Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

We hear about the heat, wheres the tornadoes?

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 1, 2012 10:19:21 PM

We were told, with rising heat comes more tornadoes, more hurricanes.
Where are they?
Almost record low for tornado counts.....

Can the experts be wrong?
August 1, 2012 10:32:10 PM

There is more to it than just heat. Like wind shear and precipitation.
August 1, 2012 10:49:39 PM

That what I said awhile ago when people were talking huge storms of all types.
It seems no matter what they said in the past is like the weather, it may happen, or it may not, as weve always known it
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 2, 2012 1:20:47 PM

There may still be some unknowns but I think we have a pretty good idea of just about every weather cycle there is. I would contribute the lack of tornadoes to the drought that is gripping a lot of the U.S. We should be more worried about dust bowl 2.
August 2, 2012 1:24:26 PM

We should be worried about the entire crop of FOOD that was lost. If this happens again next growing season we are in real trouble. Imagine if it happens 3 seasons in a row, or 5 seasons even. Not good.
August 2, 2012 2:30:54 PM

Theres the 150 year cycle of the Greenland ice sheet melting
Go back 70-80 years, another dust bowl, another 70-80 years the cycle and various weather problems.
It seems to be a cycle
August 2, 2012 2:53:50 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Theres the 150 year cycle of the Greenland ice sheet melting
Go back 70-80 years, another dust bowl, another 70-80 years the cycle and various weather problems.
It seems to be a cycle

There was a thunder storm last week and then the week before that, so there is going to be one this week? Damn it, got a tee time for 230 today.
August 2, 2012 2:56:40 PM

The ice cores prove it.
Have any of that water left from the last 2 storms?
August 2, 2012 3:17:26 PM

Nope that damn dry dirt soaked it up to quick.
August 2, 2012 3:27:09 PM

Weve had a few up here in da nort land dontcha know
August 2, 2012 10:27:22 PM

Actually johsonma is right: Drought's silver lining: Fewest July tornadoes on record

Quote:
There were only 24 tornadoes throughout the United States last month, according to preliminary data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, by far the fewest for a July since records began in the 1950s. This shatters the record low of 42 tornadoes set in July 1960.

Why so few twisters? "The one-word answer is drought," said Bob Henson, a meteorologist and science writer for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Fewer rainstorms means fewer chances for tornadoes, which form only in thunderstorms. "If you don't have thunderstorms, you can't get a tornado," Henson told OurAmazingPlanet.

Record drought has gripped much of the country, with nearly two-thirds of the 48 contiguous states in some stage of drought. Part of the reason for the drought — and hence the lack of tornado-producing storms — is the presence of a high-pressure "heat dome" over much of the country.

The year started out differently, with unusually high tornado activity. In March, for example, there were 151 tornadoes, well above average, Henson said. These deadly storms made up the first billion-dollar disaster of the year.

But tornadoes grew scarcer as drought started to take hold in mid- to late April. From May through July, there were 231 tornadoes, the fewest in this span since high-quality record-keeping began in the 1950s, according to the U.S. Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla.

In many years, a large percentage of tornadoes occur on a handful of days when conditions are right, such as strong upper-level winds and unstable air near the ground. This year was no different, with 153 twisters – a third of the year's current total – occurring on just three days: Feb. 29, March 2 and April 14. [Infographic: Tornado! How, When & Where Twisters Form ]

A significantly greater number of tornadoes can be recorded now than in decades past due to the increased number of storm chasers and the ease of sharing photos or video of twisters, which makes this July's record all the more impressive. Researchers have created "inflation-adjusted" stats that reflect how many tornadoes likely occurred in years past.

After 2012, the most tornado-starved Julys were in 2002, 2006 and 2007, according to the adjusted data. The Julys of 2002, 2006 and 2012 also were among the nation's warmest months in the last century, Henson said. When a summer month is unusually hot, the polar jet stream generally has been pushed well to the north by domes of high pressure. That leaves less upper-level energy to fuel tornado-creating thunderstorms. Non-tornadic storms (which rely less on wind shear and more on heat and moisture) may still pop up, assuming drought hasn't taken hold, Henson said.

With the jet stream pushed to the north, Canada had more tornadoes than the United States last month, which is very unusual, Henson said.


Personally I'm glad to give them Canucks all my tornado quota :p ..
August 3, 2012 2:42:55 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_war...
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/co...
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/t...
Just strange since many are on record the global warming causes greater numbers and stonger storms, thus more tornadoes.
Guess they need more money to find out why theyre wrong, as this would be a model year for it


Quote from your first article:

Researchers also found that this increase would occur during typical stormy seasons and not during dry seasons when it may be beneficial.
August 3, 2012 4:01:55 PM

July is dry?
Also, the amounts of larger storms are in decline according to NOAA
So, they are not close to their predictions and warnings and claims and scare tactics
This would mean, even in a dry season, thered still be more larger tornadoes, which is in decline, not only in amount of large ones, but overall.
August 3, 2012 4:49:23 PM

July this year is incredibly dry, remember that drought we were talking about?
August 3, 2012 6:37:57 PM

So, the extra 4-5% water vapor has just disappeared from the planet? Which was also from my link
They failed to account for droughts?
Is this reasonable to you? At all? By the best of the best?
This is not in their forecasts, it was rising water, rising water vapor etc etc, yet nothing on droughts?
Then why include it?
Hanson cant do this, this was not in his forecasting, so no arm chair quarterbacking
August 5, 2012 12:25:20 AM

^ Weather patterns depend on many factors, such as the course of the jet stream, La Nina and El Nino, etc etc. My understanding is that there is a La Nina continuing in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which means continued drought in the middle and eastern US: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110908_lanin...

Personally we've gotten a bit more rain here in the NoVA region in the last couple weeks than we did in from the middle of June - middle of July, although we did get the stinkin' Derecho on June 30.

We had no power for 4 days - I had to fill up a small generator every 6 hours to run 2 refrigerators plus a window AC unit. We camped out in the basement at night as the interior temperature was about 95 degrees upstairs. My niece from Vietnam who is on a student visa declared Saigon was cooler than DC :p ..

We also lost around $1K in my wife's nail salon due to Comcast not being able to sort out their VOIP 800 number service, nor fix the Internet modem for 4 days, so the credit card machine didn't work. Cash or check only. Would have been worse except there was a bank and ATM one block away, plus we offered free chilled water & soda to the customers.
August 5, 2012 1:00:21 AM

Yeah, we lost several trees, neighbors lost alot of them, now their fire pit sits out in the middle of nowhere, their front yard, other neighbors lost many trees, as they thinned them, allowing the 85 mph winds to knock them down, whereas the trees here arent thinned, and we lost but a few.
When the power was out, we made lemonaide, as we put in a new electric box, rewiring everything, not having to wait on the power company :) 

The pattern of La Nina has ended, and were in for a change, tho, I just used the word pattern, a four letter word to some regarding the weather
August 6, 2012 2:43:51 PM

^ Wish I had lost a couple neighbors - blown away like Dorothy & Toto :p ..

Considering that Earth's weather is a typical dynamic equilibrium system (chaotic in nature), I can see both sides of the climate argument. I don't think we understand enough yet about all the negative and positive feedback systems inherent to lay the blame positively on CO2 or bovine methane emissions :p . Many physical systems exhibit local minima, where you have a restoring force until you exceed a threshold and then drop into the next local minimum.

August 6, 2012 2:56:26 PM

You know the thing about patterns JDJ? When you introduce unknown variables they go right out the window.

August 6, 2012 4:00:11 PM

Which in itself is a pattern, much like quantum theory.
There is a link, and as fazers said, I see both side, but the variations of making claims on the weather are too diverse to pinpoint.
Likelyhoods are generally accepted, and the lack of forecasting droughts and lack of tornadoes I find inadequate, especially those espousing such mighty claims.
Now, how this effects their prognostications, we will never know, since this apparently wasnt in their foresight and testing.
Which only leads us back to the diversity of possibilities, and keeps me and others questioning the full understanding of our weather, our planet and space and its effects.
If you have any links towards global warming, droughts and lack of larger storms, itd be much appreciated
August 6, 2012 6:28:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Which in itself is a pattern, much like quantum theory.
There is a link, and as fazers said, I see both side, but the variations of making claims on the weather are too diverse to pinpoint.
Likelyhoods are generally accepted, and the lack of forecasting droughts and lack of tornadoes I find inadequate, especially those espousing such mighty claims.
Now, how this effects their prognostications, we will never know, since this apparently wasnt in their foresight and testing.
Which only leads us back to the diversity of possibilities, and keeps me and others questioning the full understanding of our weather, our planet and space and its effects.
If you have any links towards global warming, droughts and lack of larger storms, itd be much appreciated


As far as I know humans coming into existence and pouring out excessive emissions has not happened before, therefore how can there be a pattern? You can relate it to volcano eruptions and the like but it is not the same, these are "unknown" variables. The only evidence to work with is the evidence we can collect in the here and now, all previous weather patterns are null and void due to the inclusion of new variables. There is only one real clear indicator that should be looked at here, the rise in temperature directly correlates with the rise in CO2 emissions. No other factor comes close to matching up with the rise in global temperature. You speak of the diversity of our climate and you are right, but sometimes its the simplest answer thats the right one.
August 6, 2012 6:34:14 PM

No other indicators other than CO2? Like the Sun maybe?

Does the distance from the Earth to the Sun have any impact? That distance does flucuate as the Earth "wobbles" in its orbit. Does this play a part in Earth's climate at all? Sort of like moving you hand closer to or farther away from a fire?
August 6, 2012 6:57:16 PM

Its a constant variable that is taken into account, the earth's orbit always has one point where it is closest and one point were it is farthest away from the son. The northern hemisphere's summer is actually during the farthest stretch. During all these droughts we were actually as far away from the sun as we can get as a collective planet, obviously the northern hemisphere was a "little" closer.

http://www.space.com/16425-earth-farthest-from-sun-2012...
August 6, 2012 7:12:38 PM

Okay, but what happens when before this effect happened, and we still had very little understanding.
The infancy of understanding the weather, using as much history as can be applied hasnt helped us at all, and as for easy reasonings, this in itself calls up a red flag, as those themselves making such claims would deny our previous understandings.
You see, theyve left us with nothing but their viewpoint, denying the past as useless, which we are still barely understanding today, and are to plow ahead with some knowledge about something thats little understood, and what we did know doesnt apply, and I just ask why?
The only pattern is....the sun?
Cant use the past?
The cosmos?
Cant use the past?
Global warming?
Yes, its the only explanation
Earths previous earthquakes, their results, whats left from them, and how that will change because of the earlier change from them, we cant use?
No
Asteroids and their subsequent effects, which may take x amount of years, effect current and past weather?
No
Making assumptions that this isnt exactly whats supposed to happen? No
If people arent skeptical about these things, then theres something wrong in their thinking, tho, researching an end, effects and other findings is the way to go, but the so called experts spouting these things are but a tiny part in our overall understanding of whats meant to be regarding the weather
August 6, 2012 7:35:42 PM

johnsonma said:
As far as I know humans coming into existence and pouring out excessive emissions has not happened before, therefore how can there be a pattern? You can relate it to volcano eruptions and the like but it is not the same, these are "unknown" variables. The only evidence to work with is the evidence we can collect in the here and now, all previous weather patterns are null and void due to the inclusion of new variables. There is only one real clear indicator that should be looked at here, the rise in temperature directly correlates with the rise in CO2 emissions. No other factor comes close to matching up with the rise in global temperature. You speak of the diversity of our climate and you are right, but sometimes its the simplest answer thats the right one.


We do have some historical or geological facts at our disposal, however. Back in the Carboniferous age, some 300 to 360 million years ago, much of the terrestrial carbon was locked up in the form of wood (lignin) that animals bacterial and fungi had not yet learned to digest. Sea levels were lower and there were lots of swampy and marshland areas where trees would fall and eventually turn into coal deposits due to not rotting. Atmospheric CO2 levels were very low and O2 levels very high (maybe as high as 35% of the atmosphere, compared with just 20% today). Insects were able to grow to huge sizes (think dragonflies the size of large birds, beetles the size of a rat). But the Carboniferous age started out warmer than today's temperatures, although it did cool down to below today's. Most scientists think that was due to the supercontinent Pangaea forming, which altered the jet streams and ocean currents more than anything else.

So IMO we have had greater variation in the CO2 and other atmospheric gas composition in the past that what we've seen so far.

That said, I'm also in favor of developing alternative energy sources, including safe nuclear, since oil is limited and mostly controlled by states that are not exactly our best friends :p ..
August 6, 2012 7:39:28 PM

We as a species should try and avoid a possible self imposed extinction scenario. Not just gamble on "Eh, maybe its something else".

Even if our understanding is limited all the more reason not to introduce as many variables into the environment.


August 6, 2012 8:29:41 PM

Introducing CO2 is a constant if anything, and to me, thats more troubling seeing as we havnt had such before, or, we have, and its not counted.
August 6, 2012 9:19:41 PM

How can CO2 emissions be a constant when the amount varies?
August 6, 2012 9:35:39 PM

johnsonma said:
How can CO2 emissions be a constant when the amount varies?


Man made CO2 emissions are being reduced all the time. The problem is, compared to what the Earth naturally emits, what man contributes is insignificant.

The vast vast majority of warming greenhouse gases is water vapor from the oceans and seas, not CO2.
August 6, 2012 10:07:27 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Man made CO2 emissions are being reduced all the time. The problem is, compared to what the Earth naturally emits, what man contributes is insignificant.

The vast vast majority of warming greenhouse gases is water vapor from the oceans and seas, not CO2.


Imagine adding 5% of water to an already full glass, what happens?
August 7, 2012 3:56:48 AM

I think a more approproate answer would be, arguing over the tiny amounts of variations we make are rather insignificantBut they are a constant in terms of the weather and the ever changing earth, compatively
August 7, 2012 2:32:47 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I think a more approproate answer would be, arguing over the tiny amounts of variations we make are rather insignificantBut they are a constant in terms of the weather and the ever changing earth, compatively


The earth can only absorb so much, when we get to that point of imbalance(which pretty much every study indicates we have), the small amounts become increasingly important.
August 7, 2012 3:43:16 PM

My point is, this is, if anything, a constant, variations aside, and it does give them something to measure.
But, having variables at all levels beyond this, our current small amount of understanding them and their potentials and effects, its still a shot in the dark.
August 7, 2012 3:49:31 PM

I understand what you are saying JDJ, but I refuse to accept our ignorance as an excuse to keep going like nothing will happen.
August 7, 2012 4:24:35 PM

While it would be stupid not to pay attention on this, they need to be right early on, and not having explanations on droughts, the loss of more powerful storms in numbers etc shows they still dont have a handle on it, and their projections and predictions are varying, and making sweeping statements cant work.
The good and the bad point is the constant weve introduced into our atmosphere, something to somewhat reliably measure, its effects etc, but going from there to making claims and not completely having all scenarios covered tells me theyve either underestimated, overestimated or are far from any decent understanding of our situation.
This means to me at least, what theyre doing is important, and they need to continue, but they are far from having a handle on it, and doing too much at this point could have its own diverse effects, all not positive, except for those we know, regarding the economy.
Ive talked about lake Powell before, where first its artificialto begin with, second, it has a great fishery there, again because its artificial,
The farmers upstream were using certain fertilizers that ran off into the lake, creating algae.
The government demanded they cut back immediately on their usage, using alternatives etc, so the algae wouldnt muddy the waters.
What happened next was, the fish died, as the natural food chain was ended and or severly affected.
Theyve since come to their senses, but as nature adapts, abrupt changes in either direction can cause undesirable effects
!