Slashdot Mirror
Last Three Years the Quietest For Tornadoes Ever
schwit1 writes The uncertainty of science: 2014 caps the quietest three year period for tornadoes on record, and scientists really don't understand why. "Harold Brooks, a meteorologist with the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Okla., said there's no consistent reason for the three-year lull — the calmest stretch since a similar quiet period in the late 1980s — because weather patterns have varied significantly from year to year. While 2012 tornado activity was likely suppressed by the warm, dry conditions in the spring, 2013 was on the cool side for much of the prime storm season before cranking up briefly in late May, especially in Oklahoma, SPC meteorologist Greg Carbin said. Then, activity quickly quieted for the summer of 2013."
It's been a while since a cat 3 made landfall on a US shore, hasn't it?
It's because of GLOBAL WARMING... wait... because of CLIMATE CHANGE.
"that wouldn't conflict with my preconceptions so I won't even consider them"
It's the quite before the storm.
That we don't know a whole lot about weather, and meteorology has a long way to go - the complexity and variables that influence any sort of valid prediction make it hard for scientists to say "look at my track record for prediction" and appear any more accurate than a monkey pushing random buttons.
Too few tornadoes... Blame global warming.
Too many tornadoes... Blame global warming.
Average number of tornados... Say global warming made each tornado slightly worse.
Global warming can be blamed for every possible outcome!
And yet we've had three Sharknado movies.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
"Our efforts to mitigate global climate change are finally having an effect. However, this is proof that we must redouble our efforts to prevent disaster. Send another half trillion dollars to ..."
If that so-called "global warming" is the cause of fewer tornadoes, Bring it on! I will start up the car and make some more CO2 to do my part!
*I know nothhhing!*
OMG the climate is becoming... unpredictable!!
Because that is all that matters right? 'Merica. And really only the East Coast of 'Merica. Who cares about the typhoons battering Asia?
I blame the ocean currents that are changing due to the salt levels in the ocean changing. This is causing changes to the jet stream which brings storms on the other side of the world, which then shift the jet stream a little, causing it to hot the North Pole region and bring polar vortexes and other weather patterns down into the US. This pattern is stronger now than the African jet stream that produces hurricanes that go towards the East Coast of the US.
Weather patterns change, and when they change back, they will be worse than before.
Since "third calmest since the 1950s" and "we haven't seen conditions like this since the 1980s" doesn't make for as good of a headline. (RTFA)
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Low on tornadoes, high in other big storms by any other name, like Cyclone Phailin, Typhoon Haiyan and Vongfong, Hurricane Marie and others, in the last 2 years.
The lack of tornadoes does not have much to do with climate change. We do not understand how tornadoes form, and no climate scientist has ever predicted that climate change will lead to more tornadoes or larger tornadoes. It's not surprising that we can't find the reason for decreased tornado activity since we don't know where to look really, but it might be that this lull can help us narrow down the possible reasons for tornado formation.
There have been recent changes in the polar vortices, but meteorologists aren't prepared to make definitive statesments until they get better long term data, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..., but it wouldn't surprise me if these vortices mess around with atmospheric energy equilibria across all the seasons.
Damn climate change / global warming. The libs really called that one. Smooth.
I keep repeating this over and over again, but apparently people can't comprehend 3 words.
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Anthropogenic - human induced via CO2 emissions
Global - means planetary-wide, not your backyard!
Warming - means getting hotter
So, put these together and what do you get? You get human induced, planetary-wide average temperature rise.
Tornadoes, by every conceivable definition, are local weather phenomenon. And before you mention it, hurricanes are too. Local is NOT global. So why are you trying to confuse these two?
SO, what predictions can be come up from Global Warming?
1. The planet, not your backyard, will get warmer (and is getting warmer by 0.5C already)
2. Resulting in significant portions of ice cover to melt
3. Resulting in higher sea levels.
Everything else? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? Your backyard weather? You probably would blame the Butterfly Effect for that more than any Global Warming. And trying to make up BULLSHIT examples, like you just did, is stupid. It's stupid because these are bullshit and you know it. Shame on you.
Really? Got a cite for that?
Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.
(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).
So everyone from Al Gore to the IPCC haven't predicted an increase in severe weather events due to AGW? Are you so naïve you don't think these same people would be blaming AWG if there actually had been a increase in severe weather over the last few years?
...its just the data is wrong.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.
(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).
I think you are missing the point. Global Warming is the reason we have not been seeing as many hurricanes.
If it rains, it's global warming. If it doesn't rain, it's severe global warming.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Such a reproach only works if the target has the exceptional desire to be inclusive and likable.
I don't need to be liked. And I've decided that I'm going to behave just like every other citizen of every other country, which is to say I put my country before all others.
It doesn't pay to reach out to others and try to be the good guy. Exhibiting any sense of conscience just informs others that they can exploit it.
Which is what you did. Your comment was intended as a psychological attack. Well piss off. I don't care anymore.
yes, actually. Because that's where I live. Cry all you want about narrow perspectives, but there's nobody on earth who cares more about some random stranger halfway across the globe than they do about themselves and their immediate loved ones and family.
You think China's going to stop building coal plants because "those poor people in Maryland are going to get hit by a big storm!" Fuck no. You're an idiot if your only argument to environmental stewardship involves "HURR AMERICANS DON'T CARE ABOUT SHIT."
"Hurr durr, no one claimed there'd be moar tornadoes!!! We'll also completely ignore the fact that there hasn't been more violent hurricanes as 'predicted'!! Lukkk at Asia!!!!"
Fucking idiots.
Fuck off, nigger.
sometimes below average and sometimes above average.
... and scientists really don't understand why.
Come on now, I don't buy that for a moment. Weather phenomenon is fairly well understood and scientists have modeled weather on supercomputers with high degrees of accuracy for years. They probably just don't want to mention "global warming" (or climate change, or whatever the current buzz word is) as that is a well known way to lose your federal funding. The government just does not want to admit that weather patterns are changing because of stuff WE are doing. Even the non-scientists (farmers) around where I live have commented that the growing seasons for several vegetables have shifted north several hundred miles over the last ten years or so.
You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally.
Global Climate Change is a change in the global climate, with is a broad, long-term change. The impact on a specific region or time period isn't global climate, it's regional weather, which is only very loosely correlated to the global climate.
Arguing that the weather recently in the east coast of the US is fine, so you don't care about global climate change, is like arguing that your chair is comfortable so you don't care that the house is on fire. Sure, you're fine right now where you are, but it's not going to stay that way forever. And ignoring what's going on around you is a bad long-term plan.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
The global warming alarmists have always told us extreme weather would massively increase in the form of more tornadoes, larger hurricanes, etc. Now we find the quietest period on record. There are just too many failed predictions to trust these people anymore.
"More storms, more violent storms, the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather." The result is Sharknado. Keep looking up people!
The truth is, We Don't Know! While we've made large strides in weather prediction and trends, etc., we are still guessing at a lot of it. Records only go back for a relatively short time, and to be able to truly understand Earth's weather systems you would need data from the last 10,000+ years and computing abilities that we don't have yet. Anyone who claims to "know" exactly why it's been rainier or hotter or more or less catastrophic is selling snake oil to you. They don't know anything for sure, so you can pay for their claims of certainty or me and my magic rock. It equals out about the same.
Ominous...help us Al Gore!
Fuck me off, ya racist coward fucktard. Death by black dicks for you. It is written so it be done.
global warming
I know why! I know why!
Global warming
Could windmills have an effect? How much energy are windmills taking out of the system? Maybe the windmills interact in a butterfly type effect, short-circuiting some necessary precursor of tornadoes.
No, I'm making a point, quite intentionally.
What I said: If all you have to argue for good environmental stewardship is snarky bullshit about "Murrica FUCK YEA" then you deserve to be gang-raped by a bunch of angry whales.
If you want to argue that climate change is something everybody needs to pitch in to help about, then you need to argue as if the ONLY thing that matters is "this place, right here, where you live, is going to get absolutely thrashed by climate change." I don't expect people in Beijing to give a fuck about people in Baltimore. I don't expect people in Baltimore to give a fuck about people in Beijing. If you can't outline, for the citizens of Beijing, what the likely impact TO BEIJING will be as the climate changes, don't expect them to care. Likewise, if you can't outline, for the citizens of Baltimore, what the likely impact to BALTIMORE will be as the climate changes, don't expect them to care.
What I take exception to is this misguided sense that anybody who says "Honestly, don't really give a shit about Beijing," is some sort of horrible jingoistic asshole - they're not, they're human. Trying to "guilt" people into doing something about climate change because "oh if I don't, people will think I voted for George Bush, and hate the blacks," is fucking stupid, and it's going to be the exact problem that leads 50% of the population to say "FUCK YOU" when you try to talk to them about climate change.
Seriously, the "'murrica" meme needs to die in a fire. The only people it says anything about are the idiots who seem to think that George Bush is still in power.
You mean caused by people driving their own cars.
Just wonderin'...
Climate change is about global averages with an increase of wild weather at random places.
Considering that the entire USA only constitutes 1.8% of the earth's surface it's not surprising that it is not one of those random places for a few years in a row.
Wind Turbines have been popping up in large quantities all over the country. I'm betting that has altered the wind patterns.
Climate change is an on-going process. More over, this is far too short a time scale to draw conclusions. Every year the weather doesn't meet some prediction we get the deniers screaming blue murder about it, but none of that disproves the long term trend.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Which is what you did. Your comment was intended as a psychological attack. Well piss off. I don't care anymore.
We're here to discuss you, not me. Is it because of your mother that you say you don't care anymore?
If you haven't heard climate change predictions about Asia, that can only mean you haven't been paying - well, any attention to the issue, and we should probably disregard the rest of your comment on that basis alone.
Here is a prediction that hurricanes will get stronger and then they will get weaker. There will be more and there will be fewer.
You can't make this shit up
In one sense, global is the sum of local over all places. You can't have one without the other.
In another sense, global means everywhere. In this sense, if each and every place warms then there's global warming. If even one place doesn't warm, there's no global warming.
Sorry, that's just the language. If the meaning of words isn't satisfactory to you, your choice to use them as if they were satisfactory to you is a lie.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
No. It is 'Merica. Weather is a wave. It goes up and down. Therefore it is all due to Hothead Islamic Jihadist Global Warming. The people held hostage in a cafe in Sydney today, is living proof of it all.
No major hurricanes hit the US since Katrina? I bet a few million in Houston would beg to differ.
Not sure about Al Gore, but the IPCC did not predict an increase in tornadoes over the last three years. General consensus is that we will have an increase in CAPE and a decrease in wind shear which will mean little or no change in the overall trend.
The problem with this type of thing is that nobody actually READS the IPCC reports.
Look at what they actually predict and you'll see that the picture is far more alarmist but the consequences are far more out in time. There is no question that global climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity. Likewise, much to the chagrin of the GW alarmism industry, the activity within the past ten years or so has been within the norm.
Go 100 years out, however, and you'll start to see some problems. For more information (if you are the kind of person for whom information actually matters) see: http://youtu.be/xxCSkckihDk for an easily digestible source. Relevant parts are torwards the end of the video.
Everything is getting worse! Climate Catastrophe Denialists!
You should burn for this! BURN!
It's not surprising that the number of tornadoes are down. I live in tornado alley and we've been in a drought for several years. Up until June of this year the ground has basically been powder down more than three feet. Can't have many storms without moisture. Even now there hasn't been a real rain in months and just a dusting of snow once so far and the rains this year have barely made a dent in this years deficit never mind the deficits of the last several years. Few storms in the primary yearly tornado zone and you get low tornado numbers, regardless of readings anywhere else, got that? Remember climate change models didn't just talk about more bad weather it also talked about severity. How many towns in the last several years have been nearly wiped out by tornadoes of record size, multiplicity, or severity? It's been more than a few. Let's hear it for a non-story.
Being an Oklahoman, and thus a lay weather enthusiast, I know one or two things about tornadoes. For a storm to be violent, you need to have a difference in atmospheric energies between the storm and the air mass it is moving into. Generally this requires specific spring or fall weather patterns, although Oklahoma did get two rare winter tornadoes last night. Our weather patterns are always random. Some years you hardly get any twisters, other years, you could practically stock a fantasy football team with them.
Atmospheric moisture content is one of the key ingredients required for a violent storm (it enables better heat transfer as water has a high thermal capacity). The greater the change in energy over time, the stronger the storm system. With this said, the past few years have been dry for us, with fewer tornadoes. Less moisture in the air means weaker storms on average.
Give it a few years. Moore will get flattened again.
Ever Ever recorded.
For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero.
NOAA has that number at 7, certainly a nonzero number.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/h...
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Where did that go?
Lisa, I would like to purchase your rock
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...now my senator (fucktard Tom Coburn) is going to start claiming climate change is a good thing, even while birds explode midflight in August from the heat.
Furries make the internet go.
It's Global Warming's fault!
And the atmosphere is getting moist as per warming. Problem explained. Next!
Umm, no.
NOAA has the number of hurricanes hitting the US mainland since 2005 at seven. Note OP's use of the phrase "major hurricane", it's important.
The seven that have hit the USA since 2005 were CAT 1 or 2, and "major hurricane" is defined as CAT3+....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
No, youre right. Thats what people have been saying: climate change will only affect america.
no one has evern amde any global predictions or analysis in regards to global climate change.
ever.
I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.
I agree. It would be nice to be accurate about what we know, and how well we know it.
To a very large extent, the problem is exacerbated by the news media: the more extreme a statement is, the more newsworthy; and the more immediate it is, also the more newsworthy. "Some models indicate that hurricanes could be 10% more powerful by the year 2100, but we need to do some more modelling work to verify how well this number holds up under different scenarios" just doesn't play well in the media. They'll interview that scientist, but the headline is from the scientist who says "killer hurricanes ahead!"
Usually the more detailed kind of statement is toward the middle or end of news articles: the sensational stuff first, and the more cautiously-worded part later ("most scientists don't think we will see a noticeable increase in storm intensity until the next century") toward the end.
Take-home lessons: 1. don't get your science information from the popular press. 2. When you do read the popular press science articles, the important part is outside the headlines.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And relevant to the discussion, here's a nice article on 538 today, talking about the current California drought, and saying (with detailed discussion) that even though climate warming may exacerbate drought, it's nearly impossible to attribute this particular drought to climate warming:
The complex, dynamic nature of our atmosphere and oceans makes it extremely difficult to link any particular weather event to climate change. That’s because of the intermingling of natural variations with human-caused ones.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
And a link to a (2 year old) Nature editorial saying the same thing about extreme weather: http://www.nature.com/news/ext...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So the AGW stance is now, "You must be alive for 500 years to know if we were blowing smoke up your ass. In the mean-time, give us your money and believe!"
Not but a few hours after this hit Slashdot did Oklahoma have a storm system go through that produced at least 2 small tornadoes (incredibly rare for December, I might add).
Where are you when every month they scream bloody global warming because of a 0.001 C increase over the same month last year with an error margin of 0.1+\- ?????
This goes both ways.
I will remain skeptical of the sincerity of those who claim the earth is getting warmer and it's due to human activity until significant numbers of them are willing to bet a modest amount of money on the accuracy of those climate models.
Someone who is eager to have government impose significant costs on billions of people for years and years but isn't willing to risk the cost of dinner for two at a chain restaurant with cloth napkins of their own money one time strikes me as inconsistent. (To put it gently.)
I'm not sure what would be "significant numbers" but it's certainly greater than zero, which is number I've found so far.
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=allison's.precept . http://www.murphyslaws.net/edi...
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
"Weather is an instance of climate, if weather is chaotic, then climate is chaotic;"
Yeah, right. And the average of a dice roll is the same as any single die roll, right?
Except the average of a fair dice is 3.5, which you'll NEVER find on any six sided dice.
Your claim is bollocks, pure and simple.