Warming Could Lead To Fewer Tornadoes… Trend Has Been Downward 70 Years, Less Damage

[Sunsettommy]

Another warmist/alarmist prediction failure to show Tornado counts down over many decades.

No sign of Climate Emergency here.....

No Tricks Zone

Warming Could Lead To Fewer Tornadoes… Trend Has Been Downward 70 Years, Less Damage

By P Gosselin on 13. March 2022

Excerpt:

A rational look at the data and physics tell us there are no real signs that tornadoes are going to get more frequent and worse.

German Die kalte Sonne’s 2nd part of its most recent video looks at tornadoes, a ferocious and extremely destructive meteorological phenomenon that global warming alarmists claim will only get worse and worse. They want6 you to panic over it.

LINK

 

[1srelluc]

They trick us on damage value estimates because costs rise every year. It makes it seem worse than what it really is.

If a tornado takes out a single 200K+ home today that's like a whole block of homes in the 70s value wise. The median home value in '75 was 37K.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another warmist/alarmist prediction failure to show Tornado counts down over many decades.

No sign of Climate Emergency here.....

No Tricks Zone

Warming Could Lead To Fewer Tornadoes… Trend Has Been Downward 70 Years, Less Damage

By P Gosselin on 13. March 2022

Excerpt:

A rational look at the data and physics tell us there are no real signs that tornadoes are going to get more frequent and worse.

German Die kalte Sonne’s 2nd part of its most recent video looks at tornadoes, a ferocious and extremely destructive meteorological phenomenon that global warming alarmists claim will only get worse and worse. They want6 you to panic over it.
.

He is not fooled by the increased compaction of the populace and housing costs inflating. He looks at damage path vs damage path. The damage paths have remained constant and the frequency has not increased.

Nothing to see here. Someone making a valid comparison using observed evidence, not made-up numbers.. Isn't actual science banned by Global Warming nut cases..?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, despite what any uneducated slob denier sharts on a message board, the IPPC stance is:

• “observational trends in tornadoes, hail, and lightning associated with severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
• “attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g., tornadoes) is beyond current modelling and theoretical capabilities”
• “how tornadoes or hail will change is an open question”

So what we have here is an uneducated slob arguing with other uneducated slobs.

I will leave them to it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually, despite what any uneducated slob denier sharts on a message board, the IPPC stance is:

• “observational trends in tornadoes, hail, and lightning associated with severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
• “attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g., tornadoes) is beyond current modelling and theoretical capabilities”
• “how tornadoes or hail will change is an open question”

So what we have here is an uneducated slob arguing with other uneducated slobs.

I will leave them to it.

There you go again citing slobbering consensus liars.. The IPCC is about as useful as tits on bore hog. It is a political organization that lies. There is no real science behind what they are spouting. As to your uneducated problem, idiots like you cant be helped. You have your head rectally impacted and nothing I can do will help your shitty position in life.. Well maybe dislodge it with my foot... that might help...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There you go again citing slobbering consensus liars..

yes, the global scientific community is lying, and you dumbfucks with Google and tiny little hard ons have exposed them

hahahahahahahahah


*wheeze*

hahahahahahaha

Oh man. I'm out.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Actually, despite what any uneducated slob denier sharts on a message board, the IPPC stance is:

• “observational trends in tornadoes, hail, and lightning associated with severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
• “attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g., tornadoes) is beyond current modelling and theoretical capabilities”
• “how tornadoes or hail will change is an open question”

So what we have here is an uneducated slob arguing with other uneducated slobs.

I will leave them to it.

That is a good reply attempt for a climate gook unfortunately without a link can't take it seriously while I can post the LINK to this from the IPCC:

It is an interesting series of statements showing they are hedging because they say not enough evidence yet, but now getting into Modeling game......

The 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment

“Observed and projected future increases in certain types of extreme weather, such as heavy rainfall and extreme heat, can be directly linked to a warmer world. Other types of extreme weather, such as tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are also exhibiting changes that may be related to climate change, but scientific understanding is not yet detailed enough to confidently project the direction and magnitude of future change.”

=====

As the Fourth National Climate Assessment reported:

"Modelling studies consistently suggest that the frequency and intensity of severe thunderstorms in the US could increase as climate changes, particularly over the US Midwest and Southern Great Plains during spring. There is some indication that the atmosphere will become more conducive to severe thunderstorm formation and increased intensity, but confidence in the model projections is low. Similarly, there is only low confidence in observations that storms have already become stronger or more frequent. Much of the lack of confidence comes from the difficulty in both monitoring and modeling small-scale and short-lived phenomena."

===

Then from a Published paper:

A 2013 paper by Dr Noah Diffenbaugh and colleagues examined how the conditions needed for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes to develop are projected to change in climate models.

Climate models are too coarse to model individual tornadoes. However, they show a strong increase in conditions favouring severe thunderstorms over the eastern US during spring and autumn months, particularly once global warming exceeds 2C above preindustrial levels.

=====

In all cases none of them are ruling it out just hedging saying not enough confidence to yes models say it will become more common in the future.... according to some climate models.

So actually YOU did poorly does that mean YOU are the uneducated slob you are trying hard to project onto others?

 

[Sunsettommy]

yes, the global scientific community is lying, and you dumbfucks with Google and tiny little hard ons have exposed them

hahahahahahahahah


*wheeze*

hahahahahahaha

Oh man. I'm out.

Where is the LINK you failed to post Climate GOOK!

 

[Billy_Bob]

yes, the global scientific community is lying, and you dumbfucks with Google and tiny little hard ons have exposed them

hahahahahahahahah


*wheeze*

hahahahahahaha

Oh man. I'm out.

Once more you scream like a little bitch. You make assertions without facts to support them. You scream but the "global scientific community" as if they are not also to be held to account for their statements. It's funny you want us to blindly follow the cult religion without question. If anyone dare checks the facts and call them out, they are called 'deniers' and other slanderous terms. All of this is done without fact one to support your position.

Polly Want a cracker? Does the parrot need more IPCC bird cage cover?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where is the LINK you failed to post Climate GOOK!

He is an elitest snob... He doesn't have fact one to support his position. He likes to be a pollical whore of sorts..

 

[Billy_Bob]

yes, the global scientific community is lying, and you dumbfucks with Google and tiny little hard ons have exposed them

hahahahahahahahah


*wheeze*

hahahahahahaha

Oh man. I'm out.

Too funny... Do you even have a clue what the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is? Does Polly need some more bird cage cover to learn from?

Tell me why the LOG of CO2 is important. What 'climate sensitivity' is and what it references...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Too funny... Do you even have a clue what the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is? Does Polly need some more bird cage cover to learn from?

Tell me why the LOG of CO2 is important. What 'climate sensitivity' is and what it references...

I have asked him and several other climate gooks if they realize that AGW comes in two parts and first part is generally agreed on by all parties, but the second part comes straight out of the Twilight Zone.

I never get a decent reply to it which indicate they have no clue what AGW really is about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have asked him and several other climate gooks if they realize that AGW comes in two parts and first part is generally agreed on by all parties, but the second part comes straight out of the Twilight Zone.

I never get a decent reply to it which indicate they have no clue what AGW really is about.

I asked him the two biggest questions, and I do not expect an answer from the idiot. The LOG of CO2 is important as the heating of the atmosphere is just 1/3 of the LOG value that we expect from CO2 alone. The next logical question is why? IF CO2, as the hypothesis states, is driving the atmosphere, then it should be a value greater than 1 to 1. Our current value is now 0.27 to 1 with the recent ocean heat loss. A climate sensitivity number of 0.27... This means the atmosphere is dividing the ability of CO2 to act. This means CO2 is not a driver of anything.

I answer my own questions in an effort to teach. The CAGW hypothesis has been clearly shown deficient and failed. It's like telling the kid in the back seat of the car to turn here... It simply does not have the power or position to drive anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You should see what I did exposing Fort Fun Indianna two faced statements about Dr. Mass today and last year,

LINK

Starting at The Northwest Snowpack Trend of the Past Fifty Years: The Truth May Surprise You the beginning of an incredible line of stupid replies from FFIndiana

He hated Dr. Mass last year suddenly he loves him now in his desperate attempt to answer my posts.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

He is now pissed that I caught him red handed with his love/hate of Dr. Mass

 

[Likkmee]

Another warmist/alarmist prediction failure to show Tornado counts down over many decades.

No sign of Climate Emergency here.....

No Tricks Zone

Warming Could Lead To Fewer Tornadoes… Trend Has Been Downward 70 Years, Less Damage

By P Gosselin on 13. March 2022

Excerpt:

A rational look at the data and physics tell us there are no real signs that tornadoes are going to get more frequent and worse.

German Die kalte Sonne’s 2nd part of its most recent video looks at tornadoes, a ferocious and extremely destructive meteorological phenomenon that global warming alarmists claim will only get worse and worse. They want6 you to panic over it.

LINK

State Farm gave their opinion:
"ladies and gents, start your engines"

 

[Sunsettommy]

Another thread all but one warmist/alarmists (who flopped spectacularly) stayed away from as the evidence was too hard to address.

Typical.

 

[ding]

the global scientific community is lying

I’m glad you said it.