Shane Adams
Ironic I find this thread because I'm listening to High Instability's podcast with Dr. Karoly and they're talking about this exact subject. I'm sure there's a healthy political agenda behind press releases like this one. I mean, couldn't global warming just as easily create less storms through intense capping? Anyone remember 2002?
I still don't buy into it.
I still don't buy into it.
Ronnie Bradley
EF1
I think what they're saying is that there will be more storms to reach severe limits, not more in general. They go on to hint at the possibility of less storms because of the warmer climate (dry soil, less humidity, more capping, etc.), but the ones that do form will be more vigorous.
That is what I gleaned from the article.
That is what I gleaned from the article.
Mike Smith
Can the GW advocates get any sillier? We don't understand how tornadoes form yet we can create a model that says they will be worse 20 years from now -- when we can't forecast the general weather 20 days from now?
How about a little common sense in the GW arena?
How about a little common sense in the GW arena?
Alexandre Aguiar
Mike, I believe you are right. There is another point. Global warming advocates have different ideas about the same subject. On this matter of tornadoes, here is what the IPCC reported early this year:
"Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist...in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust storms".
Another example posted on the ICECAP website.
"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say".
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says".
http://environment.newscientist.com...th-atlantic-should-give-currents-a-boost.html
"Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist...in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust storms".
Another example posted on the ICECAP website.
"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say".
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says".
http://environment.newscientist.com...th-atlantic-should-give-currents-a-boost.html
Terrence Cook
EF2
This is why I laugh when people begin a debate or argument about global warming and it's numerous theories and speculations.
I could imagine some storms being stronger/more violent because of a NATURAL rise in global temperatures as a new "ice-age" begins to unfold, (over thousands of years)!
HAltschule
EF5
I think NASA needs to spend more time learning how to keep foam insulation intact on each space shuttle mission than analyzing climatic weather trends. 
And what's the deal with drunk astronauts? Yeah, lets let them get behind the 'wheel' of our billion dollar (or whatever) vehicle.
Until they can get these simple things right, I won't worry so much about there global warming theories.
And what's the deal with drunk astronauts? Yeah, lets let them get behind the 'wheel' of our billion dollar (or whatever) vehicle.
Until they can get these simple things right, I won't worry so much about there global warming theories.
Brandon Goforth
EXACTLY!!!
rdale
EF5
I think NASA needs to spend more time learning how to keep foam insulation intact on each space shuttle mission than analyzing climatic weather trends.
And what's the deal with drunk astronauts? Yeah, lets let them get behind the 'wheel' of our billion dollar (or whatever) vehicle.
If you think about foam - you realize it's not made to contract and expand a large amount. But it's the best thing to use to keep ice from forming on the tank, and it's needed. So there will never be a day when no foam comes off, but they do have the critical foam areas fixed. And they have a great process to take care of any foam that does come off.
Must have missed the news last week... First there never was any claim of a drunk astronaut on the space shuttle. The two incidents that were reported were found to be completely without merit. Not the slightest shred of evidence, just a disgruntled employee making things up to get in the news.
mike scantlin
EF3
Brian Fantana: It's made with bits of real R-Dale. So you know it's good...
Ron Burgandy: It's quite pungent...
Brian Fantana: ohh yeah.
Ron Burgandy: It's a formitable scent.... stings the nostrils......
jladue
EF1
Agreed. I believe in the axiom that if you're going to make an opinion on this paper, you'd better read its contents. I seriously doubt the press did.
BTW, Harold Brooks has been doing a lot of research on severe storm environmental variables. A simple combination of CAPE and shear work quite well as proxies for explaining the probability of already occurring convection being severe. Harold has always attached cautions concerning the inability of the data archives (e.g., NCEP reanalysis data) to adequately resolve CIN. Otherwise, south TX would be the epicenter of severe weather. I think Shane raises a valid question that we don't know what future CAP scenarios would be like, either in favor of, or against convection. However, more heat doesn't mean more convective inhibition.
Steve Mirsky
and the love triangle tooI think NASA needs to spend more time learning how to keep foam insulation intact on each space shuttle mission than analyzing climatic weather trends.
And what's the deal with drunk astronauts? Yeah, lets let them get behind the 'wheel' of our billion dollar (or whatever) vehicle.
Until they can get these simple things right, I won't worry so much about there global warming theories.
Gene Moore
EF3
So there may be less tornadoes, but they will be bigger and more salty? How about, more salt more condensation nucli.....more tornadoes in the rain, that might make some sense? Certainly last season was a good example of too many rain wrapped tornadoes.
It's difficult to predict tornados from year to year, even from month to month due to the positioning of the jet stream....the source of most of our significant tornadic events. Tie in sea salt, ocean temperatures, dinosaur droppings, ozone, tree rings ....and so on into predicting a mean jet position over the US and I'll begin to listen. Until that time storm chasers would be better served getting their tornado forecasts off from NOAA, not NASA.
Mike Smith
Really? Don't the same laws of physics apply to the atmosphere whether it pertains to short term weather or long term climate?
Kevin Scharfenberg
Hmm, well I can safely neglect the Coriolis effect when studying phenomena that occur on the scale of say 10 seconds, but if I neglect it on events on the order 10^6 seconds, I'll get wildly bad results. Does that mean the laws of physics are working differently? Of course not.
That's what the study does. It studies whether favorable large-scale environments will exist more often for supercells (say, juxtaposition of large CAPE and shear). If there's 50 such days at a grid point on average from 1957-2007, how many days will there be on average per year from 2057-2107? It's done through a method called "downscaling" from the global climate models, which is a widely-accepted and thoroughly documented practice (if anyone cares). The study does not now, and never did, say whether tornadoes would be any stronger.
This thread is a classic example of people relying on non-scientists and pundits in the mass media to form their opinions rather than consulting the source document, which in this case said nothing about the strength of the tornadoes. But that didn't stop one poster from making such a baseless accusation earlier in the thread.
