Another factor to debunk global warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by DavidS, Apr 12, 2009.

  1. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Tornadoes.

    In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore and company said that global warming was increasing the number of tornadoes in the US. He claimed 2004 was the highest year ever for tornadoes in the US. In his PowerPoint slide deck (on which the movie was based) he sometimes uses this chart (form the NOAA):


    [​IMG]


    Whoa, that’s scary. Any moron can see there is a trend there. Its like a silver bullet against skeptics or something. But wait. Hasn’t tornado detection technology changed over the last 50 years? Today, we have doppler radar, so we can detect even smaller size 1 tornadoes, even if no one on the ground actually spots them (which happens fairly often). But how did they measure smaller tornadoes in 1955 if no one spotted them? Answer: They didn’t. In effect, this graph is measuring apples and oranges. It is measuring all the tornadoes we spotted by human eye in 1955 with all the tornadoes we spotted with doppler radar in 2000. The NOAA tries to make this problem clear on their web site.

    With increased national doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the US, the total number of strong to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5 category on the Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Dopplar radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

    What most of you don't know is that a wedge tornado (see example below) which can have multiple vortexes can wreak billions of dollars in damage if it lands in a populated city it could be designated an EF-5.


    [​IMG]

    However, what most of you probably don't know is that if the same tornado lands in the middle of a grass field and causes no damage - it would be rated an EF-0. It could have 300 mph winds and still be classified as such.

    We also have more trained spotters, storm chasers, computer equipment and technology that helps us detect a tornado from thousands of miles away. Right now I can hope onto my GRLevel3 software and look out for hook echos and have the software analyze one and it would estimate the winds inside of the tornado.

    In fact, it can even create a composite 3D image of the tornado.

    [​IMG]

    With all of this software, it is no wonder why there are more tornadoes being reported. But Al Gore won't tell you that. Al Gore will tell you that Global Warming is the reason why there's an increase in the frequency of tornadoes. And he's wrong. And he knows he's wrong. But he also knows that you don't know that he's wrong and that you'll buy his BS which makes him a multi-multi-millionaire.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. k2skier
    Offline

    k2skier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    713
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +50
    An Inconvenient Truth cherry picked anomalies, stretched the truth and use skewed statistics to try to prove a point, typical Hollywood style. Good overall message, with out the hype and scare tactics it could have been better, but I didn't really care for the movie because it didn't stay 100% accurate. It still doesn't change the fact our planet has been warming since the last major ice age and the last minor ice age.
     
  3. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Aah ... but here's the thing ... all environut scientists do, and most do for more funding (as with many studies). It was actually an eye opener for many people, but not in helpful way to the hoaxers of GW. It demonstrated just how far the "love everything" people will go just to make a point, and money. When science gets too muddied with so much exaggeration and lies it becomes more and more difficult to find the truth, and the truth is never as simple as "if we do A then B will happen", as any real scientist will tell you.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. k2skier
    Offline

    k2skier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    713
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +50
  5. k2skier
    Offline

    k2skier Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    713
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +50
    Very true, that's why I'm not a big fan of computer modeling, but the facts remain the same, all data gathering shows were warming.
     
  6. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    However only by the "popular" scientists, unpopular ones vary more and are far more reliable as they are not seeking more funding nor the approval of their peers. The popular results hinge on the A=B argument, while the unpopular ones do not. Data gathering only shows change, which just happens to be the only constant in the universe. If you look at the correlation of change and what we have done since they first "noticed" it nothing we do is effecting it, thus the only truly logical explanation is that we cannot effect it as much as they claim. The amount of pollution we put out as a species has decreased over the last decade, not increased, while many cultures are not changing their habits those of us who have (normally with little choice) have caused a difference, but still the environmental change occurs without end and there is no indication that anything we have done has slowed it in any way.
     
  7. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
    ............

    Actually, the average of the proxies that measure that sort of thing indicate that we have cooled since the high temperature mark reached during this Interglacial about 8,000 years ago.

    Image:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

    Also, during this interglacial, we have not yet reached the high temperatures posted during any of the previous 3 or 4 Interglacials.

    Image:Ice Age Temperature Rev.png - Global Warming Art

    Mr. Gore's movie was a piece of propaganda that was presented as a documentary and even granted an award by a fawning sychophantic group of sympathizers. It used Hollywood special effects presented as actual footage, rigged data to present false conclusions and was comprised almost entirely of half truth and inuendo.

    This is an excellent example of horrible science.
     
  8. KittenKoder
    Offline

    KittenKoder Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    23,281
    Thanks Received:
    1,711
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,714
    Damn, missed that gem of a contradiction ... :eusa_whistle:
     
  9. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    What do you think the planet is supposed to do after an ice age? Cool down?
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,391
    Thanks Received:
    5,402
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,263
    By the normal Milankovic Cycles we should have already started a slow cooling prepatory to entering another glacial cycle a few thousand years down the world. We should not be seeing the rapid warming that we are seeing.

    We are far above the previous high for CO2. 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was at 300 ppm. Today we are above 385 ppm. When we were at 300 ppm in the previous interglacial, the sea level was about 3 meters higher than today.

    And I am concerned about the effects on the food supply for nearly 7 billion humans. We are already seeing effects there.
     

Share This Page