Did y'all talk about the Merrillville tornado in this thread? The head security guard in my office building had her roof torn off and all the glass blown out of her windows while she was in the house with her son and grandson. She showed me videos. Wild. Her best friend lost her whole house and the tornado killed her dog. Sad stuff. 12 or so dead.
12 dead? Yikes I didn’t hear about that. Better buckle up again folks. Tomorrow gonna be nasty
@jdb Seems like we are really being targeted this season.
@jdb we are all being punished, by climate change
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Got some of the rain last night, but that was it. No high winds and no thunder.
https://twitter.com/GLeMonte/status/2067571523116802191?s=20
I thought you were a scientist? You don't care about data now?
Data is life. You can argue about the cause of the warming and perhaps about the extent to which it is manifested in more severe weather (though the data is getting clearer there, too), but the warming is real and the rate of warming is abnormal. Numerous independent studies have come up with data almost identical to this:
Data from NASA, The blue line represents global surface temperature reconstructed over the last 2,000 years using proxy data from tree rings, corals, and ice cores. The red line shows direct surface temperature measurements since 1880.
Compare to data from NOAA on CO2 levels. I know, correlation is not causation. But we can observe the greenhouse effect of CO2 in controlled experiments (and on the surface of Venus, for that matter). It has been known for >100 years now.
note the x axis, this covers since 1860, the "hockey stick rise" potion of the temperature graph.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
I thought you were a scientist? You don't care about data now?
Data is life. You can argue about the cause of the warming and perhaps about the extent to which it is manifested in more severe weather (though the data is getting clearer there, too), but the warming is real and the rate of warming is abnormal. Numerous independent studies have come up with data almost identical to this:
Data from NASA, The blue line represents global surface temperature reconstructed over the last 2,000 years using proxy data from tree rings, corals, and ice cores. The red line shows direct surface temperature measurements since 1880.
Compare to data from NOAA on CO2 levels. I know, correlation is not causation. But we can observe the greenhouse effect of CO2 in controlled experiments (and on the surface of Venus, for that matter). It has been known for >100 years now.
note the x axis, this covers since 1860, the "hockey stick rise" potion of the temperature graph.
You are literally creating fallacies in your mind to satisfy your desire to trumpet climate change.
This thread is about severe weather, and the post was specifically about tornadoes. The data shows that tornado frequency is flat and severity is substantially lower.
From the NOAA
So, if climate change were a factor, as you are implying, it seems to be helping reduce tornado severity? Is that the conclusion I should draw? Maybe those living in Tornado Alley need to buy more cattle and leave their trucks running?
A doubling means going down? Good to know!
Data compiled in a report from U. Nebraska:
Data from the national weather service on tornadoes in Kansas since 1950
Data for Illinois, from the National Climatic Data Center. Clear upward trend (though 1974 was a doozy!)
Yeah, they just fell off a cliff!
I should probably review your "outlier data" but I have work to do...
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
"real" NOAA data, most current, though 2015
years with >1200 tornadoes
1950-1992: 0
1993-2025: 16
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/202513
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
A doubling means going down? Good to know!
Data compiled in a report from U. Nebraska:
Data from the national weather service on tornadoes in Kansas since 1950
Data for Illinois, from the National Climatic Data Center. Clear upward trend (though 1974 was a doozy!)
Yeah, they just fell off a cliff!
I should probably review your "outlier data" but I have work to do...
There is no way you can be a PhD. Indiana should revoke your degree if you even attended.
I posted NOAA data showing NATIONAL flat tornado volume and less frequent EF3s+ and you come back with some garbage, non-linked graphs? Why did you not use the most recent data on Kansas? Why do you think the only loser non-AAU school in the Big Ten is more qualified than the NOAA in reporting on tornado data?
Here is the National Weather Service, which directly proves my point:
https://www.weather.gov/ict/KSTornadoClimo?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Showing that there are shifts in tornado activity does nothing to dispute the fact that tornadic activity is flat and severity is lower nationwide. You also aren't even acknowledging the biggest caveat the NOAA and National Weather Service are disclaiming:
""With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency."
If you wanted to understand the impact, perhaps you should ask our national source itself:
Does climate change cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, "How will climate change influence tornado occurrence?" The best answer is: We don't know. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Third National Climate Assessment, "For other types of extreme weather events important to the United States, such as tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, more research is needed to understand how climate change will affect them. These events occur over much smaller scales, which makes observations and modeling more challenging. Projecting the future influence of climate change on these events can also be complicated by the fact that some of the risk factors for these events may increase with climate change, while others may decrease." This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn't guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals--some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather. Finally, tornado recordkeeping itself also has been prone to many errors and uncertainties, doesn't exist for most of the world, and even in the U. S., only covers several decades in detailed form.
And before you go on a stupid tirade about Trump influencing this explanation, this was written under the Biden Administration.
@jdb Seems like we are really being targeted this season.
According to this, you may be in an unfavorable position regarding frequency as trends shift East.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0048-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com
