Comments on A LINK BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND TORNADOES

Go to DENYING GLOBAL WARMING -- NOT COOL - Add a comment - Go to A LINK BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND TORNADOES

Re: Re: Re: I don’t have a lot of time to dig into this right now, but in t

what you are saying is sort of like a good hitter in baseball.

he has improved through the years -- his last 5 years are better than the previous 7 -- his third year of those five is his best yet -- the next two are not as good as his peak, yet they are better than his average before that.

just because there is a peak year and the years following are not of the same intensity, but still are of greater intensity than before -- this does not necessarily mean that the matter is declining.  We still have more intensity than several decades before -- or any time that the phenomenon is recorded.  There is a trend.  To compare subsequent years with the one peak year is to turn a blind eye to the trend which is toward greater intensity.

posted by Xeno-x on June 24, 2008 at 7:11 PM | link to this | reply

Re: By the way, I forgot the most important criticism of all!

the article's focus is not that

However, I keep bringing up this graph that shows that for the past 600,00 years there is a definite correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature.

posted by Xeno-x on June 24, 2008 at 7:06 PM | link to this | reply

By the way, I forgot the most important criticism of all!

I failed to point out that nowhere in your article did you establish a connection between greenhouse gasses and the phenomena you discuss. Warm air, yes. Co2? No.  

posted by WriterofLight on June 24, 2008 at 6:41 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: I don’t have a lot of time to dig into this right now, but in the meant

"I would put forth that we shouldn't be looking at a season here, but a trend that encompasses several seasons."

PRECISELY! That's exactly the point I was making, both about the decrease in tornadoes from 2005 through 2007 and, at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/General/EditPost.aspx?post=550734, the various factors that have a bearing on how many are reported.

posted by WriterofLight on June 24, 2008 at 6:40 PM | link to this | reply

Re: I don’t have a lot of time to dig into this right now, but in the meant

one short reply

so tornadoes hit a peak and then decline -- like hurricanes -- 2005 was a major weather activity season -- it makes it seem that things are settling down when subsequent seasons are not as severe.  The facts exists, however, that, although subsequent seasons are not as severe as the peak season, they are still, on the average, way above average when compared with seasons past.  I would put forth that we shouldn't be looking at a season here, but a trend that encompasses several seasons.

posted by Xeno-x on June 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM | link to this | reply

I don’t have a lot of time to dig into this right now, but in the meantime:

I hadn’t responded because grandfathering was more important than arguing with you.

First, some questions you need to answer (there are more in the observations that follow):

• If the model you cite is accurate, then why did the number of tornadoes decrease from 2005 through 2007? If “global warming” was worsening during that time, as we would be led to believe, then would it not be logical to assume that there would be a corresponding increase in severe thunderstorms and tornadoes if “global warming” (rather than the La Nina/El Nino cycle) us responsible for them?
• How do you reconcile the cooler than normal spring with your portrayal of “global” – as in “worldwide,” “it’s freakin’ hot everywhere” – warming?
• When did the current La Nina event begin? Your citation describes the typical weather activity during the first three months of a La Nina, but you failed to make it relevant to your claims.
• At the risk of asking you to prove a negative, what proof do you have that the established understanding of La Nina’s effect on severe weather is false and that your “global warming” theory is true instead?

And some observations:

• First, excellent work   in avoiding the trap that some of the lamestream news media people fell into concerning preliminary and confirmed tornadoes.
• Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes require both warm and cool air to form. The persistent cool air mass over much of northern North America was a major contributor to the severe tornado season.
• The theory presented flies in the face of accepted meteorology.
• Depending on where you are, warmer air will be more humid and lead to more precipitation. Again, the collision of warm, moist gulf air with the cool air mass I already described is what caused the heavy rainfall in the upper Midwest. But I reiterate, it depends on where you are.
• There are other factors than just the warm and cold air masses involved in how many tornadoes are reported. For one thing, most of the tornadoes being reported are very weak and short-lived. For another, more people are more widely distributed and better trained, and thus are more likely to see tornadoes that previously would not have been seen by anyone. I go into this in much more detail at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight9282/550734.
• Your claim that current weather doesn’t fit the usual La Nina cycle is meaningless. (In fact, it does fit, entirely.) In order to justify it, you have to prove two things: First, when the cycle began and how long it lasts; and, How current weather actually does differ from the norm of this stage in a La Nina cycle. Unless you can do that, your attempt to dismiss La Nina as the cause of the severe weather falls apart.

The Newsweek article, by the way, is classic. The continuous denigration of dissent with a dismissive “denial machine” gives it away as scarcely being honest, fair or objective – so it doesn’t surprise me that you would cite that instead of tackling the rapidly growing body of scientific criticism and debunkery of “global warming” theory.  

By the way, there’s a dirty little secret about the Hansen testimony she cites; it was deliberately scheduled on what was historically the hottest day of the year in Washington, in a room with the air conditioning turned off in order to make it have the biggest sensationalism value. "Global warmers" have been in full stride in summer and relatively wuiet when we're freezing our tails off in winter. (See today’s posting at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight9282/).

posted by WriterofLight on June 23, 2008 at 9:31 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Re: Overly sensitive........

its like getting on a horse

the right side is the wrong side

and the left side is the right side

posted by Xeno-x on June 18, 2008 at 7:08 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Re: Overly sensitive........

I don't blame you.......why don't you come on over to the right side of this issue??   Check out my article about getting diesel fuel from bug poop....lighten up.

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Overly sensitive........

getting tired of people believing in what has been amply demonstrated to be dead wrong.

posted by Xeno-x on June 18, 2008 at 2:44 PM | link to this | reply

Overly sensitive........

over a typo, are we???

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Hmmmmm??? -- how much are you getting paid, Corbin by ExxonMobile

for denying Global Warming

posted by Xeno-x on June 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Hmmmmm???

READ THE FACTS FOOL

posted by Xeno-x on June 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM | link to this | reply

Hmmmmm???

Is "Blogal" Warming a result of all the hot air emanating from around here??? 

posted by Corbin_Dallas on June 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM | link to this | reply