Climate change and severe tornado outbreaks

[pohnpei]

I don't think we have enough data to say that climate change has a deterministic effect on tornadoes or tornado outbreaks. Things like tropical cyclones are more straightforward since they're large-scale atmospheric processes and the deterministic effects (warmer SSTs = more intense TCs) are pretty obvious. Tornadoes are small-scale processes with a lot more variables to control for, so it's harder to demonstrate deterministic effects empirically, much less the kind of stochastic effects that are likely to be more significant in tornado events than tropical cyclones.

This is further complicated by the differences in data-gathering processes between tropical cyclones (which we can measure directly in a consistent way) and tornadoes (which we measure based on estimates that aren't always applied consistently). The fact that accurate data on the number/intensity of tornadoes only goes back about 50 years is also a confounding problem, since that roughly coincides with the last negative global temperature anomalies in the late 1970s. I'd be curious to know what you consider a "high end" tornado outbreak, because I'm skeptical that there's actually been a consistent downward trend in those events. Obviously the last couple of spring seasons in the plains have been quiet, but there have been substantial events in the south during that period and some potent plains setups (e.g. 20 May 2019) that have underperformed for reasons that I think would be difficult to empirically link to climate change. I'm not saying it's not a possibility, but I don't think we have enough data to say that there's a causal relationship--assuming there's even an effect, which I'm not totally convinced of.

I'm also not sure what you mean about "weaker" Atlantic hurricane seasons; six of the top ten seasons for total accumulated ACE have occurred within the last 27 years, along with four of the top ten individual hurricanes in terms of ACE. In that timespan, we've only had six below average seasons (none since 2015) vs. 17 above average seasons, 10 of which were highly active; last year was the first "near normal" season since 2015. Obviously there's some recency bias in that data as well since we're undoubtedly missing some storms from before the satellite era, but I don't know how you look at that data and come to the conclusion that Atlantic hurricane seasons are getting weaker. You would expect hurricanes to get more intense with warming SSTs, all other things being equal.

I completely agree that no observed downtrend Atlantic hurricane activity at all. Actually last 5-6 years were relatively active. But warmer sst not systematicly equal to more intense TCs and there were quite many studies on this. It's also not that simple or one dimensional question and one can conclude different opinion on this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260631032_Atlantic_Hurricanes_and_Climate_Change_Part_II_Role_of_Thermodynamic_Changes_in_Decreased_Hurricane_Frequency

This paper had good research on it and come to the conclusion that thermodynamic component of climate change would lead to significant reduction of TC activity by end of 21 century. The main reason are as follows:
1 a reduction in upward vertical motion
2 increased CIN
3 increase in the midlevel moist entropy saturation deficit
4 increase in incubation parameter


Another study lead by NHC found similar things about it and you can also see no notable observed downtrend as least up until now:

Can we detect a change in Atlantic hurricanes today due to human-caused climate change?

Two NOAA hurricane experts explain why it’s still so hard to say whether global warming to date has affected the number or intensity of Atlantic hurricanes.

www.climate.gov

In terms of activity of intense TCs and extremely high end TCs, it's more difficult to say. There were researches found that more C4-5 would occur if the temperature continue climbing but given the likely downtrend of overall activity, it's very difficult to certain.


Speaking of a reduction of upward vertical motion and increased CIN, we also see this trend in US and other places over the world and it without a doubt cast an impact on severe weather and tornados.



With those pics shows, we actually see strong CIN and weaker low level lapse rate decades by decades and it's due to mid level atmosphere warmer faster than ground level which is easy to understand just by the definition of global warming process.


And we indeed already see the result from this trend. We have seen the downtrend of number of tornado days in a year in last two decades. We used to have on average well over 200 days in one year with one or more tornados confirmed and now it dropped to around 140-160 days with tornado confirmed and you have to consider that we even now have much better detect technology due to advanced radar and more video recording. It also lead to the downtrend of number of consecutive days events like the pic below showed. Grazulis also noted this trend and once mentioned it on his Twitter.

This downtrend related to significant reduction of summer time tornados and there was also research about the reason behind.

Possible connection between U.S. tornado activity, Arctic sea ice

The effects of global climate change taking place in the Arctic may influence weather much closer to home for millions of Americans, researchers report.

www.sciencedaily.com

June used to be a big month for tornado activity without a doubt but now there was even years like 2020 that not a single sig tornado observed in entire june which would be unimaginable in the past. With the pic below, you can see almost all years with very low activity happened recently.

Just talking about my personal experience, I do feel there's more cap bust in late May and June than in the past. And it's not easy to say the infamous cap bust of May 20 2019 have 0 relation with the stronger cap nowadays due to warming process. Also I think andyhb or someone else made a nice chart about post-2012 severe weather condition in main season:


Speaking of large scale outbreaks, just like situation in hurricanes, are more harder to have any conclusion. Iike the post I have above, there's a likely shift of tornado season due to warming and now we've seen the most impressive tornadic supercell and the longest track in december and arguably the most impressive tornadic supercell and the longest track in january in two consecutive severe second season. Does it mean something? I'm not truly sure. If the shift do happen, would it compensate the major reduction of summer tornado activity?I have no idea. Like you said, history with reliable tornado data is relatively limited and all we need to do is wait and continued research on it before jumping into the absolute conclusion.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Or this happens a lot and you're drawing way too much from this. Nah, that's never happened before...

When I made the following statement...

The fact that the past couple of weeks failed to produce at least one significant event, notwithstanding a generally favourable NHEM pattern and background, does not bode well for future tornado outbreaks. (Note: “significant” does not denote a historic event, but at least one outbreak with a couple of intense tornado families. A lone supercell doesn’t make the cut.) I’m still seeing a lot of excessive amplification, blocking, and subtropical interference, rather than the classical low-amplitude, progressive, polar-dominant setup. One would think we were in warm neutral or +ENSO rather than a third-year Niña with a well-established -PDO. We’ll likely need to wait until late March or later for our first possible High Risk of tornadoes.

...I was indirectly alluding back to this thread, actually. In general, long-term trends since 2013 have favoured fewer and/or less-frequent significant outbreaks, per the definition of “significant” that I utilised. There have been a number, but fewer than prior to 2013. Over the past three years we have seen the events of 10–11 January and Easter 2020; 24–28 March and 10–11/15 December 2021; and 21–23 March, 4–7 April, 4–5 November, and 12–15 December 2022. (In some of these events a number of ratings were disputed and may have been too high, e.g., that of Newnan GA.) In regard to the past few weeks: I was using a short-term trend to illustrate a long-term one.

 

[ColdFront]

When I made the following statement...

...I was indirectly alluding back to this thread, actually. In general, long-term trends since 2013 have favoured fewer and/or less-frequent significant outbreaks, per the definition of “significant” that I utilised. There have been a number, but fewer than prior to 2013. Over the past three years we have seen the events of 10–11 January and Easter 2020; 24–28 March and 10–11/15 December 2021; and 21–23 March, 4–7 April, 4–5 November, and 12–15 December 2022. (In some of these events a number of ratings were disputed and may have been too high, e.g., that of Newnan GA.) In regard to the past few weeks: I was using a short-term trend to illustrate a long-term one.

In some of those events the opposite could be said, those ratings may have been too low and with stricter guidelines applied to ratings today some of those actually could have met your criteria on the old scale or even back in 2012. Bassfield, Vilonia, Rochelle, Chapman, Mayfield I almost guarantee would have earned 5s back on the old scale if we are going to compare pre EF patterns.

I think you bring a devils advocate approach to discussion on here which is always good to prevent groupthink.

My only main issue with your hypothesis is your criteria. Fred previously discussed just how rare the events that have taken place to meet your criteria are, I believe he said it was only once every fifteen years. If you really think about it, we only have reliable tornado records for a few decades and even back in the 70s I’d consider it spotty. We don’t really have the data to make any conclusions one way or the other.

I think occasionally on this board we hype up an event (like last week) that most meteorologists would contend has average parameters at best and poor at worst, and when it doesn’t perform to our expectations we start searching for an answer why, which is human nature of course.

We have more information at our fingertips than ever so who knows if we were seeing these same trends in the 50s, 60s, 1840s etc. just because the information flow and access is different. I wouldn’t necessarily say a trend since 2013 is “long term” at all. Even the Super Outbreak of 74’ had a cool down period after it. I just think comparing eras can be an apples to oranges type deal because the data and ratings have changed so much and it’s not a true 1 to 1 comparison.

I do believe these things are cyclical, kind of like how the Midwest doesn’t have those great tornado outbreaks of the 1900s or how the Great Plains outbreaks aren’t really a summer event anymore. Who knows if the same thing was happening in the 19th century and we will return to that same cycle in a few decades? We just can’t say.

I just think you’ve set a very very high arbitrary standard and criteria that is extremely difficult to overcome and satisfy.

 

[Casuarina Head]

By the way, please quit focusing so much on "tornado families." The ingredients are apparently going to be there and have been showing for a week for tornado potential. Family or not, it only takes one. Case in point, April 8, 1998. The science is great and necessary but sometimes you need to stop worrying about the technicalities and realize that this weekend someone may lose their home, their spouse, their parent or their child. THAT is what is important in the grand scheme of things. Not whether or not an event fits in the nice little box it's supposed to.

@MichelleH I didn’t wish to derail the original thread, so I’m responding here. I am strictly referring to scientific quantification. Of course any tornado that causes death, injury, or damage is significant. But I am using a more scientific qualifier. The problem is that in our age of politicised “science” individual events are inflated for political purposes and used as “proof” that “climate change” is supposedly making extreme weather “worse” and/or “more frequent.” Even some, though far from all, individual tornadoes’ ratings may sometimes be inflated due to indirect influence. Furthermore, the media too often tend to sensationalise and in doing so trivialise science, while consigning to irrelevance distinctions between minor and significant severe-weather events. Nowadays even a relatively minor tornado is scrutinised and turned into a bigger event than it actually is: it is in the process often given spurious significance as a result. As the discussion in this thread illustrates, if anything, the frequency, if not the severity, of significant tornado outbreaks may actually be decreasing in a warmer world, and thus be inversely proportional to cyclical, global fluctuations in temperature.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Friday’s event further illustrates my point. A few days ago models such as the GFS and ECMWF were depicting a broad-based trough on Friday. Now the latest runs have trended toward a cutoff, occluded signature. Events that appear to be of low amplitude some days in advance end up being of higher amplitude and/or occluded. A warming climate generates expanded Hadley cells that hinder the development of low-amplitude, broad-based troughs and thereby reduce the frequency and/or extent of significant tornado outbreaks. “Significant” refers to an outbreak in which two or more tornado families each feature two or more EF2+ tornadoes. The very warm SST in the subtropical northwestern Atlantic, a byproduct of Greenland-based ice-melt, also helps generate higher heights along the Eastern Seaboard that lead to cutoff lows.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Friday’s event further illustrates my point. A few days ago models such as the GFS and ECMWF were depicting a broad-based trough on Friday. Now the latest runs have trended toward a cutoff, occluded signature. Events that appear to be of low amplitude some days in advance end up being of higher amplitude and/or occluded. A warming climate generates expanded Hadley cells that hinder the development of low-amplitude, broad-based troughs and thereby reduce the frequency and/or extent of significant tornado outbreaks. “Significant” refers to an outbreak in which two or more tornado families each feature two or more EF2+ tornadoes. The very warm SST in the subtropical northwestern Atlantic, a byproduct of Greenland-based ice-melt, also helps generate higher heights along the Eastern Seaboard that lead to cutoff lows.

On the other hand, we've had a few events in recent years where the trough trending more toward a broader-wavelength, negative(or at least neutral)ly titled setup from what was previously depicted has helped lead to a (relatively, they were still well-forecast in the short term) surprise significant outbreak such as 12/10/21 or 1/12/23.

Perhaps the takeaway here is that the global models are pretty good at forecasting general longwave patterns (there will be a trough here, a ridge here, etc at such and such a timeframe) but not very good at forecasting the details of trough structure and evolution that are key to storm mode as far out as we'd like them to. Because within a couple days out they always do seem to shift in one direction or the other, even if they appeared to have been keyed in from as soon as they picked up on the setup up to that point.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it is possible climate change is already having an impact on severe weather patterns, I just find it hard to believe it's already this consistent year after year. Because it does seem that in the '90s and '00s there was at least one solid high risk setup that would verify per year (even if it was in Dixie Alley in the early season and May in the Plains was still a huge bust that year), but following the monster outbreaks of 2011 we haven't really had that.

 

[pohnpei]

The Future of Supercells in the United States

Abstract A supercell is a distinct type of intense, long-lived thunderstorm that is defined by its quasi-steady, rotating updraft. Supercells are responsible for most damaging hail and deadly tornadoes, causing billions of dollars in losses and hundreds of casualties annually. This research uses...

journals.ametsoc.org

A good article discussed about supercells and tornado activity in late part of 21 century. The trend it predict correspond well with the trend now observed. The main tornado season would basically shift from April-June to March-May. The supercell and tornado activity would increase in early spring and decrease in summer in warming climate environment.

 

[Casuarina Head]

Isn't the best solution just to keep the chatter out of these threads then? I have my own personal views that aren't far off yours, but it's very near the bottom of the things I want to talk about. Being someone who is mainly interested in the physical and historical aspects of tornadoes (though I confess to not understanding the synoptic-scale meteorology much despite looking at it for a decade) seeing these things and the inevitable arguments they cause makes me wince.

You’re right about this. By no means do I “like” the controversy and ugliness that all this inevitably invites and dredges up again and again. I will admit, however, that the entire AGW issue, and the general blindness surrounding it, genuinely makes me angry at times. I too am no specialist, but my own personal observations over the past decade, along with a rudimentary understanding of Meteorology 101, tells me that a) in a warmer world, decreased temperature gradients will lead to decreased storminess, and therefore b) the MSM + scientific establishment’s proclamations to the contrary are dangerous, because they lead to a false dichotomy in which 1) people who distrust the MSM/scientific Establishment wrongly conclude that the globe is not warming (personally, I see overwhelming evidence that it is, but equally overwhelming evidence that it is not leading to increasingly severe weather or is otherwise “bad” for mankind in general) and/or 2) believers in AGW conclude that the “sky is falling” in terms of catastrophic severe-weather events. When I try to point out that the globe is warming but is likely leading to fewer severe events, people on both sides of the AGW debate attack me, and I don’t think that is entirely fair.

I also have my own suspicions that data are being cherry-picked or even fudged in realtime. Examples: several of the recent “Cat-4+” hurricanes to hit the CONUS (most recently Ian, for which I see no real evidence from ground-based observations, including METARs and images of structural damage, to even remotely support the “official” 130-kt MSW at landfall), naming of tropical cyclones that wouldn’t have been named a few decades ago, and so on. This observation also applies to tornadoes. For example, in the meantime reanalysis of historical weather events in the distant past, including major tornado outbreaks prior to 1950 (and even prior to the EF Scale), that could shed led light on the whole “correlation” between AGW and severe weather is being sorely neglected. There is a lot of historical material out there that is being overlooked or altered to fit the current narrative. So much work can be done by combing through historical archives yet for some reason isn’t being funded by the same interests that are massively promoting a certain narrative about AGW and severe weather. As someone who once volunteered (not interned, I don’t want to exaggerate my role) for the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project by utilising old newspaper microfiche and other historical sources, I am particularly attuned to this. If I come across as arrogant in some of my posts, it’s because I’m personally worn out and tired due to this singular issue that has consumed me.

Another “beef” of mine is that there is an increased tendency to make events worse than they are in order to increase people’s dependency on either government or big corporations, the same special interests that are also massively behind the current AGW narrative, but that’s another story (though it sometimes spills over into the threads on recent outbreaks). Unfortunately, because people in power shape the narrative in ways that affect ordinary people’s lives, I feel that this issue cannot simply be overlooked out of concern for decorum. If that means more “wincing,” well, from my perspective we need to face certain uncomfortable realities about our world today.

 

[TH2002]

If I come across as arrogant in some of my posts, it’s because I’m personally worn out and tired due to this singular issue that has consumed me.

Then take a step back and don't bring up your theory after literally every single tornado outbreak. It's as simple as that.

Felt it was more appropriate to post here (after all, this thread exists for a reason, right?) so I'm gonna be controversial myself and actually agree with you to a point: is much of the narrative on climate change primarily driven by fear and politics? Absolutely, but I still stand in saying that I'll disagree with anyone who says climate change is gonna lead to more intense/more regular outbreaks, or less outbreaks. There is simply not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other, and that is a fact.

Also, the photos I've seen of wind damage from Hurricane Ian look pretty intense to me - not as intense as Andrew or Dorian, sure, but then again you have to remember those are extreme examples. If data is really being cherry-picked to support the Establishment's climate narrative, then why was Hurricane Iota, only the second November Category 5 on record, later downgraded to category 4?

 

[warneagle]

You’re right about this. By no means do I “like” the controversy and ugliness that all this inevitably invites and dredges up again and again. I will admit, however, that the entire AGW issue, and the general blindness surrounding it, genuinely makes me angry at times. I too am no specialist, but my own personal observations over the past decade, along with a rudimentary understanding of Meteorology 101, tells me that a) in a warmer world, decreased temperature gradients will lead to decreased storminess, and therefore b) the MSM + scientific establishment’s proclamations to the contrary are dangerous, because they lead to a false dichotomy in which 1) people who distrust the MSM/scientific Establishment wrongly conclude that the globe is not warming (personally, I see overwhelming evidence that it is, but equally overwhelming evidence that it is not leading to increasingly severe weather or is otherwise “bad” for mankind in general) and/or 2) believers in AGW conclude that the “sky is falling” in terms of catastrophic severe-weather events. When I try to point out that the globe is warming but is likely leading to fewer severe events, people on both sides of the AGW debate attack me, and I don’t think that is entirely fair.

I also have my own suspicions that data are being cherry-picked or even fudged in realtime. Examples: several of the recent “Cat-4+” hurricanes to hit the CONUS (most recently Ian, for which I see no real evidence from ground-based observations, including METARs and images of structural damage, to even remotely support the “official” 130-kt MSW at landfall), naming of tropical cyclones that wouldn’t have been named a few decades ago, and so on. This observation also applies to tornadoes. For example, in the meantime reanalysis of historical weather events in the distant past, including major tornado outbreaks prior to 1950 (and even prior to the EF Scale), that could shed led light on the whole “correlation” between AGW and severe weather is being sorely neglected. There is a lot of historical material out there that is being overlooked or altered to fit the current narrative. So much work can be done by combing through historical archives yet for some reason isn’t being funded by the same interests that are massively promoting a certain narrative about AGW and severe weather. As someone who once volunteered (not interned, I don’t want to exaggerate my role) for the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project by utilising old newspaper microfiche and other historical sources, I am particularly attuned to this. If I come across as arrogant in some of my posts, it’s because I’m personally worn out and tired due to this singular issue that has consumed me.

Another “beef” of mine is that there is an increased tendency to make events worse than they are in order to increase people’s dependency on either government or big corporations, the same special interests that are also massively behind the current AGW narrative, but that’s another story (though it sometimes spills over into the threads on recent outbreaks). Unfortunately, because people in power shape the narrative in ways that affect ordinary people’s lives, I feel that this issue cannot simply be overlooked out of concern for decorum. If that means more “wincing,” well, from my perspective we need to face certain uncomfortable realities about our world today.

As I said in the other thread, I’d like to see proof that this is a widespread narrative among experts. Surely if this were a prevalent theory there would be lots of peer-reviewed studies making this argument.

I’d also like to see some empirical evidence that the trend you’re proposing even exists that doesn’t rely on moving the goalposts about what constitutes a major outbreak (i.e. statistically significant evidence of a change in tornado frequency and intensity that can’t be explained by statistical noise or changes in damage assessment and ratings), that there’s an effect that can be demonstratively linked to climate change that causes that trend (that can be empirically proven to be the specific causative mechanism for the purported trend), and some evidence for the point at which this trend began, given that anthropogenic warming has been ongoing for approximately 50 years at this point.

I’m not going to get into the political/public opinion aspect of it, or the idea that some nebulous group is pushing the purported “narrative”, because that’s not important from a scientific perspective (scientific illiteracy obviously isn’t new and isn’t confined to this case). However, from a purely scientific and statistical perspective, there are a lot of holes in your theory that need to be filled before it could be considered convincing.

 

[ColdFront]

Reading this person’s posts now over a few months and how they say “this subject consumes them” leads me to give you this sage piece of internet advice:

You need to go touch grass.

 

[Casuarina Head]

And yet, you continue, after the people that do this for a living, and professionally I might add, have told you that you are not correct.

This performance is all part of some kind of narrative/climate crusade you are on.

@ColdFront I will admit that I am on a “crusade” here, but solely out of a sincerely held belief. As far as the he professionals are concerned, they are not infallible either. Look at Timothy P. Marshall and the Vilonia AR “EF4.” Conflicting interests can lay claim to even the most qualified and impartial of individuals. Furthermore, the role of egos and finance can be just as large among salaried experts as among laity. Both public and private institutions are vulnerable to big corporations and their influence on government in general. Merely being a specialist does not automatically confer scientific correctness on an individual.

I haven’t seen much in the way of peer-reviewed literature that suggests this, precisely because it’s difficult to prove a causative link between the deterministic effects of a large-scale process like climate change on a small-scale, highly random event like a tornado. I’d like to see both a causative mechanism for what you’re claiming and evidence that you’ve identified an actual effect at all that can’t be adequately explained by statistical noise. I’d also like to see the sources of the allegedly widespread claim of causative links between severe weather on a local scale and climate change, because I suspect that this claim isn’t actually very common among experts. I’m highly skeptical that you can demonstrate any of those three things.

@warneagle I am going by both real-time observations and basic physics. For example, since 2012 the North Pacific, along with the subtropical northwestern North Atlantic, has warmed considerably vs. the tropical Atlantic. On balance this would favour more riding over the western CONUS that would tend to temper and/or delay the springtime tornado season, while also promoting blockier patterns that would discourage progressive, low-amplitude setups that are conducive to large-scale outbreaks. (Unsurprisingly, big tornado outbreaks have declined in frequency post 2012 vs. the earlier period, as @CheeselandSkies has mentioned previously.) The same trend would also, as mentioned previously, account for the weaker AMOC and less-intense Atlantic hurricane seasons seen since 2012.

As I said in the other thread, I’d like to see proof that this is a widespread narrative among experts. Surely if this were a prevalent theory there would be lots of peer-reviewed studies making this argument.

If one understands basic physics, perhaps one doesn’t need a plethora of studies. Here is a good primer on the foundational elements involved:

it makes sense that hurricane activity would be increased during periods of cooling, because it is the temperature gradient, not temperature itself that gives rise to storms. cold periods are associated with increased cooling towards the poles, with little change in the tropics. all storms are heat engines. all heat engines need a warm side and a cold side to function. As you increase the temperature difference between the hot and cold side, the efficiency of the engine goes up, allowing it to do more work for a given amount of fuel. The “fuel” being energy from the sun, and “work” being the movement of air and water. Thus, the recent decrease in east coast hurricanes as the arctic warms, reducing the efficiency of the global heat engine in the northern hemisphere.

^ Obviously the above applies to tropical cyclones, but as I mentioned, the same forces behind the decrease in high-ACE Atlantic seasons since 2012 are also behind the increasing rarity of intense tornado outbreaks in the same timeframe.

 

[ColdFront]

@ColdFront I will admit that I am on a “crusade” here, but solely out of a sincerely held belief. As far as the he professionals are concerned, they are not infallible either. Look at Timothy P. Marshall and the Vilonia AR “EF4.” Conflicting interests can lay claim to even the most qualified and impartial of individuals. Furthermore, the role of egos and finance can be just as large among salaried experts as among laity. Both public and private institutions are vulnerable to big corporations and their influence on government in general. Merely being a specialist does not automatically confer scientific correctness on an individual.


@warneagle I am going by both real-time observations and basic physics. For example, since 2012 the North Pacific, along with the subtropical northwestern North Atlantic, has warmed considerably vs. the tropical Atlantic. On balance this would favour more riding over the western CONUS that would tend to temper and/or delay the springtime tornado season, while also promoting blockier patterns that would discourage progressive, low-amplitude setups that are conducive to large-scale outbreaks. (Unsurprisingly, big tornado outbreaks have declined in frequency post 2012 vs. the earlier period, as @CheeselandSkies has mentioned previously.) The same trend would also, as mentioned previously, account for the weaker AMOC and less-intense Atlantic hurricane seasons seen since 2012.


If one understands basic physics, perhaps one doesn’t need a plethora of studies. Here is a good primer on the foundational elements involved:


^ Obviously the above applies to tropical cyclones, but as I mentioned, the same forces behind the decrease in high-ACE Atlantic seasons since 2012 are also behind the increasing rarity of intense tornado outbreaks in the same timeframe.

Yep, there’s the standard play he does, disregard everyone’s points so I can continue my weird crusade on a severe weather forum.

Your arrogance is both absolutely astounding and infuriating. Have you ever in your life admitted you may be wrong? Or have you always thought you were the smartest person in a room?

 

[Casuarina Head]

Your arrogance is both absolutely astounding and infuriating. Have you ever in your life admitted you may be wrong? Or have you always thought you were the smartest person in a room?

@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:

I think you bring a devils advocate approach to discussion on here which is always good to prevent groupthink. ...

I think occasionally on this board we hype up an event (like last week) that most meteorologists would contend has average parameters at best and poor at worst, and when it doesn’t perform to our expectations we start searching for an answer why, which is human nature of course. ...

I just think you’ve set a very very high arbitrary standard and criteria that is extremely difficult to overcome and satisfy.

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.

 

[warneagle]

I am going by both real-time observations and basic physics. For example, since 2012 the North Pacific, along with the subtropical northwestern North Atlantic, has warmed considerably vs. the tropical Atlantic. On balance this would favour more riding over the western CONUS that would tend to temper and/or delay the springtime tornado season, while also promoting blockier patterns that would discourage progressive, low-amplitude setups that are conducive to large-scale outbreaks. (Unsurprisingly, big tornado outbreaks have declined in frequency post 2012 vs. the earlier period, as @CheeselandSkies has mentioned previously.) The same trend would also, as mentioned previously, account for the weaker AMOC and less-intense Atlantic hurricane seasons seen since 2012.

This is somewhat plausible but you need to show your work on the claim that "big tornado outbreaks" have declined in frequency post-2012 (which requires a set definition of "big tornado outbreak" that isn't subject to goalpost-moving, so you need to provide that), because I'm not convinced that there's a genuine trend there that can't be explained by simple variance. If you want to make this claim, you need to prove that "big tornado outbreaks" have actually declined and that the gaps in "big tornado outbreaks" are coincident with your purported physical mechanism.

If one understands basic physics, perhaps one doesn’t need a plethora of studies. Here is a good primer on the foundational elements involved:

I'm going to ignore the insinuation that I don't understand basic physics because the last thing I want is to get involved in a personal argument, but you didn't answer the actual question I was asking. I'm not asking for an explanation of the physics, I'm asking for evidence that the claim that climate change is driving an increase in tornadoes and severe weather is widespread in the scientific community, i.e. that a large number of scientists are making this claim publicly, because I haven't seen any evidence that that's the case.

I'm also not buying the argument that an "understanding of basic physics" obviates the need for data, because that's not how the scientific method works. If you want to make a claim about a physical process, you need data that proves that process is actually occurring the way you say it is. It's entirely possible to make a flawed argument that's based on sound physics; you need to provide data that directly supports your claims (that "big tornado outbreaks" are actually becoming rarer, that this is driven by patterns driven by ocean warming, and that the data that supports those two claims is statistically significant). Just because an explanation is plausible doesn't mean it's correct (especially when it's an explanation for a phenomenon that may not even exist in the first place).

 

[Casuarina Head]

As I said in the other thread, I’d like to see proof that this is a widespread narrative among experts. Surely if this were a prevalent theory there would be lots of peer-reviewed studies making this argument.

I’m not going to get into the political/public opinion aspect of it, or the idea that some nebulous group is pushing the purported “narrative”, because that’s not important from a scientific perspective (scientific illiteracy obviously isn’t new and isn’t confined to this case). However, from a purely scientific and statistical perspective, there are a lot of holes in your theory that need to be filled before it could be considered convincing.

I'm going to ignore the insinuation that I don't understand basic physics because the last thing I want is to get involved in a personal argument, but you didn't answer the actual question I was asking.

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.

I'm also not buying the argument that an "understanding of basic physics" obviates the need for data, because that's not how the scientific method works. If you want to make a claim about a physical process, you need data that proves that process is actually occurring the way you say it is. It's entirely possible to make a flawed argument that's based on sound physics; you need to provide data that directly supports your claims (that "big tornado outbreaks" are actually becoming rarer, that this is driven by patterns driven by ocean warming, and that the data that supports those two claims is statistically significant). Just because an explanation is plausible doesn't mean it's correct (especially when it's an explanation for a phenomenon that may not even exist in the first place).

I am trying to bring forth a hypothesis for discussion. I shouldn’t use the word “prove” or “proof,” because I can’t really prove anything.

 

[andyhb]

I am trying to bring forth a hypothesis for discussion. I shouldn’t use the word “prove” or “proof,” because I can’t really prove anything.

The way you present things really does not suggest this, especially with this whole "crusade" thing.

 

[andyhb]

You’re right about this. By no means do I “like” the controversy and ugliness that all this inevitably invites and dredges up again and again. I will admit, however, that the entire AGW issue, and the general blindness surrounding it, genuinely makes me angry at times. I too am no specialist, but my own personal observations over the past decade, along with a rudimentary understanding of Meteorology 101, tells me that a) in a warmer world, decreased temperature gradients will lead to decreased storminess, and therefore b) the MSM + scientific establishment’s proclamations to the contrary are dangerous, because they lead to a false dichotomy in which 1) people who distrust the MSM/scientific Establishment wrongly conclude that the globe is not warming (personally, I see overwhelming evidence that it is, but equally overwhelming evidence that it is not leading to increasingly severe weather or is otherwise “bad” for mankind in general) and/or 2) believers in AGW conclude that the “sky is falling” in terms of catastrophic severe-weather events. When I try to point out that the globe is warming but is likely leading to fewer severe events, people on both sides of the AGW debate attack me, and I don’t think that is entirely fair.

I also have my own suspicions that data are being cherry-picked or even fudged in realtime. Examples: several of the recent “Cat-4+” hurricanes to hit the CONUS (most recently Ian, for which I see no real evidence from ground-based observations, including METARs and images of structural damage, to even remotely support the “official” 130-kt MSW at landfall), naming of tropical cyclones that wouldn’t have been named a few decades ago, and so on. This observation also applies to tornadoes. For example, in the meantime reanalysis of historical weather events in the distant past, including major tornado outbreaks prior to 1950 (and even prior to the EF Scale), that could shed led light on the whole “correlation” between AGW and severe weather is being sorely neglected. There is a lot of historical material out there that is being overlooked or altered to fit the current narrative. So much work can be done by combing through historical archives yet for some reason isn’t being funded by the same interests that are massively promoting a certain narrative about AGW and severe weather. As someone who once volunteered (not interned, I don’t want to exaggerate my role) for the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project by utilising old newspaper microfiche and other historical sources, I am particularly attuned to this. If I come across as arrogant in some of my posts, it’s because I’m personally worn out and tired due to this singular issue that has consumed me.

Another “beef” of mine is that there is an increased tendency to make events worse than they are in order to increase people’s dependency on either government or big corporations, the same special interests that are also massively behind the current AGW narrative, but that’s another story (though it sometimes spills over into the threads on recent outbreaks). Unfortunately, because people in power shape the narrative in ways that affect ordinary people’s lives, I feel that this issue cannot simply be overlooked out of concern for decorum. If that means more “wincing,” well, from my perspective we need to face certain uncomfortable realities about our world today.

This is a lot of conspiracy theory and questionable logic for one post. Newsflash: attribution studies have shown that AGW has increased the probability for a number of extreme weather events, particularly extreme temperatures and precipitation. It is also not set in stone that "decreased temperature gradients will lead to decreased storminess" because the the jet stream/upper tropospheric response to Arctic amplification/etc. is complex and non-linear.

For the stuff about "being bad for mankind", I'm not even going to touch that, because that is a clearly political opinion. I'll just tell you to ask the people in the Pacific NW who suffered through the heatwave in 2021.

For the hurricane stuff, what? I think you're confusing updated measurement and observations with trends in intensity. Are there hurricanes in the past that were likely more intense than their estimates? Sure, but that's what the entire HURDAT project is about. It is well accepted fact that wind estimates on land will not match those over water.

 

[thundersnow]

I will admit that I am on a “crusade” here, but solely out of a sincerely held belief.

With that admission, this might be a good thing to keep in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[ColdFront]

Yes @Casuarina Head my criticism was more constructive when I was first starting out here.

However, this is what I’ve observed over time:

You’re not bringing up a hypothesis for discussion. You either dismissed the opinions of many others by saying that experts are fallible, backhandedly insult them, or just gloss over any counter points made to you. You also aren’t positing this as a discussion. To you, your theory is a set in stone conclusion.

Whatever anger or disagreements you have at government officials or AGW proponents already biases any kind of point you put out. It’s obvious where it’s stemming from as even you admit it both consumes you and this is your crusade. You aren’t doing this for a good faith debate, this is your own way of lashing out.

Another thing I’ve noticed is you subtly gloat at others after an event doesn’t live up to your arbitrary expectations. Or you come across as very arrogant with your “I’m right, you’re wrong” method of discussion.

Take Friday For example, you’re ripping the SPC for their decision, trying to make some kind of wild argument why Friday wasn’t like Palm Sunday 1965 when absolutely no one said it would be, and then arguing that tornados were struggling as one tore through Little Rock.

I, at one point thought you were a troll. Then, I thought you were playing a “character” of some sorts. But now it’s obvious you have an agenda and narrative you are going to push with this crusade, and none of your discussions are in good faith. In fact they border on ludicrous conspiracy theories.

That’s enough of my explanation on why I changed my tune with you. And just to remain on topic, I think this entire climate change decreasing the frequency of tornado outbreaks is a load of crap.