New Yorker and NYT This Week

[tacoman25]

Oh, just a disclaimer, I see! So it's like the warning on my car that says "always wear seatbelt" .. what they really mean is don't wear your seat belt. What was I thinking wearing a seat belt all these years..

And besides it isn't even incorrect to suggest that AGW will increase tornadoes, as several studies in the last few years suggest this to be the case. But I don't even see this article doing that. It gives several other types of events which are more conclusively likely to increase with AGW.

So what's with the timing of the article? Given the recent extreme weather events in headlines, do you think it is just coincidental?

There is no evidence at this time that overall strength or tornado numbers are increasing, anyway. This has just been a bad spring, with much more evidence that this is primarily due to the -PDO phase - and yet no mention of this in any of these articles.

[skierinvermont]

Only if you don't look at the historical tornadic data....unless you offer a new hypothesis that suggests there is some threshold value we haven't passed yet....

The effect either way is probably pretty small and we haven't seen that much warming yet. Nevertheless, studies have shown that in climate models the number of days with favorable conditions for tornadic activity increases.

[skierinvermont]

So what's with the timing of the article? Given the recent extreme weather events in headlines, do you think it is just coincidental?

There is no evidence at this time that overall strength or tornado numbers are increasing, anyway. This has just been a bad spring, with much more evidence that this is primarily due to the -PDO phase - and yet no mention of this in any of these articles.

People write climate articles non-stop year round.

When weather wreaks havoc many people begin to question whether climate change is involved. Readers (and writers) probably just think about climate change at times like these, whether the havoc is related to climate change or not, because they remind us the damage that weather can cause. This writer may be taking advantage of people's peaked interest at times like these, but is very clear in stating that AGW is not conclusively linked to tornadoes.

[tacoman25]

People write climate articles non-stop year round.

When weather wreaks havoc many people begin to question whether climate change is involved. Readers (and writers) probably just think about climate change at times like these, whether the havoc is related to climate change or not, because they remind us the damage that weather can cause. This writer may be taking advantage of people's peaked interest at times like these, but is very clear in stating that AGW is not conclusively linked to tornadoes.

Exactly. But instead of looking into much more probable links like the -PDO, the author goes on about how "we are seeing the effects of climate change being borne out". More severe, more extreme, more fear. True science and journalism would be more interested in likely NATURAL causes, but instead the more familiar and sensational topic of global warming is once again examined.

[skierinvermont]

Exactly. But instead of looking into much more probable links like the -PDO, the author goes on about how "we are seeing the effects of climate change being borne out". More severe, more extreme, more fear. True science and journalism would be more interested in likely NATURAL causes, but instead the more familiar and sensational topic of global warming is once again examined.

The article isn't even about tornadoes.. it's about tons of other severe events which ARE likely to become more common with AGW.

Second of all, I think it's pretty funny how people expect journalists to give science lessons in all of the "NATURAL" proximate causes of severe events. The proximate causes of severe events are of little importance socially. They're important to meteorologists so that they can predict the weather. AGW is of far greater social importance than CAPE, shear, or the PDO. Thus journalists write about AGW. They don't write about the technical proximate causes of severe events. They write about AGW because AGW has the potential to do widespread harm and is preventable if we take adequate steps today.

[nzucker]

The article isn't even about tornadoes.. it's about tons of other severe events which ARE likely to become more common with AGW.

Second of all, I think it's pretty funny how people expect journalists to give science lessons in all of the "NATURAL" proximate causes of severe events. The proximate causes of severe events are of little importance socially. They're important to meteorologists so that they can predict the weather. AGW is of far greater social importance than CAPE, shear, or the PDO. Thus journalists write about AGW. They don't write about the technical proximate causes of severe events. They write about AGW because AGW has the potential to do widespread harm and is preventable if we take adequate steps today.

Journalists should just try to explain what's causing severe weather honestly. Factors like the PDO are large-scale climate oscillations that deserve much more discussion in an article about a scientific phenomenon. If we don't have evidence for global warming causing tornadoes, but we do have evidence for the -PDO causing tornadoes, then why are we hearing such constant references to climate change and none to the more evidenced PDO effects? There's a clear imbalance in favor of the factor that has much less meteorological support, a bias if you will. Also, I don't think multi-decadal oscillations such as the PDO are on the same level as CAPE/shear, which are daily meteorological factors....things like PDO/ENSO have widespread social consequences as a -PDO means more severe weather damage, El Nino means more California flooding and bad fishing in South America...so there are societal consequences to natural oscillations that at this moment dwarf the influence of AGW.

As for your last sentence, I don't think AGW can or will be stopped...there's simply too much momentum behind the consumer society, and too many people on this planet. 2010 set a record for worldwide carbon emissions despite the recession, and despite Americans' cutting back on driving. According to a recent NY Times article, heavily polluting sources of hydrocarbons such as the Alberta tar sands are rapidly being developed/exploited to quench our thirst for cheap fossil fuels. Sadly, there's not much one can do except pray.

[tacoman25]

The article isn't even about tornadoes.. it's about tons of other severe events which ARE likely to become more common with AGW.

Second of all, I think it's pretty funny how people expect journalists to give science lessons in all of the "NATURAL" proximate causes of severe events. The proximate causes of severe events are of little importance socially. They're important to meteorologists so that they can predict the weather. AGW is of far greater social importance than CAPE, shear, or the PDO. Thus journalists write about AGW. They don't write about the technical proximate causes of severe events. They write about AGW because AGW has the potential to do widespread harm and is preventable if we take adequate steps today.

The article isn't specifically about tornadoes, but the inferences given what has happened recently are clear.

Exactly. You accurately described the AGW bias and agenda that exists in media, and which mainly serves to overwhelm people and make them more skeptical because it's brought up in relation to just about anything that happens. It becomes a joke...and it's lazy journalism.

[skierinvermont]

Journalists should just try to explain what's causing severe weather honestly. Factors like the PDO are large-scale climate oscillations that deserve much more discussion in an article about a scientific phenomenon. If we don't have evidence for global warming causing tornadoes, but we do have evidence for the -PDO causing tornadoes, then why are we hearing such constant references to climate change and none to the more evidenced PDO effects? There's a clear imbalance in favor of the factor that has much less meteorological support, a bias if you will. Also, I don't think multi-decadal oscillations such as the PDO are on the same level as CAPE/shear, which are daily meteorological factors....things like PDO/ENSO have widespread social consequences as a -PDO means more severe weather damage, El Nino means more California flooding and bad fishing in South America...so there are societal consequences to natural oscillations that at this moment dwarf the influence of AGW.

As for your last sentence, I don't think AGW can or will be stopped...there's simply too much momentum behind the consumer society, and too many people on this planet. 2010 set a record for worldwide carbon emissions despite the recession, and despite Americans' cutting back on driving. According to a recent NY Times article, heavily polluting sources of hydrocarbons such as the Alberta tar sands are rapidly being developed/exploited to quench our thirst for cheap fossil fuels. Sadly, there's not much one can do except pray.

Is the normal natural oscillation of the PDO supposed to change in some drastic way so as to cause severe harm to humans?

Is the oscillation of the PDO caused by humans? Is it preventable?

No, no and no. Three pretty obvious reasons why journalists (and most reasonable people including myself) are far more interested in reading/learning/writing about climate change than the PDO. Of course it is still important to understand it from a scientific perspective, but in terms of social impact and social importance there are huge differences between the PDO and AGW. It's naive to expect people to write about the PDO in major newspapers and magazines on a regular basis.

[tacoman25]

Is the normal natural oscillation of the PDO supposed to change in some drastic way so as to cause severe harm to humans?

Is the oscillation of the PDO caused by humans? Is it preventable?

No, no and no. Three pretty obvious reasons why journalists (and most reasonable people including myself) are far more interested in reading/learning/writing about climate change than the PDO. Of course it is still important to understand it from a scientific perspective, but in terms of social impact and social importance there are huge differences between the PDO and AGW. It's naive to expect people to write about the PDO in major newspapers and magazines on a regular basis.

The problem becomes that then you start "looking for climate change" in everything. The inherent bias takes over, and it becomes bad journalism. The newspaper or magazine shouldn't just write about "what interests" them.

[nzucker]

The problem becomes that then you start "looking for climate change" in everything. The inherent bias takes over, and it becomes bad journalism. The newspaper or magazine shouldn't just write about "what interests" them.

Skierinvermont doesn't understand the difference between an editorial and a news article. In an editorial, it would be fine to treat the subject of AGW's link to severe weather and its role in recent outbreaks. But since meteorological evidence doesn't support a connection between recent events and climate change (and readers are always going to link an article about severe weather+AGW following a fierce tornado season to the idea that global warming causes such outbreaks, even if the newspaper says that there's not proof of such a connection, especially when the article talks about "global warming being born out"), a hard news story shouldn't be focusing on speculative possibilities that the planet's warming may cause more extremes like severe storms. It should be concentrating on solid evidence like the PDO and NAO. You don't write about "what interests you" in a newspaper, at least not if you are a 100% ethical journalist...you are supposed to be reporting the facts behind a story/phenomenon. The lack of mentions of natural oscillations and surfeit of newspaper pieces regarding the climate change/severe weather angle makes me suspicious that journalists are simply writing about what interests them, or what sells copies, rather than actually getting the meteorology of such events straight and reporting them honestly.

Also, how is "global warming being born out" by severe weather? To what events could this possibly refer? Is there any way you think this is a coincidence, Andrew, following an historic severe weather season? Also, most studies have said there is inconclusive evidence for increases in extreme weather since the 1970s given the population adjustments. Also, computer models may predict an increase in extreme/severe weather, but should we trust them given the continued failure to predict global temps correctly?

[skierinvermont]

The problem becomes that then you start "looking for climate change" in everything. The inherent bias takes over, and it becomes bad journalism. The newspaper or magazine shouldn't just write about "what interests" them.

It's not just what's interesting... it's what's important. The PDO isn't important in the same way AGW will be.

Let's draw a comparison:

AGW is caused by humans, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to cause severe harm to humanity globally, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to permanently alter the natural environment and cause widespread extinctions and alteration of the earth's ecology, the PDO is not.

The PDO has had a natural role in weather for thousands of years, AGW has not.

etc.

etc. etc.

[skierinvermont]

This article was written 22 days after I went for a run.

Coincidence? I think not.

Clearly they are trying to trick us into thinking AGW causes more frequent exercise even though the article specifically states "AGW doesn't cause more frequent exercise."

[nzucker]

This article was written 22 days after I went for a run.

Coincidence? I think not.

Clearly they are trying to trick us into thinking AGW causes more frequent exercise even though the article specifically states "AGW doesn't cause more frequent exercise."

You're just being ridiculous. Your naivete and lack of real world experience is showing in this thread. Anyone who's worked in journalism knows that articles can lead the reader in one direction while having an official disclaimer statement that technically disavows bias. It isn't a surprise to anyone else that the media are coming out with a spate of stories about the link between climate change and extreme/severe weather right after the April/May tornado outbreak. Just as Hurricane Katrina created a flurry of articles about global warming and stronger/more frequent tropical storms despite the actual evidence. You'd have to be blind not to see this.

[skierinvermont]

You're just being ridiculous. Your naivete and lack of real world experience is showing in this thread.

No, actually your naivete and lack of real world experience is showing. Oh and your general stupidity. etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah ur dumber X 1000

[WeatherRusty]

The problem becomes that then you start "looking for climate change" in everything. The inherent bias takes over, and it becomes bad journalism. The newspaper or magazine shouldn't just write about "what interests" them.

That comment makes no sense to me. The climate is by definition part and parcel in everything having to do with weather. The two are inseparable.

Is this season's abnormal tornado activity related to climate change? If the climate has changed at all then the answer must be yes. Obviously, the current climatic condition supports outbreaks of this magnitude, or it could not have happened. Will increasing wind shear in a warming world generally reduce tornado activity? Probably, but it obviously has not hampered tornadoes this year while other supportive mechanisms and ingredients have grown in support of development. We still have strong jet streams, in addition to warmer conditions, greater water vapor content, high instability and CAPE, strong temperature contrasts.

Shifting and expanding areas of high pressure will increase drought in areas prone to arid conditions. In-between the highs, the generally higher water content of the atmosphere will precipitate out at higher rates, so where it rains and snows it will do so more heavily. A warmer atmosphere is a more energetic one, it's resultant weather can thus be more energetic when temperature contrasts happen to be strong, as demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

From my perspective, this is exactly what we are observing worldwide.

[wesleyhtswx]

That comment makes no sense to me. The climate is by definition part and parcel in everything having to do with weather. The two are inseparable.

Is this season's abnormal tornado activity related to climate change? If the climate has changed at all then the answer must be yes. Obviously, the current climatic condition supports outbreaks of this magnitude, or it could not have happened. Will increasing wind shear in a warming world generally reduce tornado activity? Probably, but it obviously has not hampered tornadoes this year while other supportive mechanisms and ingredients have grown in support of development. We still have strong jet streams, in addition to warmer conditions, greater water vapor content, high instability and CAPE, strong temperature contrasts.

Shifting and expanding areas of high pressure will increase drought in areas prone to arid conditions. In-between the highs, the generally higher water content of the atmosphere will precipitate out at higher rates, so where it rains and snows it will do so more heavily. A warmer atmosphere is a more energetic one, it's resultant weather can thus be more energetic when temperature contrasts happen to be strong, as demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

From my perspective, this is exactly what we are observing worldwide.

Do we really have enough statistical data to determine whether we are experiencing outside the standard deviation of "extreme events"? How many F4-F5 tornadoes hit Missouri in the 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th (you get the point) centuries? What was the average temperature and precipitation at Dulles airport (pick your favorite non-inner city locale) at ANY point in the history of civilization before 1950? Can you accurately measure any of the atmospheric dynamics conditions you claim to see now and link to both droughts and storms rather conveniently with any sense of historical, i.e., scientific, scope? How much does the very new visibility of comprehensive media and technology, and exposure in terms of very recent, historically speaking, increases in infrastructure and population, play into our perceptions and "observations worldwide" about the normality or abnormality of today's weather?

[tacoman25]

It's not just what's interesting... it's what's important. The PDO isn't important in the same way AGW will be.

Let's draw a comparison:

AGW is caused by humans, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to cause severe harm to humanity globally, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to permanently alter the natural environment and cause widespread extinctions and alteration of the earth's ecology, the PDO is not.

The PDO has had a natural role in weather for thousands of years, AGW has not.

etc.

etc. etc.

Translation: AGW is hyped, natural processes/changes are not. Who cares about the real causes of things like tornado outbreaks, let's just ride the bandwagon and feed the hysteria!!

[tacoman25]

This article was written 22 days after I went for a run.

Coincidence? I think not.

Clearly they are trying to trick us into thinking AGW causes more frequent exercise even though the article specifically states "AGW doesn't cause more frequent exercise."

Was your run garnering national headlines? Is it at all related to weather/climate? Terrible analogy, sorry.

[tacoman25]

You're just being ridiculous. Your naivete and lack of real world experience is showing in this thread. Anyone who's worked in journalism knows that articles can lead the reader in one direction while having an official disclaimer statement that technically disavows bias. It isn't a surprise to anyone else that the media are coming out with a spate of stories about the link between climate change and extreme/severe weather right after the April/May tornado outbreak. Just as Hurricane Katrina created a flurry of articles about global warming and stronger/more frequent tropical storms despite the actual evidence. You'd have to be blind not to see this.

No kidding. People don't care about disclaimers, they want to jump to conclusions and make connections. Anything bad/scary/extreme/unusual that happens with the weather? Just call on the ol' whipping boy, CLIMATE CHANGE!

[tacoman25]

That comment makes no sense to me. The climate is by definition part and parcel in everything having to do with weather. The two are inseparable.

Is this season's abnormal tornado activity related to climate change? If the climate has changed at all then the answer must be yes. Obviously, the current climatic condition supports outbreaks of this magnitude, or it could not have happened. Will increasing wind shear in a warming world generally reduce tornado activity? Probably, but it obviously has not hampered tornadoes this year while other supportive mechanisms and ingredients have grown in support of development. We still have strong jet streams, in addition to warmer conditions, greater water vapor content, high instability and CAPE, strong temperature contrasts.

Shifting and expanding areas of high pressure will increase drought in areas prone to arid conditions. In-between the highs, the generally higher water content of the atmosphere will precipitate out at higher rates, so where it rains and snows it will do so more heavily. A warmer atmosphere is a more energetic one, it's resultant weather can thus be more energetic when temperature contrasts happen to be strong, as demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

From my perspective, this is exactly what we are observing worldwide.

That's the problem: anything related to weather/climate can technically somehow be related to "climate change", since it's all part of climate. But that doesn't really tell us anything, does it? Because before there was man-made climate change as it's understood/perceived today, there was still climate and it still changed.

And a lot of what you wrote continues to be just theory. One part is wrong, though...temperature contrasts are expected to decrease, not increase with AGW.

Oh, and you also cite "warmer conditions" as part of what helped create favorable conditions for tornadoes this spring, but that actually was not the case...there was easily more colder than normal air.

[WeatherRusty]

Do we really have enough statistical data to determine whether we are experiencing outside the standard deviation of "extreme events"? How many F4-F5 tornadoes hit Missouri in the 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th (you get the point) centuries? What was the average temperature and precipitation at Dulles airport (pick your favorite non-inner city locale) at ANY point in the history of civilization before 1950? Can you accurately measure any of the atmospheric dynamics conditions you claim to see now and link to both droughts and storms rather conveniently with any sense of historical, i.e., scientific, scope? How much does the very new visibility of comprehensive media and technology, and exposure in terms of very recent, historically speaking, increases in infrastructure and population, play into our perceptions and "observations worldwide" about the normality or abnormality of today's weather?

Just so we are clear, I adhere strongly to the fundamental physical basis in support of AGW. Based on what we know, the science behind greenhouse warming is sound and well supported. There remains considerable uncertainty as to the degree of impact human activities will ultimately have on global climate, but that uncertainty is of little comfort when it is realized that mid to high impact is certainly within the range of highest probability. An equilibrium climate sensitivity at somewhere between 2C - 4.5C per doubling of CO2 should raise concern when it is realized that the difference between a full blown ice age climate and today is 5C - 6C.

If the Earth warms 3C or more in the next few centuries, the Earth will be warmer than at any time in many millions of years. Just a few centuries is very, very rapid in terms of what generally occurs, although that type of rapid change has happened many times in the past at least regionally with tragic results for many life forms.

As to your questions, it may be assumed that events that are happening today have happened many times over the past several centuries. Theoretically, we should expect many of the more energetic events to become more frequent and intense with greater energies available for dissipation in a warmer more moist atmosphere. This may means more or less hurricanes and tornadoes, we don't know for sure. What is more likely and on more sure theoretical footing are higher precipitation rates and expanded areas of dry subsidence on synoptic and global scales. In other words, floods, heavy snows and conversely, droughts.

[WeatherRusty]

That's the problem: anything related to weather/climate can technically somehow be related to "climate change", since it's all part of climate. But that doesn't really tell us anything, does it? Because before there was man-made climate change as it's understood/perceived today, there was still climate and it still changed.

And a lot of what you wrote continues to be just theory. One part is wrong, though...temperature contrasts are expected to decrease, not increase with AGW.

Oh, and you also cite "warmer conditions" as part of what helped create favorable conditions for tornadoes this spring, but that actually was not the case...there was easily more colder than normal air.

Yes it is theory. I feel it is sound theory and so does the National Academies of Science amongst many others.

When the arctic warms more quickly than the averaged NH, yes temp contrast will decrease in general. That doesn't account for natural variability however or the fact that global temp has warmed only 0.8C on it's way toward +-3C. There is still plenty of very cold air up north.

The Gulf and Atlantic basin have been as warm as ever historically (+AMO), the globe is warmer than decades ago and deep diving cold intrusions from the north have invaded that warmth along with a strong jet stream. Yes there was cold involved, and the strong temp contrast with the warm, moist Gulf air in close proximity to the overlying strong jet made for some highly energized dynamics. Even here in central Massachusetts for goodness sake.

[tacoman25]

Yes it is theory. I feel it is sound theory and so does the National Academies of Science amongst many others.

When the arctic warms more quickly than the averaged NH, yes temp contrast will decrease in general. That doesn't account for natural variability however or the fact that global temp has warmed only 0.8C on it's way toward +-3C. There is still plenty of very cold air up north.

The Gulf and Atlantic basin have been as warm as ever historically (+AMO), the globe is warmer than decades ago and deep diving cold intrusions from the north have invaded that warmth along with a strong jet stream. Yes there was cold involved, and the strong temp contrast with the warm, moist Gulf air in close proximity to the overlying strong jet made for some highly energized dynamics. Even here in central Massachusetts for goodness sake.

Exactly! And natural variability is the driving force behind the vast majority of weather events.

There was more colder than normal air than warmer than normal air over the CONUS in May. Anyone who wants to argue that warmer temperatures were partly responsible for the tornado outbreaks has no evidence to stand on.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yes it is theory. I feel it is sound theory and so does the National Academies of Science amongst many others.

When the arctic warms more quickly than the averaged NH, yes temp contrast will decrease in general. That doesn't account for natural variability however or the fact that global temp has warmed only 0.8C on it's way toward +-3C. There is still plenty of very cold air up north.

The Gulf and Atlantic basin have been as warm as ever historically (+AMO), the globe is warmer than decades ago and deep diving cold intrusions from the north have invaded that warmth along with a strong jet stream. Yes there was cold involved, and the strong temp contrast with the warm, moist Gulf air in close proximity to the overlying strong jet made for some highly energized dynamics. Even here in central Massachusetts for goodness sake.

What repeatable tests did the AGW hypothesis pass to become theory???

[WeatherRusty]

What repeatable tests did the AGW hypothesis pass to become theory???

Try this one: SEE HERE (pdf)

[BethesdaWX]

It's not just what's interesting... it's what's important. The PDO isn't important in the same way AGW will be.

Let's draw a comparison:

AGW is caused by humans, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to cause severe harm to humanity globally, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to permanently alter the natural environment and cause widespread extinctions and alteration of the earth's ecology, the PDO is not.

The PDO has had a natural role in weather for thousands of years, AGW has not.

OK who gives a flying crap? The accuracy of the Science is what matters, not false assumptions with no supporting data... it is hypothesis to even declare that the warming we saw was anthropogenic. Tornado and Hurricane Trends Have not Followed Temperature trends...regardless of their cause. They mention Hurricanes and Tornadoes... yet nothing us substantiated. If anything has been substantiated, its the blatant stupidity of alarmists who are deperate to take in the last years of their AGW hypothesis.

This ends the AGW-to-tornado theory.

AND: See what happens when you use the right Data (satellite data) to compare to CO2 and Predictions?

Updated through 2011.

[LakeEffectKing]

Try this one: SEE HERE (pdf)

LOL! The very last frame of the slide show:

The case for human-caused global warming is based on many

independent lines of evidence. Global warming ‘skepticism’ often

focuses on narrow pieces of the puzzle while denying the full body

of evidence.

Our climate is changing and we are the major cause through our

emissions of greenhouse gases. The facts about climate change

are essential to understand the world around us, and to make

informed decisions about the future.

Again, its EVIDENCE, not repeatable tests........The Scientific Method does NOT provide a path for a hypothesis to be promoted to theory status based on EVIDENCE....the collection of EVIDENCE is just part of the process. From there, the utilization of the EVIDENCE to craft testable methods is the next step....you don't just get to skip over the testing process, because EVIDENCE (ie data, proxies, models, etc.) all have inherent error and potential interpretive biases.

We can go on and on wrt this debate, but proving theory was intentionally made to be a difficult process, in order to strengthen science. When the Sci. Method is not adhered to, then it weakens any hypothesis set forth. It's not a procedure that is subject to alteration.

[Brewbeer]

Hypothesis - a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Theory - (1) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena (i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity).

(2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

[tamarack]

It's not just what's interesting... it's what's important. The PDO isn't important in the same way AGW will be.

Let's draw a comparison:

AGW is caused by humans, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to cause severe harm to humanity globally, the PDO is not.

AGW is predicted to permanently alter the natural environment and cause widespread extinctions and alteration of the earth's ecology, the PDO is not.

The PDO has had a natural role in weather for thousands of years, AGW has not.

etc.

etc. etc.

Who, what, where, when, why, how... The basic questions in journalism, and PDO and/or AGW would fit in the why/how, (along with "There ain't no reason, it just happens.", which satisfies neither journalist nor reader.)

The article comes out immediately after major tornados, and says (paraphrases): "AGW is being borne out..." and later, "We don't know if AGW affects tornado frequency/strength." The first statement is likely to resonate far louder with most readers than the 2nd; maybe that should not be the case, but I suspect it's reality and that the journalists know it's reality.

Given evidence in this thread that tornado action correlates with the PDO cycle (which in my ignorance of tornadic meteorology I'm assuming to be accurate, as it's not been refuted here), its absence in such an article is a "shout from silence" that either the writer didn't do the homework or chose to remain silent. Just a comment that "the current condition of the Pacific and its effect on US weather has been shown to correlate with increased tornados" might have been useful.

[tacoman25]

Who, what, where, when, why, how... The basic questions in journalism, and PDO and/or AGW would fit in the why/how, (along with "There ain't no reason, it just happens.", which satisfies neither journalist nor reader.)

The article comes out immediately after major tornados, and says (paraphrases): "AGW is being borne out..." and later, "We don't know if AGW affects tornado frequency/strength." The first statement is likely to resonate far louder with most readers than the 2nd; maybe that should not be the case, but I suspect it's reality and that the journalists know it's reality.

Given evidence in this thread that tornado action correlates with the PDO cycle (which in my ignorance of tornadic meteorology I'm assuming to be accurate, as it's not been refuted here), its absence in such an article is a "shout from silence" that either the writer didn't do the homework or chose to remain silent. Just a comment that "the current condition of the Pacific and its effect on US weather has been shown to correlate with increased tornados" might have been useful.

At the very least, the writer could focus on climate change if they wanted, but when there is any discussion of tornadoes, why not mention the PDO cycle? ENSO is mentioned from time to time as a factor in weather events. Both have much more evidence that they play a significant role in tornado rates than AGW.