If AGW caused tornados, then is cold weather proof AGW is over?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Those statistical trends are what we refer to as "climate"

Are they now?

I have, for the past several years, been keeping records based on NOAA data for the closest large town near me. The records go back to 1950. According to my data, the average temperature has dropped for the last 24 months or so, measured against the previous 12-month average.

So, it's good to hear from you that Global Warming is no longer happening; now we have Global Cooling. So I will assume that you will agree with me that we now have an urgent need to produce as much carbon dioxide as possible to offset this terrible, historic, life-threatening cooling trend.

I think I'll burn some coal... just to do my civic duty.

TheRedneck

Climate Change exists. The globe is warming, and this results in changing weather patterns. One of the results is the tornadoes we saw earlier. Expect storms to get more intense in the future.

We can choose to realize the truth and do something about it, or stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not true because we don't want to deal with it.

I suspect that religious folk will start saying it's the "end times" and that's why the climate is changing so much. In fact, I hear this a lot in the religious circles I'm in.

It is all a way to deny accountability.

originally posted by: darkbake
Climate Change exists. The globe is warming, and this results in changing weather patterns. One of the results is the tornadoes we saw earlier. Expect storms to get more intense in the future.

We can choose to realize the truth and do something about it, or stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not true because we don't want to deal with it.

I suspect that religious folk will start saying it's the "end times" and that's why the climate is changing so much. In fact, I hear this a lot in the religious circles I'm in.

It is all a way to deny accountability.

so now weather is climate? Not sure if you grasp the OP, but that is what this is about. Winter of polar vortexs? that means global warming, don't question it.

You can go back in history and find extreme weather events all over. Trying to tie everything to Climate Change (even calling it that is ignorant) won't make it more palatable, it will make people ignore it.

a reply to: network dude
Overall the planet is getting warmer, just because we still have snowstorms does not disprove human induced global warming.

The extra heat in the atmosphere caused more extreme weather events as storm systems are basically large heat engines.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed, you do not to believe global warming is real and caused by human activity because of your political stance...

The denial of science with the reality of human induced global warming is almost exclusively a political one as the ones who keep making the same tired arguments against it have no scientific basis and fo so as it is the trendy thing to do if the belong to a certain political ideology.

In short the far right have been brainwashed to believe that taking steps to combat human induced climate change, especially curbing CO2 emissions is a 'liberal issue' and therefore bad.

Here is some fact based articles that shows the folly of the OP and others who will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make flawed arguments and the science and data.

Does Record Snowfall Disprove Global Warming? 'Exactly the Opposite,' Scientist Says

Does Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change?

For years, casual observers and anti-science pundits have pointed to snowfall and cold weather to question the scientific reality of human-induced climate change. Such cherry-picked misinformation obscures the work scientists are doing to figure out just how climate change is affecting weather patterns year-round.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude
Overall the planet is getting warmer, just because we still have snowstorms does not disprove human induced global warming.

The extra heat in the atmosphere caused more extreme weather events as storm systems are basically large heat engines.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed, you do not to believe global warming is real and caused by human activity because of your political stance...

No subway boy, that's not what I believe. I'm absolutely certain the climate changes all the time, and as we have been emerging from an ice age for some time, the global climate has been increasing. I believe the argument is how much man's pollution contributes to the warming.

In this thread, I was pointing out that if someone calling a snow storm proof that global warming is over, is wrong, then conversely, pointing to a singular adverse weather event and claiming it's because of Climate Change is equally as absurd. We have had very bad weather events throughout the history of the Earth.

It's about consistency and the opposition to lies.

With regard to your political rhetoric, the opposition seems to be about trying to mitigate climate change by shifting the worlds wealth to other spots, and making grandiose claims about phasing out fossil fuels before we have a viable alternative. Stupid people think that we can just stop driving cars, kill all the cows, and sing kumbuya without a camp fire. Those a bit smarter think that working on an alternative energy source FIRST, then phasing out fossil fuels is a much better plan. But virtue signal as you wish, you look cool with the rest of the sky screamers.

a reply to: jrod


So how do you explain that the vast arid sand heap that is the Sahara used to be lush and green just a few thousand years ago? The earliest pyramids were build in -- WAIT FOR IT!! -- a wetter & greener Savannah-like climate full of rivers, not the current one full of dust and ruins.

That, mind you, was NOT caused by human industry.

a reply to: network dude

That is so childish of you.

We have alternatives to big oil that have been supressed for over a century because big oil knows it will hurt their profits. Electric cars are becoming much more common. Solar, wind, geothermal, ocean wave power plants are becoming more common, and nuclear energy is still viable, especially new age reactors.

Just admit you do not know about anything about the science of human induced climate change, but you are against it because of your political ideology.

a reply to: Nyiah

That is a fool's argument. Climate of the past does not mean human activity is NOT currently causing climate change. This would be like a dam breaking and saying that because that area flooded before 20,000 years ago the dam break did not cause the flood.

Human activity is currently a significant change if climate and weather patterns that will make the planet overall a more hostile place to live.

We can curb this change by cutting CO2 emissions as the excess CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity is a significant source for trapping heat, thus driving the climate (this has been observed and NOT up.for.debate) and hopefully keep the CO2 at reasonable levels.

Again, the denial.of this is very cult like and almost exclusive with folks who are on the right side of the political spectrum.

The US military acknowledges this is real and a problem, so do people much smarter than you like Elon Musk, who is trying to use his fortune to combat the excessive CO2 human activity is responsible for.



$100M PRIZE FOR CARBON REMOVAL

XPRIZE Carbon Removal is aimed at tackling the biggest threat facing humanity - fighting climate change and rebalancing Earth’s carbon cycle. Funded by Elon Musk and the Musk Foundation, this $100M competition is the largest incentive prize in history, an extraordinary milestone.‎

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

That is so childish of you.

We have alternatives to big oil that have been supressed for over a century because big oil knows it will hurt their profits. Electric cars are becoming much more common. Solar, wind, geothermal, ocean wave power plants are becoming more common, and nuclear energy is still viable, especially new age reactors.

Just admit you do not know about anything about the science of human induced climate change, but you are against it because of your political ideology.

are you going for the title of King Derp? read what I said, not what that stupid voice in your head tells you. And you sound like a conspiracy nut. What alternative fuels have been "supressed" by big oil?

Electric cars? They are super unless you need to go more than 330 miles. We are still a few days away from utopia sammich boy.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nyiah

That is a fool's argument. Climate of the past does not mean human activity is NOT currently causing climate change. This would be like a dam breaking and saying that because that area flooded before 20,000 years ago the dam break did not cause the flood.

Human activity is currently a significant change if climate and weather patterns that will make the planet overall a more hostile place to live.

what percentage is man responsible for, exactly?

We can curb this change by cutting CO2 emissions as the excess CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity is a significant source for trapping heat, thus driving the climate (this has been observed and NOT up.for.debate) and hopefully keep the CO2 at reasonable levels.

We could drop to zero and still be no better off as a planet. Not sure of you are aware, but there are other countries out there who aren't doing their part. The US has been cutting carbon emissions for years, yet we are still doomed according to the climate cult.

originally posted by: ketsuko
All right, let me put this another way:

We can say the climate is warming. We can dispute why it's warming. A lot of us think this is a natural thing, not exclusively man made.

Unfortunately scientists have been looking for every possible natural explanation for the warming and come up with nothing that matches the data, while additional greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuel matches the data 100%.

However, this idea that it automatically means that this will equal everything like it was, just hyped on atmospheric steroids is wrong.

What will happen is that climate zones and temperature gradient zones will shift. The conditions that come together now and favor tornado formation are a product of air masses and the geography. If the temperature gradient over the favorable geography stabilizes to where the warm and cold air masses are no longer colliding as dramatically as often, then you will not have so many tornadoes. Gulf moisture can only shift so far north and it's a big component.

This is like saying that if the overall climate cools by just a degree, we lose the corn crop because corn only grows well in a narrow area where the conditions right now favor it. Shift the temperature just a bit, and you lose that narrow area because a key factor in your prevailing conditions is gone even if all else you need remains.

True, the effect is not at all uniform, not like "everything is slightly warmer". That would be easy, but physics isn't easy. There are shifts and reduction in heat gradients from poles to equatorial regions (as the global warming is more intense at poles from greenhouse gases, all else being equal) and that will definitely influence the weather patterns and stability of jet streams.

a reply to: mbkennel

Unfortunately scientists have been looking for every possible natural explanation for the warming and come up with nothing that matches the data, while additional greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuel matches the data 100%.

That's not exactly true. It is true that we do not understand all the natural processes that have led to Global Warming, but it is not true that the carbon dioxide levels have a strong correlation to Global Warming. The truth is that the atmosphere is a chaotic system which is difficult to predict in the short term, and worse in the long term. The number of feedback mechanisms at play is vast, and we do not yet even know of all the feedbacks involved.

To date, there are no models which can explain observed long-term phenomena. Since a model is no more than a mathematical algorithm (usually performed by a computer due to the extreme number of interacting variables), such models are useless unless and until they have proven themselves otherwise by correctly predicting long-term trends. None have been able to do so without major adjustments to datasets.

True, the effect is not at all uniform, not like "everything is slightly warmer". That would be easy, but physics isn't easy.

it also isn't magic. If the interactions involved are too complex for us to establish predictability, then our 'solution' is wrong. Basing an explanation on models which have not advanced to the point of accuracy is about as unscientific as one can get; it is little more than day-dreaming with pictures.

There are shifts and reduction in heat gradients from poles to equatorial regions (as the global warming is more intense at poles from greenhouse gases, all else being equal) and that will definitely influence the weather patterns and stability of jet streams.

And to date, I have not yet heard a single explanation as to why Global Warming would affect the poles more than the equator. The energy input from solar energy (by far the most significant source of energy input) is concentrated along the equator (adjusted for seasonal tilt variations), not at the poles. The mechanism claimed to be responsible for Global Warming is absorption/re-emission of energy from carbon dioxide. Therefore, the effect would of course be more pronounced where there is more energy to be absorbed and re-emitted. Yet, as you point out, this is not the case. Observations indicate that the effect is more intense where there is less direct energy to be absorbed and re-emitted.

We have discovered the real reason why the poles (specifically the Arctic) is warming: ocean currents which provide warmer water to the Arctic have intensified. Why this has happened, we do not know. As you state, physics is not always easy, and it gets much harder when one discounts all possible explanations except one because that one is politically expedient.

I will also point out that the temperature gradients must sum to the differential between equatorial and polar temperatures, by definition. If the temperature increases at the poles more than than along the equator (as you state), the result would be less intense temperature gradients, not more. Tornadoes and hurricanes operate on temperature gradients; the larger the gradient,the more intense the storm. Thus, if the poles are warming more than the equator, that should lead to overall less severe storms, not the inverse.

There is only one reason I can fathom for authorities to claim more severe storms in the face of such information: to instill fear in the masses.

TheRedneck

the Hadley Cell =

a large-scale atmospheric convection cell in which air rises at the equator and sinks at medium latitudes, typically about 30° north or south.

does the Hadley cell help explain the 'why' of last weeks glut of tornadoes in the mid America States...it's a natural event occurance where odd tornados can pop up in the course of weather action ....no AGW or climate change required for this rare event to manifest

a reply to: TheRedneck

Melting Of The Thwaites Glacier Could Rewrite The Global Coastline

Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier would raise sea levels by more than two feet if it fell into the ocean.

a reply to: Erno86

"Could" and "if" as opposed to hard data analysis.

YouTube over NOAA.

Got it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You had best send Algore some money or this could really happen.

5 Biggest Tornadoes In All Of History

Kentucky Tornado 12/10/21 Footage| Tornado Scary Footage