Climate change and severe tornado outbreaks

[andyhb]

I'm not even convinced that Tim Marshall is the problem with the Vilonia survey, either. To blame him absolves the true reason why that survey is a problem: NWS Little Rock.

 

[pohnpei]

@ColdFront To be clear: I wasn’t implying that @warneagle was ignorant of basic physics, nor was I suggesting that he needed to be “corrected.” My point was that by looking at underlying forces one can make plausible conjectures that do not necessarily need many points of data. For example, I mentioned the point about SST trends and feedback that can be linked to climate change and influence severe weather. Nevertheless, I do prefer the constructive criticism that you made in an earlier post, seasoned by some cautious credit:


Also, I am bringing up these issues here, in a separate thread, so as not to derail all the outbreak-related topics. I though that @pohnpei made some good points here that covered a lot of the ground that I am trying to present as well.

emmm...I think the most point I have here were already covered by that new article published in January this year. The main point is a possible seasonal shift due to the change of initiation and inhibition condition.

But for the overall tornado activity, I honestly have absolutely no idea and never come to any conclusion. Interestingly, that article showed that supercells could increase 7% percent by the end of the century though supercell don't necessarily means tornados.

Also I think the mechanism of tornados' formation is especially complicated. We know what kinds of ingredients tornados need but it's actually not a simple accumulation of several ingredients. The most severe weather climatology research I read were focued on the chance of different ingredients in the future due to warming and I think they were also not conclusive due to the nature of complexity of tornados' formation process.

 

[TH2002]

As others have pointed out, I think your confirmation bias is the main problem here, and the main reason people think your posts come off as arrogant. Multiple times now, instead of providing real counterarguments you're attempting to unfairly discredit people (e.g. basically saying everything Tim Marshall has ever done is invalid because of Vilonia) and making silly claims like "Hurricane Ian wasn't a Category 4 at landfall" to try and prove your theory. Every hypothesis needs a solid basis; these are not solid bases.

Yes, the number of major tornado outbreaks has declined post-2011. The thing is, there have been lulls like this before, and similar patterns can be observed worldwide. The latter half of the 1980's (in the US at least) saw overall numbers below average and is known for scattered notable events and outbreaks. Michigan hasn't seen an official violent tornado since 1977 despite every previous decade since 1880 having at least one. The eastern India-Bangladesh region saw massive outbreaks in the 80's and 90's, only for their tornado activity to become more scattered since the mid 2000's or so. Turkmenistan didn't record any tornadoes between 1987 and 2019, and also none in the 1970's despite tornado reports occurring fairly regularly through the 1960's. What would be your explanation for those?

Be more open minded and accept that your climate theory is just that; a theory. Provide real counterarguments, and in cases where that's not possible then admit you're wrong. Plain and simple.