Don't pin US tornado on climate change, UN panel head says

May 21, 2013
Yellow caution tape marks off the area surrounding the heavily damaged Moore Medical Center after a powerful tornado ripped through the area on May 20, 2013 in Moore, Oklahoma. Pinning the deadly tornado in the US state of Oklahoma on climate change is wrongheaded, even though the world is set to see a rise in high-profile weather disasters due to global warming, the leader of a UN body said.

Pinning the deadly tornado in the US state of Oklahoma on climate change is wrongheaded, even though the world is set to see a rise in high-profile weather disasters due to global warming, the leader of a UN body said Tuesday.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN-backed , said data was still coming in about Monday's massive tornado which tore through a suburb of Oklahoma City, killing at least 24 people.

"Could there be better preparedness in general? Yes. What could better preparedness have been? Well it's very difficult to say at this stage," Pachauri told reporters in Geneva.

"But one really cannot relate an event of this nature to human-induced climate change. It's just not possible. Scientifically, that's not valid," he said.

The tornado followed roughly the same track as a May 1999 twister that killed 44 people, injured hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes.

Tornadoes frequently touch down on Oklahoma's plains, but Monday's twister struck a populated urban area.

Because of the hard ground, few homes are built with basements or storm shelters where residents can take cover.

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, speaks on June 6, 2011 in Oslo. Pinning the deadly tornado in the US state of Oklahoma on climate change is wrongheaded, even though the world is set to see a rise in high-profile weather disasters due to global warming, Pachauri said Tuesday.

Oklahoma City lies inside the so-called "" stretching from South Dakota to central Texas, an area particularly vulnerable to tornadoes.

Experts warn that other —like last year's Hurricane Sandy in the Caribbean and United States—could strike more often due to climate change, as global temperatures rise and governments struggle to rein in emissions of which are blamed for the phenomenon.

"Changes that are taking place, and that we're concerned about, include an increase in heatwaves, both in intensity and frequency, increase in extreme precipitation events and also extreme sea-level related impacts because of the increase in Arctic sea level," Pachauri said.

Explore further: Oklahoma twister tracked path of 1999 tornado (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Australia heatwave part of global trend: IPCC chief

Jan 15, 2013

Australia's extreme summer heatwave, which caused devastating bushfires and saw temperature forecasts go off the scale, is part of a global warming trend, the UN's climate panel chief said Tuesday.

Living through a tornado does not shake optimism

Mar 01, 2013

Even in the face of a disaster, we remain optimistic about our chances of injury compared to others, according to a new study. Residents of a town struck by a tornado thought their risk of injury from a future tornado was ...

Repeat deadly storms 'unusual but not unknown'

May 24, 2011

(AP) -- Weather experts said it's unusual for deadly tornadoes to develop a few weeks apart in the U.S. But what made the two storm systems that barreled through a Missouri city and the South within the last ...

Recommended for you

European climate at the +2 C global warming threshold

4 hours ago

A global warming of 2 C relative to pre-industrial climate has been considered as a threshold which society should endeavor to remain below, in order to limit the dangerous effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Australia's dirty secret: who's breathing toxic air?

6 hours ago

Australians living in poorer communities, with lower employment and education levels, as well as communities with a high proportion of Indigenous people, are significantly more likely to be exposed to high ...

Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

Apr 15, 2014

New Zealand's pastoral landscapes are some of the loveliest in the world, but they also contain a hidden threat. Many of the country's pasture soils have become enriched in cadmium. Grasses take up this toxic heavy metal, ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (25) May 21, 2013
AGWites, Pachauri is not a climatologist!
Don't listen to the head of the IPCC!
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (26) May 21, 2013
Pinning the deadly tornado in the US state of Oklahoma on climate change is wrongheaded, even though the world is set to see a rise in high-profile weather disasters due to global warming, the leader of a UN body said Tuesday.

In other words, we have no proof this is due to climate change but be warned there will be more because of climate change.
This has to be a new low for these AGW Alarmists. Exploiting this disaster and feeding on human suffering and fear. The Cult has no shame to do this, especially when the actual record dispels all the AGW Cult's doom and gloom as pure propaganda.
Damodar Sharma
2.1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2013
It can be well related to explosion on Moon. Refer previos Historical Data related to Explosions on Sun & Moon & Natural Calamities took place on Earth.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (21) May 22, 2013
In other words, we have no proof this is due to climate change but be warned there will be more because of climate change.

You global warming deniers just have never gotten it have you? Storms are all about energy. The energy in the atmosphere is what influences their intensity, so with global warming your trapping more energy in the atmosphere, which statistically can influence storm strengths. AGW will not say this tornado or that hail storm was caused by global warming, but we will say that statistically the strength of those storms might be greater due to global warming.
Czcibor
3.3 / 5 (8) May 22, 2013
AGW will not say this tornado or that hail storm was caused by global warming, but we will say that statistically the strength of those storms might be greater due to global warming.

AGW would not say that... but media would, so those who on ideological reasons hate idea of AGW can proudly debunk media and remind that this time they are those who are scientifically accurate. (funny paradox, isn't it?)

There is a problem to confirm that what you said with empirical data so far. I mean some time ago there was presented on this site a study of increase of amount of violent storms, but what it really has shown was no increase in observed serious storms, while an increase in minor storms what presumably meant that nowadays they are better recorded. Maybe next data set would be better and allow to confirm the theory that you mentioned?
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (24) May 22, 2013
In other words, we have no proof this is due to climate change but be warned there will be more because of climate change.

You global warming deniers just have never gotten it have you? Storms are all about energy. The energy in the atmosphere is what influences their intensity, so with global warming your trapping more energy in the atmosphere, which statistically can influence storm strengths. AGW will not say this tornado or that hail storm was caused by global warming, but we will say that statistically the strength of those storms might be greater due to global warming.

If we are deniers then you Alarmist are blind and also stupid. The ACTUAL statistics show NONE of what you claim, so by your "science" it means there is no global warming.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (12) May 22, 2013
Well we all know the media has problems of its own when trying to present any science.

Anyway here is one of my sources backing my position;
http://web.mit.ed...026.html

And if you drill down further you will find this as the stories source;
http://www.pnas.o...11547107

As far as the flame-y global warming denier, the glowing ember from a camp fire made with cow dung, the famous '@anti', I'll let him present his counter analysis, what ever there is of it. What have you got for us Anti?
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (19) May 22, 2013
Well we all know the media has problems of its own when trying to present any science.

Anyway here is one of my sources backing my position;
http://web.mit.ed...026.html

As far as the flame-y global warming denier, the glowing ember from a camp fire made with cow dung, the famous '@anti', I'll let him present his counter analysis, what ever there is of it. What have you got for us Anti?

As usual the AGW Alarmist Turd's response is to flood the forum with garbage.
Here are actual records from NOAA - http://www.ncdc.n...oes.html
Tell, me in which way or form does it support the claim you make.
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (13) May 23, 2013
Wow! The humbled @anti responds timidly like a wolf in a vulture suit after a Halloween toilet paper run;
As usual the AGW Alarmist Turd's response is to flood the forum with garbage.
Here are actual records from NOAA - http://www.ncdc.n...oes.html
Tell, me in which way or form does it support the claim you make.


If you scroll to the bottom, you will see your weblink indicates that 2011 had the most recorder number of tornadoes ever. It was also one of the hottest year on record. Correlation? The point I was making was not with tornadoes per say but with storm severity, rainfall intensity, hail and lightning strike amounts. These items along with the tornado activity and other freak storms should track well with global temperature rise.

You have more energy, more water vapor, stronger lofting currents, a more northern jet stream. All of those contribute to intensity and frequency of storm systems.

http://berkeleyea...summary/
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
And, once more AO is hoist on his own petard. That's what happens when one cites stuff without understanding either the issue at hand or what his citation actually says. LOL

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
Looked at from a meteorological standpoint and not a purely "climatic" one, The paper Hownot cites is correct in saying that storms in summer in the NH will tend to become less strong. This is because of the same reason that the "Anti" crowd cannot comprehend either - that the world is not warming evenly. The Arctic is warming more. This lessens the strength of the summer polar jet-stream and as mid-latitude depression are picked up and driven by the diffluence formed aloft by the jet. Less jet strength equals less development power for depressions. The SH jet is not similarly affected - Antarctica as a pole of cold is not warming to any significant degree ( due easily understood, non AGW reasons ). Latitudes away from these zones will indeed have more energy available in terms of both sensible and latent heat transport aloft - convection based storms ( vis tornados ). Tornados rely on there being cool/dry air aloft + a clockwise rotation of winds going upwards to induce spin.
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
And, once more AO is hoist on his own petard. That's what happens when one cites stuff without understanding either the issue at hand or what his citation actually says. LOL

The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend.

Contrary to the article and you AGW Alarmists, the actual record shows-
The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.

http://www1.ncdc....-EF5.png
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2013
"The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend."

Such eloquence is almost charming... in a nostalgic-for-the-school-yard-bully-that-hates-people-smarter-than-him kinda way.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (15) May 23, 2013
It can be well related to explosion on Moon. Refer previos Historical Data related to Explosions on Sun & Moon & Natural Calamities took place on Earth.


It can also be related to my magic pointing stick. That, or my army of magical monkeys waving fans.
antigoracle
2.7 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
"The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend."

Such eloquence is almost charming... in a nostalgic-for-the-school-yard-bully-that-hates-people-smarter-than-him kinda way.

Thank you. I strive for that right balance of descending to the level of my AGW Alarmist audience and sanity.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
Tornados rely on there being cool/dry air aloft + a clockwise rotation of winds going upwards to induce spin.


Tornadoes are more likely an electric discharge event, this is what a charge sheath vortex (tornado) is. It's no coincidence there are vortices on nearly every planet (and Sun) we've observed up close. They occur even in the tenuous atmosphere of Mars which can cause planet wide dust storms. Vortices occur at a vast range of scales, a common link among them all is the electrical nature of the vortex.

http://www.peter-...dex.html
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) May 24, 2013
And, once more AO is hoist on his own petard. That's what happens when one cites stuff without understanding either the issue at hand or what his citation actually says. LOL

The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend.

Contrary to the article and you AGW Alarmists, the actual record shows-
The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.

http://www1.ncdc....-EF5.png

Spoken like a true doofus.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) May 24, 2013
"The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend."

Such eloquence is almost charming... in a nostalgic-for-the-school-yard-bully-that-hates-people-smarter-than-him kinda way.

Thank you. I strive for that right balance of descending to the level of my AGW Alarmist audience and sanity.

Translation: AO has risen to the level of his incompetence.
Skepticus
3.9 / 5 (7) May 24, 2013
"Because of the hard ground, few homes are built with basements or storm shelters where residents can take cover."
Really? Living in the most tornado-prone areas, and reluctant to dig for shelter just because the ground is hard? This is just so stupid optimism. What do they think, they are immortal? This must be the case, as the news showed so many wooden houses with no solid foundations and mobile homes smashed to shreds like confetti. The absurdity in thinking is more baffling, as I have seen houses in parts of Asia that only have occasional tropical storms built with steel bars-reinforced concrete walls a foot thick?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013

Tornadoes are more likely an electric discharge event, this is what a charge sheath vortex (tornado) is. It's no coincidence there are vortices on nearly every planet (and Sun) we've observed up close. They occur even in the tenuous atmosphere of Mars which can cause planet wide dust storms. Vortices occur at a vast range of scales, a common link among them all is the electrical nature of the vortex.


I was not talking about a "vortex". I was talking about a tornado. Look it up. They are indeed caused by the process I described. You are thinking of dust-devils and the like ( which are present on Mars - tornados are NOT ). A dust-devil is formed quite differently ( does not involve the upper atmosphere of WV ) - by extreme heating at the surface inducing vigorous local thermals which converge and conserve spin ( ice-skater ) as they rise.
http://www.univer...-devils/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (19) May 24, 2013
the strength of those storms might be greater due to global warming.

Relative to what?
Tornadoes have occurred for thousands, maybe millions of years given the proper conditions. What data do you have to show tornadoes today occur more frequently and with more intensity than those 1000, 2000, 10000 ....years ago?
In the 20th century, there have been significant tornado events and even as far back as the 1600s, tornadoes were observed in New England.

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (17) May 24, 2013
Actually, Martian dust devils do reach the upper atmosphere. You weren't talking about a vortex, you were talking about a tornado. Well by definition a tornado is indeed a vortex. Mr. Thompson's theory is just far superior than any other model, and ironically fits perfectly within the EUT paradigm.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2013
Actually, Martian dust devils do reach the upper atmosphere. You weren't talking about a vortex, you were talking about a tornado. Well by definition a tornado is indeed a vortex. Mr. Thompson's theory is just far superior than any other model, and ironically fits perfectly within the EUT paradigm.


Look it just isn't. You are talking to a Meteorologist.
here.

A tornado takes its spin from the clockwise rotation of winds as the cloud rises through he atmosphere. The CLOUD is spinning - this transfering to the updraft into the cloud to form the vortex. (via conservation of angular momentum). A dust-devil is entirely different. I did not say how far they rose through the atmosphere. + Energy within the thundercloud a tornado is part of is gained from the very moist/warm air at the bottom, as it rises through the dry air aloft.
I do know the difference between the two thank-you. You evidently don't.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
"Such a strong jet stream results in intense upward motion in the atmosphere. When the jet moved over warm, humid air in place across the South Wednesday, thunderstorms exploded.

In addition, at the lower levels of the atmosphere (closer to the ground), there were strong winds greater than 50 mph blowing in from the south. With the jet stream winds blowing out of the west and winds closer to the ground blowing out of the south, a strong rotating environment developed.

Once thunderstorms started to erupt, they immediately started to show signs of rotation, which is the first step to tornado development."
http://www.accuwe...ed/48985
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (17) May 24, 2013
I understand how most meteorologists "believe" how tornadoes are formed, sadly the theory fails miserably to describe the real phenomenon. Just as convection cannot explain the energy released in thunderstorms, neither does it explain the energy involved in tornadoes.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (5) May 24, 2013
"Such a strong jet stream results in intense upward motion in the atmosphere. When the jet moved over warm, humid air in place across the South Wednesday, thunderstorms exploded.

In addition, at the lower levels of the atmosphere (closer to the ground), there were strong winds greater than 50 mph blowing in from the south. With the jet stream winds blowing out of the west and winds closer to the ground blowing out of the south, a strong rotating environment developed.

Once thunderstorms started to erupt, they immediately started to show signs of rotation, which is the first step to tornado development."
http://www.accuwe...ed/48985


Gave you 5 for that...
there's a rarity.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) May 24, 2013
I understand how most meteorologists "believe" how tornadoes are formed, sadly the theory fails miserably to describe the real phenomenon. Just as convection cannot explain the energy released in thunderstorms, neither does it explain the energy involved in tornadoes.


Meteorologists also observe the weather. It is an experiment in real time. Tornado containing thundercloud are probably the most studied cloud systems there are. They are caused by the release of copious latent heat of condensation in a highly unstable atmosphere within a clockwise rotating wind field ( as viewed from the perspective of rising air through the cloud ) driven by diffluence within a jet-stream aloft.
Regardless of any *electrical" or possible *anomalous gravity* phenomena ( I am aware of claims ) - the basic physics of their formation is as I have stated. If you are aware of a different one then a link would be appreciated.

Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (16) May 24, 2013
"The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend."

Such eloquence is almost charming... in a nostalgic-for-the-school-yard-bully-that-hates-people-smarter-than-him kinda way.

Thank you. I strive for that right balance of descending to the level of my AGW Alarmist audience and sanity.


You should package that exercise in vacuous rhetoric and pitch it on late night television as a solution to the unwanted accumulation of intellectual credibility. I don't have to compare the votes to know that your retort comes across as, at best, lame.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2013
Notice how most of the denier anti-science crowd post material that seems reminiscent of school yard debates or taunting? I've noted it before, but I think I'll bring in Bill Maher to make an observation about fanatical conservatives and 14 year old boys. In it, he raises the excellent point that if an adolescent boy can host a talk show and sound like Bubba the AM radio host, what that says about 'adult' conservative ideology isn't good. https://www.youtu...VaIXosvw
(The retorts will serve to illustrate...}
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013
"The usual response from an AGW Turd that cannot read far less comprehend."

Such eloquence is almost charming... in a nostalgic-for-the-school-yard-bully-that-hates-people-smarter-than-him kinda way.

Thank you. I strive for that right balance of descending to the level of my AGW Alarmist audience and sanity.

Translation: AO has risen to the level of his incompetence.

I can see that. I'd observe more, but it hurts to bend my neck that far down for long.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.
antigoracle
2.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.

Someone needs to up their meds, the paranoia is kicking in. Oh, are those giant roaches?
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.

Someone needs to up their meds, the paranoia is kicking in. Oh, are those giant roaches?

Translation: "No, you are."
Somebody ring the end-of-recess bell. Please.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
I had the unusual experience of giving Shootist a 4 or 5 rating on a post on an older article. Mind you, it was a response to one of R_R's nutty posts about mythology, giant impacts that reversed Earth's rotation (without sterilizing the surface of Earth!) and the ice age conspiracy.... Thanks, R_R for that abyss of absurdity that, for a brief, shining moment, brought others closer together, if only in shared disdain for pure BS, and I don't mean Bachelor of Science. ;)
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (13) May 25, 2013
A problem with climate change is that, for the most part, the wrong culprit is cited. In fact, it's the program of doping the atmosphere with weather control chemicals from high flying jets, what has come to be called "chemtrails", that is responsible. And note that the number of tornadoes has risen, since 1950, when jet flight first became widespread, from a constant 180 a year to an average of at least seven times that now. It's not more people, since the population increased only 200% since 1950, but reported tornadoes rose 600%. Tornadoes have also occurred recently in places they were unknown before, like Brooklyn. Also only two species of cloud were recognized as suddenly appearing in the past half century or so, the cirrus intortus around 1950, and the undulatus asperatus, since chemtrailing became visible in 1997. It appears chemtrails became visible then because the air was so saturated, any new contributions precipitated out.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
And note that the number of tornadoes has risen, since 1950

"In fact, tornado forecasting was once so uncertain that meteorologists at the U.S. Weather Bureau were discouraged from issuing tornado forecasts until 1950.)"
http://www.newyor...ado.html

How accurately were tornadoes documented prior to 1950?
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (12) May 25, 2013
ryggesogn2 pretends there is reason to take issue with the fact that the number of tornadoes has risen since 1950.
Will ryggesogn2 then explain where as many as 1000 tornadoes were hiding in the years when only 180 per year were recorded? Remember, even if you aren't under a tornado, you can still see it from a distance. You can still see the damage it did after the fact. And there were always more than enough people in the region called "tornado ally" to see any tornado that went through. People in trains going past, people in cars, on boats, in planes. Since 1970 the number of tornadoes has about doubled. How many more people are there now than then? And, face it, tornado forecasting is no more possible now than then. Tornadoes wouldn't catch the public by surprise if they could be predicted. Tornadoes caused by the weather control chemicals in the air may be one matter, but normal tornadoes still are characterized as not predictable.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) May 25, 2013
even if you aren't under a tornado, you can still see it from a distance.

If there is someone to see it, record it and report it.
Ever been to the central US before doppler radar, telephones, TV or radio?
even if you aren't under a tornado, you can still see it from a distance.

Not at night or when hidden by rain.
And on the plains, there are few trees to document a tornadoes passing. So what is the basis for the claim of MORE when no one has any idea how many there were, say 100 years ago?
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013
The area known as "Tornado Alley" has never been so sparsely populated that 1000 tornadoes would go unseen and only 180 would be seen. Too, the number of tornadoes was very closet o a constant 180 before 1950. If there were 1000 more tornadoes there, the number of spotted tornadoes would not be so reliably constant. But it is an utmost connivance to claim that tornadoes could not be seen miles away or that their ripping up the landscape would not be seen even after a rainstorm. And, remember, telephone and radio were available before 1950! And television and Doppler radar were also in use by 1990, even though the average number of tornadoes per year was about 800, about 500 less than today. A common New World Order non argument tactic is simply working for the last word, even if it means spouting drivel just to contest the truth. To disagree just to be disagree used to be called being "contrary". Then it was called "difficult". Now, such a person s a clinical sociopath.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) May 26, 2013
A problem with climate change is that, for the most part, the wrong culprit is cited. In fact, it's the program of doping the atmosphere with weather control chemicals from high flying jets, what has come to be called "chemtrails", that is responsible.

I've some designer tin foil hats available at reasonable prices.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 26, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.

Someone needs to up their meds, the paranoia is kicking in. Oh, are those giant roaches?

They're your delusions. You tell us.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (16) May 26, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.

Someone needs to up their meds, the paranoia is kicking in. Oh, are those giant roaches?

They're your delusions. You tell us.

Unfortunately the stupidity of the Cult of AGW Alarmism, IS NOT.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 26, 2013
Anti, nine of the last ten articles you commented on relate to climate science. But you are not obsessed or here with a political economic agenda? 'Tis to laugh... Or I would, but there are too many interesting articles on a variety of subject for those of us actually interested in science.
Someone needs to up their meds, the paranoia is kicking in. Oh, are those giant roaches?
They're your delusions. You tell us.

Unfortunately the stupidity of the Cult of AGW Alarmism, IS NOT

Thank you for admitting that those you irrationally attack are neither a cult nor alarmist.

ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2013
The frequency of extreme tornadoes will raise with global warming (and temperature gradient across the atmosphere). From this perspective the Oklahoma tornado is not so surprising. Recently the record in tornado diameter has been observed. Only few of ten atmospheric pressure records don't fall into last thirty years.

More news stories

Melting during cooling period

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation

(Phys.org) —Scientists at Yale have confirmed a 50-year-old, previously untested theoretical prediction in physics and improved the energy storage time of a quantum switch by several orders of magnitude. ...