Rising Risk of Big Tornadoes Suggest A Climate Change Signal

This is interesting. According to a new study by climate Scientists there is a big risk of an increase in powerful Storms and Tornadoes due to Climate Change. This increase is because the change in climate sets up the coonditions where these more powerful storms can form.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the former head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, emailed me that “the study is plausible.” Both Trenberth and another top climatologist, Dr. Michael Mann, agree that: This latest study provides further evidence for what many climate scientists have already surmised: that climate change is substantially altering the atmospheric environment in which thunderstorms and tornadoes form, increasing risk of major tornado outbreaks when conditions are ripe. Mann adds, “The findings, moreover, undermine the claim made by some contrarians that human-caused climate change will reduce tornado activity and risk.”

Here's some doom porn for ATS. There have been many heated debates here on ATS about this whole Climate Change issue but the fact is Weather is changing; man-made or not. These changes seem to be on an accelerated scale; something tells me that if things can be sped-up they can also be slowed down. In layman speak: The challenge then becomes figuring out what man's part of this acceleration is, and if man's contribution is the factor which is causing the climate's acceleration, can that factor also be manipulated to slow the acceleration down? I'll pose my question to the "Real" scientists here on ATS...Can we stop Climate Change's momentum? Or do we wait for the inevitable? Which according to this article is powerful tornadoes....

thinkprogress.org...

I KNEW IT!




If you live near coastal places be warned!


/sarcasm

Climate change is real, manmade meh i dont buy into it but thats beside the point

I live in Tornado Alley, this year has been pretty mild here where Im at, but the next few years could be interesting

So basically all the study itself says is that we have fewer days that produce tornados, but when we do have days that produce tornados, they can produce outbreaks? And then the website that picks up the study goes on to link it with a movie that might possibly have even more hyperbole to it than Twister ... if that were even possible? Seems legit.

Look, overall the number of tornados is way down meaning that the atmosphere is more stable, so it does make sense that when it does change from one air mass to another, the change will be more marked and more violent - hot to cold, dry to moist. This is why you see more convection and more supercells when those atmospheric changes occur. However, you also have to take into account that here in the Midwest we lost one whole month of tornado season. It was simply too cool and the atmosphere too stable, and then when that changed, yes, there were outbreaks because that stability didn't change easily.

PS, Has Kevin Trenberth found his missing heat yet?

a reply to: lostbook

According to a new study… big risk… of increase… of powerful Storms… due to…

Propaganda about-- dun dun dun dunnn… climate change.

Increasing levels of toxins hardly noticed however.

a reply to: lostbook

In a word and my opinion (shared by many bona fide scientists) is that no we cannot stop this devastating climate change. We can mitigate the effects if we are swift and decisive. It would take a world-wide program larger in scale then the US gearing up for WWII over the course of decades. A lot of it would have to be done by Fiat.

Recent articles border on dispair as do I. The news is dire.

Good luck on the thread.

The first complaint you are likely to hear is the climate and weather are two different things. Weather is a temporary and localized result of Climate attempting to balance itself. Climate is Global and long term weather local and short term. Most of the 'arguments' you will be presented with are ones of poor analogy and scope.

I try and find some info on tornados and how a warming climate increases their frequency and force.

First I'm off to find the Frog and Lily pad story, It's applies so well in this case. I'm having the devil of a time finding it.

True, the climate is constantly changing and will continue to do so causing different and extreme weather patterns.

False, paying Al Gore and the UN money will not correct the changing climate...

a reply to: FyreByrd

Exactly why would a warming climate do that? You need clashing warm and cold air masses to create a tornado. If all the air is warm, you have less of those competing forces - hot/cold. If anything, a climate that is warmer or one that is cooler will be doing what we're seeing - it will tend to be more stable with less overall days with tornados and when the day can produce tornados, it will tend to be a more marked and violent transition of air masses, but those days will be rarer.

Now, the question becomes ... is the overall climate getting colder or warmer. I know what you believe, but I'm not convinced. I do know that either warmer or cooler, and the change presents challenges. Thing is, if we spend all our time planning for one or the other, trying to stop one or the other and we're wrong ... the consequences could be disastrous. So without really knowing what's really happening, do you feel lucky with mitigation or would you rather continue on with containment at a local level and adapt to the punches as they come until we really, actually do understand how the entire climate mechanism works.

a reply to: lostbook

You make an assumption of major proportions. It is always easier to destroy than to create. With a push of a finger we could unleash nuclear winter on the world.

What can we do positively with but the push of a finger? I often jokingly tell global warming alarmists that we should all turn on our AC's and open windows to cool off the world. The funny thing is that half the time they just do not get it.

The tundra is melting, releasing methane which is about 20 times worse than CO2. WTH can we do to suddenly cool the tundra to prevent that from happening?

Even if one assumes (incorrectly) that man is responsible for climate change (sure! the climate never changed before man arrived on the scene, right?) exactly what could we do to reverse things short of returning to pre industrial revolution lifestyles and accept the death of billions? Even that would not work, since the absence of power stations would inevitably result in massive burn off of wood and whatever we could find for fuel for cooking and heat.

Increasing Tornadoes can be a problem we created by altering the way energy flows through the crust of the earth. Fracking and excessive mining of high metallic mineral bodies might alter patterns. The energy flow through the earth does not just happen at the north and south poles, those are the major ones. There are dipoles all over the place, also things insulate the current from exiting in places. Oil could also lubricate the plates so they slide smoother but the natural gas could also cause some secondary problems.

I think they should investigate how energy flows through the crust better before fracking the hell out of everything. But they probably don't want to look at this, just blame the tornadoes on climate change.

I wish I could find actual evidence that proves this wrong, but all I find is an avoidance of testing this particular subject, because of the negative effect on the economy and societies.

I remember a few years back they said Super Hurricanes would pretty much wipe Florida off the map.

What people should be concerned about is if we have another year like this where they hit more to the NE than where they have hit traditionally.

Nope, couldn't find it, yet again.

It goes something like this. An observant frog, sitting on a lily pad in the pond of his birth, notices that the pond has many more lily pads then before, in fact he can hop across the pond on them and didn't have to swin a bit. This worried the young frog and he discussed his perception with the rest of his tribe. They too agreed and with much discussion and argument decided it was necessary to prune back many of the lovely plants. But, the frog tribe found, it was too late, no amount of pruning was able to save the pond for the frogs. The liies crowded them out and soon began to starve themselves. The once beautiful lilies began to lose color and size and started to die off. After the die back of the lilies there was room for another frog tribe but none came and the pond was finally found by a lone knewt who laid her eggs beside the cool pond.

My story telling skills are not good.

Don't you just love the personaly responsibilty types - it's not human's fault therefore we don't need to do anything about it. At least the frogs tried.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Increasing Tornadoes can be a problem we created by altering the way energy flows through the crust of the earth. Fracking and excessive mining of high metallic mineral bodies might alter patterns. The energy flow through the earth does not just happen at the north and south poles, those are the major ones. There are dipoles all over the place, also things insulate the current from exiting in places. Oil could also lubricate the plates so they slide smoother but the natural gas could also cause some secondary problems.

I think they should investigate how energy flows through the crust better before fracking the hell out of everything. But they probably don't want to look at this, just blame the tornadoes on climate change.

I wish I could find actual evidence that proves this wrong, but all I find is an avoidance of testing this particular subject, because of the negative effect on the economy and societies.

I hadn't heard this particular 'magnetic' take on things - interesting - any sources?

a reply to: FyreByrd

None that are credible IMO, but I could be mistaken, but I doubt it.

Tornadoes are created by conflicting air masses. To my knowledge, geology has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: FyreByrd

But should we? Can we?

Is it hubris to believe that we have the ability to affect climate change in a "positive" manner?

Define positive change? Lower temps? Higher temps? No change? Can we even fathom what the outcome would be if we tinkered with weather at all?

Do we even truly understand the climate well enough to know what changes we should make?

So we should try to prevent climate change. How would we go about doing that and be assured that we were doing the right thing?

Tell me one thing: Is man better at screwing up things by trying to do good, or are we better at making things better flat out?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I find bits and pieces of this all over the place in articles but I see an avoidance in doing any specific research on this. I think they could map the energy flow through the earth to evaluate this with satellites, but it would not be good for the particular science that does this. Geologists rely on mining and gas/oil exploration to salary most of their people. The oil companies create lots of jobs for scientists of all professions. It would not be good for these scientific societies to say that their practices are causing a disruption of our fields, they would rather say the people are causing global warming.

I think the north pole moving faster than normal is also caused by changes in the way energy flows through these dipoles. It's not only magnetics, it is also heat. To change these things I feel could change tracking and maybe formation of tornadoes by changing the way that air currents move in our atmosphere. This sounds possible, but I have no way to test this. I doubt if anyone would even touch this subject. It would be suicide for a person with credentials to start working on this.

a reply to: rickymouse

It's an area that I'm interested in somewhat but from a different angle. An interesting documentary called "Magnetic Storm" I think you can find the whole thing on Hot Docs or could.

I wonder about the impact of mining in general on the health and wellbeing of the electrometic sphere.

Interesting question in the OP.

I have thought about this many times over the past several years, during this past solar cycle. What brought me to the same question was observing people and how they are determined to scoff at any real discussion on the subject out of fear or denial.

So many times on this forum I have shared posts with people who took the stance that if you live in tornado alley you have to expect what you get. It is not that easy I have said, generations, work, many factors lead to where people chose to live.

Most importantly, in my gut I knew that as climate changes accelerate there is little chance of any true safe places left on the planet. We have all seen the validation of that instinct in the past couple years, locations that have been untouched by natural and man made disasters in the past have been getting hit over and over.

Most of us have resonated with the idea that unless it happens to you directly... you can simply turn your head and compromise what you know you should be doing now for your own protection when disaster strikes home in that comfort zone of thought. Lets face it, we have all read that scientists said major earth quakes would happen in the next 50 years, well not much time left on that anymore. Sink holes, opening, tornadoes where they have never been known to be, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, hurricanes, acid rain, melting glaciers, oceanic contamination and die off, meteor showers, floods, drought, famine, water wars...

The news is FULL of BS, and the real kicker is that until people are given the facts in chronological order, in plain sight, they will continue to remain in denial the steps needed to be taken can be placed on the back burner second to more entertaining notions.

*********************

Hindsight being 50/50, this article touches on just how long standing these changes have been affecting our terrestrial world, economies and our very lives. Some of the best think tanks and professionals have been discredited and shut out long ago but climate change continues to become a greater challenge every day and cannot be denied.

Climatic Change
December 1995, Volume 31, Issue 2-4, pp 601-622
Documenting and detecting long-term precipitation trends: Where we are and what should be done

link.springer.com...

a reply to: lostbook


Oddly enough this year was weaker than the last few. Cold air from both our insane winter and a pacific typhoon delayed the storm season. I dont think this season produced any ef5s. Last year and the few years before that were huge storm years. Also 2013 had the biggest tornado in our history with the 2.6 mile wide el reno twister.


2013:

So where is it safe from natural disasters & Yosemite, & hopefully not near any nuclear reactors?

What is the mountain range on the eastern hemisphere of the US? It was all the rage when people were gonna bug out if Elenin had been Nibiru. I can't even remember what states it spans...

Let's look a two graphs (apologies for heading off-topic):

I stipulate that modern man appeared on earth 200,000 years ago. I know it goes against some bilbical sensibilities and hence I give you your manner of saving face.

The first graph is CO2 recordings from Mona Loa in Hawaii from 1960 through 2010. This is a simple case of data collection. With the proper tools you could do it yourself. Many stations around the world record such data on a regular schedule. This is data over time and nothing more and can be reproduced by other montitors, Mona Loa has been monitoring this specific atmospheric component for years.



To help in understanding :

This is a way of expressing very dilute concentrations of substances. Just as per cent means out of a hundred, so parts per million or ppm means out of a million. Usually describes the concentration of something in water or soil. One ppm is equivalent to 1 milligram of something per liter of water (mg/l) or 1 milligram of something per kilogram soil (mg/kg).

groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu...

In other words one part per million would be .01%. A truely small portion of the whole.

So when the scientists tell us CO2 levels will (and have) risen to 400 PPM it is equal to 4% of any size whole.

Next visual aide:



Now this shows the flucuation of CO2 levels staring 400,000 years ago to the present.

You ask how do the scientists know the levels of CO2 so far back in history. It's simple really - Ice cores. Ice has strata much as rock does but ICE clearly shows the chemical makeup of the atmosphere of time.

Scientists can study Earth’s climate as far back as 800,000 years by drilling core samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels is trapped in these specimens. Current polar records show an intimate connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in the natural world. In essence, when one goes up, the other one follows.

www.scientificamerican.com...

They do say the specific dates of the data could be off by as much as a 1,000 years but that does effect the actual CO2 levels nor corresponding Global mean temperature.