Rising Risk of Big Tornadoes Suggest A Climate Change Signal

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:31 AM
a reply to: FyreByrd

I feel that mining and even fracking and taking oil out of the earth does effect these fields. I don't know if it would positively or negatively effect an area though. It all depends. It may make some areas have better weather while making other areas worse. It is the change that could cause problems. It could change the usual paths of tornadoes, and possibly increase the size if certain conditions were present. CO2 increases could interact with this.

Even depleting reservoirs of water or water underground can have an effect on these. We have been using a lot of water and these reservoirs are geo-effective also.

There are a lot of things that we need to take in consideration, not just carbon dioxide emmissions. I do believe that the global warming is sort of a scam to create income for science and also tax revenue for governments and also to sidetrack us from looking at other things. We do have to reduce our carbon footprint and that will help a little bit and we need to reassess our allowance of chemicals and plastics. We need to make things to last many years and outlaw planned obsolescence or death dating of products. Economy and ecology are at odds here.

Humans do not have the right to destroy the ability of this world to support life. God put us here to take care of this world, not to destroy it. Our consciousness and intellect can be taken away, it seems to have happened a few times in the ancient writings. When we gain wealth we consume foods that are not meant for us individually which leads to a decline in the cellular communication pathway.
edit on 9-8-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 10:41 AM
Personally, I believe the increase has come from something else, earthquakes. Over the last 10 years or so we have had some major earthquakes all over the world. Japan, Chile and more. Each time, the earth redistributes its land masses, changing its rotation speed and figure axis (its wobble). I know after the earthquake in Japan, they measured this change, and others. Each time it was supposed to hardly change at all, but they add up. It must change how the earth is orientated towards the sun, which areas of the earth receive sunlight for how long and how much. Pretty sure that has to make up for at least a small part of it. Just my 2 cents

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

How is it that the "flow of energy through the earth" is responsible for large tornadoes?

Is there the slightest scientific support for this hypothesis?

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:48 PM
Tornados and magnetics make since being they seem to be drawn to trailer parks. Just throwing that out from my head

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:48 PM
a reply to: mikell

LOL mobile homes = aluminum, no?

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:56 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

Having done some research, I have yet to find anything to relate tornadoes to magnetics in the earth (ergo fracking effects?) but there does seem to be a relationship with solar wind and the interaction between the earth's magnetosphere and that of the sun.

Given that the solar magnetic dynamo has been in a slump as of late, and we’ve experienced a very low U.S. tornado season, one wonders if the low tornado numbers are partially related to lack of perturbations induced in the jet stream, which guide storm tracks and fronts.

The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions.


posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:10 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

Lots of steel frame sand broken down cars. Unless your parks are different than ours

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:23 PM
a reply to: mikell

lol ok. My dad had the same theory, but personally I don't think there is any particular attraction, just an awareness since it takes less wind to damage a mobile home as opposed to a regular home.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:36 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
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?

I agree. But what else is there to do? Personally, and this really is an existential question, I want to go down trying to make the world a little better. I cannot justify continued living without purpose and hope. It's an approach to life more then an assertation of 'power/force'. I have to take responsiblity for my 'space' and do what I can to improve it.

I reject the idea that because we can't fix it, we shouldn't try our best. Some wars you can win (I'm speaking metaphorically here - to be very clear) but need to fight because it's the right thing to do. It's a core belief of mine, perhaps the core belief.

As I age, it takes more and more psychic energy to continue the fight and not just 'zone out' in some manner and just wait for death to take me. I find that state, that I see in so many, so sad, such a waste.

I choose not to live in that world. I will not let my 1/7 billionth stewardship of the World' Being (Gaia, Mother Earth, whatever) to be in such a state.

It's a good question each of us should consider deeply, it's more important then any toy we play with to distract ourselves.

The only thing you take with you went you die is your state of mind. Those habits of thought, speech and deed that define who we are. Less self and more Self.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:53 PM
Here are a couple of links, science sites on Tornados and Climate Warming.


The intro:

Published Wednesday in the journal Climate Dynamics, Professor James Elsner writes that though tornadoes are forming fewer days per year, they are forming at a greater density and strength than ever before. So, for example, instead of one or two forming on a given day in an area, there might be three or four occurring.
"We may be less threatened by tornadoes on a day-to-day basis, but when they do come, they come like there's no tomorrow," Elsner said.
Elsner, an expert in climate and weather trends, said in the past, many researchers dismissed the impact of climate change on tornadoes because there was no distinct pattern in the number of tornado days per year. In 1971, there were 187 tornado days, but in 2013 there were only 79 days with tornadoes.

A nice article in The Guardian that talks about many sides to the issue:


The long-term weather question is whether or not we'll see more or less of these "classic" looks in our changing meteorological environment. It turns out that of all the weather phenomena, from droughts to hurricanes, tornadoes are the most complex to answer from a broader atmospheric trends point of view. The reason is that a warming world affects the factors that lead to tornadoes in different ways.


Climate change is supposed, among other things, to bring warmer and moister air to earth. That, of course, would lead to more severe thunderstorms and probably more tornadoes. The issue is that global warming is also forecast to bring about less wind shear. This would allow hurricanes to form more easily, but it also would make it much harder for tornadoes to get the full about lift and instability that allow for your usual thunderstorm to grow in height and become a fully-fledged tornado. Statistics over the past 50 years bear this out, as we've seen warmer and more moist air as well as less wind shear.

Meteorological studies differ on whether or not the warmer and moister air can overcome a lack of wind shear in creating more tornadoes in the far future. In the immediate past, the jet stream, possibly because of climate change, has been quite volatile. Some years it has dug south to allow maximum tornado activity in the middle of the country, while other years it has stayed to the north.

There seems to be quite a lot out to be looked at.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe we should just call "IT" pollution. I think we can all agree (I know, I know) that humans are polluting the natural environment in way that stress or overwhelm the systems ability to absorb or compensate for.

Mining and fracking. Extracting ores, is oil considered an ore? except in metaphor, could affect the magnetoshere. Maybe we've reached a tipping point their but one would thing that the effects would be local to areas of extreme mining. I don't see the mechanism for such distrubances, but.....

Resources of all types are being depleted at every increasing rates and our 'human designed' systems of recycling and recovery are horribly inefficient compared to natures systems. Nature takes the long view, where human's (dare I say modern western humans) view is exceedingly short.

I agree that humankind is responsible for 'husbanding' the eco-sphere or as you state 'we will be humbled'.

I think water, it's misuse and abuse, will be the turning point. The choice of Water or Electricity is upon us. It may become that simple.

I regret that the US didn't follow Jimmy Carter's 1970s energy initiatives. I regret that the only issue in this debate is one of money and cost and tax. As a wise person said - you can't eat or drink money.

A quote from Richard Nixon, on Vetoing the CLEAN WATER ACT:

In his October 17, 1972 Statement on Veto, President Nixon complained about the ”staggering, budget wrecking $24 billion” provided for in the bill, and “hope[d], with millions of taxpayers, that at least one third plus one of the members in one House will be responsible enough to vote for the public interest and sustain this veto.”


How was it then, or now, in the public interest longterm, to allow 'production' to pollute OUR water however they wished?

I'm getting too out there. Anger will not fix anything. Patience and Tolerance get you solutions.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: FyreByrd

No offense, but there is no science to support that fracking or mining of any kind affects the magnetosphere.

The earth's magnetic field is generated by the molten core of iron and nickel spinning. There is no contribution from the crust towards the generation of the field. Local anomalies may exist in the crust due to iron deposits or ferro magnetic minerals but these are not, in any way, components of the generation of the field.

To suggest that fracking or mining can somehow damage the magnetosphere is .. not based in science. If we were to remove all the anomalies what we would see is a more uniform pattern.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

No offense taken
I just was thinking about it as an interesting idea and seeing how it might be so. I'm sorry if I phased it as fact.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 11:38 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

If science would examine it and say it wasn't related, I would take the evidence. But I can find no research because they seem to be avoiding researching this. I understand that if they found something, it would open a can of worms that would negatively effect us all. Even the income of scientists.

What I am talking about is on a local level, not the climate around the world. It possibly can change the tracking of a tornado to hit a city where it did not hit before. Cities were usually put in areas where there were not many tornadoes usually. But now they are going there. In Sheboygan Wisconsin the farmers said that the tornadoes follow certain paths most times. Now what causes these tornado alleys?

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: rickymouse

Where ye been lookin?

Magnetosphere & climate change

Weather patterns & solar magnetic link

Nat Geo

I forgot to address your last paragraph.

Cities were not "put in locations that didn't have tornadoes".. they were founded in locations that had access to water. No one, back in the day, had information that would tell them where the best locations were for avoiding tornadoes. Tornadoes have always hit cities as they do these days... not sure where you get the impression that they didn't used to hit cities and now they do.

Regarding the locality remark regarding tornadoes, it is the larger weather pattern that creates conditions amenable to the formation of tornadoes. Without the larger pattern, you do not get the conditions that favor the creation of tornadoes. So, in a large sense, climate and tornadoes go hand in hand. If the jet stream does not dip down south but stays north then there will be far, far fewer tornadoes. If it dips down in the spring (as we often see) then conditions will be ripe for tornadoes in the mid and southern US.

Nothing to do with fracking and mining.

edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

science.nasa.gov... Notice that not all of the magnetic lines come from the two poles. Here is another one. en.wikipedia.org... In any magnet, there are lines of force exiting the sides. Now the earth has a varying crust so some areas buffer the field while others allow the field to flow through better. Altering this can cause differences in the way the magnetic field steers storms.

The magnetic declination is changing rapidly in some areas. They say this is because of a possible upcoming pole reversal. I do not agree that this reversal is natural at this time, I think we are altering it. Changes in declination can steer weather patterns if they get messed up. A natural contributor to this is a volcano. I think that anytime we alter the conductivity of the energy flow through the crust we cause changes in local weather. The big iron mine here effects the weather. That is understood pretty well in science, but it is more on a local basis. Now fracking is fracturing rock all over the place, this I think could effect tracking of fronts from their normal locations before. This could influence changing weather patterns and storms. It would be nice to see this hypothesis researched but no one in their right mind would.

So you say because there has not been any testing YET on this that is published that the possibility does not exist even though there is a good financial reason not to test it.

You are very well conditioned, you are probably highly educated.

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, the lines are not constant, there are anomalies. The anomalies are normally iron deposits, or areas with ferro-magnetic minerals in higher than normal concentrations. If you remove the anomalies (mining of iron ore) you will, in effect, heal the anomaly somewhat. There are also anomalies that are associated with the dynamo effect that generates the field.

The magnetic declination is a result of the tilting of the molten core relative to the spin of the earth. This is influenced heavily by the magnetic field of the sun.

If you think, for one moment, that man can compete with the effects of the sun, then I will cease this discussion from my end right now. There will be little point in continuing. The magnitudes of energies involved dwarf the sum total of energy man has produced since the beginning of the Industrial Age. We are less than a piss ant compared to the sun in terms of effects. Man has zero effect on the earth's magnetic field. Is this some attempt to blame man for every possible ill that could come from natural disasters? Perhaps man will be responsible when an asteroid or comet comes knockin'.

Your last paragraph (sentence) seems to suggest that education is bad, ignorance is good. Great. I will not comment on that one bit since I would prefer to maintain my posting privileges here.


edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

Education steers our perception to consensus of the time. Right now mining and oil and gas acquisition are very important to mankind so that means that we teach what is important to us.

Now, the interior of the earth is very hot, it's temperature is thought to be about the temperature of the surface of the sun. Not the corona, the surface. I read that somewhere. This heat is relative to existance here on earth, although not a major player, it does buffer things.

Also, earths magnetic field is just as relative to existence here on earth as the suns magnetic field. So is the interaction and orbit of our moon. Now the orbit of the moon, another big player is not around our equator, why is this. If the only thing important was the north and south pole, it would be centered around the equator. There are many forces at play, not just the major ones most people think of. I cannot find why the moons orbit is as it is, it seems there are a few theories but they are inconclusive at this time. Of course we can say these theories are correct and teach that the theories are real, but that is not really science. So finding exact information on this is also kind of difficult, specialists do not seem to want to go into uncharted territories because we haven't yet found the answer to this so they just say the moon orbits a certain way without sharing much on what they think causes it. Evidence will someday materialize as our equipment gets better, but it really is not worth spending billions on trying to figure out exactly what causes it. The money would be best spent on areas with a return on it, something that someone will pay for.

That is just an extra off topic example of our consensus of the time of what is important. A hundred years ago in the Copper Country there was a need for copper and the process of extraction was pretty bad on the environment. Now, according to consensus of the time, the earth would heal itself and nothing they could do would hurt anything permanently. So now, the superfund paid for some modifications to fix it, but they gave up because they barely made a dent in it. There is no real way to fix it. The taxpayer paid for our ancestors ignorance.

Now, I am not saying that fracking is causing the tornadoes to change their course for sure, I am just saying that it is possible that they are contributing to the change. I am saying there is little research being done on this idea, and I think it is possibly a player. I doubt if it could make a small tornado into a huge one, but it could possibly allow two fronts to switch direction a bit. There would also need to be more energy available, that is where climate change could supply this.

Here is something to consider, these storms have been increasing lately and this increase does just about line up with the major increase in fracking. Is that just a coincidence?

I came to ATS because I wanted to shed my box and look at everything. I don't want to be limited by what I am told is true and pertinent to things. Now I look for evidence, evidence made by science and the observations of people and evaluate that. I can think on my own, I do not have to parrot others. But in this case, I cannot find any published evidence discounting or proving my hypothesis, you would think someone would be looking at this, I have been surprised how much varied research about subjects I find on the net. Nothing about this though, nothing to say it is wrong...with evidence. If I were to believe your saying it has no effect without proper evidence, I should just go back to being a worker in a factory and toss out the knowledge I have gained over my lifetime.

edit on 10-8-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:36 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

I got my degree in geology back in '76. I have nothing to do with the oil industry.

I hear you, but there is a limit you can take that to. More to the point, Henry David Thoreau (a major influencer of my youth) pointed out that often experience limits creativity. That a craftsman of many years will always solve a problem using the same methodology, and will accomplish the task quicker than the apprentice. However the apprentice will be more likely to try something new. Often the new is not a better solution, or a quicker solution, but once in a blue moon the apprentice will come up with a creative solution that can advance the craft.

The problem as I see it, particularly here on ATS, is that people without a science background start spouting hypotheses (being generous) that have no basis in science or are quite opposite of science. When someone with enough experience and training points out the error of their thinking there is a disconnect and the inexperienced ... feels that the experienced is brainwashed and the true thinker is himself.

Do you, or can you understand how unlikely that may be?

I have no dogs in the oil industry. I have no training in that industry. My concern with fracking lies more in the structural integrity and stability in areas undergoing fracking. Mining has been going on for ..hundreds of years and there has not been one whit of indication that mining will affect weather that I am aware of.

Fracking, as a relatively new industry, is another story. Consider this: Part of fracking is the introduction of water into the substrata, so if anything, the conductivity would improve over stone.

If conductivity influenced tornadoes, then would we also not see some indication in states with iron deposits? It seems that we would see definite evidence in such cases...or over water, such as lakes or rivers. Yet physical contours of the land, high/low pressure areas and wind sheer have significant and noticeable affect on tornadoes that is documented. I will not say definitely that conductivity has zero affect, but the likelihood of such is very low.

If broken strata had an influence, would we not see some indication in areas that normally experience regular seismic activity?

edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-8-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 01:07 AM
a reply to: bbracken677

I would say that the areas with normal seismic activity have weather patterns naturally that are based on that activity. The constant rumbling of the earth structures the local weather patterns. Since the weather patterns and the quakes have always been there, we wouldn't make the relationship unless we thought of it then tested it.

So you are saying that the telluric currents naturally flowing through the earth's crust cannot effect the weather at all? I would think that they could influence the clouds to follow a certain path. Wouldn't fracking change these currents flowing through the crust?

I have seen clouds go on side of a high voltage power line and never cross it, dropping rain only on the north side of the lines. I saw this a couple of times when I was a kid, standing in the strawberry fields with my dad, wishing the rain would come on our side of the road. I don't think that was a coincidence. Now, the ground voltage is low but the capacitor effect of the crystals in the rock can be higher than that power line if they are charged from lightning strikes. So now, if you crack that capacitor, it changes the energy.

Each crystal is tied to the next in a rock matrix, the fracking breaks the bonds by increasing the energy that snaps the bond and the energy acquired from the snapping bond causes the fracture to keep going. Sort of like the energy of an axe snapping the bonds between the fibers of the wood when you chop wood. When chopping wood, the snapping bonds actually supply extra energy to break the block apart. More energy is used to split the wood than we actually supply....if you do it properly.

I don't know that much about geology, I know more about how energy flows through things because that interests me more than identifying types of rocks. I am more interested in the crystalline structure of a rock than the rock itself. I spent hours watching representations of the way that crystals and metals vibrate to try to understand this, yes, there is a site on the net that does show this vibration. www.webmineral.com... I think this is it, but I am not sure, I am using windows 2000 and it won't load the animation applet.

I am not saying you don't know what you are doing, I am saying that you are doing what you have been taught to do. To look at things with focus. Now when you look at things too many ways, you don't get much done, you spin your wheels. We are taught to focus on what we are supposed to focus on, if you can't do that properly then they say you have attention deficit disorder. Most times, especially when driving, concentrating on what you are supposed to be watching is essential. If you are paid to look for mineral deposits, you are supposed to be doing that at work. I was an employer for many years, I expected my guys to concentrate on their jobs to finish the work in a proper and timely manner.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in