Extreme tornado outbreaks have become more common, says study

March 2, 2016
A tornado west of Laramie, Wyo., June 15, 2015. It passed over mostly rural areas, lasting some 20 minutes. Credit: John Allen/International Research Institute for Climate and Society

Most death and destruction inflicted by tornadoes in North America occurs during outbreaks—large-scale weather events that can last one to three days and span huge regions. The largest ever recorded happened in 2011. It spawned 363 tornadoes across the United States and Canada, killing more than 350 people and causing $11 billion in damage.

Now, a new study shows that the average number of tornadoes in these outbreaks has risen since 1954, and that the chance of extreme outbreaks —tornado factories like the one in 2011—has also increased.

The study's authors said they do not know what is driving the changes. "The science is still open," said lead author Michael Tippett, a climate and weather researcher at Columbia University's School of Applied Science and Engineering and Columbia's Data Science Institute. "It could be global warming, but our usual tools, the observational record and computer models, are not up to the task of answering this question yet." Tippett points out that many scientists expect the frequency of atmospheric conditions favorable to tornadoes to increase in a warmer climate—but even today, the right conditions don't guarantee a tornado will occur. In any case, he said, "When it comes to tornadoes, almost everything terrible that happens, happens in outbreaks. If outbreaks contain more tornadoes on average, then the likelihood they'll cause damage somewhere increases."

The results are expected to help insurance and reinsurance companies better understand the risks posed by outbreaks, which can also generate damaging hail and straight-line winds. Over the last 10 years, the industry has covered an average of $12.5 billion in insured losses each year, according to Willis Re, a global reinsurance advisor that helped sponsor the research. The article appears this week in the journal Nature Communications.

Every year, North America sees dozens of tornado outbreaks. Some are small and may give rise to only a few twisters; others, such as the so-called "super outbreaks" of 1974 and 2011, can generate hundreds. In the simplest terms, the intensity of each tornado is ranked on a zero-to-five scale, with other descriptive terms thrown in. The lower gradations cause only light damage, while the top ones, like a twister that tore through Joplin, Missouri, in 2011 can tear the bark off trees, rip houses from their foundations, and turn cars into missiles.

For this study, the authors calculated the mean number of tornadoes per outbreak for each year as well as the variance, or scatter, around this mean. They found that while the total number of tornadoes rated F/EF1 and higher each year hasn't increased, the average number per outbreak has, rising from about 10 to about 15 since the 1950s.

The study was coauthored by Joel Cohen, director of the Laboratory of Populations, which is based jointly at Rockefeller University and Columbia's Earth Institute. Cohen called the results "truly remarkable."

"The analysis showed that as the mean number of tornadoes per outbreak rose, the variance around that mean rose four times faster. While the mean rose by a factor of 1.5 over the last 60 years, the variance rose by a factor of more than 5, or 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5. This kind of relationship between variance and mean has a name in statistics: Taylor's of scaling.

"We have seen [Taylor's power law] in the distribution of stars in a galaxy, in death rates in countries, the population density of Norway, securities trading, oak trees in New York and many other cases," Cohen says. "But this is the first time anyone has shown that it applies to scaling in tornado statistics."

The exponent in Taylor's law number—in this case, the exponent was 4— can be a measure of clustering, Cohen says. If there's no clustering—if tornadoes occur just randomly—then Taylor's law has an exponent of 1. If there's clustering, then it's greater than 1. "In most ecological applications, the Taylor exponent seldom exceeds 2. To have an exponent of 4 is truly exceptional. It means that when it rains, it really, really, really pours," says Cohen.

Extreme outbreaks have become more frequent because of two factors, Tippett said. First, the average number of tornadoes per outbreak has gone up; second, the rapidly increasing variance, or variability, means that numbers well above the average are more common.

Tippett was concerned that the findings could be artifacts of tornado observational data, which are based on eyewitness accounts and known to have problems with consistency and accuracy. To get around this, he re-ran his calculations after substituting the historical tornado data with environmental proxies for tornado occurrence and number of tornadoes per occurrence. These provide an independent—albeit imperfect—measure of tornado activity. The results were very nearly identical.

As for whether the climate is the cause, Tippett said, "The scientific community has thought a great deal about how the frequency of future weather and climate extremes may change in a warming climate. The simplest change to understand is a shift of the entire distribution, but increases in variability, or variance, are possible as well. With tornadoes, we're seeing both of those mechanisms at play."

"This paper helps begin to answer one of the fundamental questions to which I'd like to know the answer," says Harold Brooks of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "If tornadoes are being concentrated into more big days, what effect does that have on their impacts compared to when they were less concentrated?"

"The findings are very relevant to insurance companies that are writing business in multiple states, especially in the Midwest," says Prasad Gunturi, senior vice president at Willis Re, who leads the company's catastrophe model research and evaluation activities for North America. "Overall growth in the economy means more buildings and infrastructure are in harm's way," said Gunturi. "When you combine this increased exposure because outbreaks are generating more across state lines and the outbreaks could be getting more extreme in general, it means more loss to the economy and to insurance portfolios."

Insurance companies have contracts with reinsurance companies, and these contracts look similar to the ones people have for home and car insurance, though for much higher amounts. The new results will help companies ensure that contracts are written at an appropriate level and that the risks posed by outbreaks are better characterized, said Brooks.

"One big question raised by this work, and one we're working on now, is what in the climate system has been behind this increase in outbreak severity," said Tippett.

Explore further: Alabama to be hub of scientific study of Southern tornadoes

More information: Michael K. Tippett et al. Tornado outbreak variability follows Taylor's power law of fluctuation scaling and increases dramatically with severity, Nature Communications (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10668

Related Stories

Frequency of tornadoes, hail linked to El Nino, La Nina

March 16, 2015

Climate scientists can spot El Niño and La Niña conditions developing months ahead of time, and they use this knowledge to make more accurate forecasts of droughts, flooding and even hurricane activity around the world. ...

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

63 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Zzzzzzzz
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2016
Its not just tornadoes. I have a long, gravel driveway, with changes in elevation. The first 10 years, there was one cloudburst occurrence that washed enough stone from the driveway to require tractor work well off the driveway to repair, and a year or two might go by without any tractor repair required. The second ten years these kinds of events have increased. Currently I will run my tractor to repair the driveway at least a dozen times a year, concentrated from spring to late summer. Fully half of those occurrences will require stone reclamation WELL off the actual driveway. All types of storms are getting stronger and more frequent.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2016
Currently I will run my tractor to repair the driveway at least a dozen times a year

Maybe, if you run it even more, it will solve the problem.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2016
Its not just tornadoes. I have a long, gravel driveway, with changes in elevation. The first 10 years, there was one cloudburst occurrence that washed enough stone from the driveway to require tractor work well off the driveway to repair, and a year or two might go by without any tractor repair required. The second ten years these kinds of events have increased. Currently I will run my tractor to repair the driveway at least a dozen times a year, concentrated from spring to late summer. Fully half of those occurrences will require stone reclamation WELL off the actual driveway. All types of storms are getting stronger and more frequent.
Maybe sometime in the next few years consider some drain tile, 18"-dia. by the sound of it. Here's some drainage science from the Golden Gophers, et al.

Higher temperature = more energy, and warmer air holds more moisture, if I'm not mistaken.
julianpenrod
1.1 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
I've warned for years the number of tornadoes is increasing but was always mocked. A chart once available through the Oklahoma Climatological Survey shows that, before 1950, the number of tornadoes was nearly constant at 180, but it's seven times that now. And it's not more people in the country, since the population grew only 200 percents since 1950, but the number of tornadoes grew 600 percent at least. Also, most tornadoes go through "Tornado Alley" and that was always the most densely populated part of the country. And, even if you're not under it, you can still see a tornado in the distance. Tornadoes go along with climate change and that's actually caused by chem,trails, not "fossil fuels".
Scottingham
4.9 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2016
Julian, you lost me at chem trails...
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2016
What we really need to be concerned with, from climate change, is the extreme bullshit outbreaks, from the AGW Cult.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2016
and that's actually caused by chem,trails, not "fossil fuels"
@juli
1- this is a false claim
2- you have NO evidence supporting this argument
3- if the climate change is due to the chem-trails (snicker) then why don't cirrus clouds cause the same result?

tell you what... just post a few studies and lets go from there
Thirteenth Doctor
4.4 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2016
I subscribe to AGW but sometimes I wonder if they also take into account our increasing ability to spot and report the storms is part of the reported rise. I mean now we have Doppler radars that can scan 30-40 miles radius 24 hours a day. I mean a tornado disaster is only a disaster if there is civilization living there.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
... I wonder if they also take into account our increasing ability to spot and report the storms is part of the reported rise....a tornado disaster is only a disaster if there is civilization living there.
@13
interesting point... which would also indicate that the population and expansion is also tied

they're only considering the period 1954–2014 (per the abstract)
AND... check out the Outbreak data

one important thing i will post is this
The annual number of F1+ tornadoes shows no significant trend over the period 1954–2014
fascinating!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
Julian, you lost me at chem trails...

He pretty mush loses everyone (and all credibility) at that point.....
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
I subscribe to AGW but sometimes I wonder if they also take into account our increasing ability to spot and report the storms is part of the reported rise. I mean now we have Doppler radars that can scan 30-40 miles radius 24 hours a day. I mean a tornado disaster is only a disaster if there is civilization living there.


True, and yes they do. That's why the error bars are so wide.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
True, and yes they do. That's why the error bars are so wide.


Gotcha. I was looking for it in the article but didn't see it. Makes sense now.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2016
True, and yes they do. That's why the error bars are so wide.

When it comes to AGWism the error bars must be so wide to conceal the lies.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
There is more evidence for chemtrails than for dark matter, and there is no record of Captain_Stumpy attacking the idea of dark matter. Among other things, since 1997, there have been thousands or more photographs of skies filled with up to a dozen lanes of weather modification chemical stretching from horizon to horizon, but there are absolutely none from before. There are a handful of pictures of skywriting or aerial shows that liars try to claim are vapor lanes from before 1997, but even they number only a few.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
When it comes to AGWism the error bars must be so wide to conceal the lies.
now, considering you've not brought evidence to the table at all...

EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent (you have NO evidence of this - never have)

2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you (you've made this claim... but still NO evidence)

3- research scientists know something you don't (BINGO!)
potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
The number of tornadoes was roughly constant up until about 1950 when chemtrails started. They were invisible then. But they still caused the formation of the first new cloud species since the founding of the Cloud Atlas, cirrus intortus. They also caused the first and only known hurricane to form in December, Alice, in 1954, when the number of tornadoes in outbreaks began to increase. In 1997, the air became saturated with chemtrail chemical that any new contributions precipitated out. That's why they became visible in 1997.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
and there is no record of Captain_Stumpy attacking the idea of dark matter
@juli
until you know WTF you are talking about, you should do some homework -there is an observed phenomenon that has a placeholder name for what is observed which is called DM
https://en.wikipe...k_matter

since 1997, there have been thousands or more photographs
this doesn't explain why chemtrails make an effect that cirrus clouds don't
there are absolutely none from before
speculation or do you have evidence?
you aint linking ANY evidence

but then again... you also can't show correlation/causation
- is it the chemtrails making the problem or is it the AGW problem showing more chemtrails?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, juli

i aint seen squat!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
The number of tornadoes was roughly constant up until about 1950 when chemtrails started. They were invisible then. But they still caused the formation of the first new cloud species since the founding of the Cloud Atlas, cirrus intortus. They also caused the first and only known hurricane to form in December, Alice, in 1954, when the number of tornadoes in outbreaks began to increase. In 1997, the air became saturated with chemtrail chemical that any new contributions precipitated out. That's why they became visible in 1997.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2016
The number of tornadoes was roughly constant up until about 1950 when chemtrails started. They were invisible then. But they still caused the formation of the first new cloud species since the founding of the Cloud Atlas, cirrus intortus. They also caused the first and only known hurricane to form in December, Alice, in 1954, when the number of tornadoes in outbreaks began to increase. In 1997, the air became saturated with chemtrail chemical that any new contributions precipitated out. That's why they became visible in 1997.

It was stupid the first time you put him up. Doubling down on the stupid, eh Cher?
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
1997, the year the air became saturated with chemtrail chemical is also the year the staccato of manifestations associated with climate change began. The strongest "el Nino" events on record; the warmest years on record; the worst hurricane season on record; the largest year-to-year decline in Arctic sea ice coverage on record; unprecedented hundred degree heat waves from London to Siberia; the arrival of previously unknown hundred mile per hour straight line wind storms called "super derechos"; the Northwest Passage being open for the first time in history; the development of the first new cloud species since cirrus intortus, the undulatus asperatus. The build up of carbon dioxide since 1997 was only a few percent, too little to have caused such major effects.
This is all more than compelling evidence and anyone who says otherwise is a lying degenerate.
Saying evidence is not evidence is a tactic of the thug.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
This is all more than compelling evidence and anyone who says otherwise is a lying degenerate.
Saying evidence is not evidence is a tactic of the thug.


Cool, can you site this from a reputable source? A link perhaps. I'd like to read it.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
now, considering you've not brought evidence to the table at all...

http://joannenova...en-data/


1- research scientists are all incompetent (you have NO evidence of this - never have)

Nope. They just need you to be incompetent.

2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you (you've made this claim... but still NO evidence)

Nope. They only need to deceive you. (BINGO)

3- research scientists know something you don't (BINGO!)

Well, considering that research involves discovery of new things....
What they do know, is that you Chicken Littles would blindly buy the lies.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
of the first new cloud species since the founding of the Cloud Atlas, cirrus intortus
@juli
1- Cirrus have been known * described since 1802 in an attempt to start an atlas: https://books.goo...p;q=1802

2- Neither Cirrus NOR intortus is a "species" - Cirrus is the Genera, and intortus is a variety
- a variety like intortus is a subdivision of cloud genera and their species
http://skystef.be...erms.htm

the rest of your posts are BUNK as you are making claims, not providing evidence

delusion is NOT science
This is all more than compelling evidence and anyone who says otherwise is a lying degenerate.
Saying evidence is not evidence is a tactic of the thug.
until you can actually provide evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source, you are only making CLAIMS
untested at best, but MOST are simple false claims
http://www.auburn...ucation/

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2016
http://joannenova...en-data/
@antiG
1- you've made this claim before
2- a BLOG (opinion) is not equivalent to the reputable peer reviewed journal studies i've linked refuting this argument
Nope. They just need you to be incompetent...deceive you
conspiracist ideation and cognitive bias due to delusion isn't an argument unless you want to use the diminished capacity argument in court for a felony
given that this is science and you've actually never once been able to refute a single study with equivalent evidence, you are simply proving your personal "insanity plea" of diminished capacity
considering that research involves discovery of new things
OR validation of existing things
What they do know, is that you Chicken Littles would blindly buy the lies
delusion. false claim. science moves on evidence, not delusion
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
reputable peer reviewed source

What's a disreputable peer reviewed source?

What was said here http://joannenova...en-data/ about the Hockey Schtick that was false?
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
Among other things, Captain_Stumpy challenges what is the evidence chemtrails do what cirrus clouds don't. Cirrus clouds have been known for thousands of years, Captain_Stumpy says they've been described for hundreds. But there was never any accelerated climate change until now. And if Captain_Stumpy wants to refuse to find and look at evidence of non dissipating, vapor lanes in the sky, lasting for an hour or more, then let them explain why they won't look for the truth. This is evidence, no matter how much Captain_Stumpy wants to deny it.
I said the number of tornadoes has increased since 1950 and was mocked. I was right. The howling degenerate will deny the truth, say insipid, vicious things out of their hatred for others. They will continue when evidence has been provided. They will say evidence is not evidence. They prove their malignance.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2016
What's a disreputable peer reviewed source?
your BLOG
What was said here http://joannenova...en-data/ about the Hockey Schtick that was false?
for starters: if one contests a BLOG, it requires only the equivalent to prove that it is WRONG, as it is equivalent to said blog's claims
therefore, i can refute thus:
http://skepticals...tick.htm

http://skepticals...tick.htm

but more importantly: in above said BLOG's that i forward to you is physical evidence in the form of reputable peer reviewed studies (not blogs) which have been VALIDATED (not guesses, not hypothesis, not singular studies)

now, your BLOG has referenced some studies (up to 2006), but are they VALIDATED?
i've not even begun to look into that, but i would suggest that, considering the overwhelming evidence to date, that i will find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted

that is what you do


Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
Among other things, Captain_Stumpy challenges what is the evidence chemtrails do what cirrus clouds don't
@juli
actually, the most important point of ALL of the above is that you are providing NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for your claims!
caps for a reason... not only for emphasis, but so taht you can actually see what i wrote
Cirrus clouds have been known for thousands of years, Captain_Stumpy says they've been described for hundreds
ROTFLMFAO - the catalog i used as a reference demonstrates the attempt to consolidate a random description method into a methodical approach to a subject - aka the scientific method
I am not saying cirrus didn't exist - i am saying that the terminology was random until it was methodically approached to give a structured orderly approach that is well defined and classified for the clear concise sharing of data and information between colleagues
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
@juli cont'd
This is evidence, no matter how much Captain_Stumpy wants to deny it.
no, it isn't
it isn't evidence any more than anecdotal or eyewitness testimony is evidence in science
it is, at IT'S BEST, an untested claim ... but as you can provide NO evidence and the evidence refutes your assertions, it is a FALSE CLAIM
http://www.auburn...ion.html

They will continue when evidence has been provided. They will say evidence is not evidence. They prove their malignance.
no, i will not
problem is: you don't know what constitutes EVIDENCE in science
try reading up on that one, juli-girl!
https://en.wikipe...c_method

https://en.wikipe...evidence
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2016
The howling degenerate will deny the truth, say insipid, vicious things out of their hatred for others. They will continue when evidence has been provided. They will say evidence is not evidence. They prove their malignance.

Very convincing evidence.
TehDog
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
@zz^3 (Yeah, I counted them, big whoop, wanna fight about it? :)

" I have a long, gravel driveway, with changes in elevation. The first 10 years, there was one cloudburst occurrence that washed enough stone from the driveway to require tractor work
...
Currently I will run my tractor to repair the driveway at least a dozen times a year,"

This seems silly, pave or tarmac it, crazy paving gives an interesting ride, or just
"Simply glue rice crispies into the tread blocks of your tyres to get that expensive gravel drive sound with none of the expense"
http://www.piston...t=685246

Hmm, it seems I have nothing constructive to add, sorry about that :)
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2016
Why does god inflict all of the world's deadliest tornadoes on the Bible Belt?

Is he trying to rid us of Arkansas?
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
And if Captain_Stumpy wants to refuse to find and look at evidence of non dissipating, vapor lanes in the sky, lasting for an hour or more, then let them explain why they won't look for the truth. This is evidence, no matter how much Captain_Stumpy wants to deny it.


Can you cite your claims please? I really want to read it.

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
now, your BLOG has referenced some studies (up to 2006), but are they VALIDATED?
i've not even begun to look into that, but i would suggest that, considering the overwhelming evidence to date, that i will find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted

that is what you do

Of course you'll will find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted, because you the INDOCTRINATED must do as you are expected, how else can you make that bold claim while very ignorant of those studies. The very nature of peer-review makes your furnishing of it with "reputable", quite unnecessary and again betrays your conditioning. Incapable of independent thought, you just parrot the sermons of your cult.

That is what you MUST do.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2016
because you the INDOCTRINATED
@antiG
so, requiring evidence to support a claim is now indoctrination?
IOW - you can't actually provide evidence and can't support the claim, so the best way you can come up with to refute is to simply call "conspiracy" ????

and that is logical to you?
Incapable of independent thought, you just parrot the sermons of your cult.
and because i require evidence, this means i am a parrot?
i don't even believe or agree with mainstream anything unless it can be validated... and that makes me a parrot of mainstream?

wow

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
Most telling, is the fact that in your response, you deliberately chose to ignore your very OWN WORDS.
The fact that you can so boldly claim that you'll "find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted" without even seeing the evidence, confirms that to you, THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE, so you make it your defence i.e the mindset of the INDOCTRINATED who can only parrot what he is preached, since he is incapable of independent thought.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
He has Wiki.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2016
The fact that you can so boldly claim that you'll "find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted" without even seeing the evidence, confirms that to you, THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE
@antig
1- historically, you have never posted viable reputable evidence (this is strike one for your credibility)

2- the overwhelming scientific evidence points to AGW, with a 99% accuracy, therefore if you post a BLOG that says it has "studies" or "evidence" that AGW isn't real, then there is a 99.99999999% likelihood that said blog is either: misinterpreting evidence, lying, fraudulent or is some otherwise non-reputable bullsh*tter trying to support a political/religious perspective with conspiracy, etc

3- your specific argument "because you the INDOCTRINATED" is conspiracy

without validating the blogs references, but taking into consideration that the blog is specifically against the 99% of the scientists in the world, it is logical to conclude that it is BS
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
@antiG cont'd
THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE
however, if said blog actually makes a legitimate argument that is supported by valid reputable evidence, then i will not only agree with you, i will personally forward it to every climate scientist that i can so that it can win the blogger a Nobel for absolutely refuting the status quo and known science

now, i specifically said
i've not even begun to look into that, but i would suggest that, considering the overwhelming evidence to date, that i will find them refuted, retracted, misquoted or misinterpreted
and considering your intentionally fraudulent track record, the blogs anti-science message and the outdated material being used in the blog, it is reasonable as well as logical

am i gonna rush?
no...

will i look at all the evidence?
yep

antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
historically, you have never posted viable reputable evidence (this is strike one for your credibility)

Show me.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
Show me.
OK
OK... from here
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

and here
the AGW Cult's pathological science...Chicken Little club...
http://phys.org/n...ans.html

you linked watt's -known fraud and liar. not reputable
completely AGAINST known science (refuted and debunked)

we squander billions on the AGW lies
no evidence at all + conspiracy
http://phys.org/n...ght.html

this
how could all of the additional CO2 be from humans?
plus more watts here: http://phys.org/n...ole.html

BTW - i linked to you TWO studies last year telling you how we could tell what was human CO2 and what was natural or from certain sources non-human
one was even from an oil company

i can post more, but this is time consuming
when it comes to climate change, you will accept ONLY your fraud cult, no SCIENCE studies at all
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
OK
OK... from here
http://phys.org/n...bal.html

What in that link is fraudulent? http://wattsupwit...-truths/
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
@antiG
Lets look at the data from your link: http://joannenova...en-data/

argument 1: it was warmer 400yrs ago (graphic + from McKitrick & Essex )

refute: 1- first graphic uses 1997 paper. "In 2008, HP published a different analysis, came to a similar curve, but cooler results, and belatedly said this graph above really ends in about 1900, not 1990"
2- Studies refuting above: http://www.meteo....ce09.pdf

http://www.pages....overview

http://www.nature...797.html

http://www.nap.ed...hapter/1

3- your argument doesn't represent the globe, just a few small areas on the globe (see studies above)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2016
@antiG cont'd
hockey stick shape
argument: the hockey stick (Mann 1999) is broken/wrong

refute: 1- Wahl 2007, Smith 2006, Huang 2000, etc used multiple sources (Ice cores, tree rings, other)
all these undermine and refute your claims/premise stated in the top of the link re: the hockey stick world was warmer it's not AGW...

2- National Academy of Sciences examined and vindicated Mann/the hockey stick

3- anti-science folk tried to use e-mail, but was still not able to prove anything wrong

this has been dead since at least 2006... why kick a dead horse when everyone knows you're lying about it? because "dogma" and conspiracy knows no evidence but what they believe

i have to stop for a minute to look at some pages... BRB with more

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
@antiG cont'd
UPDATE 5-Dec-2009 & Information on Boreholes etc

to continue: the entire link is based upon a known fallacious premise - that science is "hiding" something and not accepting data proving the hockey stick wrong
or that the current evidence shows that there is no AGW

problem is: the current evidence proves this wrong, and all your site does is continue to move the goal-posts until they're refuted, they move again
worse still, when refuted, they post things like
The line "the world was warmer than 800 years ago" was changed to "the world was as warm years ago" to reflect updated results from boreholes that I was unaware of when this was posted. It makes little material difference to the arguments for or against CO2...
IOW -they're saying: i don't care about the evidence because i don't want to believe what it's saying

and i just worked on the first page... considering that, do i need to go further?
not likely considering the lies already posted
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
@antiG
in your link, the whole premise is that science is cheating, ignoring evidence, conspiracy and all that... and it ignores the refuting studies as well as the overwhelming evidence

so what does it do?
it says "don't worry about that... it still doesn't refute the belief"

now, that is religion, not science
I was willing to give your page a look over, but your page is refusing to actually accept validated science because of conspiracist ideation - which is completely against science
It also brings NO EVIDENCE of conspiracy or anything else (CLimategate a bust!)

so... given the attempted fraud in the first page, it is reasonable as well as logical to assume that the rest of the pages will be similarly written
a spot check CONFIRMED that (need i address their inconsistencies WRT CO2 and water vapour?)

so, your link is not only fraudulent, but not reputable
it's not a claim now, its checked, validated as crap, and i will stand by that comment
(it's also NOT source)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2016
is fraud
starts off requesting person to be mistrustful of scientists because IPCC
According to the official statements of the IPCC "Science is clear" and non-believers cannot be trusted
actually, the SCIENCE is clear... it is the anti-Science non-warming crowd who is "not clear" on the subject
1- the mean global temp has been stable since 1997

refute: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

2- this is based upon #1 being true, which we can see it is NOT
so it can't be true
3- the amount of CO2
refute: this ignores a lot, from the VALIDATED study of Lacis et al to the forcing, feedback and relationship between CO2 and WV...

if the top 3 are known lies (fraud)... what more do i need to insure the site is disreputable?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
@penrod chem,trails, not "fossil fuels".
Your chem-trails are made with fossil fuels, actually
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
1- the mean global temp has been stable since 1997

refute: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

LOL. Congratulations you have managed to both astonish and amuse in one go. What part of 1997 did you fail to comprehend? Let me fix that graph for you. http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

Even more telling is the UNCOOKED data
http://www.woodfo...15/trend
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
What part of 1997 did you fail to comprehend? Let me fix that graph for you
you screwed it all up... so i punched in the data and took out series 3 and 4 for clarity (and to remove the long term trend you are intentionally ignoring anyway)
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

Even more telling is the UNCOOKED data
yeah, you screwed the pooch on THIS one too!
especially loved the attempted fraud, BTW>.. linear trend from 2002-2015?
dont know what a TREND is? let me fix that for you
http://www.woodfo...15/trend

even your "uncooked data" attempt STILL SHOWS a rise in temp trend
(trend is 30yrs typically to alleviate noise. ask furlong about that)
more importantly... go to the homepage and read "Beware sharp tools"

LMFAO
caught you in the act, AntiG!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
@antiG
this is a big problem i've seen with you in the past too, along with other anti AGW folk

intentionally inserting noise to justify your belief is like this:
i tell you i live between Key West, FL and Kodiak, AK... the sheer volume of possibilities are incredible, and narrowing down a location would be crazy difficult (this is the NOISE, or error bars in your graph)

however, what if i said i lived between Bradenton and Lutz, FL... then you've narrowed the "noise" to a better chance of accuracy
it would be easier still if i named specific streets... wouldn't it?
this is why climate science uses 30 year trends typically... to weed out the extreme noise

(so... why the sudden change of dates in your temp's to 2002-2015?)

considering your intentionally ignoring studies, one can only conclude that the change was intentional in order to justify your belief
whereas a REAL graph would be 30yrs for a TREND

but even adjusting your own with your dates, i proved you wrong
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2016
@anti last

so, when you said
LOL. Congratulations you have managed to both astonish and amuse in one go
you must have been talking about... what?
because,even though you also said "What part of 1997 did you fail to comprehend?", when i adjusted my graphs with your dates, you are wrong
but more importantly YOU didn't even use your own dates (what part of 1997 did YOU fail to comprehend?)

thanks for showing me your 1997 graph, antiG... below is the 30 year trend for your "uncooked data" argument, BTW

http://www.woodfo...15/trend
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
Please grow a brain and learn to read. When you do and can comprehend the year 1997, then get back to me, until then you are ignored.
the mean global temp has been stable since 1997
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
Stumpy is our cop, but he cannot be a real one, because he is in hiding, probably from the police or someone else he mouthed off to.

He demands proof from us, but gives us none about himself. Why is that? I think he is SCARED of somebody. We have to find out whom.

After all, we have a moderator here, don't we?

No? Not yet? I think we will in good time.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
Please grow a brain and learn to read. When you do and can comprehend the year 1997, then get back to me, until then you are ignored.
@antiG
...let me get this straight... i catch you intentionally trying to cook the data and LYING, but i am the one who needs to grow a brain and learn to read?
so... was it my literacy problem that forced you to change your graph to 2002 to get the downward trend?
was it my brain that demonstrated you can't understand the NOISE issue in statistics?
ROTFLMFAO

.

Stumpy is our cop, but he cannot be a real one
@beni-kam
G!
i didn't get my daily threatening e-mail!
what's wrong?
sprained something?

i've learned to enjoy those comical attempts you make!

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
After all, we have a moderator here, don't we?
Appears we don't Cher, so what?

No?
I just said we don't.

Not yet?
Dang you are a slow one Cher. For the third time in the same postum, non we don't.

I think we will in good time.
Is that what you think? Skippy we been trying to explain to you that what you think is usually pretty foolish. It ain't in the budget. And non Cher, YOU CAN NOT DO IT FOR FREE!!! So quit asking already. You do not have the proper demeanor. (And you are dumber than a cypress stump). But you really might want to start being careful what you wish for Cher.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2016
" But you really might want to start being careful what you wish for Cher."
--------------------------------

A threat?? Coming from an anonymous vandal?

OH NO!!!
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
" But you really might want to start being careful what you wish for Cher."
--------------------------------

A threat?? Coming from an anonymous vandal?

OH NO!!!

Non Cher, not a threat. Advice for a really silly couyon. You wishing for moderation is like a condemned man wishing for some extra voltage on his death day. The moderator, who ever it will be, will probably have you on the top part of his list. Yeah, that is right, you are in the troll tribe Cher. Ask Really-Skippy how troll/bot/mod/gang/mafias work. He begged for a moderator to step in more than one time, and got his wish.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2016
" Advice for a really silly couyon."
------------------------------

How some advice to a silly name-caller? It was a game until you intentionally smeared a real person and his reputation, Ira. Say anything you want here.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2016
How some advice to a silly name-caller?
Yeah, now you are starting to get it. My advice was to a really silly name caller. Oh, you mean me, eh? Well Cher, the record for that is clear for anybody who wants to look. You signed up with name calling on your first day here. And yeah, they were really silly names you called too.

It was a game until you intentionally smeared a real person and his reputation, Ira.
A real person? Okayeei, if you say so, it's not a person I would be proud to be.

Say anything you want here.
Thanks, I will do that. What is this? You trying on that moderator job you been begging for? Ain't going to happen Cher.
rgw
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2016
50,000 Years ago not a single human was killed or injured by North American storms.
geokstr
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
Hey, Cap'n, has Mann been excommunicated yet for heresy for being one of the authors of a study published a couple weeks ago in Nature, a publication known to be zealously pro-AGW: "Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real"?

http://www.nature...-1.19414
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
a publication known to be zealously pro-AGW
@geokstr
1- nature is a science journal, so they don't "promote" anything, they publish SCIENCE
2- Nature covers climate
3- any singular study is worth note as it has evidence, but i prefer to wait till it is validated
4- just because a singular study is out doesn't mean it is validated (see attempt at validation re: hydrino's)
Hey, Cap'n, has Mann been excommunicated yet
don't even know what this means
don't care, either
mostly because i don't care about a "person"*, only the evidence

*caveat and qualifier: if a person etc is historically continually making false claims and proven to be fraudulent (like WUWT), or continually making the argument from authority while ignoring the evidence, then i can justify judging said person and "caring" about the individual (or site)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.