|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 25, 2012 14:05:20 GMT 1
I hadn't noticed. Attribution of what, to whom?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2012 16:06:39 GMT 1
Attribution of extreme weather to CO2-induced Anthropogenic Global Warming, of course!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2012 16:10:14 GMT 1
There was a crop of bad ones in 2011 but since then..... “After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected normal. The preliminary total of 757 tornadoes is about 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a typical year. This chart shows that in late 2011, the annual running total was over 400 tornadoes above normal. This depicts the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next.”
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 4:08:11 GMT 1
Attribution of extreme weather to CO2-induced Anthropogenic Global Warming, of course! Ahh. Someone needs to show a deviation from "normal" variability first, don't they? It would help too if they started by showing the same thing with the putative CO2-induced AGW. Until they can do that, how on earth can they assert let alone measure any such attribution?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 4:11:14 GMT 1
There was a crop of bad ones in 2011 but since then..... “After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected normal. The preliminary total of 757 tornadoes is about 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a typical year. This chart shows that in late 2011, the annual running total was over 400 tornadoes above normal. This depicts the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next.” Don't worry - we'll be getting a very healthy crop of extreme weather this autumn and winter. Nothing to do with CO2 or global warming though.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 4:13:00 GMT 1
;D "Inflation-adjusted"? Wtf is that about? More hockey-sticks, is it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 26, 2012 14:29:55 GMT 1
Inflation adjusted is, I believe, an attempt to create a level playing field of comparison over time by adjusting tornado numbers down to compensate for the improving technological ability to identify even small tornadoes that don't do any damage and that were previously unobservable.
------ Yes, I agree, it would be a real challenge for the warmists to tell us what the weather would have been like WITHOUT the extra CO2.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 16:17:13 GMT 1
Inflation adjusted is, I believe, an attempt to create a level playing field of comparison over time by adjusting tornado numbers down to compensate for the improving technological ability to identify even small tornadoes that don't do any damage and that were previously unobservable. ;D They're blindly guessing, in other words. Or do they have access to some "tornado record", a residue of these previously unobservable and unobserved events? Maybe they asked the Indians to ask their dreamcatchers. Half a dozen Apache ones in Arizona should give the data set, shouldn't it? Aye, there's the rub.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 26, 2012 18:20:37 GMT 1
Well, to be fair, Mr Sonde it is known that radar and modern communications techniques can pin point tornadoes in uninhabited areas that were never recorded before the late 20th century so it is reasonable to attempt to compare like with like.
Same with hurricanes out at sea that never made landfall which were entirely missed from the record whereas now they can be tracked from space.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 27, 2012 23:32:32 GMT 1
Well, to be fair, Mr Sonde it is known that radar and modern communications techniques can pin point tornadoes in uninhabited areas that were never recorded before the late 20th century so it is reasonable to attempt to compare like with like. Like with like yes. So what's the "inflation adjustment" for? So - no "inflation adjustment" required. Presumably this is an alteration of the observed data to take account of greater recording techniques? You say, we can now see these little or out-of-the-way things, which we couldn't before - therefore we'll adjust the past data, on the assumption that they also occurred then, it's just we couldn;t record them? Well - is this adjustment being made on the basis that they occurred in this non-observed past at the same rate; or a higher one; or, as I strongly suspect, a lower one? On what basis? If it's on the basis that global warming must mean greater amounts of tornadoes, etc, therefore we'd better assume they occurred at a lower rate in the past, even though we never observed such data, then it's hardly surprising you end up with an extrapolated tornado record that shows an increase - is it? Whatever way they do it - it's pure guesswork. Useless garbage as scientific data.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 28, 2012 9:29:09 GMT 1
I think the assumption is that tornadoes and hurricanes have averaged out to the same level of occurrence over time (though obviously they vary from year to year and even decade to decade) but that the observation of them has improved over time so this "inflation" in observations has to be adjustted for in comparisons with past data.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 28, 2012 12:52:27 GMT 1
Yes, I gathered. Not a justifiable assumption though, is it? What's the average of any other climate variable that we can measure? Temperature, for example? Depends, doesn't it? How far you go back, how reliable your data set is, where it's made, to what degree of accuracy, etcetera etcetera?
This sort of gerrymandering is how the hockey-stick and East Anglia email fiasco come about. Choose your assumptions to end up with the extrapolated result you've already decided beforehand that you want to see.
What causes cyclonic winds, ultimately? Vortices in the geomagnetic atmospheric field. What causes them, ultimately? Electromagnetic and charged particulate interactions between that field, the heliomagnetic field, the interplanetary plasma, and quite probably the galactic (cosmic ray, extra-heliosphere plasma content, etc) field. This doesn't average out over any timescale yet examined - it's rhythmic, pulsatile, a complex pattern of reinforcing and cancelling polarities. That's why you can obtain a near-perfect fit between the peak years of hurricane activity - and precipitation - just by overlaying the aspectual cycles of the heavy planets: those of Uranus and Neptune suffice, in fact - including with Pluto, proving that this driver is not a primarily a gravitational influence, but a magnetohydrodynamic one within the interplanetary plasma.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Sept 28, 2012 14:56:02 GMT 1
Ultimately I have allways thought that the coriolis force was the driver of cyclones.I doubt there would be any cyclones if the Earth did not rotate and they would not rotate in opposite directions depending if they are in the northern or southern hemisphere.Magnetohydrodynamics no doubt have an influence in the retention of an atmosphere in the first place but do they strictly drive or are they just a thermostat with regards cyclones ie the governer of the driver.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 28, 2012 16:19:43 GMT 1
It is most certainly justifiable to adjust for improved radar technology and satellite views of the world. If one just accepted the output of ever more more effective and accurate technology we would have the illusion of ever increasing incidence of storms and tornadoes when there is in fact not much change.
Measuring temperature is different but it has its own challenges like the ever increasing Urban Heat Island Effect, the relocation of measuring stations and the varying composition over time of the "set" of measuring stations used to estimate "global mean temperature".
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 28, 2012 17:29:50 GMT 1
Ultimately I have allways thought that the coriolis force was the driver of cyclones. Well, yes - it's part of the essential background conditions. But it's an invariable, isn't it? If that was the "driver" the number of cyclones - wind in general, and waves - would be a constant. No. No atmosphere or life either. They're a major influence on the Earth's atmospheric electric field. This is a major influence on ion concentration, thus water droplet accumulation, clouds, precipitation, thus temperature, and - you're right, thanks to the rotation of the Earth vis-a-vis the heliomagnetic field, and undoubtedly the coriolis effect - winds and ocean currents in general.
|
|