Local conditions and personal reflections

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 11:09 PM GMT on May 31, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

Local Conditions and Personal Reflections

I have disappeared for a while because of technological failures. Honestly, I embraced them for a couple of days, but it's hard for me to remain in denial for more than a day or two. So I have sought out the computer at the public library and remembered my WU login. Here is a personal reflection on how local weather conditions might impact how one thinks about climate change.

I am currently residing in Boulder, Colo., where I try to grow a pretty large garden. Last year, 2012, was exceedingly hot in the spring and very dry. The dryness continued into the winter of 2013.

Water is in short supply in the West. This is not news. In fact, when John Wesley Powell explored the West he was pessimistic about its habitability because of scarcity of water (an old NPR story). He laid out a vision of a West of small settlements anchored in reliable water sources. Earlier, when Stephen Long explored the Midwest and the Front Range of the Rockies, he labeled the area the "Great Desert." (some cool maps from University of Tulsa).

Of course, the Great Plains and the West have now been populated with large cities. Water is managed in a fragmented way on an enormous spatial scale. There is huge contention for water between cities, agricultural and conservation management, and energy production. This is one area of the country where there is concern shared amongst the governors about drought and climate change.

In March 2013 as the local drought persisted, I was downright depressed about the coming spring and summer. The snowpack in the mountains was low. In the previous year, the spring had been so warm that much of the snow melted well before the normal spring runoff. I remember in June 2012 putting pumpkins into soil that was well over 110 degrees F and dry down to the underlying clay bed. With the low humidity and heat, I could not water most of them enough to keep them alive. In March 2013, we seemed to be looking at even less water.

Spring 2013 was just plain odd in the U.S. Largely, it was cold, with many record cold temperatures. The cold waves were interspersed with sometimes record heat. The variability was enormous. In my part of Colorado during April, at just about exactly seven-day intervals, there was one record snow a week. On the flat lands east of the mountains, these snows were followed by extraordinary seasonal cold, then a rapid melt. Virtually all blossoming trees did not blossom; the bees are not happy. In the mountains, the snowpack built up to be higher than average. Some ski resorts reopened for Memorial Day because of fresh May snow.

Here at the end of May, I look at the mountains and there is a lot of snow. The farm irrigation ditches run full of water. The cities are reconsidering the water restrictions they imposed in February and March. The hay fields are green and tall. I look around, and I feel pretty good about the summer.

Those mountains that I see to the West supply the Platte River and the Colorado River. I look up to them and naively think of the Colorado River full of water. However, the truth is quite the contrary. 2013 is yet another year of the Colorado River being in extreme drought. Despite my seeing all of that snow in my little world 2013 is an intensification of the Southwest drought.

I remember when I was quite young there was a drought in my home state of North Carolina. I was only a bit more naive then, perhaps more prone to the mystical, and I worried about the weather being broken in some way. At that age, weather was itself a mystery. I had no idea how to describe the motion of air and how to turn humidity into rain. I imagined that there had been a divine intervention into how the weather worked--it was the opposite of the biblical flood. I was a young boy with a narrow view of the world, so I assumed the whole world was in drought. I am sure that a few hundred miles away, however, the weather was still working; it was raining. I probably even checked to make sure that was the case. As I now sit in a world with what looks like enough snow for a good season in the garden, that childhood comfort of the weather working comes back.

This little vision I have into the world, that my weather has been beneficent, really has little relevance to whether or not the climate is changing. My little vision is no different than that of all of the people who have looked at the cold U.S. spring of 2013 and stated that as evidence or proof that the Earth was not warming. You have to look at all of the Earth and look at what is happening in the oceans and look at all that is melting.

One of our best resources on drought and water is the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). NIDIS followed from The 1998 National Drought Policy Act and The Western Governors' Association (some good policy history). This is climate policy; this is climate service. It is based on known vulnerabilities, ones that are expected to get worse because there is really nothing that suggests the vulnerabilities will lessen on their own. There is no looking at the facts and saying it will all be all right.

Rather than looking out your window and saying that the weather is working and that our climate is like it has always been, better to take a broader look--a global perspective. For a national perspective on drought, here is the outlook from NIDIS on May 15, 2013.

Hope to get my computer and files back early next week. Don't forget me.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 136 - 86

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Which makes more F-0 tornadoes..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
And hot land..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
.

Hot water..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting allahgore:



Increase in what?


Hot air...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
It is very clear the trend is upward for all tornadoes...Sorry if you can't read the NOAA charts...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Even since 2005 there has been an increase...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Even since 2000 there has been an increase....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Birthmark:

You might find this interesting.


Even since the 1990's there has been an increase....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting ScottLincoln:
I'm not even sure why we continue to humor this ongoing, silly discussion about the tornado numbers. The analysis of the data and the tornado experts have spoken, there are numerous issues with the datasets and they cannot be taken at face value for use in climate trends. There is virtually no debate on this in the scientific community. The uncertainty is large enough that tornado counts could be steady or even slightly dropping. We just do not know yet, and our high quality data barely goes back far enough to make firm, climatic conclusions, let alone conclusions on climate change.

That's what the data says, that's what the scientists say. Someday we might know more but today is not that day. The end.
Thank you. Multiple plusses.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm not even sure why we continue to humor this ongoing, silly discussion about the tornado numbers. The analysis of the data and the tornado experts have spoken, there are numerous issues with the datasets and they cannot be taken at face value for use in climate trends. There is virtually no debate on this in the scientific community. The uncertainty is large enough that tornado counts could be steady or even slightly dropping. We just do not know yet, and our high quality data barely goes back far enough to make firm, climatic conclusions, let alone conclusions on climate change.

That's what the data says, that's what the scientists say. Someday we might know more but today is not that day. The end.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Thanks for warning me.

While your at it, could you cut down on the length of the quotes? The people who wrote it want to get some traffic from it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:




About that..
1970'S

..

You might find this interesting.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Hi all, back from Europe. A quick comment on the tornado numbers. 1988 was when NEXRAD, our first (almost) complete radar network, was started and then finished in 1997. This could explain some, if not all, of the variance in the numbers.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:



How are all these numbers obtained? Trained spotter ID or Radar or both?



All of the above..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Birthmark:

Isn't 1980 about the time that Doppler radar began to come into widespread use?




About that..
1970'S

..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster:


OK then go from 1980 it has still almost doubled from hundreds to thousands.

Isn't 1980 about the time that Doppler radar began to come into widespread use?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xulonn:


Source?


NOAA
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Xulonn:
John Lonergan - check your post on stats - it may be skewed to the right with indents and messing up the formatting of all posts on the same page with it.

It's usually the formatting of one post that screws up the page.
-----------------------
Edit: Problem gone - thanks John. Now I can plus your comment!


Thanks for warning me.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3109
Quoting cyclonebuster:
BTW NOAA doesn't have deficient data sets...


Source?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
John Lonergan - check your post on stats - it may be skewed to the right with indents and messing up the formatting of all posts on the same page with it.

It's usually the formatting of one post that screws up the page.
-----------------------
Edit: Problem gone - thanks John. Now I can plus your comment!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Xulonn:
Whoa, Cyclone - the data is not accurate for 1950, and Dr. Masters says that it's not good enough climate research - and you're comparing individual years, which is weather and not climate.

Perhaps we should agree that I accept the conclusions of climate science as articulated by Dr. Masters, Dr. Rood, Angela Fritz and others, and you prefer to believe your layman's interpretation of a known deficient data set.

Perhaps we should also agree that an increase in EF-0 tornadoes is not good, but not nearly as bad as an increase in catastrophic stronger tornadoes - which climate science currently does not expect to happen due to AGW/CC.


OK then go from 1980 it has still almost doubled from hundreds to thousands....BTW NOAA doesn't have deficient data sets...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I might agree with all this but when you jump from a few hundred to well over 1500 something else is driving it...I think it is Fossil Fuel GHG's... JMHO...
Quoting cyclonebuster:I might agree with all this but when you jump from a few hundred to well over 1500 something else is driving it...I think it is Fossil Fuel GHG's... JMHO...
Whoa, Cyclone - the data is not accurate for 1950, and Dr. Masters says that it's not good enough climate research - and you're comparing individual years, which is weather and not climate.

Perhaps we should agree that I accept the conclusions of climate science as articulated by Dr. Masters, Dr. Rood, Angela Fritz and others, and you prefer to believe your layman's interpretation of a known deficient data set.

Perhaps we should also agree that an increase in EF-0 tornadoes is not good, but not nearly as bad as an increase in catastrophic stronger tornadoes - which climate science currently does not expect to happen due to AGW/CC.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Xulonn:
You believe yourself, and you discount Dr. Masters' work and conclusions. I trust Dr. Masters conclusions as being quite probably true because of his education, background, work and research. His rigorous approach to science trumps your borrowed AGW/denialist tactic of oversimplified correlation with no substance.

Again, quoting Dr. Masters - who does much more than look at one chart and worship it's apparent "tend" (your word - not mine)"


I might agree with all this but when you jump from a few hundred to well over 1500 something else is driving it...I think it is Fossil Fuel GHG's... JMHO...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Something ugly has happened to the comment section format.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Ok then throw away data from 1950 to 1980 then go by 1980 when we had much better data....Guess what? The tend is still upward almost double...
You believe yourself, and you discount Dr. Masters' work and conclusions. I trust Dr. Masters conclusions as being quite probably true because of his education, background, work and research. His rigorous approach to science trumps your borrowed AGW/denialist tactic of oversimplified correlation with no substance.

Again, quoting Dr. Masters - who does much more than look at one chart and worship it's apparent "tend" (your word - not mine)"
Quoting cyclonebuster:
We don't have a good enough database to determine how tornadoes may have changed in recent decades, and our computer models are currently not able to tell us if tornadoes are more likely to increase or decrease in a future warmer climate.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting JohnLonergan:


When I am in doubt about statistics, I go to to Tamino, who says this about tornados:

"There’s no doubt that the number of recorded tornadoes has increased sharply during the time that records have been maintained. But in large part this is a selection effect: as population has increased and technology improved, our ability to record the presence of tornadoes has likewise improved. Hence there may not actually be more tornadoes, we may simply have noticed more of them. In fact, considerable research has indicated that tornado detection and reporting have improved over the years, so even though the increase in the number of recorded tornadoes is strong, there’s doubt about whether or not there’s been a real increase in tornado occurence in the U.S. It’s also worth noting that since about 1990 (when technology reached an advanced stage and U.S. population was significantly higher than 1950), there’s no indication of a trend in the total number of recorded tornadoes."



In the comments, Harold Brooks writes:

Harold Brooks
There are lots of problems with the database that lead to some of the results you show.

First, related to the reported change in widths, in 1994, the National Weather Service changed the definition of width from mean width to maximum width. Second, in 1995, there was a change in database software and how the forecasters who entered the data into the database did their job. The latter had huge effects on the non-tornadic wind data with a dramatic increase in the number of reports that were entered as exactly 50 kts starting then.


This paper touches on one of the changes in the intensity rating and I’m co-author on another paper in review that documents some recent (post-1999) changes in ratings that appear to be an unintended response to policy changes.

[Response: Thanks very much for the information. On that basis, it looks like the change in "large" tornado frequency in 1995/1996 is another effect of the data, not the physical phenomenon.

I'll give the paper a good read, and if you have a link to a manuscript of your submitted paper I'd love to see that too.]


And in my years of analysing surveying data, it is perfectly valid to ignore suspect data.



I might agree with all this but when you jump from a few hundred to well over 1500 something else is driving it...I think it is Fossil Fuel GHG's... JMHO...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Xulonn:
I think you mean "relevant" data and not "relative" data.

And no, it doesn't. However, but even my meager training in statistics - and the course - teaches the very important step of examining and evaluating data, not only for meaning and significance, but for accuracy and completeness. This is what Dr. Masters did - and he found that your sacred data - that which supports your pre-conceived conclusions - is of limited value.


When I am in doubt about statistics, I go to to Tamino, who says this about tornados:

"There%u2019s no doubt that the number of recorded tornadoes has increased sharply during the time that records have been maintained. But in large part this is a selection effect: as population has increased and technology improved, our ability to record the presence of tornadoes has likewise improved. Hence there may not actually be more tornadoes, we may simply have noticed more of them. In fact, considerable research has indicated that tornado detection and reporting have improved over the years, so even though the increase in the number of recorded tornadoes is strong, there%u2019s doubt about whether or not there%u2019s been a real increase in tornado occurence in the U.S. It%u2019s also worth noting that since about 1990 (when technology reached an advanced stage and U.S. population was significantly higher than 1950), there%u2019s no indication of a trend in the total number of recorded tornadoes."


In the comments, Harold Brooks writes:


Harold Brooks
There are lots of problems with the database that lead to some of the results you show.

First, related to the reported change in widths, in 1994, the National Weather Service changed the definition of width from mean width to maximum width. Second, in 1995, there was a change in database software and how the forecasters who entered the data into the database did their job. The latter had huge effects on the non-tornadic wind data with a dramatic increase in the number of reports that were entered as exactly 50 kts starting then.


This paper touches on one of the changes in the intensity rating and I%u2019m co-author on another paper in review that documents some recent (post-1999) changes in ratings that appear to be an unintended response to policy changes.

[Response: Thanks very much for the information. On that basis, it looks like the change in "large" tornado frequency in 1995/1996 is another effect of the data, not the physical phenomenon.

I'll give the paper a good read, and if you have a link to a manuscript of your submitted paper I'd love to see that too.]


And in my years of analysing surveying data, it is perfectly valid to ignore suspect data.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3109
The tornado count is growing because of increasing population (more observers and more areas densely populated) Also better technology and more comprehensive surveys means more EF-0 and EF-1 tornadoes are identified. These factors may be responsible for the increasing trend in the annual tornado count. In reality, the annual number of tornadoes' trend line may be increasing, decreasing, or constant. I don't know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
You do if it's inaccurate or incomplete, you're a scientist - like Dr. Masters, (whom you continue to challenge indirectly), and you find a chart and dataset to be deficient - even one from the Sacred Church of NOAA. Perhaps tunnel promoters aren't so rigorous in their research!


Ok then throw away data from 1950 to 1980 then go by 1980 when we had much better data....Guess what? The tend is still upward almost double.....







...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster: It is relative as to how you use the word in a sentence..If you want to use it that way go ahead...Anyways,If you or anyone else don't want to use F-0 tornadoes then why are they listed on the Fajita scale? Didn't Dr. Fajita think they were relevant?
I think you mean Dr. Fujita - apparently accuracy is not important to you.

Dr. Masters did use EF-0's - in their proper context, and where appropriate.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I think we should use what we got and let the missed ones go...You can't Cherry Pick F-1 to F-5... You should use all data.... If Dr. Masters used F-0 to F-5 results the correlation between a warming climate and tornado frequency would be very clear...

Perhaps. But would it be real?

Here's what we've got: There are six recognized categories of tornado. In five categories, there is no meaningful trend.

In the weakest category, there is an apparent upward trend.

There are two basic explanations for that trend: 1)there is a real increase in F0 tornadoes; or 2)the increase is due to better, more comprehensive observation. "2" cannot be ruled out scientifically. Therefore, accepting "1" as the explanation is premature.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Once he threw away all F-0's that totally changed the equation....You don't throw away NOAA data.....
You do if it's inaccurate or incomplete, you're a scientist - like Dr. Masters, (whom you continue to challenge indirectly), and you find a chart and dataset to be deficient - even one from the Sacred Church of NOAA.
Quoting Dr. Masters:

Changes in past tornado activity difficult to assess due to a poor database. It's tough to tell if tornadoes may have changed due to a changing climate, since the tornado database is of poor quality for climate research.
Perhaps tunnel promoters aren't so rigorous in their research!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Xulonn:
I think you mean "relevant" data and not "relative" data.

And no, it doesn't. However, but even my meager training in statistics - and the course - teaches the very important step of examining and evaluating data, not only for meaning and significance, but for accuracy and completeness. This is what Dr. Masters did - and he found that your sacred data - that which supports your pre-conceived conclusions - is of limited value.


It is relative as to how you use the word in a sentence..If you want to use it that way go ahead...

Anyways,If you or anyone else don't want to use F-0 tornadoes then why are they listed on the Fajita scale? Didn't Dr. Fajita think they were relevant?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Don't throw relative data away...Does your course teach you that?
I think you mean "relevant" data and not "relative" data.

And no, it doesn't. However, but even my meager training in statistics - and the course - teaches the very important step of examining and evaluating data, not only for meaning and significance, but for accuracy and completeness. This is what Dr. Masters did - and he found that your sacred data - that which supports your pre-conceived conclusions - is of limited value.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I think we should use what we got and let the missed ones go...You can't Cherry Pick F-1 to F-5... You should use all data.... If Dr. Masters used F-0 to F-5 results the correlation between a warming climate and tornado frequency would be very clear...
Dr. Masters did first look at EF-0 to EF-5 tornadoes. He found the data set to be unreliable, and then he moved beyond it as a good scientist does.

Relying on simple correlation is bad science, and not proof of anything. A reliance on correlation without causation, scientific explanation or mechanism is one primary tools of the AGW/CC denial industry - and it's a shame to see it being used on the other side of the issue.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Xulonn:
As a Monterey Bay sea otter once said to me, "I just can't kelp myself!" Apologies for misleading you!

Sorry, I'm just fascinated by someone who claims to have a cure for AGW/CC, thereby saving humankind and its modern civilization, and who cannot carry on a nuanced and logical debate.

Plus it's good practice for the university course I'm currently taking entitled "Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations." The fight against bad science, poor and incomplete analysis, and refusal to acknowledge your opponent's points, when related to AGW/CC, is a real challenge.


Don't throw relative data away...Does your course teach you that?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Xulonn:
DR. MASTERS DID CONSIDER ALL TORNADOES AND USED THE SAME NOAA CHART THAT YOU DID AS A STARTING POINT FOR HIS DISCUSSION.

Almost everything you post in this thread indicates that you did not read Dr. Masters May 23 blog post on tornadoes, which points out the weaknesses in THE NOAA CHART ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CONCLUSION ENTIRELY. Or if you did read it, you obviously did not understand it.

Your comments and the writing of Dr. Masters on the subject part ways at the point where you accepted a single NOAA chart as the final word on the subject. Dr. Masters, OTOH, was intelligent and alert enough to suspect that that chart might not be the complete story. So he did some additional detailed research - in other words, he looked beyond the limited and likely flawed initial data.

You, OTOH, found what you liked and stopped thinking and analyzing at that point, because an admittedly inaccurate set of initial data fit your conclusions perfectly. Bragging about using limited and flawed data and analysis to support your opinions and conclusions, when the proprietor of this blog, a research scientist, has proven your conclusions to be faulty, is truly cringe-worthy.


Once he threw away all F-0's that totally changed the equation....You don't throw away NOAA data.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting pintada:


Really? Why then in comment 78 do you continue unrestrained?
As a Monterey Bay sea otter once said to me, "I just can't kelp myself!" Apologies for misleading you!

Sorry, I'm just fascinated by someone who claims to have a cure for AGW/CC, thereby saving humankind and its modern civilization, and who cannot carry on a nuanced and logical debate.

Plus it's good practice for the university course I'm currently taking entitled "Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations." The fight against bad science, poor and incomplete analysis, and refusal to acknowledge your opponent's points, when related to AGW/CC, is a real challenge.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting Birthmark:

Good question. But we know some were. So the apparent increase in F-0s should be viewed with skepticism until we have a better answer to your question.


I think we should use what we got and let the missed ones go...You can't Cherry Pick F-1 to F-5... You should use all data.... If Dr. Masters used F-0 to F-5 results the correlation between a warming climate and tornado frequency would be very clear...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster:


I didn't I just used what they got now....How many were missed?

Good question. But we know some were. So the apparent increase in F-0s should be viewed with skepticism until we have a better answer to your question.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Lets hear what Dr. Masters would say if all tornadoes were used?
DR. MASTERS DID CONSIDER ALL TORNADOES AND USED THE SAME NOAA CHART THAT YOU DID AS A STARTING POINT FOR HIS DISCUSSION.

Almost everything you post in this thread indicates that you did not read Dr. Masters May 23 blog post on tornadoes, which points out the weaknesses in THE NOAA CHART ON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CONCLUSION ENTIRELY. Or if you did read it, you obviously did not understand it.

Your comments and the writing of Dr. Masters on the subject part ways at the point where you accepted a single NOAA chart as the final word on the subject. Dr. Masters, OTOH, was intelligent and alert enough to suspect that that chart might not be the complete story. So he did some additional detailed research - in other words, he looked beyond the limited and likely flawed initial data.

You, OTOH, found what you liked and stopped thinking and analyzing at that point, because an admittedly inaccurate set of initial data fit your conclusions perfectly. Bragging about using limited and flawed data and analysis to support your opinions and conclusions, when the proprietor of this blog, a research scientist, has proven your conclusions to be faulty, is truly cringe-worthy.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392
Quoting pintada:


Really? Why then in comment 78 do you continue unrestrained?

You and CB have a real "scientific" discussion going, congrats. Much like debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, you both offer comments, much heat, and no light.

Is the number of tornadoes increasing? Yes, everyone knows that from the data presented by CB. Unfortunately, that is where the science ends.

Are all of the new ones due to AGW? That is most certainly unknowable without more data.

Are all of the new ones NOT due to AGW? That is most certainly unknowable without more data.

I'm ignorant of meteorology. Everyone knows that. If either of you have DATA to show that you are correct, lets see it. I would love to see it.

Meanwhile to imagine that the discussion that i've seen above is scientific discourse is as dumb as the deniers that we must put up with.


MEANWHILE:

1. The clicks just keep happening. And the weather channel keeps making more and more money by making it look like there is a debate about the existence of AGW. (Please, don't do anything to keep the deniers off the site!!)

2. Most people who actually acknowledge the existence of AGW agree with Tillerson and Murdock. Why? Because those who know either cant communicate, are making big money because of the "debate" (see point 1), or are too cowardly to say the truth.

3. To see the people of OK get creamed a couple of times gives me infinite schadenfreude. Remember they are the geniuses that gave us two of the most evil senators out there - Inhofe and Coburn. These are senators remember. The people of OK agreewith the crap that they spew.

Yes, I'm still angry, watching murder happen (i.e. AGW) does that to me.

And im out.


To us it is murder1 because we know what is hurtful and harmful to our environment because the laws about clean air and water tell us so...Malice and forethought was used in our decision making to plan and kill... For Inhofe it would still be murder1 because ignorance to the law is no defense...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Birthmark:

What process did you use to eliminate the possibility that *entire* trend isn't attributable to better reporting?


I didn't I just used what they got now....How many were missed?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Ok I'll give you a few hundred of them but what about the other few hundred of them?

What process did you use to eliminate the possibility that *entire* trend isn't attributable to better reporting?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xulonn:
You should be sorry - they should have been your words, because you are arguing against Dr. Masters research and writings - I was just a proxy in repeating his words, sometimes as direct quotes.

When I refer to Dr. Masters' writings and conclusions, you call them mine, which is pure b.s.

No need to be sorry - just be intellectually honest.

It is obvious that you are afraid to rebut Dr. Masters, so you attempt to divert the attention to a fellow commenter - which really makes your arguments look weak - and they are!


Lets hear what Dr. Masters would say if all tornadoes were used?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20385
Quoting Xulonn:
To my fellow regulars - sorry for engaging in too-long exchange with someone who is not willing to carry on a science-based conversation, and does not seem to comprehend what I am saying - or is unwilling to do so. It gets to a point where all these exchanges do is irritate rational people.

I have made my points, mostly based on what I learned from Dr. Masters, and hopefully I articulated and supported them reasonably well.

There will be no further discussion this subject from me.


Really? Why then in comment 78 do you continue unrestrained?

You and CB have a real "scientific" discussion going, congrats. Much like debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, you both offer comments, much heat, and no light.

Is the number of tornadoes increasing? Yes, everyone knows that from the data presented by CB. Unfortunately, that is where the science ends.

Are all of the new ones due to AGW? That is most certainly unknowable without more data.

Are all of the new ones NOT due to AGW? That is most certainly unknowable without more data.

I'm ignorant of meteorology. Everyone knows that. If either of you have DATA to show that you are correct, lets see it. I would love to see it.

Meanwhile to imagine that the discussion that i've seen above is scientific discourse is as dumb as the deniers that we must put up with.


MEANWHILE:

1. The clicks just keep happening. And the weather channel keeps making more and more money by making it look like there is a debate about the existence of AGW. (Please, don't do anything to keep the deniers off the site!!)

2. Most people who actually acknowledge the existence of AGW agree with Tillerson and Murdock. Why? Because those who know either cant communicate, are making big money because of the "debate" (see point 1), or are too cowardly to say the truth.

3. To see the people of OK get creamed a couple of times gives me infinite schadenfreude. Remember they are the geniuses that gave us two of the most evil senators out there - Inhofe and Coburn. These are senators remember. The people of OK agreewith the crap that they spew.

Yes, I'm still angry, watching murder happen (i.e. AGW) does that to me.

And im out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From robertscribbler Link

Mangled Jet Stream Serves Up Scandinavian Heat Wave

Over the past three days, a northward bulge in the polar Jet Stream has resulted in extraordinarily high temperatures over a large region of Scandinavia and Russia north of the Arctic Circle.

In Arctic Utsjoki, Finland temperatures Friday reached a scorching 87 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever recorded for that city. At Inari and Ylitornio, temperatures exceeded 84 degrees, also a record highs. Saturday saw a spreading of hot air north and eastward into Russia with regions within 50 miles of Arctic sea ice recording temperatures near 80 degrees Fahrenheit.

Thoughout this broad region, record or near record high temperatures were breached as a pulse of hot air expanded north and eastward. Temperatures in the 80s were common for an area whose average highs for this time of year range in the high 30s to mid 40s.
-----------------------
Guess the ice age isn't coming this spring.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
RE: 80
Those are your words not mine...Sorry...
You should be sorry - they should have been your words, because you are arguing against Dr. Masters research and writings - I was just a proxy in repeating his words, sometimes as direct quotes.

When I refer to Dr. Masters' writings and conclusions, you call them mine, which is pure b.s.

No need to be sorry - just be intellectually honest.

It is obvious that you are afraid to rebut Dr. Masters, so you attempt to divert the attention to a fellow commenter - which really makes your arguments look weak - and they are!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1392

Viewing: 136 - 86

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.