require some supporting evidence. In order to make a substantiated claim that this particular tornado is a result of climate change, at the very least you'd begin by showing that its outside the regional behavior norm for recorded and inferrable history prior to the time at which your modeled shift occurs (outside some range of prior modeled behavior).
Thus, the weather-climate relationship claim tends to work in the other direction. One might track the aggregate number of severe weather events in an area over a period of time and correlate that with a modeled climate shift for contributing evidence that the model's predictions are on track, if that's what is predicted, reinforcing the predictive power of the model. Anthropogenic climate change is a theory -- a well-established, supportable, scientific theory. Don't make the mistake of turning it into an article of faith; doing so actually plays into the hands of deniers.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Any other 'burghers here?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But when you add in Sandy, Katrina, extreme drought in the American West (which resulted in extreme wildfires in my own stomping grounds in Colorado), floods, blizzards, nor-easters, and extreme weather events happening in greater frequency all over the planet...
...and when you look at the data and climate analyses by thousands of scientists all over the world (of which 97% agree)...
There can be only one conclusion. We are experiencing the consequences of man-made global climate change. And it's only going to get worse. Much worse.
The deniers can suck my balls. They're pulling the same bullshit that the tobacco industry pulled trying to deny that cigarettes caused emphysema and lung cancer.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)However, though, we have actually had a below average year in terms of overall severe weather coverage in this country(yes, even with the Moore tornado)
"And it's only going to get worse. Much worse."
Worse, yes. Much worse? Not so sure about that......
chervilant
(8,267 posts)104° Fahrenheit, then "much worse" seems likely.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Summers are likely to get somewhat hotter, yes. But you would need constant 104+ degree temperatures for a majority of the day for, say, oh, I dunno, a month and a half or so, for any concerns about food shortages to be validated, if that's what you're thinking of. And, TBH, that isn't likely to be the norm in all but perhaps the very worst scenarios(and maybe not even by 2100). The average predicted temperature rise is about 3*C by 2100, but it wouldn't be evenly distributed as much of that heat would go the poles....and a good part of that for less frigid winters at that. North Platte, Neb., for example, has an average high of 88*F in July, with a low of about 60, according to NOAA. Theoretically, we could guess that, under that scenario, the average July high by 2100 could be something like 91-92*F, and the low something more like 63-64*F, or something like that(it has been theorized that nights could warm up faster than days, at least in some places.)
So, while there is increased heat, there isn't nearly enough for what your scenario would require.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)we don't know what to expect as temperatures rise, and routinely exceed 104° Fahrenheit. Add the now common dearth of rainfall in key areas, and the 'dust bowl' scenario might replay with a vengeance. IIRC, we lost significant percentages of our key crops last year, especially corn.
Here in the Ozarks, we lost several large trees last summer -- looked like the mountains had measles. Chickory was stunted and sparse. The drought conditions are generally blamed, but I have to wonder if several days of extreme temps played a part.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you don't need a month and a half of 104+ degree temperatures to cause a food shortage.
your choice of an arbitrary number of days and temperatures is noted.
not sure where you got that, but i wouldn't want to be there.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)"not sure where you got that, but i wouldn't want to be there."
Frankly, I'd have said the same thing to you on a number of occasions. But unlike yourself, I actually have a reason to think such.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)through the year 2100!!!
jeez man, own the position you're taking. might make it more believable --though it isn't.
77. What does that have to do with the tornadoes, though?
Summers are likely to get somewhat hotter, yes. But you would need constant 104+ degree temperatures for a majority of the day for, say, oh, I dunno, a month and a half or so, for any concerns about food shortages to be validated, if that's what you're thinking of. And, TBH, that isn't likely to be the norm in all but perhaps the very worst scenarios(and maybe not even by 2100). The average predicted temperature rise is about 3*C by 2100, but it wouldn't be evenly distributed as much of that heat would go the poles....and a good part of that for less frigid winters at that. North Platte, Neb., for example, has an average high of 88*F in July, with a low of about 60, according to NOAA. Theoretically, we could guess that, under that scenario, the average July high by 2100 could be something like 91-92*F, and the low something more like 63-64*F, or something like that(it has been theorized that nights could warm up faster than days, at least in some places.)
So, while there is increased heat, there isn't nearly enough for what your scenario would require.
YOU DISMISSED *ANY* CONCERNS ABOUT FOOD SHORTAGES. THROUGH 2100!!!
and now you're denying your own words in the post we are talking about. we aren't as stupid as you think we are.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I was, to be honest, mainly referring to North America when I said that, and perhaps that could have been made clearer. I had originally also meant major food issues, but I figured people would understand what I really meant; I now realize that was probably not prudent, either(but hey, at least when I actually do mess up, I admit it! You, on the other hand, rarely ever do.).
However, though, even with that admission, it still stands that your claims of "minimization" are still undeniably full of cock & baloney. And no amount of denial, or whining, or false accusations can change that.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Cigarettes won't cause emphysema and lung cancer - but they may yellow your teeth. A good whitening toothpaste, and you're all set.
Chemisse
(30,793 posts)Even one degree worldwide can make a big difference in how much energy there is to feed hurricanes and other storms.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Higher temperature = more energy in Earth's atmosphere = more moisture circulating in and out and around the atmosphere and more wind blowing around, and more storms, and more powerful storms. We're already seeing this.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)some scientists are crediting climate change also with triggering these huge events we have been having lately and the equally devastating tsunamis that accompany them.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There seems to be no long term pattern here at all.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/tornadoes-in-america-the-oklahoma-disaster-in-context/276063/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado
I think your argument is clearly flawed.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you are arguing that they aren't linked, therefore you are saying they exist in a vacuum which protects them from being influenced or reflective of climate change.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I'm looking at the data and saying that if it doesn't show a link after a century of climate change, there is no observable link.
Your OP is a demonstration of classic errors in both science and logic.
What you're arguing here is the same type of thinking that led medical science to advise very low salt diets for everyone, seemingly on good grounds. Eating more salt raises blood pressure. High blood pressure is known to be a severe health risk factor. Therefore, medical science has recommended for decades that people restrict salt intake, and the recommended restrictions have increased over time.
The only problem is that after looking at the evidence, it does not appear that generally restricting salt to those low levels is correlated with lower mortality. It may be correlated with HIGHER mortality, at least at the lower bounds of recommended intake.
But medical science is science, so even though they find the results of their studies surprising, they are beginning to modify their recommendations.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/05/institute-of-medicine-low-salt-intake-may-be-unhealthy/#.UZw1IJxu-ls
http://realsalt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/American-Journal-of-Med-Full-Article-Sodium-Intake-and-Mortality.pdf
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/36/5/890.full
I don't like pseudo-scientific stuff like your argument because it has the potential to kill people. It's a bad habit of thought, and it is the exact opposite of scientific thinking.
There also seems to be no good statistical evidence that a century of climate change has produced an increase in Atlantic hurricanes. I mention this because the cause of a lot of tornadoes on the coast are strong storms that throw off the cells.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
It may be that the very strong influence of terrain overcomes any other factors. But heck, I don't know. If one variable is changing and another is not, that's generally considered a non-correlation. Perhaps in your world it is not. But if in your world what you BELIEVE should be happening overcomes the evidence about what is happening, then your attitude toward understanding the world is essentially superstitious rather than scientific.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you don't just go fishing for correlations, you look for causal links and statistics can help determine how much of those links explain the variation in the data you see.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Where's the effect?
Imajika
(4,072 posts)From the article:
"Are tornadoes getting more frequent?
"The short answer is no, according to the National Weather Service, especially when it comes to more violent storms. 'There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years,' the service notes. The longer answer is that more tornadoes are now reported than in years past, but that's probably due to an increase in the number of eyes scanning for tornadoes than the number of tornadoes."
Tornado's happen in tornado alley. It has little or nothing to do with climate change. The number of deniers rises every time well meaning people try to attribute weather incidents like this to climate change. It's silly and not believable to even many low information voters.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)
are the synoptic patterns of high and low pressures over the North American continent unaffected by climate change? yes or no?
is the instability of the atmosphere unaffected by climate change?
is the relative humidity unaffected by climate change?
are ocean temperatures unaffected by climate change?
is the ambient temperature unaffected by climate change?
are the winds that flow from the Rocky Mountains to the Great Plains unaffected by climate change?
all these things are the aspects of an environment that is called tornado alley.
you're saying they are not affected by any of them.
or are you wrong?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)I believe climate change is real because I put my faith in science. But these storms are not evidence of climate change, they are evidence of weather.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There IS climate change occurring, and it IS affecting overall trends in many ways. But as you quite correctly pointed out, this particular event isn't necessarily linkable with climate change, at least not directly, but rather, it is just weather.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)uh huh.
how does one calculate climate? counting weather or counting unicorns?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not timing, not location, not atmospheric conditions, not location of the jet stream, not synoptic conditions locally, not the synoptic conditions from the Gulf of Mexico to the Northern Great Plains, not the sea surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, not the strength of the Polar Low?
oh, you found two graphs of tornadoes and you think you've proven that tornadoes exist in a vacuum that protects them from being affected by climate change or patterns that are affected or are an aspect of climate change.
wow. bold.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)are you prepared to provide evidence that tornadoes are not weather?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The question: In what way is global warming affecting tornadoes?
You seem to believe you have an answer or theory, so post your idea and whatever evidence you have to support it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)please reread the OP. it is consistent with the reply i made to you which you are referring to.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If we assume Climate Change is real, and I imagine we both do, this still does not answer any questions about extreme weather events like tornadoes.
There is no data to support the idea that global warming is causing an increase in the number or power of tornadoes. Sorry, but that's just how it is. This is not to say that tornadoes are not influenced by global warming in some as yet unknown way, but that's a different topic. Global warming might result in fewer tornadoes, it might result in tornadoes that take a somewhat more easterly path, it might result in shorter lived tornadoes, or longer.
Again, obviously there will be SOME effect, no one is denying that, the question is what that will be. And right now we do not know.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the only premise that is wrong is the one you said i posted, which i did not.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)and has zero to do with climate change. The drop in fatalities has zero to do with a corresponding drop in frequency of tornadoes. It has everything to do with better structures, more shelters, a better understanding of tornadoes, tornado warnings, air raid sirens during a warning and most importantly - huge increase in warning time and weather prediction thanks to Doppler radar.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Tornadoes are little different beasts than, say, hurricanes. One of the components to tornadoes is the jet-stream which is becoming more chaotic and WEAKER. The other components (supercell thunderstorms, Gulf winds etc.) are becoming stronger.
So you'll see tornadoes in places you've rarely seen them before. And when conditions are just right, you may see stronger, longer lasting tornadoes. Hard to say, the data on tornadoes is poor compared to other weather phenomena.
But it's not just going to be the case that Global Warming will automatically produce more and stronger tornadoes.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)The jet-stream is also becoming stuck, so, when conditions are just right, you'll see tornadoes pummeling the same spots over and over. THAT is probably a feature of The New Normal.
I keep posting Jennifer Francis videos. They are worth watching.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i didn't say they were bigger, stronger, weaker, later, earlier, etc. because of climate change.
i did imply and intended to imply that if you change the climate, you are altering the conditions that produce tornadoes and there's no way to say that doing so has no effect on their formation or behavior.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)More addressing the people saying there's NO connection. And trying to share what I'm learning.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Why do I feel she's sending ME a message?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Here's a hint: one of us is the guy in panel number 2, and it sure as hell isn't me.....
rl6214
(8,142 posts)From the 60s and 70s.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)no it does not.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You don't have any.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if you're going to invent things I said to disagree with, then obviously you can't find anything in what actually did say to disagree with.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)more tornadoes was your assertion, but I never said the outcome was more tornadoes.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you said I said more tornadoes, I did not say that. I said weather phenomena cannot be separated from climate change. All weather phenomena happen in the context of a changing climate. To say otherwise is to say that weather is not part of climate and to say that weather events are independent of the factors which alter climate in the long term. That is nonsense. Weather is part of Climate and Climate is the average of ALL weather, not just SOME weather.
and now that you are harassing me from the right on climate change, that makes two subjects you are harassing from the right on DU, now that you've been blocked from the gun control group.
G_j
(40,366 posts)appreciative of simple facts..
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The high altitude jet stream guided this storm directly over Oklahoma City and was a key ingredient responsible for the extremely rapid development of the tornado witnessed. Unfortunately, the location, strength, waviness, and behavior of the jet stream is changing as a result of rapid climate change. You can get use to more "Climate Bomb" extreme weather events - there is nothing to be surprised about here.
There is less snow cover on the land over northern Canada, northern Eurasia and Siberia. And there is less sea ice over the Arctic Ocean. The snow and ice reflects greater than 80% of the incoming light from the sun back into space keeping these areas colder. With less snow the dark land is uncovered and with less sea ice the dark ocean is uncovered. These both reflect much less light; only about 20% and 10% respectively. The rest is absorbed and heats the ground and sea. The melting ground is releasing methane; the warming sea heats the sea floor and that warming releases more methane. Thus, parts of the high Arctic are warming at 5 to 6 times the average global rate. The equator temperature does not change as much (even seasonally the change is only about 3 °C over the year). Thus, the temperature gradient between the equator and Arctic is greatly reduced.
By basic physics and meteorology, this reduced equator-pole temperature difference slows the west to east wind component. Fast jet streams circle the earth from west to east; as they slow they become much wavier and travel much more northward and southward. Regions north of the wavy jets are cold and dry (air source is cold Arctic) while regions south of the wavy jets are hot and moist (air source is equatorial marine regions). The jet is thus an intersection of these two different types of air masses (with cold fronts and warm fronts, respectively). The large local temperature gradients give rise to large pressure gradients resulting in extreme (and very unstable) weather regions.
Since the wave troughs carry cold air very far south and the wave crests carry warm moist air far north, the frontal temperature gradients are larger under climate change then they were before and thus the storm magnitudes are now larger. Thats why I wrote earlier that we shouldnt be surprised. 2+2=4.
Don't ever forget the jet stream, folks. It ain't just temperature that influences the weather.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)MUST WATCH
Jennifer Francis: The Pro from Dover when it comes to how Climate Change affects immediate weather.
Whole video is good, but, if time is short, skip forward to about the 26:00 mark.
Later she shows the jetstream configurations during some recent extreme events.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Done by John Mason the assistance of, you guessed it, Jennifer Francis:
http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html#climate
When it comes to unpleasant surprises in the horrible experiment that is 400+ ppm carbon, I get the feeling this is a Big One.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)or if you are auto didactic?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)climate is the aggregate of weather, it is the average of weather.
if climate change exists, then the the weather, on average, on in aggregate has changed.
if weather did not change, on average, there would be no climate change either.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)No one here (I assume) denies that climate change is real. That's not the question we are discussing here. You are claiming that climate change equates to more frequent and powerful tornadoes. Since there is no evidence to support this your theory is false. In fact, if we were simply looking at the evidence available, we might well conclude that global warming has REDUCED the number of tornadoes.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)maybe you should stop asking me to prove words you have made up.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)You said:
"Yes, the tornadoes and other extreme weather events are generally linked to climate change... To those who say climate change is real but not a factor in extreme weather events, they are stating a logical fallacy... Weather disasters are part of our climate. Are we influencing them by driving climate change? Yup. They are linked."
This thread was NOT intended as a general discussion about whether or not local weather was impacted by climate change inb a variety of ways, it was intended to advance the claim -- using dubious logic -- that extreme weather events such as the Moore Tornado were a direct result of climate change. You are asserted something as being a fact despite ALL evidence to the contrary, and then demanding that others prove your theory wrong.
Fair enough. Evidence has been posted showing your theory to be false.
Now it's time for you to show the intellectual integrity of saying that you were wrong. Note, there could be some connection between climate and localized extreme weather (like tornadoes), but for now we do not know what connection is. If anything, the evidence available so far suggests that global warming has REDUCED the number and intensity of tornadoes, but there is not really enough information to make that claim.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and specifically excluded those because "linked" --meaning that weather phenomena are linked, affected to large scale changes in climate.
the point of the OP was to argue against the pernicious statements that often crop up around weather and climate change that there is NO relationship between the two.
but in fact, the things that create tornadoes, the conditions, the large scale pressure systems, ocean temperatures, etc. which all play into the location of "Tornado Alley" in innumerable ways, if those things change as a result of climate change, they will affect tornadoes, just as they affect tornadoes and tornado development without climate change.
climate change affects weather, the changes in weather add up to climate change --the inverse is important to recognize because so many people don't realize the simple relationship.
do i think that climate change means more and greater tornadoes? i don't know. do i think that climate change is affecting the conditions that tornadoes form in, and therefore climate change is somehow linked to tornadoes? yes.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Fun debate.