Last Three Years the Quietest For Tornadoes Ever 187
schwit1 writes The uncertainty of science: 2014 caps the quietest three year period for tornadoes on record, and scientists really don't understand why. "Harold Brooks, a meteorologist with the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Okla., said there's no consistent reason for the three-year lull — the calmest stretch since a similar quiet period in the late 1980s — because weather patterns have varied significantly from year to year. While 2012 tornado activity was likely suppressed by the warm, dry conditions in the spring, 2013 was on the cool side for much of the prime storm season before cranking up briefly in late May, especially in Oklahoma, SPC meteorologist Greg Carbin said. Then, activity quickly quieted for the summer of 2013."
And where are all the hurricanes? (Score:2, Informative)
It's been a while since a cat 3 made landfall on a US shore, hasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
As the old joke goes, "Shhh.... that's the climate census. They think they're alone here".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.
(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.
(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).
I think you are missing the point. Global Warming is the reason we have not been seeing as many hurricanes.
If it rains, it's global warming. If it doesn't rain, it's severe global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is an on-going process. More over, this is far too short a time scale to draw conclusions. Every year the weather doesn't meet some prediction we get the deniers screaming blue murder about it, but none of that disproves the long term trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you when every month they scream bloody global warming because of a 0.001 C increase over the same month last year with an error margin of 0.1+\- ?????
This goes both ways.
Re: (Score:3)
For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero.
NOAA has that number at 7, certainly a nonzero number.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/h... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
NOAA has the number of hurricanes hitting the US mainland since 2005 at seven. Note OP's use of the phrase "major hurricane", it's important.
The seven that have hit the USA since 2005 were CAT 1 or 2, and "major hurricane" is defined as CAT3+....
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally.
Global Climate Change is a change in the global climate, with is a broad, long-term change. The impact on a specific region or time period isn't global climate, it's regional weather, which is only very loosely correlated to the global climate.
Arguing that the weather recently in the east coast of the US is fine, so you don't care about global climate change, is like arguing that your chair is comfortable so you don't care that the house is on fire. Sure, you'
Re:And where are all the hurricanes? (Score:5, Informative)
More storms, more violent storms, the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather.
I don't recall anybody ever predicting "the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather".
It's worth summarizing what we actually know (minus the idiotic alarmism), what we have some models for but still need details, and what is simply speculation.
Here is what we do know: greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere increases the average temperature of the planet, and this includes the greenhouse gasses added by human activity. The physics of this seems to be sound, large numbers of measurements bear out the fundamentals, and so far all the alternative theories that say greenhouse gasses don't increase average temperature have been failed; they've been ruled out by evidence.
There is still quite a large set of error bars on how much warming to expect from anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. A hundred different groups have studied this problem (this is not one or two climate scientists) with models using different assumptions. The best estimate is 3 degrees kelvin per doubling, with error bars of about plus or minus 1.5. The amount by which the planet has so far warmed due to anthropogenic effects is slightly over a half degree-- call it about one degree Fahrenheit. Let me point out how small that is-- you probably wouldn't feel the difference between, say, a fall day with a high of 54 F or one that's 55. However, on a global scale, this has an effect, and it's worth noting that the warming is cumulative-- the average will go up from there, not down.
However, it's also important to not that this is an average. It's not what you see in one particular location, or one particular day, or even any particular year. This is summarized by the motto "climate is not weather." Any location--any region-- might be warmer of cooler than the average in any given year.
The effect of this warming on weather--extreme storms-- is less well known. This is a much harder problem to model. The best models suggest that warming will increase extremes of weather, but this is not a robustly confirmed result, and exactly which extremes of weather-- hurricanes? typhoons? Arctic storms? Tornados? Droughts? Floods?-- needs a lot of work to model well.
In general, these predictions of increases of extreme weather are long term predictions. So far, the warming is still relatively small. If we keep increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the effect (assuming that better models confirm that there is an effect) will be larger. This is a long term effect, not a short term one-- we're talking effect of warming of several degrees, not the current half degree. Not next year, but in decades in the future. And even then, predicting an average increase in large storms doesn't necessarily say large storms hitting the continental US will increase-- we are discussing the world, not the few percent of the world that is called the U.S.
But in general, detailed effects are much harder to model than global averages.
And of course, any given storm cannot be ascribed to global warming. All the people who said "Hurricane Sandy is an example of global warming!" were simply off base. Climate is not weather.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Th... [nwf.org]
""Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves, and the result will be serious for vulnerable populations," said Dr. Amanda Staudt, National Wildlife Federation climate scientist."
So, is Dr Amanda misguided or not - please note she says about _current_ events, not only about possible future developments? Or is it that all pro-global warming weather incidents are ok, but all things which do not fit it in trivial sense are 'hard to model'?
What you say makes p
Re:And where are all the hurricanes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The manipulation is obvious and the excuses are ridiculous.
Just look at NOAA data or especially NCDC curves for temperature produced 30 years ago and look at the curves for today.
They have completely obliterated the medieval warm period They have stampeded out the high temperature spike of the 30's. And generally reduced everything before the 60's by some degree to make everything past the 80-90 look way worst than it actually is.
Also, if you want perspective, Have you seen what GISS temp data series, looks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you willing to stand up against Dr Amanda on pro-GW site and explain to her that she is jumping at sensational conclusions and that few random heat waves are in no way indication of bad effects of global warming? Risk getting called denialist just because of pointing it out.
Yes. This is exactly what we should be doing. The National Wildlife Federation is not a credible institution as far as climate change is concerned. They are a very pro statist organization with more emotion than science. They're pissed that humans are over running parts of the planet and any bit of information that supports the 'bad human' posture is good news to them.
A significant problem is that this is complex issue with many unknowns. You can't feed that sort of thing to the media providers and con
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't attribute present day weather patterns to global warming. Undoubtably there will be changes, but it's a bit too early to attribute specific events-- like "more frequent and severe heat waves"-- to anthropogenic warming. There isn't a strong consensus yet. And anthropogenic warming doesn't substitute for natural variations-- natural variations (like heat waves) still occur.
With that said, in terms of modelling effects, what's known and how well it's known keeps getting better. if you do want m
Re: (Score:2)
Note the use of the present tense. For the statement to be true, global warming must be happening NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall anybody ever predicting "the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather".
You must be new here :)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.
You can't remain credible by simultaneously implying (with "weasel" words) that each natural disaster is a direct result of global warming, while ignoring the growing arctic ice thickness and decrease in tornado activity.
Yes, nature is stochastic. But the sword cuts both ways, but pandering to sensationalism will ultimately undercut any scientific argument.
http://science.time.com/2014/0... [time.com]
http: [noaa.gov]
be accurate, if you can [Re:And where are all ...] (Score:2)
I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.
I agree. It would be nice to be accurate about what we know, and how well we know it.
To a very large extent, the problem is exacerbated by the news media: the more extreme a statement is, the more newsworthy; and the more immediate it is, also the more newsworthy. "Some models indicate that hurricanes could be 10% more powerful by the year 2100, but we need to do some more modelling work to verify how well this number holds up under different scenarios" just doesn't play well in the media. They'll inter
Drought [Re:be accurate, if you can...] (Score:2)
And relevant to the discussion, here's a nice article on 538 today, talking about the current California drought, and saying (with detailed discussion) that even though climate warming may exacerbate drought, it's nearly impossible to attribute this particular drought to climate warming:
The complex, dynamic nature of our atmosphere and oceans makes it extremely difficult to link any particular weather event to climate change. That’s because of the intermingling of natural variations with human-caused
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, all the weather is a direct result of global warming, in the sense that we wouldn't have this exact weather without it. Weather is chaotic, after all, and a small change in conditions (like half a kelvin of warming) will lead to great changes in outcome. Without global warming, we'd have different hurricanes etc.
What we can't know is whether a weather condition would have an analog in a world without human CO2 production that would have been more or less severe. Sandy was partly due to gl
Re: (Score:2)
"Super duper mega" Storm Sandy (hint the sarcasm) was destructive because of where it landed. Not because of the global warming. Hint, they couldnt call it a hurrican because it was too weak.
The chance of getting something that destructive without global warming is pretty high. It happens and has happened ALL THE TIME. You think destructive storms are new? The only difference is if they land in populated areas or not.
Yes Arctic sea ice is increasing over the last few years. For how long? Who knows, but its
Re: (Score:2)
Sandy was also extra destructive because it was big.
Who predicted linear anything? Arctic sea ice has been going away, with annual variations.
Who predicted more and stronger tornadoes? It wasn't the IPCC. The predictions were for more severe weather, not more of every type of severe weather.
A large part of AGW denialism is to make up predictions and claim that they aren't coming true.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even read?
Climate alarmist say the frenquency will increase quite often.
We dont need the make up predictions. They do that on all their own.
John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414... [livescience.com]
James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3... [c-span.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I checked the Michael Mann article, and he does talk about the influence of global warming on tornadoes. Specifically, he says that he sees two main factors, one of which would tend to cause more tornadoes, and one which he has no good idea as to the effect, and says that, if he were a betting man, he'd bet on more tornadoes. That is not a prediction. It's informed speculation, and Mann specifically points out that he doesn't really know.
You might want to check your sources to see if they say what you
Re: (Score:2)
First off, to a layperson (which is almost everyone concerned when it comes to climate policy) when one of the most known scientists on climate change says, "If you are a betting person, you'd probably go with a prediction of greater frequency and intensity... due to human-cause climate change!", its the equivalent of the scientist just saying Tornadoes are caused by AGW.
These scientists say one thing in their papers, say another in the interviews, BUT they always find a way to sneak in something that makes
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how is a scientist supposed to express himself or herself? Mann didn't know about AGW and tornadoes, and that's what he said. He said that it looked to him like AGW would increase tornadoes, after saying he really didn't know. This isn't alarmism. It isn't making a serious prediction. It's informed speculation, and that should have been obvious to any competent reader of English.
As long as you're trying to pass that off as making predictions and alarm, I don't see any reason to check your ot
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Mann
http://m.livescience.com/41331... [livescience.com]
Read, don't read, I don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
I glanced through it and, more importantly, searched for "tornado". The claim made was that Michael Mann predicted more tornadoes, and your source says nothing about them. Other forms of severe weather (which Mann has indeed predicted) are irrelevant to this specific point.
Re: (Score:2)
"Super duper mega" Storm Sandy (hint the sarcasm) was destructive because of where it landed. Not because of the global warming. Hint, they couldnt call it a hurrican because it was too weak.
Sandy was a category 3 hurricane, you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists don't have good enough long-term observational records of tornadoes to tell, if climate change is affecting tornadoes, and climate models don't shed any light on the issue, either. Here's the relevant statement in the 2007 IPCC report:
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms. - http://www.wunderground.com [wunderground.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So please tell me why, scientists arent going to the media and telling them to stop the scaremongering?
The AWG political agenda, writes scientific reports with lots of conservative language. However the same people go out into the public, at Climat conferences or write on their own blogs and tell very scary stories.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are obviously not talking about climate science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414... [livescience.com]
James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3... [c-span.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Good examples. For instance, in Michael Mann's piece he is correcting false representations of the IPCC report by journalists. He states: "The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play."
he goes on to say: "I pointed out to the journalist that there are two key factors: warm, moist air is favorable for tornadoes, and global warming will provide more of it. But important, too, is th
Re: (Score:2)
First off, to a layperson (which is almost everyone concerned when it comes to climate policy) when one of the most known scientists on climate change says, "If you are a betting person, you'd probably go with a prediction of greater frequency and intensity... due to human-cause climate change!", its the equivalent of the scientist just saying Tornadoes are caused by AGW.
These scientists say one thing in their papers, say another in the interviews, BUT they always find a way to sneak in something that makes
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have tinted glasses. I'm a lay person and I certainly didn't get the impression that the sky was falling after reading Mann's essay. Regarding the two other links - Cook isn't a climate scientist and Hanson didn't say anything about tornadoes except that he had been in one and that heat is the fuel for tornados but that we don't yet know if frequency will increase and we didn't have enough data to tell if there has been a trend. On the other hand, look at these links:
David Archer on me
Re: (Score:2)
Look its easy to reply like you do, when you skip things he said.
"...we're gonna have more strong storms, thats clear." James Hansen (in the video linked).
The point is, they will say reasoned comments, like, we still need more research, we cant directly attribute THIS storm to AGW, BUT (and there is always a but), all these storms and more hurricains and rainfalls and droughts, we've been seeling lately is the cause of AGW, because there is more energy in the air...
All the while, temps havent rising statist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He hasnt been proven right.
There is no way to tell if storm intensity should be increasing or not.
The corrections you linked to about methane only serve the cause of brushing methane aside to re-focus on the all evil CO2. Nothing to see there.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly a reason to presume he is exaggerating.
How do you figure? Have you read the literature? Have you even read the relevant IPCC section?
Methane is a feedback of CO2. If the feedback is as strong as some say then CO2 could be game over. Also, you didn't read through to the other links. Clearly scientists are doing a good job of presenting the science even in the face of those who would distort it for political ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially as tornadoes unlike say hurricanes are a very localised affect of a larger storm structure and as such a tied down to simple a matter of probability based upon a very complex set of variables, tied to overall weather, local weather, geographic structure, humidity etc. So really with regards to climate you are simple looking at how many days where weather conditions prime for the formation of tornadoes versus how days it was not and whether or not tornadoes form is simply just a roll of the proba
Re: (Score:2)
Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?
It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.
Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.
As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al. [noaa.gov]). But, in distinct contradistinction to
Re: (Score:2)
So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?
Re: (Score:2)
So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?
Are they?
Who? Actual climate scientists or environmental activists?
When? Since (sceptic) Dr Landsea blew out of the water any suggestion that the historical record showed an increasing frequency of hurricane activity (and compelled the climate science community to accept his finding by showing the damn maths)?
Are you able to cite an interview from recent years (say the last 5 or so) in which a climate scientist of any note is predicting increasing
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.
There is scientific litterature stating predictions about "extreme" weather linked to clumate change.
Restricting myself to published papers would be a joy. If they didint publish just about anything that says climate change regardless if it is science or not.
But that point aside, it would be like burying my gead in the sand. Because its not the sensible scientists im worried about, its the craxy
Re: (Score:2)
This is not specificaly about tropical storms though it goes to my point.
Nope sorry the issue here is very specifically the science of tropical storm formation. As you admit your citation does not go to that issue and is out for want of relevance.
A bit of searching on the site you quote, got me from a page entitled What is the link between hurricanes and global warming? [skepticalscience.com]. This page does not claim that global warming will increase frequency of tropical storm formation, it claims the jury is still out on t
Re: (Score:2)
As asked.
John Cook
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Michael Mann
http://www.livescience.com/414... [livescience.com]
James Hansen
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3... [c-span.org]
And this is just one link each, there are many many many more.
Re: (Score:2)
John Cook
Shouldn't really have allowed him as he's not, from my understanding, actually a publishing climte scientist. The article is about extreme weather events not about topical storm formation per se. That being said the by-line (most likely the work of a sub-editor) does state "cyclones ... will become more commonplace." That clearly is to mistate the science as it is currently understood.
In the body Cook himself (as we can now assume) writes " our physical understanding of climate tells us global
Re: And where are all the hurricanes? (Score:2)
http://m.livescience.com/41331... [livescience.com]
Michael Mann
Re: (Score:2)
Although "suggest" is far from a confident prediction, I agree Mann is overstating the case made in the paper he cites for the claim "models suggest more frequent and intense storms in a warmed world."
However that paper cited is itself very interesting --and thanks for bringing my attention to it! It's by Kerry Emmanuel, who was one of the joint authors in that Knutson et al. (2010) I cited above --which given the range of expert opinion (ie. from Emmanuel all the way to the sceptic Chris Landsea) carries
Re:And where are all the hurricanes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Political activists love climate change as a way to take control of industry, and have been trumpeting the end of the world for some time now. I doubt there's ever been science to back that up. As the upper atmosphere warms, you necessarily have less atmospheric convection, a.k.a. weather. The only real science I've seen predicting anything drastic has been speculative - that ocean currents have a dramatic effect on local climate, and should climate change cause a shift in those, you could see rapid loca
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing with this lot is pointless. Not because we know all about how weather patterns change a
Re: (Score:2)
It's moronic to equate that to, "so much for climate change..."
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The British had the Hurricanes [aviation-history.com] and they didn't attack us.
Time to openly admit... (Score:2)
That we don't know a whole lot about weather, and meteorology has a long way to go - the complexity and variables that influence any sort of valid prediction make it hard for scientists to say "look at my track record for prediction" and appear any more accurate than a monkey pushing random buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing new here. Everybody in the field (and most people outside it) know the limitations of weather forecasting.
And yet we're hectored continually that we need to implement costly and Draconian programs based on the predictions of models that don't match observed reality. That's not science, that's some unholy amalgam of politics, fear, profiteering, and insanity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Climate is not weather"
I'm getting sick of this canard. Climate represents 'average' or perceived 'normal' weather conditions in a particular area or region over a specified period of time.
The average temperature (or rainfall or any other descriptive statistic representing frequency or magnitude of weather parameters) is indeed a representation of temperature. De-linking weather from climate is a tactic used by people of both sides to dodge whatever the issue is.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate represents 'average' or perceived 'normal' weather conditions in a particular area or region over a specified period of time.
And you're claiming there's no difference between a signal and it's average ? The difference in climate and weather is simply visualized by putting a pan of cold water on a hot stove. I can predict that in a few minutes it will be boiling (climate), even though I have no idea exactly where the bubbles are going to be (weather). The details are chaotic, the average is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Those details make up the average, chum
That doesn't mean you can extract the details from the average.
Re: (Score:2)
If you observe a several hundred year trend in global climate, which has dips up and down for years and even decades, a few years of a dip doesn't disprove the long-term trend.
Let's compare it to the stock market. It's been going up as a general trend for decades, making stocks a generally very good investment with great long-term returns. There were certainly years where stocks went down, and certainly many individual stocks that collapsed, but that doesn't mean that stocks don't go up, or won't go up, jus
Re: (Score:2)
Weather is an instance of climate, if weather is chaotic, then climate is chaotic; self-similarity [wikipedia.org] is a harsh mistress. You alarmists all seem to confuse Chaotic systems with erratic systems; chaotic systems often appear well ordered, while being unpredictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need draconian measures, and in fact fixing this problem will improve quality of life for most of us. Efficiency (same result for less energy) is cheaper than adding more capacity, and doesn't pollute.
Re: Time to openly admit... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evar (Score:2)
Since "third calmest since the 1950s" and "we haven't seen conditions like this since the 1980s" doesn't make for as good of a headline. (RTFA)
Meanwhile, in the same world (Score:4, Insightful)
Polar vortices (Score:4, Interesting)
The science is settled... (Score:2)
...its just the data is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Randomness means (Score:2)
sometimes below average and sometimes above average.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes warmer, sometimes colder?
Clearly..... (Score:2)
It's Global Warming's fault!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hmm.. A simple google search shows that nobody is a lot of organizations that appear to be somewhat scientific in their approach and presentation.
Also, the new scientis or articles on their site seem to attempt to make predictions about tornadoes
http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com]
Mother Jones does another story connecting it too.
http://www.motherjones.com/env... [motherjones.com]
Of course one article is dated march of 2014 and the other august of the same year. But of course politicians have been making claims about the links
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then take it up with the several articled snd scientific research they cite. And no, it is not just one article, it is several that say the same things.
And i do not believe any of these articles address three years of tornados. They are linking global warming to them which is opposite of yhr premise originally replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Several things here:
1: I am a scientist, and while I admit I don't know everything ( who does ? ) about climate change I have seen enough data to be concerned, not panicked mind you, but concerned; especially so since anything on a global scale has so many variables as to be be possible to accurately model.
2: While those people you linked may be ranked high in their fields, the pages you linked to don't cite papers published in a reputable journal for peer review... probably because they are not reproducib
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that concern is too often turned into political advantage by panicking people. Some of the original scientists came along with political motivations like James Hansen and his support for Jubilee2000 wh
Re: (Score:2)
In one sense, global is the sum of local over all places. You can't have one without the other.
In another sense, global means everywhere. In this sense, if each and every place warms then there's global warming. If even one place doesn't warm, there's no global warming.
Sorry, that's just the language. If the meaning of words isn't satisfactory to you, your choice to use them as if they were satisfactory to you is a lie.
Re:Blame stupidity on ignorance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the quite before the storm.
Based on what's been happening lately, the safer bet is that it's the quiet before the placid.
Re: (Score:2)
Could windmills have an effect? How much energy are windmills taking out of the system? Maybe the windmills interact in a butterfly type effect, short-circuiting some necessary precursor of tornadoes.
As a dyed in the wool denier, I can unequivocally say that windmills remove an immeasurable amount of energy from the planetary system and have no effect on the frequency of tornadoes or any other storms.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really pushing the definition of 'art'.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind Turbines have been popping up in large quantities all over the country. I'm betting that has altered the wind patterns.
Republicans have been popping up in large quantities all over the country. I'm betting that has altered the wind patterns.
It's Bush's fault!
Re: (Score:2)
BEWARE!!!!
"Climate Stasis"....