‘Sharknado’ creator: Epic fishy storm could actually happen

By Natalie O’Neill

From The NY Post July 28, 2017 | 8:24am | Updated July 28, 2017 | 2:53pm

untitled

Climate change bites!

A “Sharkicane” — a terrifying twist on the meteorological havoc wrought in the cult flick “Sharknado” — is more likely than ever to strike Earth, the movie’s creator jawed to The Post.

“Sharknado 5: Global Swarming” takes a campy dive into what might happen if climate change spiraled out of control — and features a raging hurricane-tornado that sucks up massive man-eaters and spits them out onto Rome, London and Amsterdam.

But as the planet heats up, wild weather patterns really do increase the chance of a fishy storm of biblical proportions, according to “Sharknado” originator Thunder Levin.

“We know that powerful enough tornadoes and hurricanes can lift large objects, including sharks if they’re passing over water,” said Levin, who wrote the screenplay for the original “Sharknado,” which aired on the Syfy channel to great finfare in 2013.

“As global warming gets worse, it adds more energy to the atmospheric system,” he said. “So it’s perfectly logical: A more powerful weather phenomenon makes [a Sharkicane] more likely.”

untitled2

Climate change deniers should sink their teeth into recent weather facts, urged Levin, who was even asked to speak about the topic at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago in March.

Not only is the planet being zapped with record-breaking heat, according to NASA, warming oceans have already pushed sharks closer to the shorelines in California and elsewhere — potentially setting the scene for a mini-Sharknado, Levin warned.

Not long ago, hundreds of fish really did fall from the sky in the northern Australia town of Lajamanu, where meteorologists said the freak 2010 storm was probably caused by a tornado that carried the sea creatures hundreds of miles, he continued.

“We need to stop global warming,” he urged. “The planet needs help.”

One expert agreed it’s a whale of a problem — that could increase the chances of end-of-days-style hurricanes.

“It’s a scientific fact that we are living in a warmer world. And it will continue to increase and accelerate as more carbon enters the atmosphere,” said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the California Institute of Technology.

“As the world’s oceans warm, some speculate hurricanes will be become more intense — larger and stronger — which would give them more lift for a Sharknado-type storm,” he explained.

He added: “It does feed into the [movie] script, even though the script is nonsense.”

Read the full article here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 29, 2017 10:08 am

Well, compared to Al Gore’s new movie, Sharknado is plausible science.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 29, 2017 12:02 pm

I just posted this on Friday re Sharknado. Coincidence? I think not! 🙂
As George Carlin said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/27/who-are-the-gop-warmists/comment-page-1/#comment-2564514
Steve wrote:
“Have you read the IPCC report, proved to almost 100% certainty. So their’s (sic) the case for the “warmists” (sic) where’s the report for non warmists?”.
Steve, work on your spelling and punctuation; then work on your reading and then on your thinking.
The IPCC reports and their highly “adjusted” Summaries for Policymakers (SPM’s) are adequately refuted by the NIPCC reports.
The IPCC reports are unfounded propaganda based on climate computer models that assume excessively high values of climate sensitivity to CO2, for which there is NO credible evidence and ample contrary evidence. The IPCC reports and especially the SPM’s are false global warming alarmist nonsense.
I must also break the news to you about several others illusions that you probably believe in:
Sharknado is not real – it is as imaginary as global warming alarmism – so is professional wrestling like WWF. Sorry to burst your bubble, which must be distressing for you and all the other imbeciles who believe in such fantasies.

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
July 31, 2017 12:25 am

WWF – the World Wildlife Federation – is false??? Oh my! /sarc

pameladragon
July 29, 2017 10:24 am

They just can’t stop, can they? The thing that worries me most is the possibility that some of their schemes to “manage” the climate will actually work. Unintended consequence could easily wipe out all life on Earth should this ever come about.
PMK

steve
Reply to  pameladragon
July 29, 2017 11:25 am

You’re right that the big climate schemes are generally a bad idea. Life is pretty robust. It will make it just fine I suspect. With that said, there may well be deleterious unintended consequences, particularly in the near term.

July 29, 2017 10:31 am

What chance is there this idiot, but master marketeer, has another movie due for release?
Or is that just too cynical?

Reply to  HotScot
July 29, 2017 6:25 pm

Sharknado 5 is due to air on SyFy next weekend.

Reply to  teapartygeezer
July 30, 2017 2:03 am

That figures.

ossqss
July 29, 2017 10:37 am

With a name like Thunder, you know he must be qualified to make such statements! DOH!

Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2017 11:10 am

I predict a monkeynado™ is also becoming more likely, with more and more monkeys flying out of people’s butts.

commieBob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2017 12:24 pm

It’s been done, The Wizard of Oz had flying monkeys and a flying house.

vukcevic
July 29, 2017 11:10 am

but by then we will be all long dead ( /sarc)
Nature Communications: July 26, 2017
“The blast of the dying star released in about 40 seconds as much energy as the Sun releases over its entire lifetime, all focused into a tight beam of gamma rays aimed toward Earth.
The team’s findings, reported in the scientific journal Nature, provide strong evidence for one of two competing models for how gamma-ray bursters (GRBs) produce their energy.”
https://phys.org/journals/nature-communications/
https://youtu.be/7uN1AjMui5k

arthur4563
July 29, 2017 11:24 am

Where this guy gets the idea that the Earth is really getting a lot hotter is anybody’s guess. It certainly didn’t comefrom any temp data series. As for hurricanes, tornadoes and other cyclonic weather systems, warming has reduced their number and intensity, a demonstrable fact that these morons either don’t know, or choose to lie about. Ask the hurricane experts the effects of a 2 degree C increase in temperature on the wind velocities of hurricanes and you will be surprised, perhaps, to find that the effect is pretty small – 5 MPH or so. These clods have no clue as to
the actual effects of increased temperatures. You might wonder how they explain high winds in freezing temperatures. I don’t think they understand wind either.

pameladragon
Reply to  arthur4563
July 29, 2017 12:03 pm

Shallow water tends to be warmer unless there is up-welling. Sharks do swim in warmer shallow waters but they also swim in cold deep waters. I have seem hammerhead sharks from the air when flying to the Bahamas. Tiger sharks are also fond of the shallow off shore waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea that warm waters will cause sharks to come closer to shore is total nonsense, they often frequent near-shore waters, how else to people have close encounters with these predators while walking in shallows? I have also seen large nurse sharks in waist-deep waters in the Florida Keys.
PMK

pameladragon
Reply to  pameladragon
July 29, 2017 12:09 pm

Oops, the reply about warm/cool water was meant for Steve.
Arthur, I read a paper some years ago about the effect of warmth on hurricanes. It seems that hurricanes are more frequent when the water is cool. This explains the dearth of hurricanes over the past 20-odd years.
There was a novel written in the ’70s, Cat 5, that floated the notion that warm SSTs caused more violent hurricanes. This is nonsense, but the book was fun to read and it probably affected some young, impressionable minds….
PMK

oeman50
Reply to  pameladragon
July 30, 2017 10:09 am

But Pamela, did you see hammerhead sharks IN the air when flying to the Bahamas? That would be your own private Sharknado.

pameladragon
Reply to  oeman50
July 30, 2017 6:00 pm

Snort! Nope, the ones I saw were swimming in warm shallow water, just over a meter. I stayed out of the water that day….
PMK

H. D. Hoese
July 29, 2017 11:31 am

There is a fascinating story about a famous literature type person who discounted it as only “hearsay evidence.” The discussion even got into Science as there were several accounts, at that time at least a couple in Louisiana. Bajkov, A. D. 1949. Do fish fall from the sky?
Science.109:402; and Evans, B. 1946. Concerning rains of fishes. Science. 103:713.

July 29, 2017 11:31 am

These people do not realize how ridiculous they look to ordinary folks. Climate change causes sharknados. CAGW for sure.

Sheri
July 29, 2017 11:45 am

Reality declared obsolete. Fantasy as a way of life.

vukcevic
Reply to  Sheri
July 29, 2017 11:53 am

Things are getting more ridiculous by the day, may be the ‘life’ on this planet is just a hologram played out by some advanced civilisation, sort of ‘Big Brother’ entertainment series.

Leo Smith
Reply to  vukcevic
July 29, 2017 12:06 pm

god has obviously handed over to a teenager

steve
July 29, 2017 11:48 am

I’m curious about the reasoning for sharks moving closer to land. Are they fleeing to cooler water? Is the water cooler in the shallower regions near land than it is in the deep? I’m not sure I understand the reference to warming oceans pushing sharks closer to the shoreline. I’m not a biologist, anyone care to explain the connection?

Leo Smith
Reply to  steve
July 29, 2017 12:05 pm

sharks are smart enough to have detected that human beings are now more stupid than fish.

ClimateOtter
July 29, 2017 11:56 am
Robert from oz
Reply to  ClimateOtter
July 29, 2017 5:01 pm

Ahh no it swam upstream in the floods not flew in the wind .

commieBob
July 29, 2017 12:32 pm

So, here’s some speculation…
The flow of heat, winds, and ocean currents are all driven by temperature differences. yes/no?
Global warming is supposed to warm the arctic (not sure about the antarctic) more than lower latitudes. yes/no?
That should decrease the difference between the equator and the pole(s) and that should decrease the flow of energy, air, and water shouldn’t it?
So, in spite of an increase in overall energy, it seems as if global warming should result in calmer weather. Am I missing anything here?

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2017 1:09 pm

cB, you just made an argument ised by Prof. (Emeritus) Richard Lindzen of MIT.

commieBob
Reply to  ristvan
July 29, 2017 1:24 pm

I’m pretty sure I didn’t make it up by myself but I couldn’t remember where I saw it. Thanks.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2017 1:21 pm

All the alarmist speculation about the climate … maybe mostly misguided … similar to other stuff I’ve seen on the internet.
I was curious about dimming LED household lights, the ones that are connected to 120 volts AC. The little light emitting diodes themselves are driven by low voltage dc, or a chopped version thereof. To make them run off 120 v AC requires circuitry and I wasn’t willing to make assumptions which is why I was googling. There are too many ways to skin that particular cat.
What I found on line included a lot of discussions about variacs and rheostats. The only place I’ve seen either of those used for that purpose was back stage at a defunct theater. For the last very long time the only kind of dimmer you could buy at the hardware store has been based on the triac. As it turns out, dimmers for LED lighting fixtures are a different creature altogether. link
I’ve had something like the same thing with students talking to me about filing the (expensive) tips of their soldering irons. Because of plated tips that hasn’t been a thing since the 1950s.
What’s my point? There’s a lot of out-of-date may-have-been-true-a-long-time-ago information out there as well as stuff-that-sounds-reasonable. You would think that more energy in the system would result in more violent weather, it sounds reasonable. As such some ill informed scientist or PR flack spouts reasonable sounding nonsense and folks can’t tell the difference. Add a bit of artistic license and you get Sharknado.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2017 7:55 pm

You can’t use a dimmer designed for incandescents on an LED bulb.
Dropping the current through an incandescent bulb by only a few percent will cool it sufficiently to cause a big drop in visible light output. (Much smaller drop in infrared output.)
A 2% drop in current through an LED will cause about a 2% drop in visible light output.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
July 30, 2017 5:35 am

MarkW July 29, 2017 at 7:55 pm
… Dropping the current through an incandescent bulb by only a few percent will cool it sufficiently to cause a big drop in visible light output.

To drop the current in an incandescent bulb a few percent requires a much larger change in voltage. graph
Back before the invention of semiconductors, incandescent bulbs were used for current limiting because of their VI curve.
With regard to LEDs: It looks like, because of different driver circuits, different LEDs are happy with different dimmers. link

Latitude
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2017 2:34 pm

“it seems as if global warming should result in calmer weather.”..
So far, it has. I just work on the premise that the extremes of anything are unstable. 300ppm is definitely an extreme…so increasing it would make things more stable….assuming it affects the weather at all

Vald
July 29, 2017 1:09 pm

Who watches these “movies”?

Barbara Skolaut
July 29, 2017 1:10 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one.
Oh – he’s serious?

vukcevic
July 29, 2017 2:03 pm

The Latest: Icebreaker sets record for NW Passage transit
The Nordica, icebreaker set off from Vancouver on July 5 and reaching Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, on Saturday, July 29.
“For now, transiting the Northwest Passage remains a challenge for conventional ships and efforts are being made to prevent frozen waterways that the local Inuit depends on for travel from being opened up. Yet tourism and other forms of economic development are already underway.”

Cam_S
July 29, 2017 2:25 pm

Maybe we need more Hummers equipped with nitrous oxide systems. From WUWT years ago…
Cam_S says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Sharknado stopped by greenhouse gas!
Spoiler alert!
I happened to watch the end of Sharknado. Not a great film but if anybody else is planning to watch here’s how it ends.
The tornado full of sharks is stopped when a Hummer full of explosives is driven into the tornado. Just before the driver jumps out of the Hummer, he pushes the nitrous oxide button to accelerate the vehicle into the swirling shark filled tornado. The Hummer explodes, stopping the tornado.
Thank you nitrous oxide! Without this greenhouse gas, the Hummer could not have accelerated enough to get into the tornado, and the sharknado would have continued dropping sharks on the city, and people would have continued to be devoured.

Tom Judd
July 29, 2017 2:49 pm

“We know that powerful enough tornadoes and hurricanes can lift large objects, including sharks if they’re passing over water,”
Wow, I didn’t know that sharks can pass over water. I thought that they could only go through water, and sometimes occasionally jump out of it.

wws
July 29, 2017 3:08 pm

I think what would really blow my mind would be a SQUIDNADO!!!

July 29, 2017 3:29 pm

And if you are curious about what all the fuss is over:

Reply to  gregole
July 29, 2017 4:36 pm

Haha…I suggest the movie is more likely to harm the AGW cause, it is created to ridicule, not to support.

MarkW
Reply to  gregole
July 29, 2017 7:56 pm

I’m still trying to figure out how a shark that has just been dropped several hundred feet onto concrete, can still be lively enough to hop along fast enough to catch a human.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  gregole
July 30, 2017 3:16 am

ahhh
the return of the “schlock film ” genre
🙂
if you never saw Schlock(the banana monster) DO find it online or?
and have a good laugh

PiperPaul
July 29, 2017 4:36 pm

It’s Shark Week again, so this is just some free publicity from media types.

Robert from oz
July 29, 2017 5:06 pm

This movie only got to cult status because it was so flawed with terrible actors and just a totally crap movie , seen a bit of the original one but turned off when big sharks were shown swimming around a car that had water half way up the bottom of the tyre so about 2-3″ .
But I do agree more plausible than CAGW .

Mark
July 29, 2017 5:41 pm

My goodness, the Field Museum of Natural History brings in the maker of Sharknado as a climate expert. Love it!! Next they’ll bring in another comedy writer like, oh, I don’t know, Al Gore.

ResouceGuy
July 29, 2017 5:44 pm

It’s much more likely that money will fall from the sky. Climate change scare has showered on quite a few over-rated money catchers.

ScienceABC123
July 29, 2017 5:56 pm

Oh please, are there no adults on the “warmist” side???

hunter
Reply to  ScienceABC123
July 30, 2017 5:53 am

The only adults left on the extremist side are apparently amoral anti-science types who will say or do anything to push their apocalyptic clap trap.

Logoswrench
July 29, 2017 9:44 pm

What’s the problem? The only thing more awesome that watching sharknado would be living it. Lol.

July 30, 2017 2:14 am

good article

hunter
July 30, 2017 6:00 am

When I was a kid I saw it rain frogs and mud.I was in the back of a pickup truck and watched in amazement as mud and frogs started raining around us as we drove down the road. My uncle who was driving hit the gas to get us away from it. A tornado had passed over a large pond and sucked up frogs and debris, we found out later. I was in the back of a pickup truck and watched in amazement as this happened. It was either 1963 or 1964 in Alabama near the town of Selma.
That said, if the producer of Sharknado schlock movies actually believes his fantasy is going to become reality he is delusional.
If he is merely doing this to get more people to watch his terrible movies, then he is a cynical liar.
.

Javert Chip
Reply to  hunter
July 30, 2017 2:14 pm

Of course he’s a cynical liar; he’s from Hollywood.

Gamecock
July 30, 2017 4:29 pm

‘meteorologists said the freak 2010 storm was probably caused by a tornado that carried the sea creatures hundreds of miles’
Fish, yes. Sharks too big.
Anywho, most sharks are poikilothermic, and would be quite lethargic, if not frozen, after a trip of hundreds of miles in the upper atmosphere.
‘“As the world’s oceans warm, some speculate hurricanes will be become more intense’
Well, there you have it. It has been speculated. What more do you need?

PUMPSUMP
July 31, 2017 8:14 am

TBH this kind of thing is so laughably poor you could be forgiven for thinking its real intention is to feed the opposing argument – put enough rotten garbage under everyone’s noses they can’t help but recoil.

DeLoss McKnight
July 31, 2017 9:12 am

I saw part of one of the shark movies. It is pure camp, so bad, it’s funny. Their appeal is similar to Plan 9 From Outer Space. As for the discussion of things falling from the sky, I’m surprised no one mentioned Charles Fort, who wrote The Book of the Damned, about mysterious events that science has ignored or can’t explain. It had numerous tales of odd things falling from the sky.

%d bloggers like this: