Comments on TORNADOES STILL AT RECORD HIGHS -- AS PREDICTED

Go to DENYING GLOBAL WARMING -- NOT COOL - Add a comment - Go to TORNADOES STILL AT RECORD HIGHS -- AS PREDICTED

Re: Re: Your data is incomplete, and your logic flawed

Precisely - and you are neither presenting all of the data, nor are you correctly interpreting what you do present.

posted by WriterofLight on August 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM | link to this | reply

Re: Your data is incomplete, and your logic flawed

It's not my date -- it's the National Weather Service (NOAA).  I would suppose this should be the ultimate authority.

posted by Xeno-x on August 4, 2008 at 6:09 AM | link to this | reply

Your data is incomplete, and your logic flawed

First, for a far more complete explanation of how tornado statistics are to be interpreted, see http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Comments.aspx/550734.

Second, the higher number of tornados reported in the United States cannot logically be attributed to “rising temperatures around the world.” Tornadoes require three conditions: a warm, moist air mass, a cold air mass (which, by your logic, should at least be minimized or, at worst, not even exist), and severe thunderstorms generated by the intrusion of the latter into the former, with tornadic rotation. The U. S. in fact had an abnormally cool spring (see http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight9282/550482), which was a major cause of the severity of the tornado season.

Third, see my serialization of Dr. Roy Spencer’s paper, Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems, starting at, http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight9282/556542m, for extensive discussion of the relationship between warming and precipitation. It is inaccurate to relate drought solely with warming, as drought is a lack of precipitation regardless of temperature; winters can be quite dry.

Fourth, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it is illogical to use the abundance or lack of snow on mountains as a guide to overall warming and cooling trends. Snowfall varies widely from one winter to the next, and melts at different rates based on the warmth or coolness of the following spring and summer, and on exposure to sunlight. The same also applies to the severity of fire seasons.

Finally, I concur: “It’s not just the polar bears anymore.” The alleged (see http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight/545090) decline of polar bear population is only one of a host of misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and outright lies being promulgated in the advocacy of the false “science” of “global warming.”

Denying “global warming?” Denying your faulty assumptions.

posted by WriterofLight on August 3, 2008 at 10:14 PM | link to this | reply