Despite no evidence that devastating tornadoes have increased in frequency or intensity due to fossil fuel use, another warm-monger blames the Moore, Okla., disaster on GOP “polluters and deniers.”
Despite no evidence that devastating tornadoes have increased in frequency or intensity due to fossil fuel use, another warm-monger blames the Moore, Okla., disaster on GOP “polluters and deniers.”
I’m sure your aiming at baiting here with your weather to become climate question. I personnally believe sun spot cycles have the biggest influence on our weather; not CO2 concentrations or anything else the global warmists are claiming. I’m afraid you will have to answer your own question because drought events are varying in duration. If drought continues long enough and major vegetation occurs like changing from herbaceous and grasses to xerophytes then you would have a desert climate.
How many atomic bombs have to be exploded to change the weather? This was the question asked during the 60s but there was no real evidence that testing atomic bombs caused severe weather. Just like the argument CO2 causes global worming.
I sincerely hope none of your family was impacted by the tornadoes that hit Moore and the OKC areas recently.
There was no argument and no logic in ice9’s pronouncement. Just some adult-sounding gibberish. A postmodernism generator could do better.
As someone with family in Central Oklahoma, I just have to jump in here….
@Whitetop: How would you define the difference between weather and climate? We can say weather = short term, day to day events; climate = weather over time. But how many years does it take for a ‘weather’ event like a drought to become ‘climate’?
My understanding of the science is that we don’t yet know enough to say whether our changing climate will increase or decrease the frequency and/or intensity of tornados: atmospheric moisture is increasing (more latent energy in the system), but wind shear seems to be decreasing. On average, they might cancel out; but any distribution has its extremes. What we need is an aggregate measure of frequency and intensity. Perhaps intensity goes down, but frequency goes up, or vice-versa, with no net reduction in destruction.
@lisadownunder: You’re overstating, by a wide margin…”NO evidence that CO2 has ANY effect on weather OR climate”? The science may not be be clear on tornados, but it’s quite clear on the mechanism for atmospheric CO2 reducing long-wave radiative cooling, and has been for decades, if not centuries. It’s basic physics. And given that temperature is one component of climate, well, your statement is simply false. And your statement that “There is NO evidence that tornadoes … cause catastrophic damage…”? You can’t be illiterate, or blind; so I don’t know what you’re thinking. (And I’m missing the ‘self-interest group’ reference; perhaps that’s your way out?)
@Gene: Your comment reminds me of things kids in middle school would say when they couldn’t win an argument through logic. Funny, if it weren’t so sad.
@ice9: stay on the high road, friend. I know, it’s hard…;)
That’s a nasty case of Projection you’ve got there ice9.
“All 90 might just fail to establish that certainty”
Nah, that’s not how climate “science” works.
Dear ice9, there is NO evidence that CO2 has any effect on weather or climate. There is NO evidence that tornadoes join a self-interest group or cause catastrophic damage. Tornadoes are only an item when they destroy or impact people’s homes or livelihood, otherwise no-one notices them – at all.
As anthropogenic global warming, climate change (or whatever) does not exist, will you try, please try, to teach your students something intelligent?
Thanks ice; when somebody asks what a brain fart is, I now have a perfect example. I’m going to save this one.
It is no wonder the country is in the shape it’s in when we have elected idiots like Whitehouse in office. One would think these people would be educated enough to understand weather and climate and the differences between them. But they have to politicize everything because politics is more important than doing the work they were elected to do.
“No evidence”–you actually mean “very slight evidence” or “very preliminary evidence.”
But it’s interesting, that ‘evidence’ word. Because there is very little evidence linking any particular tornado to any particular cause, your illiterate commenter above notwithstanding–you are about 97% right on that one, for now. At last count about 90 studies were underway that aim to establish science that will improve the certainty of the conclusion. All 90 might just fail to establish that certainty, or even establish a different type of link, or cause, or a cause or link of a different sort. If every one of them stays valid through peer review and concludes that there is a link or cause, will you change your tune? Let me help: No, you will not. Beliefs are beliefs, evidence notwithstanding. This is demonstrated (this time, to a scientific certainty) by your terrible books. So your sudden interest in evidence, over a sample of one observation, is disingenuous–or, more accurately, self-serving, premeditated BS. It’s a thorny logical problem, I know, but by arguing the absence of evidence in this case, you confirm the nature of evidence in every case–and confirm it as the opposite of your own contentions.
thanks for that–it’s a useful model of the Fallacy Fallacy for my students.
ice
What about all those tornadoes that occurred in the last century, particularly when the scientific consensus was global cooling?