May 29, 2011
MSU Prof: “Number Of Tornadoes Has Dropped Dramatically”. NOAA:"Natural”; Mann, UCS: It’s AGW By P Gosselin on 29. Mai 2011
The German online Die Zeit here takes a look at the series of tornadoes that have ravaged the USA and conducted an interview with US meteorologist and Mississippi State University professor Grady Dixon.
Meteorology professor Grady Dixon: “Terrible mistake” to relate tornado up-tick to climate change.
Die Zeit asks the question: “Herr Dixon, is the number of such lethal storms rising in the USA?” Dixon replies:
No, to the contrary. Over the long term the number of deadly tornadoes has even dropped dramatically. [...] However, we have to expect that more people will be hit by tornadoes in the future. Not because there are more storms, but because the population is growing and suburbs and cities are expanding. In any case, 2011 is an unusually violent tornado year and it is just a fluke.”Dixon is also asked if climate change favors the creation of more tornadoes. Dixon answers:
"Research results are mixed on this. [...] But all indications show that it does not necessarily mean that tornadoes will be increasing in frequency.”On the frequency of tornadoes, Dixon is also quoted by the English-language France 24 here:
"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.But he said it would be ‘a terrible mistake’ to relate the up-tick to climate change.”
France 24 also quotes a FEMA official:
Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: ‘Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,’ he said.
"Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer’.”Many weeks back I recall Joe Bastardi predicting a humdinger of a tornado season, and of course we now see that his warnings were spot on. This spike in tornadoes is not due to warmth, but to cooling brought on by La Nina, with cold northern air smashing into warm, moist southern air.
David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma adds:
“We knew it was going to be a big tornado year. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”A rare moment of sanity coming from the NOAA? Sorry Romm, but on this one you’re a lone fool (again) out in the desert.
Unrelated: Benny Peiser brings or attention to news that a Global Climate Treaty Is DOA. Looks like Europe will be joining Romm out in the desert.
Note; Two other Ph.D.’s prove that a Ph.D. does not guarantee intelligence or at least that for some dogma trumps common sense in this story.
3 comments:
The German online Die Zeit here takes a look at the series of tornadoes...
Die, Ziet! Die! DIE DIE DIE!
Okay, sorry. Had to get that out of my system.
Tornadoes are complex mechanisms with complex causes. In 2011 we're beginning to understand how, where, why, or when they form.
It's the height of arrogance to presume it's got anything whatever to do with "climate change" (whatever that means), or by extension, human activity-caused climate change. Which is what the entire debate has been about all along.
Didn't we have this same conversation across the nation about six years ago, around the time of the Hurricane Katrina mess? Didn't the Left try to pin an unusually-active hurricane season on human-induced "climate change" and by extension, Bush, for his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocols?
And then the next couple of seasons were relative quiet. Not a peep or a word of apology, naturally. Just like next year will likely be with the tornadoes, or the one after that.
Fifty or more years ago, a tornado warning consisted of actually seeing one approaching and yelling at your family to get to the cellar right-quick. He's right. Technology + population growth + education = more tornado sightings and more early detection...which actually saves lives if not property. That's been the goal of the meteorlogical technology improvements from the get-go: to give people more warning so they can get out of the way of the vortex, before it tears apart their homes with people still inside.
What's with asking if "climate change" would cause more tornadoes in the first place? "Change" can mean anything. If "change" can mean more tornadoes, wouldn't a different kind of change mean fewer of them?
These are the kinds of word games the Left has to play in order to advance environmentalist socialism.
I meant to say, "In 2011, we're only JUST beginning to understand how, where, or why tornadoes form." It's presumptive to go around suggesting that a warmer atmosphere has anything to do with it.
Interesting article over at Moonbattery.com showing us how even Bill Nye the Science Guy admitted ignorance, then leapt onto the "climate change" bandwagon anyway.
Didn't we have this same conversation across the nation about six years ago, around the time of the Hurricane Katrina mess? Didn't the Left try to pin an unusually-active hurricane season on human-induced "climate change" and by extension, Bush, for his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocols?
Yes.... yes we did. And we'll have it any time an unusual weather event occurrs, be it a blizzard or a hurricane or an unusually rainy spring or a drought or a big tornado or a rash of tornadoes.
Because the left will bring it up like a cuckoo clock goes off on the hour. Count on it.
And then when it gets calm and anybody suggests that the opposite might be true given the evidence, it's all "weather isn't climate!" ... which is what we've been saying all along.
It's only when they think they can use it as an excuse to pass their agendas, making life hideously more expensive and less pleasant for us all in the name of making them the heroes of their individual and collective morality plays that suddenly weather becomes equal to climate once again.
Fifty or more years ago, a tornado warning consisted of actually seeing one approaching and yelling at your family to get to the cellar right-quick. He's right. Technology + population growth + education = more tornado sightings and more early detection...which actually saves lives if not property.
Yup. Not sure if you know this but my background is in meteorology, which is why you see so much AGW stuff on this blog. And 25 years ago, my meteorology professors were saying the exact same thing this guy is saying... higher population density + better observation tools ... duh! We're going to log more even if there is the same number, and likely even if there are less?
What's with asking if "climate change" would cause more tornadoes in the first place?
Yup. Yer on the right path.
"Change" can mean anything.
Doesn't Barack Obama know that! It's why it made such an empty, catch-all campaign slogan. I'm still baffled that so many people bit.
If "change" can mean more tornadoes, wouldn't a different kind of change mean fewer of them?
Yes, and if there were fewer, the left would blame that on AGW, and rationalize a reason that the Environment needs tornadoes to maintain The Delicate Balance™ of Nature. :-)
Post a Comment