For a Lack of Better Words.... W.T.F?

[tacoman25]

NOAA convincingly shows that the trend in big tornadoes has been down:

Andrew, think about what causes tornadoes: contrasts in airmasses and lapse rates. Both of these factors are expected to decline with global warming. First, the northern latitudes are supposed to warm much faster than the southern latitudes, which will reduce the gradient between the Northern Plains cold airmasses and the Gulf Coast warm airmasses. You can see on this RSS map that the Northern Plains/Canadian Prairies have been warming much faster than the Southeast/Gulf:

Second, tornadoes are usually caused by an elevated mixed layer that reinforces steep lapse rates...here is a sounding from an F5 in Michigan:

But you won't find this sounding as often in a warming world because the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, reducing lapse rates. Having high lapse rates is key to formation of supercells, so we should see fewer discrete supercells as the global temperature increases.

In case you want an expert climatologist to back me up, here is what Roy Spencer has to say, "Contrasting air mass temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring.It is well known that strong to violent tornado activity in the U.S. has decreased markedly since statistics began in the 1950s, which has also been a period of average warming. So, if anything, global warming causes FEWER tornado outbreaks…not more. In other words, more violent tornadoes would, if anything, be a sign of “global cooling”, not “global warming”.

Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.

Exactly the points I made earlier in this thread (with some additional info). Anyone suggesting that AGW could be responsible for stronger tornadic outbreaks has ZERO evidence on their side.

[tacoman25]

1. It's not a copout.. he is a scientist making a fairly academic point. AGW has changed every aspect of climate and in many cases we don't even know how. You change something as fundamental as heat content and water vapor in a complex interconnected system like the atmosphere, then everything is affected. You are just misinterpreting the statement and the intent.

2. Humidity is not supposed to increase with AGW, so that's just plain wrong (I'm 99% sure would have to double check). Most models maintain approximately constant surface humidity I think. Water vapor increases, not humidity. And heat waves are forecast to increase according to physical models of the atmosphere which trump your overly simplistic and partially incorrect analogy.

1. He says that we should start attributing specific events to AGW, to get rid of the "murkiness". Apparently, he wants to replace uncertainty with certainty. Too bad that's not a realistic viewpoint. You yourself have admitted this!

You are the one making the argument that "AGW is connected to everything". Well, that's all fine and dandy, but how exactly and how much it affects everything just isn't known...so it's a meaningless point, and it sure doesn't support getting rid of the "murkiness" like Trenberth wants.

2. Then explain why AGW is supposed to have a greater effect on low temperatures (making them higher).

[tacoman25]

No.. extreme events are expected to increase in a warming world. Particularly flooding, droughts and heatwaves. Also hurricane intensity (though not frequency). And nobody really knows what will happen to tornadic activity so your claim that it will decrease is just fabrication. The scientists are the ones saying that tornadic activity, like all aspects of climate, will be affected, but that nobody knows how. You're the one claiming that we do KNOW how tornadic activity. On the one hand we have objective scientists saying we don't know what's going to happen, and on the other we have nzucker claiming that tornadic activity is going to decrease... and then... who's the HACK now?

And then to take this stream of perverse logic one step further we have zucker claiming that decreased hurricane frequency and his fabricated claim that tornadoes will decrease proves that extreme weather generally is going to decline... while conveniently omitting the probably increase in hurricane intensity, flooding frequency and intensity, heatwave frequency and intensity, drought frequency and intensity, etc.

Hurricanes in particular are up in the air. There is still plenty of debate on how AGW may or may not effect hurricane activity.

The thing is, too many people take the "AGW causes more extreme events" theory and just run with it. So anything from blizzards to tornadoes to anything else that grabs weather headlines is put under the giant umbrella of CLIMATE CHANGE. It's not scientific and it's just a copout - an easy explanation, when the actual answer is usually much more complex and often has little to do with man-made climate change.

[nzucker]

It's amazing how skier thinks he can just call anyone he disagrees with a "HACK." Talk about arrogance.

Too bad he's totally outnumbered here.

[ORH_wxman]

It's amazing how skier thinks he can just call anyone he disagrees with a "HACK." Talk about arrogance.

Too bad he's totally outnumbered here.

A Hack by definition is a writer who presents a lot of trite and unimaginative ideas...something that rings true with claiming every extreme weather event is because of AGW. So if anyone should be called hacks, its those who mindlessly attribute a bunch of violent tornadoes in the south to AGW without even bothering to put forth a realistic argument or in some cases, even check the unsupportive facts.

Its the same tired old argument we hear again and again.

[nzucker]

A Hack by definition is a writer who presents a lot of trite and unimaginative ideas...something that rings true with claiming every extreme weather event is because of AGW. So if anyone should be called hacks, its those who mindlessly attribute a bunch of violent tornadoes in the south to AGW without even bothering to put forth a realistic argument or in some cases, even check the unsupportive facts.

Its the same tired old argument we hear again and again.

The funny thing is that skier thinks he's insulting me by calling me a "hack" yet he's not even using the word correctly. As you say "hack" applies to a writer/artist that produces unimaginative or banal work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hack

• a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull,unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal andmediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success inthe arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

[CT Rain]

Also, AGW is not a scientific fact, it's a theory. The only fact is that carbon dioxide causes some degree of warming. How much warming it causes, how much warming has been caused by natural cycles, and how this will affect sensible weather are all up for debate.

That makes no sense.... didn't you just contradict yourself?

I do agree with the degree of future warming and the actual impacts of that warming are up to debate.

[LakeEffectKing]

That makes no sense.... didn't you just contradict yourself?

I do agree with the degree of future warming and the actual impacts of that warming are up to debate.

Well, AGW, as defined, is really only a hypothesis....because of the included "significant consequences" which implies significant warming (which as you state are up for debate) and is, has been and will be untestable. But yes, that CO2 would raise temperatures to some degree is worthy of theory status outside of a complex climate system that is changing constantly.

[nzucker]

That makes no sense.... didn't you just contradict yourself?

I do agree with the degree of future warming and the actual impacts of that warming are up to debate.

All I'm saying is that Trenberth's point that all aspects of AGW cannot be discussed/debated is very false and undemocratic in nature. The fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere is obviously beyond debate, but not so for all the extensions regarding catastrophic warming rates, influence on extreme weather, etc.

[skierinvermont]

So when we have a partly sunny day with temperatures exactly normal, why is he not making an "academic point" at THAT time, where (along YOUR lines of thinking) he should suggest that it wouldn't be normal if AGW didn't exist, because it might be rainy and below normal in temperatures?

Skier, his "academic point" is another subtle fear mongering jab, exploiting (in a sneaky way) a pretty big disaster.....nothing more. It's getting old, and more foolish EVERYTIME that card is played. It certainly isn't science.

He has made that academic point at THAT time... he has spoken on numerous occasions about how ALL aspects of weather have been altered by AGW in one way or another, and as scientists it is their job to discover HOW.

[skierinvermont]

The funny thing is that skier thinks he's insulting me by calling me a "hack" yet he's not even using the word correctly. As you say "hack" applies to a writer/artist that produces unimaginative or banal work.

http://dictionary.re...com/browse/hack

• a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull,unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal andmediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success inthe arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.

No, that's exactly what I mean.

[nzucker]

No, that's exactly what I mean.

I'm an artist who exploits unimaginative work for money?

I don't think someone who finds Trenberth's comments insulting can be defined as a "hack." Once again, you are just using insults to get at my goat.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly the points I made earlier in this thread (with some additional info). Anyone suggesting that AGW could be responsible for stronger tornadic outbreaks has ZERO evidence on their side.

Which he is not suggesting. As Ryan and I have both explained, he is saying that AGW affects all aspects of weather (including tornadoes) and it is scientists' job to discover HOW. Trenberth is the one saying we don't know what affect there will be, but apparently zucker has decided it will definitely decrease when in fact the situation is much more complicated than this. For example, AGW is projected to warm the land faster than the water, which results in lift and in an increased southerly LLJ over the plains. This increases moisture flow from the gulf and can contribute to the turning necessary for tornadoes. The situation is far too complicated to resolve at this time... as much as zucker would like to pretend he knows the atmospheric response based on his simplistic understanding of atmospheric physics.

[skierinvermont]

I'm an artist who exploits unimaginative work for money?

I don't think someone who finds Trenberth's comments insulting can be defined as a "hack." Once again, you are just using insults to get at my goat.

It doesn't have to be for money.. that is just one definition. It can refer to anybody that is manipulative or presents mediocre shallow arguments.

[tacoman25]

Which he is not suggesting. As Ryan and I have both explained, he is saying that AGW affects all aspects of weather (including tornadoes) and it is scientists' job to discover HOW. Trenberth is the one saying we don't know what affect there will be, but apparently zucker has decided it will definitely decrease when in fact the situation is much more complicated than this. For example, AGW is projected to warm the land faster than the water, which results in an increased southerly LLJ over the plains. This increased moisture flow from the gulf and can contribute to the turning necessary for tornadoes. The situation is far too complicated to resolve at this time... as much as zucker would like to pretend he knows the atmosphere based on his simplistic understanding of atmospheric physics.

Except Trenberth has suggested that the massive tornado outbreak is linked to global warming: http://wonkroom.thin...onsible-denial/

He is using the mantle of AGW being a possible influence on everything to state that it's "irresponsible not to mention climate change" in the context of this outbreak. While he is not directly claiming that climate change is responsible for the outbreak, he is making inferences THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN AT ALL. There is absolutely zero evidence at this time that more/stronger tornadoes are linked to AGW.

[tacoman25]

Hurricanes in particular are up in the air. There is still plenty of debate on how AGW may or may not effect hurricane activity.

The thing is, too many people take the "AGW causes more extreme events" theory and just run with it. So anything from blizzards to tornadoes to anything else that grabs weather headlines is put under the giant umbrella of CLIMATE CHANGE. It's not scientific and it's just a copout - an easy explanation, when the actual answer is usually much more complex and often has little to do with man-made climate change.

This is exactly what Trenberth is doing, and it is not scientific at all.

As the point earlier was made, if AGW can be linked to anything, why only mention it when extreme events grab the headlines? Simple: to get in on the headline-grabbing.

[skierinvermont]

Except Trenberth has suggested that the massive tornado outbreak is linked to global warming: http://wonkroom.thin...onsible-denial/

He is using the mantle of AGW being a possible influence on everything to state that it's "irresponsible not to mention climate change" in the context of this outbreak. While he is not directly claiming that climate change is responsible for the outbreak, he is making inferences THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN AT ALL. There is absolutely zero evidence at this time that more/stronger tornadoes are linked to AGW.

No he didn't say linked... he said it needs to be discussed. It needs to be "mentioned." He SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the effect of AGW on tornadic activity is unknown and research is ongoing.

added that the scientific understanding of how polluting our atmosphere with billions of tons of greenhouse gases affects tornadic activity is still ongoing

[skierinvermont]

This is exactly what Trenberth is doing, and it is not scientific at all.

As the point earlier was made, if AGW can be linked to anything, why only mention it when extreme events grab the headlines? Simple: to get in on the headline-grabbing.

He hasn't mentioned it ONLY when extreme events occur.. he has been saying for YEARS that AGW affects ALL aspects of weather and it is scientists' jobs to discover HOW. A reporter called him after the tornadoes and he repeated what he has been saying for years. And then you all go ape****.. even though he said exactly what he has said for years.

[tacoman25]

1. He says that we should start attributing specific events to AGW, to get rid of the "murkiness". Apparently, he wants to replace uncertainty with certainty. Too bad that's not a realistic viewpoint. You yourself have admitted this!

You are the one making the argument that "AGW is connected to everything". Well, that's all fine and dandy, but how exactly and how much it affects everything just isn't known...so it's a meaningless point, and it sure doesn't support getting rid of the "murkiness" like Trenberth wants.

2. Then explain why AGW is supposed to have a greater effect on low temperatures (making them higher).

You have said before, skiier, that you don't believe individual events can be tied to global warming. And yet Trenberth, who you are defending, is saying we should abandon this approach and start attributing all sorts of extreme events to AGW, simply because more extreme events are supposed to happen because of AGW. It's circular logic and IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Why would you all of the sudden reverse your position on this?

[skierinvermont]

You have said before, skiier, that you don't believe individual events can be tied to global warming. And yet Trenberth, who you are defending, is saying we should abandon this approach and start attributing all sorts of extreme events to AGW, simply because more extreme events are supposed to happen because of AGW. It's circular logic and IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Why would you all of the sudden reverse your position on this?

No he is saying exactly what I have been saying for years. The question.. "was X event caused by AGW" is simply an inane question... it's nonsensical. AGW doesn't cause weather.. it causes climate. What makes sense is to ask "will such events become more common or less common with AGW?" That is the distinction I have always made, and that's exactly what Trenberth is saying as well.

I remember a thread Rusty started about the Pakistani floods... and what I said in that thread was that individual events aren't caused by climate change.. a better way of describing it is loaded dice.

[tacoman25]

No he didn't say linked... he said it needs to be discussed. It needs to be "mentioned." He SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the effect of AGW on tornadic activity is unknown and research is ongoing.

added that the scientific understanding of how polluting our atmosphere with billions of tons of greenhouse gases affects tornadic activity is still ongoing

Look at the entire context of what he has said.

1) Trenberth claims we should "remove the murkiness" and not be afraid to attribute individual events to global warming

2) Without any evidence that AGW causes greater tornadic outbreaks (there is more evidence that big tornadic outbreaks occur during cooler periods), he is inferring a possible link by saying it's "irresponsible" not to mention climate change. BS. It's irresponsible to mention it in this context, because it encourages the mindless and unscientific attribution of any and all severe/major events to AGW. Just look at the ignorant posts by AGW alarmists in response to the original article of this thread.

[skierinvermont]

Look at the entire context of what he has said.

1) Trenberth claims we should "remove the murkiness" and not be afraid to attribute individual events to global warming

2) Without any evidence that AGW causes greater tornadic outbreaks (there is more evidence that big tornadic outbreaks occur during cooler periods), he is inferring a possible link by saying it's "irresponsible" not to mention climate change. BS. It's irresponsible to mention it in this context, because it encourages the mindless and unscientific attribution of any and all severe/major events to AGW. Just look at the ignorant posts by AGW alarmists in response to the original article of this thread.

He's a scientist. He's saying it needs to be studied. It's an academic point he has been making for years. You are just assuming that he means AGW will increase tornadic activity when he specifically states IT IS NOT KNOWN.

[tacoman25]

No he is saying exactly what I have been saying for years. The question.. "was X event caused by AGW" is simply an inane question... it's nonsensical. AGW doesn't cause weather.. it causes climate. What makes sense is to ask "will such events become more common or less common with AGW?" That is the distinction I have always made, and that's exactly what Trenberth is saying as well.

I remember a thread Rusty started about the Pakistani floods... and what I said in that thread was that individual events aren't caused by climate change.. a better way of describing it is loaded dice.

No, he is going beyond that. He is clearly saying that we should attribute individual events to AGW, because he believes AGW makes them more likely. Read his words again.

"So we frequently hear that 'while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming.' Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain types of events more likely....It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement 'It is unlikely this event would have occurred without global warming.' For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves, and wild fires in Russia."

[skierinvermont]

No, he is going beyond that. He is clearly saying that we should attribute individual events to AGW, because he believes AGW makes them more likely. Read his words again.

"So we frequently hear that 'while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming.' Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain types of events more likely....It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement 'It is unlikely this event would have occurred without global warming.' For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves, and wild fires in Russia."

He's not saying we should "attribute" it to AGW... in terms attribution he says it is always a combination of natural variability and the effect of AGW.

He's saying that X event would be "unlikely without AGW" (not necessarily impossible) which is a very specific claim and is not the same as "attributing the event to AGW." It specifically refers to the loaded dice phenomenon which is what I have always advocated as the best description.

[tacoman25]

He's a scientist. He's saying it needs to be studied. It's an academic point he has been making for years. You are just assuming that he means AGW will increase tornadic activity when he specifically states IT IS NOT KNOWN.

Again, Trenberth's own words from his email interview about the tornado outbreak. Look at the first and last sentences in particular. It is irresponsible for him as a scientist to make statements that clearly infer guilt upon AGW. To the casual reader, he is making a link (cleverly, without outright blaming global warming) in their minds, which leads to articles like the one I linked. Mindless and unscientific attribution of any and all major events to AGW.

It is irresponsible not to mention climate change.

…

The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences

(global warming). Tornadoes come from thunderstorms in a wind shear environment. This occurs east of the Rockies more than anywhere else in the world. The wind shear is from southerly (SE, S or SW) flow from the Gulf overlaid by westerlies aloft that have come over the Rockies. That wind shear can be converted to rotation. The basic driver of thunderstorms is the instability in the atmosphere: warm moist air at low levels with drier air aloft. With global warming the low level air is warm and moister and there is more energy available to fuel all of these storms and increase the buoyancy of the air so that thunderstorms are strong. There is no clear research on changes in shear related to global warming.

On average the low level air is 1 deg F and 4 percent moister than in the 1970s.

[tacoman25]

He's not saying we should "attribute" it to AGW... in terms attribution he says it is always a combination of natural variability and the effect of AGW.

He's saying that X event would be "unlikely without AGW" (not necessarily impossible) which is a very specific claim and is not the same as "attributing the event to AGW." It specifically refers to the loaded dice phenomenon which is what I have always advocated as the best description.

Then why would he say: "So we frequently hear that 'while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming.' Such murky statements should be abolished."

If he disagrees with the statement that "no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming", he obviously thinks such events SHOULD be attributed to AGW. You are contradicting yourself by agreeing with this guy.

[skierinvermont]

Again, Trenberth's own words from his email interview about the tornado outbreak. Look at the first and last sentences in particular. It is irresponsible for him as a scientist to make statements that clearly infer guilt upon AGW. To the casual reader, he is making a link (cleverly, without outright blaming global warming) in their minds, which leads to articles like the one I linked. Mindless and unscientific attribution of any and all major events to AGW.

It is irresponsible not to mention climate change.

…

The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences

(global warming). Tornadoes come from thunderstorms in a wind shear environment. This occurs east of the Rockies more than anywhere else in the world. The wind shear is from southerly (SE, S or SW) flow from the Gulf overlaid by westerlies aloft that have come over the Rockies. That wind shear can be converted to rotation. The basic driver of thunderstorms is the instability in the atmosphere: warm moist air at low levels with drier air aloft. With global warming the low level air is warm and moister and there is more energy available to fuel all of these storms and increase the buoyancy of the air so that thunderstorms are strong. There is no clear research on changes in shear related to global warming.

On average the low level air is 1 deg F and 4 percent moister than in the 1970s.

The media outlet failed to quote the portion where he says we don't know.. they simply paraphrased it. added that the scientific understanding of how polluting our atmosphere with billions of tons of greenhouse gases affects tornadic activity is still ongoing

Perhaps the media outlet should have featured this caveat more prominently but it is clear to a casual reader that it is not known how AGW will affect tornadic activity. The overarching point is that AGW affects all aspects of weather we just don't know HOW. This is reinforced by the very next paragraph:

"Climate change is present in every single meteorological event,"

-Mann

"It is a truism to say that everything has been affected by climate change so far and therefore this latest outbreak must in some sense have been affected, but attribution is hard"

-Schmidt

The bolding was not mine. Anybody that walks away from this article and thinks scientists are attributing the tornadoes to AGW is a moron (or a hack).

[BethesdaWX]

You're the Hack.... if it was affected, it was that warming decreased the tornadoes. AGW itself is a Hypothesis...so it "is" not fact that there was any effect.

The significance of any effect is unknown! heck, the significance of AGW itself is unknown yes, it is unknown... the climate system will determine this, and we don't understand it well enough.

Before we can even begin to make outlandish claims of "this event us unlikely without AGW", which is again assumption that AGW is significant, we need to understand the significance of AGW itself.

you can try and BS people all you want, but bottom line... AGW is a hypothesis... the effect of AGW on WX events is a Hypothesis... these events have happend without AGW in the past, there is no correlation.

Just like the "More snowcover due to AGW" dipf**k claims that have been debunked, this really has no correlation...

Floods are not increasing, nor are blizzards, droughts, etc... there is really no evidence of this......we're expanding our population....its media hype. Media Coverage has exploded since the beginning of the internet over 2 decades ago.

[skierinvermont]

Then why would he say: "So we frequently hear that 'while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming.' Such murky statements should be abolished."

If he disagrees with the statement that "no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming", he obviously thinks such events SHOULD be attributed to AGW. You are contradicting yourself by agreeing with this guy.

Nooooooooo. That's not what he is saying.. he is saying it is a murky statement and should be abolished because it answers the WRONG QUESTION. It is nonsensical... how can a climate phenomenon cause a weather phenomenon?

He is not saying that individual events SHOULD be attributed to AGW. He's saying that is the wrong question to ask. The correct question to ask is how likely would such an event be with or without AGW. He's taking the loaded dice approach I have always advocated.

Get it?

[tacoman25]

Nooooooooo. That's not what he is saying.. he is saying it is a murky statement and should be abolished because it answers the WRONG QUESTION. It is nonsensical... how can a climate phenomenon cause a weather phenomenon?

He is not saying that individual events SHOULD be attributed to AGW. He's saying that is the wrong question to ask. The correct question to ask is how likely would such an event be with or without AGW. He's taking the loaded dice approach I have always advocated.

Get it?

Nothing he says in the paragraph following that statement supports your interpretation. You are hearing what you want to hear and putting words in his mouth.

The fact that you are consistently unable to analytically allow criticism of some of these guys demonstrates that your bias is overwhelming your good sense.