Comments on: Are all these tornadoes being caused by global warming?

By: Soufiane

Soufiane — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:33:22 +0000

Tornadic shots most often are rain-wrapped and gray. This is extraordinary and tenrfiyirg to me, reminiscent as it is of the fires we’re facing.There is such a thing as a fire-nado , and the similarities in sound between an out-of-control wildfire and a tornado are remarkable. Your image draws the comparison between two forces of nature beautifully.

By: Oliver Serum

Oliver Serum — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:44:47 +0000

How can cartoon penguins save us from global warming?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:02:43 +0000

My last picture is a histogram of monthly total number of daily high temperature and low temperature records set in the U.S. for June 2010 through June 9, 2011, data from NOAA.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:59:39 +0000

I think it’s important to note that cooling trend from 1998 is a local phenomenon, but not a global phenomenon, where there happens to be a cooling trend from 1998 to 2005 in one set of data, but it becomes a warming trend in all data looking at 1998 to 2007 or later. 1998 is chosen of course, because it was an outlier hot year. I note that with the US data that Les is using, while you still get local cooling trends, if you choose 1997 or 1999 as your starting year, you get much less severe cooling trends, and if you use a much wider data set, of course yet get an increase instead of a decrease.

I think what’s most telling about extreme whether in the US is this;

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yPpkRZg_Wdg/TfKGl13-RwI/AAAAAAAACOI/S3b047Gg1AM/s1600/temp.records.060911.jpg

By: Rocky H

Rocky H — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:33:14 +0000

I don’t mind your blog’s censorship, Greg. It’s the only way [DELETED]

And for your information, there is [DELETED]

If you believe there is evidence, per the scientific method, showing [DELETED]

There is no [DELETED] Therefore, CO2 is [DELETED]

Conclusion: [DELETED]

The [DELETED]

The previous post violated blog posting policy in several locations, but rather than deleting the entire post I thought people would like to see the gore. This is what happens when everything that is made up alarmist rhetoric is removed from an AGW denialist blog comment.

By: Gloria

Gloria — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:55:22 +0000

Hahahahah Rockey, you play a great banjo!

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:44:16 +0000

Rocky, increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the productivity of some plants a certain amount, then after that no increase is achieved. Conclusion, more is not beneficial. The link between CO2 and global warming is firmly established by real science. Conclusion: More is harmful.

You violated blog commenting policy by having a link to an AGW denialist site. In order for me to post your comment I had to change the link to point somewhere else. I hope you don’t mind.

By: Rocky H

Rocky H — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:31:39 +0000

There is no measurable, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing any global harm from CO2. None. And there is plenty of empirical (real world) evidence showing that more CO2 substantially increases agricultural productivity. Conclusion: CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More is better. Thus, the demonization of "carbon" by catastrophic AGW true believers is deconstructed by using verifiable facts, and easy to understand logic. Sorry about your scary conjecture. It's dead, Jim.

By: Greg laden

Greg laden — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:59:26 +0000

George, thanks for the advice on stats and models and stuff. I coulda used your help last time I taught the topic … Course, I’ve only done that at the grad level so far so what do I know.

Does it matter that nothing you’ve said relates to anything in this post? Prolly not …

By: george

george — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:45:01 +0000

I love the roundy roundy arguments based on a paucity of solid data that can barely be analyzed even with advanced statistics.

Greg, I believe you have mistaken models for statistics. Even the folks at Real Climate admit that climate models are hypotheses. A model is a mathematical construct that attempts mimic the reality underlying a dataset…. some radiation absorption, some re-radiation, some reflection, some atmospheric mixing, a bit of feedback…..From statistics 101- fitted curves are never valid for predicting outside the dataset. You might be able to fit a polynomial or an exponential to a data set, but unless you know what the underlying mechanism is there is no guarantee either will make a useful or valid prediction.

Just one question about tornadoes? I’m looking for a good place to build a retirement house. If I don’t want to get hit by a tornado which is a better choice- southern Oregon, southern Missouri or Wales? and why? The southcentral US isn’t nicknbamed Tornado Alley on a whim.