Further Update:
Turns out I was hoping for too much. Brad Johnson found at least three scientists eager to be quoted in his follow up article: Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt. The quotes from these top scientists are worth going over there and reading. No additional comments are warranted.
Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’
Update by Ryan Maue:
Under the title of “Tornado and global warming“, Brad Johnson disgustingly uses quotes by Dr. Kevin Trenberth, and grotesquely blames the recent tornado outbreak on (GOP) congressional delegations in states that opposed climate legislation. I hope no scientist wants anything like this said on their behalf.
Update by Anthony:
4:45PM PST I have an updated article on this issue here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/29/the-folly-of-linking-tornado-outbreaks-to-climate-change/
9:30AM PST:
I was writing simultaneously with Ryan Maue and I couldn’t even come up with a title I was so disgusted. So I made the title “No title”. I’ve combined the articles. This is what I wrote:
This post has no title because the closest title I can think of is of the caliber of [expletive deleted]. The Center for American Progress and NCAR’s Dr. Keneth Trenbert invoke the thought of famous line from Joseph N. Welch “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
I wonder how long they had to search for this particular (uncredited) photograph, choosing the juxapostion of the Chevron sign with the tornado. For all I know, it may even be photoshopped. (update: After about 30 minutes of searching, I found the original here http://yfrog.com/h232uwjij )
To say I’m disgusted, simply does not do justice to the feelings I have about this. The real test will be to see if CAP paid disinformer Joe Romm reposts this article from Brad Johnson on Climate Progress.
Here’s the proof that refutes the issue, and pigeonholes these clowns for what they are, which is nothing about science, but about hateful political cheapshots.
From the National Climatic Data center. Tornadoes of the intensity seen in Alabama this week (F3-F5) on the Fujita scale:
Source: National Climatic Data Center http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
They New York Times got into the act too. CCM Mike Smith of Meteorological Musings writes:
Leave it to the NY Times to Write an Inaccurate and Insensitive Article
I had planned on moving on to other topics today. There is little more to say about the tornadoes of the last three weeks until the investigations are completed. As I was going through my email this morning, a reader sent me a link to this article inThe New York Times:
Predicting Tornadoes: It’s Still Guessing Game
Compared to the slime job by the Center for American Progress, it’s tame.
I urge readers to read this article below from Physorg and to use it and the graph above to refute comments in online forums.
“…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes”
Update: The graph that Joe Romm and Brad Johnson don’t want you to see: tornado deaths per million over the last century
Source: NOAA’s US Severe Weather Blog, SPC, Norman Oklahoma
http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-tolls-1875-present/
Peter Kovachev says:
April 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Curiousgeorge says: “Not all Southerners are religious. I’m not and I reside in MS. But we do like our guns, and we know how to use them. 😉 We also like our freedoms, and we know how to use those also.” (April 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm )
Goodness, I hope you don’t think that I buy into that; it’s what many of the commenters on the Think Progress appear to assume automatically. Odd, how the lefties, who always claim the moral high ground on everything there is, repeatedly reveal themselves as angry, spiteful, prejudiced and violent. I sure hope they don’t ever get comfortable with guns and ammo, because I’ll doubt they’ll use them in defense of freedoms.
Not at all. I understood what you said and agree with you. 🙂 I apologize for any confusion.
Is it a benefit of climate change as well, that there have been no tornados in the other 45 states ?
Smokey says:
April 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm
James Sexton,
I was going by memory regarding gasoline prices when Obama took office. I paid $1.87/gal that day. Thanks for the chart. I see that the lowest price was at his inaguration.
All Obama has to do to drive gas prices back down to that level again is to lift the drilling moratorium he imposed upon being sworn in as president.
But Obama can’t do that, because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the enviro-lobby. So everyone suffers, and the poorest suffer the most.
===================================================
Agreed, but, as you probably know, its getting worse. I don’t know how far down he’s going to let this nation’s economy slip. And mind you, while I agree that he could do some very simple things to help, he’s not the only responsible party to this mess we’re in.
For anyone that hasn’t figured this tricky economics thingy out yet, in order to right the ship, we need, cheap energy, cheap fuel, and less interfering regulations, and we need to start making things in the U.S. again. Something of intrinsic value.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/75000-Applied-for-2000-Available-McJobs–120952429.html?dr
Admin, I submitted a good comment relative to the oil discussion. It was a bit link heavy and is probably stuck in the spam filter.
REPLY: Don’t see it – could be a posting failure – Anthony
From the Southeast Missourian:
Well… not if they insist on ignoring new theories, such as a new one on water vapors influence in relation to tornadoes, hurricanes and the overall global pressure system such as one by Dr. Anastasia Marakieva et al.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/02/new-atmospheric-model-says-tail-wags-dog/
Take it from a sailplane pilot, get up there and play with those cute little cumulus clouds that sometimes become monsters. You will recognize the her idea, you will have felt it in the moisture.
It is not merely the heat that causes those events, heat has it’s role, but it is H2O vapor. Tornadoes are implosions, not explosions of heat and it is water vapor that drives them to fury.
Let’s see if I can paint it… the warm air rising is what creates the mild and slow ascent of air. That is the ‘engines’ of a sailplane. Also you have the relative humidity rising as you get carried higher and higher toward the cloud base. At the cloud base you hit 100% relative and condensation starts to occur and that causes conversion of 1000 units of water vapor to 1 unit of water in tiny droplet form intensifying the rise, and your variometer (measures rate of ascent/descent) clearly shows that as it pegs upward. Latent heat is being created but the drop in pressure (very local) is compensating this volume decrease.
Now, take a tornado. The same scenario is occurring as you stand on the ground looking upward at the wall cloud. The slight lowering of the wall cloud is that 100% relative humidity level. But thinks get out of control just ABOVE the wall cloud. You will see a very distinct violent mixing of the frigid upper layer aid being stirred in with the warm totally saturated air just below. This is where the violent implosion occurs and it is that 1) violent mixing of temperatures with the 2) total saturation that causes the violence right there.
A 1 volume of cold air and 1 volume of hot air when suddenly mixed will have a volume of 2. BUT, a 1 volume of cold air and a 1 volume of 100% saturated warm air suddenly and thoroughly mixed volumes will have a much lower volume as the condensation occurs immediately. BAM! The sudden implosion.
That is why very frigid upper air is dangerous if lots of moisture is around. That is here paper with the equations.
As long as enough warm to hot already near saturated air can flow into this event from below this mixing and volume implosion will continue. Walla, a tornado. On a bigger scale, a hurricane. On an ever bigger scale (but here slow and mild) ocean/continental systems. Some may be heat only but it doesn’t then make sense to me anyway.
Can not anyone see that?
I didn’t know that some Alarmists were “on a mission from God”.
Now have the Church of GAIA due to the implication that States that have -denier- lawmakers are being punished for thier eco-sins.
To that implication I say: The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.
I have an updated article on this issue here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/29/the-folly-of-linking-tornado-outbreaks-to-climate-change/
Dennis Cox,
Submitted to Urban Dictionary this morning:
climate pollution– The number of references to global warming, climate change, or greenhouse gases made on the internet or in other media.
e.g., During the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, the increase in climate pollution was at an all time high.
tags: climate noise, noise pollution, disinformation, signal-to-noise ratio, propaganda
Re-submission:
Commodities will come down when we have the prospect of a good solid recovery. That will happen when the US has a solid, aggressive energy policy.
We need to stop tilting at windmills (they are not economical and only profitable for manufacturer/sellers).
We need to drill the Gulf, the coasts, ANWAR, and the Arctic. And, build some fracking distribution infrastructure.
Concerns about the arctic are silly. Likely, there is more natural gas than oil there. Horizon like spill worries will soon prove to be unfounded. The oil may be heavier and the temps reduce evaporation, but the gulf spill proved dispersants. The bacteria that process oil are most efficient in cool waters and high pressures. Even if the temps are too low for the gulf bacteria, certainly the arctic has its own share of seepage. It must have bacteria suited for its environment, otherwise there’d be a bunch of oil just below the ice.
The argument that we shouldn’t drill because we don’t have enough oil to reduce prices is a pitiful strawman. So what? That’s a good thing. Every barrel we produce increases GDP by the price, it also increases GDP a second time by reducing imports by the price. This is all before even considering multiplier effects.
In the meantime, while we are waiting for US production to come online, we should institute a carbon tax in the form of a tax on long positions in Oil. A tax rate which increases with the purchase price, and ends in 2-3 years (when US production begins coming online). There is a natural bias against the short side of commodity futures. A small tax would help balance things out. We need more down-side speculation. Of course, all the revenue should go to transportation or energy distribution infrastructure.
Also, don’t underestimate the signaling power of an aggressive US energy policy.
When we hoard, how can we expect less of other producers. If we stop hoarding and announce that we must take advantage of our resources before alternatives collapse the price, the rise in other producers’ capacity and efficiency may well be fantastic.
All I can say, besides expressing my sympathies to the families who lost love ones and property – everything – to a natural disaster, is that NOTHING surprises me any more about the climate elites. The utter disdain and contempt they show for their fellow citizens by trying to link a natural disaster to climate change is beyond my comprehension…they can’t even wait until the people who suffered horribly have had time to grieve…
Given the historical record, and given that we know that CO2 causes everything, obviously CO2 reduces deaths from tornados. Look at the evidence!
Best,
Frank
Luboš, Gavin said no such thing. You should really apologize for your statement.
James Sexton says:
April 29, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Smokey says:
April 29, 2011 at 3:37 pm
James Sexton,
I was going by memory regarding gasoline prices when Obama took office. I paid $1.87/gal that day. Thanks for the chart. I see that the lowest price was at his inaguration.
All Obama has to do to drive gas prices back down to that level again is to lift the drilling moratorium he imposed upon being sworn in as president.
But Obama can’t do that, because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the enviro-lobby. So everyone suffers, and the poorest suffer the most.
===================================================
“Agreed, but, as you probably know, its getting worse. I don’t know how far down he’s going to let this nation’s economy slip. And mind you, while I agree that he could do some very simple things to help, he’s not the only responsible party to this mess we’re in.
For anyone that hasn’t figured this tricky economics thingy out yet, in order to right the ship, we need, cheap energy, cheap fuel, and less interfering regulations, and we need to start making things in the U.S. again. Something of intrinsic value.”
You’re right, Obama is not the only responsible party. There are others involved. But if they were to do the things you recommend they would be sabotaging their own agenda. Which is, as Obama eloquently described during the campaign, to “fundamentally change” America. Why would they wish to sabotage their own plan, when it is working so well for them? Disruption, confusion, economic hardship, civil unrest, etc. all work to their advantage.
One thing that always bugged me was: why do oil companies have to increase the price of gas when the oil price goes up? It’s not as if they have to pay more for it. It comes out of the ground basically for free.
Wow. Just when you think the alarmists have hit bottom, someone grabs a shovel.
Sorry, Sir, but your figures seem to end five years ago. Am I wrong?
From Ryan Maue on April 29, 2011 at 11:07 am:
He had some extra time in his schedule. I saw on the news earlier that the Obama’s had flown down to watch the space shuttle Endeavor’s launch, which was scrubbed. (Story.) It wasn’t a total loss as he got some camera time in with both commander Mark Kelly and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
With the launch scrubbed three hours before lift-off, Obama was able to get in almost two hours on the ground, driving around with his carbon pollution-spewing motorcade. Later he actually did some walking around on foot. (Story.)
No mention if he stopped off for some more fundraising during the jaunt, as he’s prone to do. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Wouldn’t surprise me if he was doing the fundraising in Alabama, while discussing building up his re-election campaign with the politicians he was meeting with to discuss the damage. Not one bit.
How long now before the acolytes of the Great and Powerful Goracle call for the only way to appease the Mother Gaia and calm her wrath, the ultimate sacrifice, on a platform high on a pyramid of stone, with an obsidian knife poised, ready to rip open the young chest, still the beating heart, and rid the world of the sinner’s vile CO2?
Don’t laugh. Are we that far away from the minds of our ancestors?
/Mr Lynn
I was just wondering–how does one “pollute a climate”?
Jimmy Haigh says:
April 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Well, Jimmy, if your premise that it’s all free, you should be able to go out in your back yard and just scoop up a tankful and pour it in your car. But let me give you a little perspective: I don’t know of a single drilling rig (land or sea-based) that can be leased for $0; I don’t know of a single redneck on a drilling rig that will work for free, either, and I don’t know of a single landowner (whether private or government) that doesn’t charge a significant royalty on oil extracted from their land. Add to that the simple fact that it isn’t the oil companies that set the price–like siver, gold, or any other commodity, it is generally traded on the open market, meaning there has to be a willing buyer and a willing seller, and in this situation multiple buyers are vying for the same oil, so the seller just sits there and watches the price go up in a bidding war. Why? Supply isn’t meeting demand. It’s that simple.
But to also answer your question about price coupling, if crude prices go up, the products derived from that crude also have to go up, otherwise there isn’t any margin to pay for the exploration, development, production, refining, transportation, and so forth so you have the gas (albeit rather expensive) to get to work. Or do you work for free or not at all?
I think I finally realize that “Galt” is my middle name.
François Marchand says:
April 29, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Sorry, Sir, but your figures seem to end five years ago. Am I wrong?
Seems like two to me, but would you personally call the “National Climatic Data Center” (NCDC) and ask them to update their graphics. The more that call, the better the chance they might release up-to-date data that has already been paid for by the United States citizens. Thank you, that sure would help, their multi-year lags irritate me too.
kadaka at 7:13 pm
Actually, he toured Alabama before the Shuttle launch was scrubbed. Then flew down to meet with the STS-134 crew afterward. He was scheduled to watch the launch.
He is a total fuck-up in my book EXCEPT for his FY2011 NASA Budget proposal. You know what they say about stopped clocks? On this he was right. Commercial Crew and Fuel Depots, using existing ELVs instead of building a huge new NASA rocket.
I may not know much about climate science, but HSF is my schtick.
Visit http://www.spacepolitics.com/
Jeff Foust is the Anthony Watts of Space Stuff…
Gasoline princes I paid at a few points:
2008 Dec 1: $1.699
2008 Dec 30: $1.529
2009 Jan 18: $1.699
2009 Feb 2: $1.819
2009 Mar 4: $1.719
2009 Apr 1: $1.939
2009 May 1: $1.979
2009 Jun 1: $2.459
2009 Jul 2: $2.529
2010 Jan 1: $2.599
I haven’t transcribed the receipts for this year yet. The last tankful was $3.839, but an attendant was changing the signage to $3.879 while I was getting the gas.
RockyRoad says:
April 29, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I am a geologist working in the oil industry.
Once a field comes on production, after a certain time paying for the costs of exploration etc., it’s all profit.
I base things on the cost of oil per barrel. My day rate now is about 10 barrels per day. When I started as a wellsite geologist, 8 years ago, my day rate was 30 barrels per day.