New Yorker and NYT This Week

[skierinvermont]

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.

Yes I agree that journalists should answer the "who what where when why how." But what is the subject matter?

Is this an article about the "who what where when why how" of tornadoes? No. It is an article about AGW and how it is or will affect humanity. The expectation that it will provide the "who what where when why how" about tornadoes is silly. The article isn't about tornadoes. It's about climate change.

[tacoman25]

Yes I agree that journalists should answer the "who what where when why how." But what is the subject matter?

Is this an article about the "who what where when why how" of tornadoes? No. It is an article about AGW and how it is or will affect humanity. The expectation that it will provide the "who what where when why how" about tornadoes is silly. The article isn't about tornadoes. It's about climate change.

Any article I have seen so far that has referenced the tornadoes and possible causes has mentioned AGW. No mention of the PDO. Just demonstrates the obsession/hype.

[skierinvermont]

Any article I have seen so far that has referenced the tornadoes and possible causes has mentioned AGW. No mention of the PDO. Just demonstrates the obsession/hype.

You've been reading articles with the intended purpose of explaining the causes of the tornadoes?

I have seen no such articles. I wouldn't expect to see such articles outside a specialized science journal.

The articles I have seen have been about climate change and whether or not such tornadoes will become more common. Given the severe harm posed by AGW, this is an important question to ask and answer. These are not science articles with the intended purpose of educating the public on the causes of tornadoes and the conditions under which they occur. They are articles intended to discuss whether the broad and severe threat of AGW includes increasing tornadoes.

If you want to learn about the conditions under which tornadoes naturally occur, rather than the far more interesting and important question of whether human emissions will increase tornadoes and other types harmful weather, read something published by the AMS.

[roardog]

Why would AGW cause more severe storms or tornadoes? I could see stronger hurricanes as they are basically born from the warmth/tropics. More warmth would potentially mean more energy. However, mid latitude storms form from clashing cold and warm air. It actually makes complete sense that this past Spring would have been a big severe weather/tornado Spring because there was plenty of below average temps around the country, which on a larger scale coincides with a -PDO cycle. The Spring of 2010 featured a lot of above average temps, especially across the northern US and of course we had calmer Spring as far as severe weather goes. So, with the exeception of tropical storms/hurricanes, how would a warmer world cause more severe storms?

[skierinvermont]

Why would AGW cause more severe storms or tornadoes? I could see stronger hurricanes as they are basically born from the warmth/tropics. More warmth would potentially mean more energy. However, mid latitude storms form from clashing cold and warm air. It actually makes complete sense that this past Spring would have been a big severe weather/tornado Spring because there was plenty of below average temps around the country, which on a larger scale coincides with a -PDO cycle. The Spring of 2010 featured a lot of above average temps, especially across the northern US and of course we had calmer Spring as far as severe weather goes. So, with the exeception of tropical storms/hurricanes, how would a warmer world cause more severe storms?

The primary reason would be that it would prolong tornado season. Peak season would occur earlier in the south and then we would have a longer period of moderate tornadic activity in the northern plains.

Models also frequently increase the low level warm jet out of the GOM.

[BethesdaWX]

The primary reason would be that it would prolong tornado season. Peak season would occur earlier in the south and then we would have a longer period of moderate tornadic activity in the northern plains.

Models also frequently increase the low level warm jet out of the GOM.

And it hasn't happened... Its a prediction, a hypothesis, thats the end of it. Bottom Line, there has been a decreasing Hurricane And Tornado Trend, thats it.

You can relaxnow and breathe a sigh of relief.

[skierinvermont]

And it hasn't happened... Its a prediction, a hypothesis, thats the end of it. Bottom Line, there has been a decreasing Hurricane And Tornado Trend, thats it.

You can relaxnow and breathe a sigh of relief.

There really isn't enough data to lend evidence one way or another yet. We have only seen a small fraction of the warming that is likely to occur over the next 100 years.

[tacoman25]

There really isn't enough data to lend evidence one way or another yet. We have only seen a small fraction of the warming that is likely to occur over the next 100 years.

There is MUCH more evidence that increased cold air invading the CONUS leads to more severe weather and tornadoes than there is that global warming would cause more.

[WeatherRusty]

There is MUCH more evidence that increased cold air invading the CONUS leads to more severe weather and tornadoes than there is that global warming would cause more.

The evidence is that strongly contrasting air masses lead to more severe weather, and the warmer and more moist the warm side of the equation, the greater the energy to be dissipated.

Further into the future in a warming world, there may be less contrast but presently such is not the case even as the world is somewhat warmer and more humid than several decades ago.

[tacoman25]

The evidence is that strongly contrasting air masses lead to more severe weather, and the warmer and more moist the warm side of the equation, the greater the energy to be dissipated.

Further into the future in a warming world, there may be less contrast but presently such is not the case even as the world is somewhat warmer and more humid than several decades ago.

1. -PDO phase tends to favor greater tornado outbreaks. The -PDO phase has a strong tendency for colder weather in the U.S.

2. The springs that have had the greatest tornado outbreaks have featured unusually cold air invading the CONUS. This includes 2011.

There is no evidence that greater warmth globally has led to more tornadoes over the past few decades. The colder years of the 1950s and 1960s had more strong tornadoes. There was plenty of temperature contrast then, but the common denominator has always been unusually cold air invading the CONUS - which of course is more common during La Nina years. 2008 and 2011, both La Ninas in the new -PDO phase, have proven to excellent examples of that.

The case for AGW causing more tornadoes is much more tenuous and theoretical.

[nzucker]

The evidence is that strongly contrasting air masses lead to more severe weather, and the warmer and more moist the warm side of the equation, the greater the energy to be dissipated.

Further into the future in a warming world, there may be less contrast but presently such is not the case even as the world is somewhat warmer and more humid than several decades ago.

Global warming creates the exact temperature pattern that is not conducive to tornado outbreaks; the North warms more than the South, which reduces temperature contrasts. Just look at Spring 2010; the strong El Niño caused the northern states to have warm anomalies and the southern states to have cool anomalies, and severe weather was near record lows because the overall gradient was strongly reduced. This should become the norm since Canada and the Northern Plains are predicted to warm much more than the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast.

A strong La Niña leads to the opposite pattern...this year, there was an excess of cold air in Canada which caused cold anomalies in the Northern Plains and Northern Rockies, with the weak subtropical jet leading to a strong ridge over the southern states. With the normally warm south being hotter than normal and the normally cool north being colder than normal, we had an increased temperature gradient that led to Tuscaloosa and Joplin. Almost all of the big severe weather years have been in La Niñas, such as 1953 (F5 in Flint MI and F4 in Worcester MA), 1965 (Palm Sunday outbreak), and 1974 (Super Outbreak). Climate models predict that not only may La Niña be less common in a warmer world, but the pattern of cold north/warm south produced by La Niña will definitely be rarer. Changes in snow/ice cover will force the northern latitudes to experience much more warming than the southern latitudes, especially true in winter and early spring because of the lack of expected snow cover and arctic sea ice causing warmer airmasses.

Sure there may be other factors such as the low-level jet from the Gulf of Mexico, but history has proven that the main meteorological phenomenon behind extremely active tornado seasons is La Niña and its associated temperature gradient. Climatologist Ray Spencer has expressed this same principle, saying that it would be difficult to see reason for severe weather to increase in a warmer world, as the opposite should occur based on the dulling of the latitudinal temperature gradient.

[tacoman25]

Global warming creates the exact temperature pattern that is not conducive to tornado outbreaks; the North warms more than the South, which reduces temperature contrasts. Just look at Spring 2010; the strong El Niño caused the northern states to have warm anomalies and the southern states to have cool anomalies, and severe weather was near record lows because the overall gradient was strongly reduced. This should become the norm since Canada and the Northern Plains are predicted to warm much more than the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast.

A strong La Niña leads to the opposite pattern...this year, there was an excess of cold air in Canada which caused cold anomalies in the Northern Plains and Northern Rockies, with the weak subtropical jet leading to a strong ridge over the southern states. With the normally warm south being hotter than normal and the normally cool north being colder than normal, we had an increased temperature gradient that led to Tuscaloosa and Joplin. Almost all of the big severe weather years have been in La Niñas, such as 1953 (F5 in Flint MI and F4 in Worcester MA), 1965 (Palm Sunday outbreak), and 1974 (Super Outbreak). Climate models predict that not only may La Niña be less common in a warmer world, but the pattern of cold north/warm south produced by La Niña will definitely be rarer. Changes in snow/ice cover will force the northern latitudes to experience much more warming than the southern latitudes, especially true in winter and early spring because of the lack of expected snow cover and arctic sea ice causing warmer airmasses.

Sure there may be other factors such as the low-level jet from the Gulf of Mexico, but history has proven that the main meteorological phenomenon behind extremely active tornado seasons is La Niña and its associated temperature gradient. Climatologist Ray Spencer has expressed this same principle, saying that it would be difficult to see reason for severe weather to increase in a warmer world, as the opposite should occur based on the dulling of the latitudinal temperature gradient.

The responses we are seeing in this thread are very telling. To even suggest that something severe/deadly like tornadoes could become less likely with AGW is immediately challenged - because there is such a strong gut reaction that AGW is "all bad, all the time". Doomsday scenarios depend on this, and a warmer world has to be a worse world, no matter what. So anything negative that happens with weather/climate is automatically linked to climate change somehow, while possible positive results of climate change are brushed aside and ignored. The FEAR must be maintained at all times.

And some people actually try to say there is no bias or agenda involved, just science. Right...and these are often the same people who believe the "war on terror" was as much about instiling fear into America to accomplish other goals - and yet they overlook how fear is a huge component of AGW alarmism.

[WeatherRusty]

Global warming creates the exact temperature pattern that is not conducive to tornado outbreaks; the North warms more than the South, which reduces temperature contrasts. Just look at Spring 2010; the strong El Niño caused the northern states to have warm anomalies and the southern states to have cool anomalies, and severe weather was near record lows because the overall gradient was strongly reduced. This should become the norm since Canada and the Northern Plains are predicted to warm much more than the Southern Plains and Gulf Coast.

A strong La Niña leads to the opposite pattern...this year, there was an excess of cold air in Canada which caused cold anomalies in the Northern Plains and Northern Rockies, with the weak subtropical jet leading to a strong ridge over the southern states. With the normally warm south being hotter than normal and the normally cool north being colder than normal, we had an increased temperature gradient that led to Tuscaloosa and Joplin. Almost all of the big severe weather years have been in La Niñas, such as 1953 (F5 in Flint MI and F4 in Worcester MA), 1965 (Palm Sunday outbreak), and 1974 (Super Outbreak). Climate models predict that not only may La Niña be less common in a warmer world, but the pattern of cold north/warm south produced by La Niña will definitely be rarer. Changes in snow/ice cover will force the northern latitudes to experience much more warming than the southern latitudes, especially true in winter and early spring because of the lack of expected snow cover and arctic sea ice causing warmer airmasses.

Sure there may be other factors such as the low-level jet from the Gulf of Mexico, but history has proven that the main meteorological phenomenon behind extremely active tornado seasons is La Niña and its associated temperature gradient. Climatologist Ray Spencer has expressed this same principle, saying that it would be difficult to see reason for severe weather to increase in a warmer world, as the opposite should occur based on the dulling of the latitudinal temperature gradient.

I am not in disagreement with what you are saying. It makes perfect meteorological sense. It is not difficult to expect there to be a lessening of tornado activity as the world continues to warm.

I have a question though. Shouldn't typical airmass thunderstorms become more vigorous under warmer, more moist conditions prevalent in a warmer climate environment? Might we see an increase in straight line wind damage and hail and flooding rains over a broadening geographical area? If lapse rates don't change, then shouldn't extra water vapor energize thunderstorms which do form all the more?

[WeatherRusty]

The responses we are seeing in this thread are very telling. To even suggest that something severe/deadly like tornadoes could become less likely with AGW is immediately challenged - because there is such a strong gut reaction that AGW is "all bad, all the time". Doomsday scenarios depend on this, and a warmer world has to be a worse world, no matter what. So anything negative that happens with weather/climate is automatically linked to climate change somehow, while possible positive results of climate change are brushed aside and ignored. The FEAR must be maintained at all times.

And some people actually try to say there is no bias or agenda involved, just science. Right...and these are often the same people who believe the "war on terror" was as much about instiling fear into America to accomplish other goals - and yet they overlook how fear is a huge component of AGW alarmism.

No one here doubts that tornadoes will become less a factor as the world continues to warm. Very sound reasoning is given as to why that should be the case. We'll see.

We are wondering if this season's tornado outbreaks have been aided by warmer than normal conditions being invaded by the cooler than normal air coming in from the north and west. I think you have to consider all the possible contributing factors when such an anomalous, record breaking situation as this season's tornado number occurs. A very rare if not unique combination of factors came together to break tornado record numbers by the hundreds.

April 2011

• April 2011 set a new record for the month with 875 tornadoes.
  • The previous record was set in April 1974 with 267 tornadoes.
  • The average number of tornadoes for the month of April during the past decade is 161.
  • The previous record number of tornadoes during any month was 542 tornadoes set in May 2003.

------------

Who do you think I am trying to impress or influence by my supposed "fear mongering agenda"? It is this alluding to conspiracy by adherents of AGW where you loose scientific credibility in my eyes. You seem to judge me not by what I say but rather by your presumption as to why I say it.

[bobbutts]

I think the most anomalous thing about the Joplin tornado was it's path through a heavily populated area. If the same tornado had hit a less populated spot and it's not a big news story.

The deaths and destruction don't make the tornado any more important wrt climate except that humans take more interest in these kinds of events.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think the most anomalous thing about the Joplin tornado was it's path through a heavily populated area. If the same tornado had hit a less populated spot and it's not a big news story.

The deaths and destruction don't make the tornado any more important wrt climate except that humans take more interest in these kinds of events.

And that point gets overlooked all too often when trying to characterize some "increase" in "extreme" events.....there are more people, spread out over larger areas (suburban sprawl) and the technology to dectect, warn, and inform the general public has increased markedly, which inevitably increases awareness and perception of such events....enough so as to skew the perception upward of actual events than what has been perceived in the past.

[tacoman25]

No one here doubts that tornadoes will become less a factor as the world continues to warm. Very sound reasoning is given as to why that should be the case. We'll see.

We are wondering if this season's tornado outbreaks have been aided by warmer than normal conditions being invaded by the cooler than normal air coming in from the north and west. I think you have to consider all the possible contributing factors when such an anomalous, record breaking situation as this season's tornado number occurs. A very rare if not unique combination of factors came together to break tornado record numbers by the hundreds.

April 2011

• April 2011 set a new record for the month with 875 tornadoes.
  • The previous record was set in April 1974 with 267 tornadoes.
  • The average number of tornadoes for the month of April during the past decade is 161.
  • The previous record number of tornadoes during any month was 542 tornadoes set in May 2003.

------------

Who do you think I am trying to impress or influence by my supposed "fear mongering agenda"? It is this alluding to conspiracy by adherents of AGW where you loose scientific credibility in my eyes. You seem to judge me not by what I say but rather by your presumption as to why I say it.

1. Skiierinvermont has specifically expressed doubt that there will be less tornadoes with AGW. He has even said he leans toward some recent papers that argue for more tornadoes.

2. La Nina springs have always favored cooler than normal air from the north/west meeting warmer than normal air from the south/east. There was nothing particularly unusual about that setup in 2011, though the periods with the greatest outbreaks featured more cold air in the central part of the country.

3. Records are broken all the time. This is especially the case when you have a relatively short period of record, and in the case of tornadoes, less are missed than in previous eras. The number and intensity of tornadoes seen in the U.S. this spring is very impressive, but the most notable temperature link was not unusual warmth, it was the near record-breaking cold spring in the West.

Given that climate zones are supposed to be shifting northward due to AGW, the main evidence that I see where AGW would influence tornadoes is that there would be more further north and less further south. But that was definitely not the case this year.

My whole point with the last post was not to be vindictive of any one individual, but to point out how any time there is a weather disaster, the default response has become to look for a link to "climate change". Somehow, humans have to be to blame. I have honestly talked to people who believe things like tornadoes, hurricanes, and even earthquakes are the earth's way of responding to changes that humans have caused. This belief system is rooted in the idea that without humans, earth would be a perfect utopia...and so anything bad that occurs is an example of what happens when you "mess with nature". Climate change has been adopted into this mindset perfectly.

[skierinvermont]

The responses we are seeing in this thread are very telling. To even suggest that something severe/deadly like tornadoes could become less likely with AGW is immediately challenged - because there is such a strong gut reaction that AGW is "all bad, all the time". Doomsday scenarios depend on this, and a warmer world has to be a worse world, no matter what. So anything negative that happens with weather/climate is automatically linked to climate change somehow, while possible positive results of climate change are brushed aside and ignored. The FEAR must be maintained at all times.

And some people actually try to say there is no bias or agenda involved, just science. Right...and these are often the same people who believe the "war on terror" was as much about instiling fear into America to accomplish other goals - and yet they overlook how fear is a huge component of AGW alarmism.

I do not challenge it because of some imaginary gut reaction. I challenge it because some science says that the conditions favorable for tornadoes will increase in the U.S. with AGW.

Yes AGW reduces temperature contrasts globally. However, there are other overriding factors. The same models which show the arctic warming more than the tropics also show an increased # of days with the CAPE and shear necessary for tornadoes over the U.S. This is primarily due to a lengthening of the tornado season and an increased LLJ from the GOM.

[tacoman25]

I do not challenge it because of some imaginary gut reaction. I challenge it because some science says that the conditions favorable for tornadoes will increase in the U.S. with AGW.

Yes AGW reduces temperature contrasts globally. However, there are other overriding factors. The same models which show the arctic warming more than the tropics also show an increased # of days with the CAPE and shear necessary for tornadoes over the U.S. This is primarily due to a lengthening of the tornado season and an increased LLJ from the GOM.

All theoretical and unproven. And I wasn't talking about the gut reaction from any one person specifically (as I said in my previous post), this is a case of mass group think I'm referring to.

And besides, the record number of tornadoes we are seeing this year have been packed tightly into the traditional height of tornado season: April/May. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this year's tornado outbreaks haven't been at least 99% caused by natural forces and patterns. The case for AGW being a factor is very weak in comparison.

[skierinvermont]

All theoretical and unproven. And I wasn't talking about the gut reaction from any one person specifically (as I said in my previous post), this is a case of mass group think I'm referring to.

And besides, the record number of tornadoes we are seeing this year have been packed tightly into the traditional height of tornado season: April/May. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this year's tornado outbreaks haven't been at least 99% caused by natural forces and patterns. The case for AGW being a factor is very weak in comparison.

I never said that these particular tornadoes were caused by AGW. And to my knowledge, very little of the media has suggested this either although I'm sure you can dig up a few examples. Most have been quite clear that climate change is composed of changing frequency of events and have used the "loaded dice" terminology, and they have been quite clear that we don't know with high certainty whether AGW will increase tornadoes.

The question I am answering is simply whether tornadoes will increase or decrease or stay the same with AGW. Dragging in this year's tornadoes is simply an effort on your part to obfuscate the question. You are attributing an argument to me which I have not made. I never said this year's tornadoes were caused by AGW. So your response is not a response to my post at all but rather a response to some imagined boogey-man.

To return to the original question I was attempting to answer: will tornado activity increase decrease or stay the same with AGW?

Saying that it is all theoretical and unproven is not saying much. AGW is 'theoretical and unproven.' And yet we can have a very high degree of confidence in our theory. I would admit a much lower degree of confidence in the hypothesis that tornadoes will increase with AGW. Nevertheless, climate models which do indeed show greater polar than tropical surface warming also simultaneously show a greater # of days with the shear and CAPE necessary for tornadic activity.

[tacoman25]

I never said that these particular tornadoes were caused by AGW. And to my knowledge, very little of the media has suggested this either although I'm sure you can dig up a few examples. Most have been quite clear that climate change is composed of changing frequency of events and have used the "loaded dice" terminology, and they have been quite clear that we don't know with high certainty whether AGW will increase tornadoes.

The question I am answering is simply whether tornadoes will increase or decrease or stay the same with AGW. Dragging in this year's tornadoes is simply an effort on your part to obfuscate the question. You are attributing an argument to me which I have not made. I never said this year's tornadoes were caused by AGW. So your response is not a response to my post at all but rather a response to some imagined boogey-man.

To return to the original question I was attempting to answer: will tornado activity increase decrease or stay the same with AGW?

Saying that it is all theoretical and unproven is not saying much. AGW is 'theoretical and unproven.' And yet we can have a very high degree of confidence in our theory. I would admit a much lower degree of confidence in the hypothesis that tornadoes will increase with AGW. Nevertheless, climate models which do indeed show greater polar than tropical surface warming also simultaneously show a greater # of days with the shear and CAPE necessary for tornadic activity.

1. This year's tornado outbreaks are what has prompted this discussion in the media and on this forum. To act like they are somehow not related to this discussion is ridiculous. People are asking the questions (and in some cases asserting) about these outbreaks being related to climate change - including our very own Rusty. It is not an imagined boogeyman.

2. I have a problem with the "loaded dice" as that AGW concept is applied to events like this. The loaded dice was clearly a major La Nina and -PDO. This is much less theoretical and unproven compared to any supposed link between AGW and tornadic activity.

[skierinvermont]

1. This year's tornado outbreaks are what has prompted this discussion in the media and on this forum. To act like they are somehow not related to this discussion is ridiculous. People are asking the questions (and in some cases asserting) about these outbreaks being related to climate change - including our very own Rusty. It is not an imagined boogeyman.

2. I have a problem with the "loaded dice" as that AGW concept is applied to events like this. The loaded dice was clearly a major La Nina and -PDO. This is much less theoretical and unproven compared to any supposed link between AGW and tornadic activity.

1. Your response was directly to a post of mine which had absolutely nothing to do with any particular tornado outbreak. The substance of my post was whether or not tornadoes will increase with AGW. To respond to this with some irrelevant nonsense about a particular outbreak is off topic and simply an attempt to detract from my point that there is in fact evidence that tornadoes will increase with AGW.

2. The loaded dice terminology describes the effect of AGW on particular events perfectly. AGW creates a change in frequency of events. That is exactly what loaded dice describes.

[tacoman25]

1. Your response was directly to a post of mine which had absolutely nothing to do with any particular tornado outbreak. The substance of my post was whether or not tornadoes will increase with AGW. To respond to this with some irrelevant nonsense about a particular outbreak is off topic and simply an attempt to detract from my point that there is in fact evidence that tornadoes will increase with AGW.

2. The loaded dice terminology describes the effect of AGW on particular events perfectly. AGW creates a change in frequency of events. That is exactly what loaded dice describes.

1. Nope, the post you are referring to and that you responded to as if it was directed at you was a response to nzucker's post. And this whole thread has been in the context of the recent tornadic activity - and I'm going off topic?

2. The loaded dice terminology applies to tornadoes much better in terms of proven correlations like La Nina/-PDO than it does to AGW. That was my point. The natural factors, which have much more solid evidence on their side, are by and large being ignored. Instead, whenever something weather/climate related grabs the headlines (hurricane Katrina, the blizzards in the mid Atlantic, the recent tornado outbreaks), "climate change" links are explored...while other, more tangible links are largely brushed aside! Thus the perception by the general public that "every little thing is due to global warming" and the reason it has become basically a joke to most people.

[WeatherRusty]

1. Nope, the post you are referring to and that you responded to as if it was directed at you was a response to nzucker's post. And this whole thread has been in the context of the recent tornadic activity - and I'm going off topic?

2. The loaded dice terminology applies to tornadoes much better in terms of proven correlations like La Nina/-PDO than it does to AGW. That was my point. The natural factors, which have much more solid evidence on their side, are by and large being ignored. Instead, whenever something weather/climate related grabs the headlines (hurricane Katrina, the blizzards in the mid Atlantic, the recent tornado outbreaks), "climate change" links are explored...while other, more tangible links are largely brushed aside! Thus the perception by the general public that "every little thing is due to global warming" and the reason it has become basically a joke to most people.

Is there a common thread which ties the many various seemingly anomalous weather phenomenon together? Could that thread be climate change? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask, since current climate change is regarded by the main stream scientific community as very real.

[tacoman25]

Here is the problem with "the loaded dice" mentality. Every time something happens that in some way possibly follows AGW predictions (even if the science is far from a consensus, as has been the case with hurricanes, snowfall, and tornadoes), the loaded dice can be cited. "We can't say that this event is necessarily due to climate change, but it is consistent with expectations. The dice is loaded for more extreme/severe events like this." Thus, prevailing assumptions about AGW can be said to be supported by real events - even if there is more solid evidence for factors besides AGW playing a major role.

However, what about events that go against the "loaded dice"? For example, this past winter/spring has brought record snowfall to the Sierras and mountains of the Intermountain West. This is a region that is supposed to be experiencing increased drought and lower snowpack due to climate change, per the models. Yet nowhere will you see mention of this in media articles.

The point? Only will you see supportive evidence of the prevailing assumptions cited. And so, the overall evidence is not fairly examined - only what supports the hypothesis. This is wrong. If certain events can be said to be following the "loaded dice", it is only fair to point out what events are NOT following "expectations".

[skierinvermont]

1. Nope, the post you are referring to and that you responded to as if it was directed at you was a response to nzucker's post. And this whole thread has been in the context of the recent tornadic activity - and I'm going off topic?

2. The loaded dice terminology applies to tornadoes much better in terms of proven correlations like La Nina/-PDO than it does to AGW. That was my point. The natural factors, which have much more solid evidence on their side, are by and large being ignored. Instead, whenever something weather/climate related grabs the headlines (hurricane Katrina, the blizzards in the mid Atlantic, the recent tornado outbreaks), "climate change" links are explored...while other, more tangible links are largely brushed aside! Thus the perception by the general public that "every little thing is due to global warming" and the reason it has become basically a joke to most people.

1. No. My post said very simply that there is some evidence that AGW will increase tornadoes. To this you responded that this year's tornadoes were "at least 99% naturally caused." Which is all well and good except it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that AGW may increase the frequency of strong tornadoes.

2. No doubt short term climate variables like the PDO and ENSO have and always will load the dice more than AGW ever will. That doesn't mean the loaded dice terminology is wrong. We can say that AGW increase the chance of heatwaves from 2 in 9 to 2 in 7 while La Ninas increase it from 2 in 9 to 2 in 6. AGW+Ninas together increase it further to 2 in 5. Ninas load the dice more, but that doesn't mean AGW hasn't loaded the dice.

[tacoman25]

1. No. My post said very simply that there is some evidence that AGW will increase tornadoes. To this you responded that this year's tornadoes were "at least 99% naturally caused." Which is all well and good except it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that AGW may increase the frequency of strong tornadoes.

2. No doubt short term climate variables like the PDO and ENSO have and always will load the dice more than AGW ever will. That doesn't mean the loaded dice terminology is wrong. We can say that AGW increase the chance of heatwaves from 2 in 9 to 2 in 7 while La Ninas increase it from 2 in 9 to 2 in 6. AGW+Ninas together increase it further to 2 in 5. Ninas load the dice more, but that doesn't mean AGW hasn't loaded the dice.

1. Your statement was in the middle of a discussion on the possible impact of AGW on this year's tornado events, and tornadoes in general. That was the context, there was nothing off-topic about my comments.

2. I didn't say the loaded dice terminology was wrong. I said I don't like the way it is applied - especially how uneven the application is. See above post. And it would be nice if we could give such specific numbers as you did, but unfortunately we can't. Which is part of the reason the application is so subjective.

[WeatherRusty]

1. No. My post said very simply that there is some evidence that AGW will increase tornadoes. To this you responded that this year's tornadoes were "at least 99% naturally caused." Which is all well and good except it has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that AGW may increase the frequency of strong tornadoes.

2. No doubt short term climate variables like the PDO and ENSO have and always will load the dice more than AGW ever will. That doesn't mean the loaded dice terminology is wrong. We can say that AGW increase the chance of heatwaves from 2 in 9 to 2 in 7 while La Ninas increase it from 2 in 9 to 2 in 6. AGW+Ninas together increase it further to 2 in 5. Ninas load the dice more, but that doesn't mean AGW hasn't loaded the dice.

To speak of loaded dice is to refer to probability. Probability is measured statistically. A single data point means little statistically and informs us not at all about probability.

Likewise, climate is a statistical construct. Certain weather events can become more or less likely in a warming climate, but a single weather event tells us nothing of it's probability of occurrence.

So, we can never claim an isolated weather event to be caused by climate change but with sufficient historical data or theory we can estimate the probability of occurrence. The dice are loaded.

Climate is not a physical mechanism. PDO, ENSO are real, tangible phenomenon which can be directly connected to specific weather events and thus can be said to be causative agents.

[skierinvermont]

1. Your statement was in the middle of a discussion on the possible impact of AGW on this year's tornado events, and tornadoes in general. That was the context, there was nothing off-topic about my comments.

2. I didn't say the loaded dice terminology was wrong. I said I don't like the way it is applied - especially how uneven the application is. See above post. And it would be nice if we could give such specific numbers as you did, but unfortunately we can't. Which is part of the reason the application is so subjective.

1. I don't care what other people are talking about in this thread. I made a simple factually correct statement about the effect of AGW on tornadoes to which you responded with irrelevant ramblings about the proximate causes of an individual event. If you want to talk about context, this is the climate change forum, and I have every right to discuss how AGW will change the frequency of tornadoes without someone trying to detract from the point and change the subject to the proximate cause of an individual event.

2. The application isn't uneven. Articles about weather talk all the time about how ENSO makes certain types of weather more common. Or in fact, often people will just say that "ENSO causes XXX" which is an even stronger statement than saying "ENSO increases the chance of XXX from Y to Z"

Also my numbers weren't too specific although they were hypothetical. We can say with pretty high specificity and confidence how much heatwaves will increase with X amount of warming. We can't be as specific about other phenomenon which are not as directly related to AGW as heatwaves. We can also be pretty specific about how ENSO affects the frequency of certain closely related events because we have a lot of historical data.

[tacoman25]

Is there a common thread which ties the many various seemingly anomalous weather phenomenon together? Could that thread be climate change? Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to ask, since current climate change is regarded by the main stream scientific community as very real.

Well, I have addressed this issue before. The problem with saying everything is linked to climate change, because climate change has some sort of effect on everything in climate, is that you are working with such a vague premise that it become meaningless. It's like me saying: "Oxygen is necessary for me to live, therefore everything in my life is related to oxygen." Well yes, technically everything in my life is affected by oxygen because I wouldn't be able to breathe or exist without it, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of how oxygen specifically affects certain parts of my life...even though every part of my life involves breathing oxygen.