Are Extreme Tornados a Harbinger of Global Warming?

[Chris]

This for all those listeners who confuse weather with climate...


...Are extreme tornados becoming more frequent, as Sen. Boxer’s remarks suggest? The National Climate Data Center does say that there’s been “an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades.” But it also notes that the increase is likely a spurious result attributable to more extensive Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater focus on tornado reporting.

In particular, Doppler radar has made it much easier to detect EF-0 tornados (with wind speeds of 65 to 85 mph), resulting in a dramatic rise in the numbers reported. If you exclude those, the agency reports, “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.” Similarly, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2012 report on trends on weather extremes concludes that there is no evidence for either an increase or a decrease in tornado frequency or intensity.

While the number of strong tornadoes has stayed steady, the rate of deaths from tornados has fallen about 90 percent in the last 90 years, from just under 2 per million in the 1920s to 0.2 per million recently. This is true even taking into account the tragic toll of 2011, in which 553 Americans were killed by the storms. The biggest tragedies in 2011 occurred when tornados ripped through Joplin, Missouri, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, killing 158 and 64 people, respectively. The fact that warning times have increased from less than 5 minutes to 13 minutes since the 1970s accounts for much of the trend toward a lower death rate. In addition, Americans living in tornado-prone areas take twister warnings more seriously and engage in protective measures more actively.

http://i.snag.gy/35awe.jpg

What about the insurance losses cited by the Washington Post? Do they suggest anything about trends in tornados? Again, no.

In 2012, the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr., the Austin College economist Kevin Simmons, and the Troy University economist Daniel Sutter normalized U.S. tornado damage from 1950 to 2011. Their analysis published in the journal Environmental Hazards, provides an estimate of the damage that might be expected if past tornados or tornado seasons occurred today. Normalization takes changes in population, wealth, and housing stock into account, along with inflation.

In another analysis—this one for the Geneva Association, an international insurance think tank—the three researchers compared the tornado damage in the standout years of 1953, 1965, 1974, and 2011. In 1953, 519 people died and normalized damages exceeded $20 billion, in current dollars; in 1965, 301 people were killed and damages were greater than $20 billion; in 1974, 366 people died and losses were more than $10 billion; in 2011, 553 people were killed and damages totaled about $26 billion. But the losses in those years are way above the general trend: Overall, there was a 63 percent decline in normalized damages across the six-decade period.

http://i.snag.gy/Cd6N2.jpg

While not dispositive, their analysis suggests that this normalized decline in damages may mean that damaging tornados are becoming fewer. They add, though, that the tornado damage incurred in 2011 could indicate that “maximum damage levels have the potential to increase should societal change lead to increasing exposure of wealth and property.” In other words, a richer and more populous America could provide more targets for future tornados to hit.

So as Americans become wealthier, tornado damage may get worse. On the other hand, casualties will likely fall, as technological advances increase warning times, enabling people to get out of way or take shelter sooner. Sen. Boxer is right about this much: Tornados are a kind of extreme weather. But on the evidence so far, she is wrong to suggest that the Moore tornado is related to climate change.

@ Are Extreme Tornados a Harbinger of Global Warming? (http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/31/are-extreme-tornados-a-harbinger-of-glob)

[Ravi]

You lost me at blaming more tornadoes on doppler radar.

[Chris]

You lost me at blaming more tornadoes on doppler radar.

As that technology has become widespread reporting has become more accurate.

[killianr1]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=4s8iXvtMkV2rgM&tbnid=wPQVMlihRKbIwM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%2F2009%2F04% 2F&ei=QNasUdepMY_W8gTxm4FY&bvm=bv.47244034,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNGtGnSIC7QAsMVdiCoFZy14XdOuNw&ust=1370367915115016) The earth has been warming and cooling for centuries with or without CO2 www.drroyspencer.com (http://www.drroyspencer.com) - 528 × 336 - More sizes (https://www.google.com/search?q=average%20global%20temperature%20last%201 0%20years&sa=X&biw=1600&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbs=simg%3ACAQSEgnA9BUyWKFEpiHizyJe-0yRXQ&ei=QNasUdepMY_W8gTxm4FY&ved=0CAYQhxw)

[Chris]

Mention of CO2 reminds me...



Researchers studied satellite images between 1982 and 2010
Regions which have seen a rise in plant growth include Africa, the Middle East and the Australian outback
Carbon dioxide acts as an insulator and causes temperatures to rise but it also vital for plant growth



@ Dramatic rise in plant growth in world's deserts could be down to rising CO2 levels (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334723/Dramatic-rise-plant-growth-worlds-deserts-rising-C02-levels.html#ixzz2VB1wR3vA)

See also http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11669-How-Fossil-Fuels-are-Greening-the-Planet

[killianr1]

http://weather.about.com/od/tornadoe1/tp/deadlytornado.htm Also if you look back at the worst tornadoes in US history, they are not cumulatively in the past ten years but go back all the way to 1840.

[Common]

Ive said this a bunch of times. I dont know if there is or isnt global warming and neither does anyone on any of these political forums that argue it on either side. The scientists dont know they are split down the middle some say yes some say no. The ones that say yes got caught embellishing their side red handed.
The bottom line is I dont know, the scientists cant get a consensus and im not willing to spend BILLIONS that we dont have on chasing our tails.

[RtWngaFraud]

It's the scientists at HAARP preparing for the coming shake down.

[Chris]

It's the scientists at HAARP preparing for the coming shake down.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3304-haarp-conspiracy-theory/

[Agravan]

Ive said this a bunch of times. I dont know if there is or isnt global warming and neither does anyone on any of these political forums that argue it on either side. The scientists dont know they are split down the middle some say yes some say no. The ones that say yes got caught embellishing their side red handed.
The bottom line is I dont know, the scientists cant get a consensus and im not willing to spend BILLIONS that we dont have on chasing our tails.

Even if there is Global Warming, as killianr1 said, it's cyclic and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Throwing money at it is just a scam to make people rich and take even more of our money.

[Common]

Even if there is Global Warming, as @killianr1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=656) said, it's cyclic and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Throwing money at it is just a scam to make people rich and take even more of our money.

I agree, when I was a kid they told us the world was going to freeze. We already know that glaciers took covered a good piece of the globe. I believe weather is cyclic more than anything else

[Chloe]

The Earth has cycles that's very obvious and well documented throughout its history, however, that does not mean that we can not affect our environment very badly to the point of it being dangerous to life on this planet in addition to cycles. If you contribute to the cycle beyond what is natural to that cycle then you cross the line into what we have today in my opinion which is assisting the change faster than what would have happened naturally, and when that happens the domino effect will be faster and more noticeable which will also leave us with a smaller window to notice it and reduce it.

[Agravan]

The Earth has cycles that's very obvious and well documented throughout its history, however, that does not mean that we can not affect our environment very badly to the point of it being dangerous to life on this planet in addition to cycles. If you contribute to the cycle beyond what is natural to that cycle then you cross the line into what we have today in my opinion which is assisting the change faster than what would have happened naturally, and when that happens the domino effect will be faster and more noticeable which will also leave us with a smaller window to notice it and reduce it.
Again, there is nothing we can do to either increase or reduce it. It's a scam to think that more money will reverse a natural process. Volcanoes throw more pollutants into the air than man ever has. How do you propose to stop them?

[Common]

The Earth has cycles that's very obvious and well documented throughout its history, however, that does not mean that we can not affect our environment very badly to the point of it being dangerous to life on this planet in addition to cycles. If you contribute to the cycle beyond what is natural to that cycle then you cross the line into what we have today in my opinion which is assisting the change faster than what would have happened naturally, and when that happens the domino effect will be faster and more noticeable which will also leave us with a smaller window to notice it and reduce it.

That may be very true Chloe but there is no definitive evidence of that. No one has been able to produce proof of it.
For every scientist that says there is theres another that says it isnt. Science is a fantastic tool, but there has been those overzealous individuals that have done human experiments and have lied and plaquerized for notoriety and then theres just so much science that have just turned out dead wrong.
Theres just no money to spend bilions and thats what were talking about on an opinion. Needs lot more work

[lynn]

Climate cycles have occurred since life began on the planet. All living entities combined in their daily activities create the conditions for cause and reaction in the global environment. Humans are not exempt from this process so therefore we cannot say we are blameless in contributing to changes in climate. Since climate changes do not occur overnight and can take thousands, millions of years to change, no one would notice that it had changed.

[Agravan]

Climate cycles have occurred since life began on the planet. All living entities combined in their daily activities create the conditions for cause and reaction in the global environment. Humans are not exempt from this process so therefore we cannot say we are blameless in contributing to changes in climate. Since climate changls do not occur overnight and can take thousands, millions of years to change, no one would notice that it had changed.
Unless you live during the transitional stage, like we are in.

[Common]

Climate cycles have occurred since life began on the planet. All living entities combined in their daily activities create the conditions for cause and reaction in the global environment. Humans are not exempt from this process so therefore we cannot say we are blameless in contributing to changes in climate. Since climate changes do not occur overnight and can take thousands, millions of years to change, no one would notice that it had changed.

Perfectly sensible post Like Chloes and I agree must have an impact hard to deny that. I think where the entire discussion goes awry is that there is too much passion on the global warming side that we have to do an entire host of things to even survive and we have to change our way of life.
Someone has to to show some kind of proof that the earth is doomed and that were doing it to make people really latch onto more taxs and more regulations to do it because we all know thats what i will take

[Chris]

The Earth has cycles that's very obvious and well documented throughout its history, however, that does not mean that we can not affect our environment very badly to the point of it being dangerous to life on this planet in addition to cycles. If you contribute to the cycle beyond what is natural to that cycle then you cross the line into what we have today in my opinion which is assisting the change faster than what would have happened naturally, and when that happens the domino effect will be faster and more noticeable which will also leave us with a smaller window to notice it and reduce it.

Agree. What I posted does not say we do not affect climate, naturally we do--how, how much, what we can do about it, it all very much debatable scientifically, politically and economically. But don't take what I've posted as denial, take it as denial of alarmist's confusing weather with climate.

Dismiss alarmists and deniers and there'd be a good discussion.

[Chris]

Perfectly sensible post Like Chloes and I agree must have an impact hard to deny that. I think where the entire discussion goes awry is that there is too much passion on the global warming side that we have to do an entire host of things to even survive and we have to change our way of life.
Someone has to to show some kind of proof that the earth is doomed and that were doing it to make people really latch onto more taxs and more regulations to do it because we all know thats what i will take


Someone has to to show some kind of proof....

Sorry, but science just doesn't prove things.

And that is part of the problem here, alarmists and deniers alike want to oversimplify sceince as proof or science as just a theory, neither extreme can live with uncertainty.

[Chris]

Climate cycles have occurred since life began on the planet. All living entities combined in their daily activities create the conditions for cause and reaction in the global environment. Humans are not exempt from this process so therefore we cannot say we are blameless in contributing to changes in climate. Since climate changes do not occur overnight and can take thousands, millions of years to change, no one would notice that it had changed.

Agree with this too.


Since climate changes do not occur overnight and can take thousands, millions of years to change, no one would notice that it had changed.

This speaks to what can be done to change what man has caused inasmuch as he has. Correcting it may exceed resources, wealth and time we have. Adapting to it might be wiser.

[Common]

Sorry, but science just doesn't prove things.

And that is part of the problem here, alarmists and deniers alike want to oversimplify sceince as proof or science as just a theory, neither extreme can live with uncertainty.

Ok I can agree with that, but science has discovered many things and in the course of discoveries have clearly identified dangers to mankind. Proof was the wrong word, lets say science has to produce a convincing amount of facts. I dont know how else to put it. I just dont think at this point we should be spending untold billions. Theres too much else we need right now.

[Chris]

Ok I can agree with that, but science has discovered many things and in the course of discoveries have clearly identified dangers to mankind. Proof was the wrong word, lets say science has to produce a convincing amount of facts. I dont know how else to put it. I just dont think at this point we should be spending untold billions. Theres too much else we need right now.

What has science discovered re climate change? The most common climate change explanation is a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temps. Consider the old hockey stick, based on that. Thing is, the hockey stick wasn't based on actual data but on models that assumed the hockey stick. Over the last 15 years or so CO2 has soared, deserts are turning green, yet temps have remained relatively flat. Scientists are scrambling to explain this.

[Dr. Who]

What has science discovered re climate change? The most common climate change explanation is a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temps. Consider the old hockey stick, based on that. Thing is, the hockey stick wasn't based on actual data but on models that assumed the hockey stick. Over the last 15 years or so CO2 has soared, deserts are turning green, yet temps have remained relatively flat. Scientists are scrambling to explain this.Although still somewhat controversial, solar activity seems to have some impact on the planet's weather. Low solar activity seems to correlate with low temperatures in Europe, whereas high solar activity seems to produce more heat, more drought and more tornadic activity in the US. We are currently in a period of low solar activity, at least in terms of solar flares, and Europe has been experiencing colder than normal winters. Tornadic activity in the US is actually lower than normal, notwithstanding the major event in Oklahoma.