My hope is to start a thread that is not political, partisan, hand grenade tossing. I recalled this from a few years back and the latest devastating storms brought it back to the front of my memory. Previous climate model studies have shown that heavy rainstorms will be more common in a warmer climate, but few global models have attempted to simulate the strength of updrafts in these storms. The model developed at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies by researchers Tony Del Genio, Mao-Sung Yao, and Jeff Jonas is the first to successfully simulate the observed difference in strength between land and ocean storms and is the first to estimate how the strength will change in a warming climate, including "severe thunderstorms" that also occur with significant wind shear and produce damaging winds at the ground. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070830105911.htm Is it possible that more powerful hurricanes like Katrina and the power of the storms battering the south and midwest are just luck of the draw and a bad season? Perhaps. But I think its time we all try to take politics out of this and look at the effects of a warmer planet (and the causes). Natural forces lead to warming. Fine. Man contributes. It's hard to argue that we do not even if you want to argue the degree. But either way, what do we do? Is it time to start building differently to account for potentially worse weather? Are there 100 year flood plains that are flooding every couple of years now that should be off limits to future building?
While I don't entirely know the science or how the current trends compare historically, I'd be surprised if global warming weren't contributing to the frequency and the magnitude of these hurricanes/tornadoes/floods (and don't forget the snowstorms in the Northeast this past winter). And my understanding is that global warming is linked to seismic activity as well (see: New Zealand, Iceland, Japan).
I'm thinking seasonal weather patterns and oceanic current patterns like El Nino and La Nina and the strength of those contributes more to yearly variations in weather patterns than climate change. climate is by definition historic and long term. weather phenomena like storms and hurricanes are short term.
Well, first there may be limits to how you can build differently. On the same website as your initial article is another story saying that while you can build homes better to withstand less powerful wind and weaker tornadoes, there isn't much you can practically do against a E5 type tornado. So, while the general issue of trying to adapt is worthwhile to talk about, we might find that in some specific situations it is very difficult to avoid or mitigate damage and loss. Second, my understanding is that there isn't firm consensus on whether global warming actually will cause more severe tornadoes, hurricanes and other destructive storms. It is something we need to study and monitor, but even setting aside the question about whether we could build differently, I'm not sure there is sufficient evidence to support wholesale changes to building codes to try to prepare for future disasters. Obviously, we should always be looking for better ways to survive tornadoes anyway, even if there wasn't climate change.
I was reading about the Joplin tornado and someone said that there haven't been more tornadoes this year, they've just hit more populated areas. Before the twister in Kansas last Saturday it was the first one for the month of May for the state of Kansas. Interestingly enough, just as I posted this, I jumped on Yahoo and found this article on the front page. It is Yahoo, so grain of salt probably needed: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...nce/thesciencebehindthisterribletornadoseason By the way, I live an hour from Joplin and have been there many times. I haven't been up there yet to help, but hope to get a chance to do so soon (they're still mainly looking for medically licensed personnel at this point.) I don't even recognize the town--there are no discernible land marks in that area. It hit the busiest retail area, and one of the largest high schools in the state of Missouri. While Joplin has 50,000 people, it probably services 150,000 easy on a daily basis. I had two former students that are married to each other that are students at MSSU lose their home. Fortunately, they've had a steady supply of donations--water and non perishables were stacked 10 feet high. The shelters haven't even been that busy as people have been taken in by other people. The massive loss of life combined with the economic impact will affect this area for years.
Interesting article, which certainly supports the idea that climate is a factor but only one factor in all of this. What I have been struck by (after growing up in Kansas) is the number of E4 and 5 tornadoes. I seem to recall those being a once a year, if that, event. Anyway, I think it is a reasonable assumption based on the NASA science that a warming climate will increase the power of storms. We can disagree in other places about why. As to Wallace' point, I understand that there is only so much you can do in building against the type of powerful storms we have seen, but perhaps its time to re-evaluate the way we build homes. Perhaps for energy purposes and security, we start building down? Just a thought. And certainly based on the flooding we have had over the last decade, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate building in some flood zones we once thought were 100 year or greater zones.
over time climate change will impact weather. my point is that you cannot chalk short term weather variations to climate change.
Of course, but if there's a dramatic spike in the frequency and strength of storm systems, then would it not make sense to consider the rate of climate change as a contributing factor?
or maybe there are more people running around, chasing tornados with wind measuring equipment. previously the wind speeds were just estimates based on the level of damage left behind.
These type of things can come and go. An E5 tornado is very rare, Kansas has had the most. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/?n=toptenkstors E4 tornadoes are more common. In this 1913 storm in Nebraska there were 4 of them close together. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/oax/archive/1913_Omaha_Tor/topten.php Check out this 1974 outbreak where there were 6 E5 tornadoes and 148 total tornadoes in one day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Outbreak
here is one article that would seem to support the number of powerful hurricanes on the rise - and their correlation (not necessarily causation) with global warming.
Tornado records are a pretty poor tool for finding trends. Not only has the scale changed (EF5 is > 200 mph wind speed vs. F5 261-318, and F4s and F3s also got into the > 200 mph range), but the point about only recently being able to reliably measure SOME of the tornadoes directly or by advanced doppler (vs. the old estimate method, which is still used in the final analysis) is very important. So is the point about population densities and distribution and the proliferation of storm chasers with better technology. Hell, the media is absolutely in love with tornadoes to the point you hear about EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. on the ubiquitous Weather Channel. And not to put too fine a point on it, but improvements in radar technology indicate tornadoes where perhaps no one would have noticed 30 (or even 10) years ago. There are a TON more EF0s reported largely because of this. In fact, I'm not totally sure the F0 existed until fairly recently. Hell, the Fujita scale is really only a proxy for damage in either the classic or "enhanced" version. It's not meant to be a measure of speeds or power. While this has been a big time year with an outbreak that finally approached 1974s Super Outbreak, this isn't unusual for a La Nina year to have such a busy April and May. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the '74 outbreak had more than an insignificant number of unreported touchdowns that would have been caught by today's technology. Keep in mind that we've had below average years and below average springs in the last few years, just as we've had above average years and springs recently.
Unfortunately, certain groups have turned a massive body of science into a political issue. Check out this report about the floods in 2000 in the UK: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html
something else to consider with tornados is that the conditions (both climatic and geographic) that spawn tornados are very limited, and only exist in a few places on earth. a lot of things have to line up just perfectly for tornados to develop. a thunderstorm may be very intense, but if one of those ingredients is missing, a tornado will not develop. so it's hard to isolate just one thing - like global warming, as the cause of increased tornado activity or heightened intensity.
Well, the hypothesis is reasonable and there are some studies supporting that conclusion, but as the scientist in the article emphasizes- So, I don't think the strength of these types of preliminary studies and modeling should be overstated. There is still much for us to learn on the subject.
I'd say a conclusion that has a 25% chance of being proven wrong is a hastily-drawn one. Them's some crappy odds, to be honest.
One of four = 25%. Were they to draw a conclusion based on one of their four models being different from the other three, they'd be making a hasty conclusion.
having re-read that, what I meant to say was that the conditions are very limiting, not limited. many conditions have to line up perfectly to produce a tornado, which limits the number of tornados that can develop and where they can develop.