Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Last Three Years the Quietest For Tornadoes Ever

Posted by timothy on from the always-calm-before-a-storm dept.

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."

19 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. And where are all the hurricanes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's been a while since a cat 3 made landfall on a US shore, hasn't it?

    1. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

      More storms, more violent storms, the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather.

      I don't recall anybody ever predicting "the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather".

      It's worth summarizing what we actually know (minus the idiotic alarmism), what we have some models for but still need details, and what is simply speculation.

      Here is what we do know: greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere increases the average temperature of the planet, and this includes the greenhouse gasses added by human activity. The physics of this seems to be sound, large numbers of measurements bear out the fundamentals, and so far all the alternative theories that say greenhouse gasses don't increase average temperature have been failed; they've been ruled out by evidence.

      There is still quite a large set of error bars on how much warming to expect from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. A hundred different groups have studied this problem (this is not one or two climate scientists) with models using different assumptions. The best estimate is 3 degrees kelvin per doubling, with error bars of about plus or minus 1.5. The amount by which the planet has so far warmed due to anthropogenic effects is slightly over a half degree-- call it about one degree Fahrenheit. Let me point out how small that is-- you probably wouldn't feel the difference between, say, a fall day with a high of 54 F or one that's 55. However, on a global scale, this has an effect, and it's worth noting that the warming is cumulative-- the average will go up from there, not down.

      However, it's also important to not that this is an average. It's not what you see in one particular location, or one particular day, or even any particular year. This is summarized by the motto "climate is not weather." Any location--any region-- might be warmer of cooler than the average in any given year.

      The effect of this warming on weather--extreme storms-- is less well known. This is a much harder problem to model. The best models suggest that warming will increase extremes of weather, but this is not a robustly confirmed result, and exactly which extremes of weather-- hurricanes? typhoons? Arctic storms? Tornados? Droughts? Floods?-- needs a lot of work to model well.

      In general, these predictions of increases of extreme weather are long term predictions. So far, the warming is still relatively small. If we keep increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the effect (assuming that better models confirm that there is an effect) will be larger. This is a long term effect, not a short term one-- we're talking effect of warming of several degrees, not the current half degree. Not next year, but in decades in the future. And even then, predicting an average increase in large storms doesn't necessarily say large storms hitting the continental US will increase-- we are discussing the world, not the few percent of the world that is called the U.S.

      But in general, detailed effects are much harder to model than global averages.

      And of course, any given storm cannot be ascribed to global warming. All the people who said "Hurricane Sandy is an example of global warming!" were simply off base. Climate is not weather.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by Layzej · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The greenies may react badly, but anyone with any knowledge of the science would probably mod you down as well. I notice that aside from posting anonymously you also decided to omit citations showing any kind of consensus on the expected tornado count over the last three years. Likely because none exist?

    3. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by abies · · Score: 2

      http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Th...
      ""Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves, and the result will be serious for vulnerable populations," said Dr. Amanda Staudt, National Wildlife Federation climate scientist."

      So, is Dr Amanda misguided or not - please note she says about _current_ events, not only about possible future developments? Or is it that all pro-global warming weather incidents are ok, but all things which do not fit it in trivial sense are 'hard to model'?

      What you say makes perfect sense and I fully agree with that. Issue is that it is same thing I sometimes observe with any extermist groups. You have some braindead fanatics and some smart people, both under same banner. Fanatics is telling and doing things which are clearly wrong. People opposed to that are attacking them - and then smart people jump in and say proper things, explaining that these fringe fanatics are not representing their opinions, they are clearly misguided and you should not pay attention to them. But somehow, you never see these smart people smacking fanatics on their home ground. They only appear to defend the case against opponents, not to put their own extremists into line.

      Are you willing to stand up against Dr Amanda on pro-GW site and explain to her that she is jumping at sensational conclusions and that few random heat waves are in no way indication of bad effects of global warming? Risk getting called denialist just because of pointing it out? Or it is just an form of Taqiyya, where on one side these are general trends and non-obvious relations, while on different forums everybody is slapping each other backs when one weather station reported record high temperature in March?

    4. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly the same thing happens in the denier camp. Some deniers claim that it hasn't gotten warmer, that temperature records have been manipulated and such. Others claim that everybody knows it's gotten warmer, but that it's just part of the natural cycle. I've never seen these two groups actually attack each other.

    5. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by umghhh · · Score: 2

      The exact predictions of course do not exist because, with current level of knowledge, they cannot be done. It has been said however, that number of extreme conditions will increase and it did although possibly not in US. It is of course appropriate politically to talk about single aspect of huge and complex thing and pick an exceptional area as US surely is and then claim - 'lies and bad science' as the GP did.
      Arguing with this lot is pointless. Not because we know all about how weather patterns change and why, but because the nut cases do - there is a huge number of them out there claiming, that burning fossil fuels at steadily increasing pace and cutting the forests of the world does not make any difference at all because they 'know' weather does not change or if it does, it is some external force, we cannot control, thus nothing can be done and we shall not even think if we have something to do with it and/or more importantly, if we can do anything about it.

    6. Re:And where are all the hurricanes? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

      I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.

      You can't remain credible by simultaneously implying (with "weasel" words) that each natural disaster is a direct result of global warming, while ignoring the growing arctic ice thickness and decrease in tornado activity.

      Yes, nature is stochastic. But the sword cuts both ways, but pandering to sensationalism will ultimately undercut any scientific argument.

      http://science.time.com/2014/0...
      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/globa...
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
           

  2. Re:"No consistent reason"... by itzly · · Score: 2

    You seem to have a preconceived opinion about scientists.

  3. Meanwhile, in the same world by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Polar vortices by idji · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re: Time to openly admit... by Kvathe · · Score: 2

    Nobody has ever predicted a rise in tornado activity.

  6. Re:Where are hurricanes? The other side of the wor by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because that is all that matters right? 'Merica. And really only the East Coast of 'Merica.

    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).

  7. Re:Where are hurricanes? The other side of the wor by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Funny

    Because that is all that matters right? 'Merica. And really only the East Coast of 'Merica.

    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.
  8. Re: Blame global warming for everything by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    hmm.. A simple google search shows that nobody is a lot of organizations that appear to be somewhat scientific in their approach and presentation.

    Also, the new scientis or articles on their site seem to attempt to make predictions about tornadoes

    http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

    Mother Jones does another story connecting it too.
    http://www.motherjones.com/env...

    Of course one article is dated march of 2014 and the other august of the same year. But of course politicians have been making claims about the links for a while now. Here is an article presented in october of 2014 which examines political discourse about the global warming tornado threat somewhat.

    http://www.americanthinker.com...

    Now note, one of those sites is a conservative site. Can you guess which one that might be? Well, it doesn't matter because the information is not inaccurate and came about before this was even on the radar. In fact, it was attempting to impeach the credibility of the political hack appointed to oversee the ebola fiasco and manage political fall out from reported cases reaching American shores.

    So lets not ignore the fact that connections have been made.

  9. Re:Time to openly admit... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    Nothing new here. Everybody in the field (and most people outside it) know the limitations of weather forecasting.

    And yet we're hectored continually that we need to implement costly and Draconian programs based on the predictions of models that don't match observed reality. That's not science, that's some unholy amalgam of politics, fear, profiteering, and insanity.

  10. Re:Time to openly admit... by itzly · · Score: 2, Informative

    Climate is not weather. The chaotic variations in weather tend to cancel out when measured over longer time frames, and wider area. There is no doubt that the total energy contained in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere is rising, even if we can't predict year to year exactly what's going to happen.

  11. Re:Time to openly admit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Climate is not weather"

    I'm getting sick of this canard. Climate represents 'average' or perceived 'normal' weather conditions in a particular area or region over a specified period of time.

    The average temperature (or rainfall or any other descriptive statistic representing frequency or magnitude of weather parameters) is indeed a representation of temperature. De-linking weather from climate is a tactic used by people of both sides to dodge whatever the issue is.

  12. Re:Time to openly admit... by itzly · · Score: 2

    Climate represents 'average' or perceived 'normal' weather conditions in a particular area or region over a specified period of time.

    And you're claiming there's no difference between a signal and it's average ? The difference in climate and weather is simply visualized by putting a pan of cold water on a hot stove. I can predict that in a few minutes it will be boiling (climate), even though I have no idea exactly where the bubbles are going to be (weather). The details are chaotic, the average is not.

  13. Re:Where are hurricanes? The other side of the wor by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

    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.