More Truth on Tornadoes

December 6, 2013

The other day I posted the crushing rebuttal from 5  for-realsies storm experts to the hapless pretend climate expert Richard Muller, who wrote in the fast-becoming-equally-hapless New York Times that “Tornadoes are getting weaker” due to climate change.

The major point being that due to changes in the way tornadoes are rated and recorded, there is no way to make such a claim about them, stronger or weaker. There is, however, an emerging body or research that tends to support the general strengthening of convective thunderstorms in a warming world.

Now one of those authors has co-written a letter to the same NYTimes.


Prof. Richard A. Muller (“The Truth About Tornadoes,” Op-Ed, Nov. 21) writes that “strong to violent tornadoes have actually beendecreasing for the past 58 years, and it is possible that the explanation lies with global warming.” However, a primary reason that the intensity of tornadoes has appeared to decline is that reporting has not been consistent over the period spanned by tornado records.

It is well known in the meteorological community that tornado intensities were overrated in the 1950s to 1970s and underrated in the last decade. For example, research-grade Doppler radars measured winds over 280 miles per hour, rated EF5 on the enhanced Fujita scale, in last May’s monstrous Oklahoma tornado that Professor Muller refers to. However, the official National Weather Service rating, which ignores the radar observations in favor of damage indicators, is EF3 (136 to 165 m.p.h.).

Because of the inconsistency in the records, it is not known what effect global warming is having on tornado intensity.

State College, Pa., Nov. 26, 2013

Dr. Markowski is a professor of meteorology at Penn State University. Dr. Brooks is a senior research scientist at the National Severe Storms Laboratory.

40 Responses to “More Truth on Tornadoes”

    • stephengn1 Says:

      What is the source of the graph that the unknown video poster pans out to?

      I will now wait in vain for an answer

      • kingdube Says:

        It’s the Holocene record. Google it.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          It’s obvious that it’s the Holocene, King Dupe, the “present interglacial” I mentioned. We can figure that out by looking at the time scale (on the X axis?—that’s the one across the bottom? Duh!)

          I think the question was really about the SOURCE of the graph, not the data itself. I too was wondering—-where did you get such a pile of horsepucky?

        • stephengn1 Says:

          It’s really very simple. Graphs are made from data points. Data points come from studies. Scientists reference studies using citations. So I ask again – please cite the study of the Greenland ice sheet during the Holocene that this graph came from.

          If you can’t do this, how do you know it’s accurate representation? After all, ANYONE can fabricate a graph. Anyone can create anonymous video and SAY that it represents data.

          Verification is required here. Why is this difficult for you?

    • ubrew12 Says:

      So, you took two different graphs
      one of the Greenland Dome proxy temperature throughout the Holocene (8000BC to 1900AD)
      and one of the modern GLOBAL surface temperature record since 1970
      and spliced them together, pretending they measure the same thing.

      And your purpose in all this? Are you trying to figure out if any of us can read? Specifically the words ‘GREENLAND DOME’ under your Holocene graph?

      Here is what it looks like if you compare Apples to Apples over the last 11,000 years:

      Since I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic, I’ll let it go at that.

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    An aside—-king-DUH has set a new record for the length of a URL.

    king-DUH has also given us a piece that nicely cherry-picks a time interval that shows what has happened during the present interglacial. Anyone who is interested in trying to understand “ALL” might want to look back over a much longer time span Factor in sea level rise with CO2 and temperature also for a rather “different” look.

  2. kingdube Says:

    You mean the longer time span that consistently shows an 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature? The longer time frame that makes repeatedly clear that the thermal modulations of the oceans entirely dominate atmospheric co2? The longer time frame that reveals radically great naturally occurring thermal swings that entirely dwarf what alarmists think we should fear today?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      NO, kingdube/King Dupe/King DUH/King DUMB/All of the above. I did not mean that particular piece of denialist horsepucky. Which, by the way has been discussed, explained, and dismissed long ago. Perhaps as long ago as Climategate—-why don’t you bring that up again to distract us?—-tell us how some evil scientists who believe in AGW lied to the world.

    • stephengn1 Says:

      One already debunked talking point not working for you? Move to another already debunked talking point. Repeat as necessary.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      the “600 year lag”? really?

      actually, there is more info now, and I have to update this video yet again.
      bottom line, 600 year lag is not just nonsense, it’s way outdated nonsense. The chic , state of the art deniers don’t even use that one any more.
      mostly because they had the good sense to watch my video.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Are you implying that King Dumb lacks “good sense”?

        • kingdube Says:

          You listen to a warmist explain that the skeptics are fearmongering when they say it just fine and natural. Even as he is explaining we’ll all go to hell if we don’t change our ways. That’s rich!!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Help! Can anyone here interpret this for me? I’m just a dumboldguy and haven’t the slightest idea what King Dupe is talking about.

            Is a “warmist” someone whose porridge is too hot? (as opposed to a “coldist”, whose porridge is too cold, or a “just rightist” whose porridge is at the optimum temperature for ingestion and gustatory enjoyment?).

          • stephengn1 Says:

            Yep – can’t make heads or tails of Kingdube’s paragraph. I know it’s meaningless in English. Does anyone here speak Stupidese?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            so no response to the video. change the topic.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’ll respond to the video. It’s one of your best efforts. Jam packed with info, excellent selection of video clips, well-edited, and it’s got SKRITCH and his acorn! Thanks for reposting it.

      • fortranprog Says:

        Video well appreciated and understood by me, the complexities of the Milankovitch cycle crisply explained. Thanks I appreciate gaining knowledge from your respected sources.

    • skeptictmac57 Says:

      Gotta love the ‘oldies’ !
      I think I only have that one on vinyl. Really takes me back.
      Thanks Duby Duby Du !!!

  3. kingdube Says:

    Just follow the money!! UN / IPCC money in particular.

    • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

      The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments. Its secretariat is hosted by the WMO, in Geneva.

      The fossil fuel industry’s turnover is over a *million* times more than the IPCCs.

      So yes, follow the money and it leads to the boardrooms of those for whom trying to reign in our emissions represents a small drop in profits.

      • kingdube Says:

        You mean those evil fossil fuel companies who have consistently provided ever less expensive energy (for over one hundred years) so as to lift billions of humanity out of poverty. The ones now doing the same dastardly deed in China. The ones who provided the required energy to create a society where people interact in real-time on the internet. Those evil bastards?

        • fortranprog Says:

          Kingdube – I’ve seen no one here define fossil fuel companies as evil or dispute the benefits they have brought to mankind (only you), some of the more enlightened fossil fuel companies are recognizing AGW and doing something about it. see link

          I do not understand how you can continually ignore the majority of our respected climate scientists views and advise. I suspect you do not feel as strongly against other scientific fields some of which are much more theoretical, how do you feel about Stephen Hawking for instance ?, he also supports the climate science views and urges action.

        • Andy Lee Robinson Says:

          They’ve done their job, now they are threatening the biosphere and need to move over.
          It is the West that has driven China to do the same ‘dastardly deed’ because they could take advantage of low wages and lax environmental laws.
          Now the West almost went bankrupt in their greed while a few industrialists got rich.
          China has all your money. They took your rope and will hang you with it.
          They are spending 475 Billion dollars on cleaning up their energy sector by 2015, and they’ll clean up in the renewable energy sector and further rub your noses in it unless you can get off your dinosaur technology.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          WHOA! King DUH is over the rhetorical top with this one! He must be working on his PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper) at the same school as that sea level guy.

          Yes, I think he does mean those “evil fossil fuel companies” who have consistently provided energy whose costs have been socialized while the profits have been privatized. The “cost” of fossil fuels may be the death of the biosphere, and that’s not “cheap”. And “for over one hundred years”? As in since 1900 or thereabouts? Or are you talking about oil and ignoring the age of coal that preceded it?

          “….lift billions of humanity out of poverty”?. WOW! Which billions and how far out of poverty were they “lifted”? And that happened only because of the fossil fuel companies?

        • You mean my gasoline price is lower? Did you seton driving in 1963 or something?

    • Why don’t you show us?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      “follow the money”
      because Exxon has no money.

  4. kingdube Says:

    Do you know what the UN is pushing for. They want the developed countries of the world to cough-up $2Trillion per year (that’s 2,000 Billion dollars) that the UN will smartly spend to “save the planet”.

    Just where can we send our checks today??

  5. Googled development aid and you get that irrespective of GW, the UN proposed 0.7% of gross national income as aid to developing countries. No nation met that goal and the total of all nations was 120 billion sounds like a lot, but it is a tiny fraction of their wealth. So the amount proposed by the UN for GW is a drop in the bucket. How much have the rich nations funded the UN GW proposal? Very little. Embarrassingly little. Let me know when they actually do what they say and actually spend some money, then you can have your little walrus and the carpenter walk, and wail about how much money rich people waste on poor countries.

  6. […] Avrebbe dovuto dar retta a entrambi il fisico Richard Muller, tanto amato dai deniers quando diffamava Michael Mann e non aveva ancora pubblicato una rianalisi della temperatura globale identica alle altre, sebbene forse finanziata anche dai fratelli BigOil Koch. Invece sul New York Times, Muller ha proclamato ”La verità sui tornado“. In sintesi, la loro intensità diminuisce da 58 anni, dev’essere merito del risc. glob. Alcuni esperti hanno fatto notare ai lettori che nessuno può saperlo perché in quel periodo è cambiato il monitoraggio e perché dipende da che cosa si misura. (h/t Climatecrocks) […]

  7. Oh yes, about tornados. Muller is a publicity seeking opportunist with no climate credentials or expertise. Perfect example of how to make a donkey out of yourself by assuming having no respect the subject matter. Kind of like assuming you can build a bridge because you play with leggos. It’s unprofessional. Since he is not a member of the climatology profession, he cannot get kicked out of it. Kind of like Lomborg, except his behavior came under a blanket jurisdiction.

  8. I fell like the blind man in Young Frankenstein. Where did doobious go? Was the error of exaggerating the claim of GW attenuation costs by more than 20x too much booby for doobiie?
    Wait. Where are you going. I was gonna make espresso.

  9. With a more persistent and stronger La Niña ‘s as well as a more serpentine jetstream with more blocking patterns you should expect a more hot and cold (on/off) tornado season. I find it interesting in his kinetic energy plot that in the last few years seems to suggest some relationship to the above pattern. It will be interesting how future studies on this topic will go. Anyway still a good presentation.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: