Could global warming be behind the havoc?
The extraordinary Joplin twister –the single deadliest tornado since U.S. officials began keeping records in 1950 — was a rare destructive phenomenon known as a “multi-vortex,” hiding two or more cyclones within the wider wind funnel.
Added to the record 875 tornadoes that tore across the U.S. in April, this latest disaster has experts asking why 2011 has spawned so many deadly storms. While researchers suss out the causes for this year’s record-breaking season, one thing is certain: Unusually big twisters are blasting through heavily populated areas.
“We have had more F4s and F5s than in past years,” said Jack Hayes, director of the National Weather Service, referring to the two most destructive categories of tornadoes. And instead of touching down in farms and fields, storms have hit cities like Joplin and Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Can there be any doubt that violent tornadoes are trending upwards?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
Can there be any doubt that the violent weather is due to warm temperatures caused by global warming? The warm air (predicted in climate models) holds more water vapour. Actual air temperatures are not important.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png
Clearly we need a supercomputer to solve this very difficult question.
This is one of the best shots of a multi-votex I’ve seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQDkmziz1n8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Hm… the tornado frequency graph ended six years ago.
It goes though 2007…………
Ah, right. Thanks.
The most important thing in a 40 year warming trend is what happened the last three weeks – when the weather was near record cold.
Exactly, weather is what is actually REAL, it is what happens; whereas (what is typically meant by) climate is abstract mathematics (averages, other stats equations, manipulations, …) and NOT REAL at all, as such climate never “happens”, that is what weather is for!!!
So it’s a funny game that climate scientists play, are they predicting future “climate” or future “weather”?
If they are predicting future “weather” how are they any different than weather forecasters other than getting it so wrong all the time?
If they are predicting future “climate” then they are really predicting something that isn’t real and never will be since climate is ONLY a mathematical abstraction over time.
Not only that they would need to specify the period of time their “prediction” is going to cover since “climate” (as is typically used) is a mathematical average over time so it always has this time component.
Somehow that time component gets lost when they talk about climate… somehow they leave out all the important details.
So if they are not predicting the long term weather then who cares? If all they are predicting is some mathematical abstraction then who cares for it’s academic not realistic?
“Unusually big twisters are blasting through heavily populated areas.”
Not a nice way to refer to Gore and co.
Trust A K Haart to remind us this is a political vendetta against Gore, unrelated to science.
NOAA is currently “Unrelated” to science and is a political agenda.
Seeing how Tornadoes are God’s answer to Trailer Parks we can now add that F4 and F5 are God’s suggestion to proceed with Urban Renewal!
People in those cities forgot to wear their “Tin Hats” and their fear of strong winds attracted the tornadoes.
Although Hansen and Company can create a “40” year warming trend in the real world there was no such thing as a statistically significant “Warming Trend” for the last 40 years.
Assuming there are weather cycles, a spike in tornado activity has been long overdue. Between 1974 and 2007, tornado activity was declining as CO2 was increasing. No one was trying to credit CO2 for that, but the alarmists were certainly ready to hop on board the minute things turned around.
Especially during the cooling trend!