SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I heard an item on the radio where the twin twisters that clobbered a Nebraska community were said to be described by meteorologists as rare; the question "Is this due to climate change?" was also posed and left dangling. Investigating further at Google News, I found another item where a storm chaser was saying "I've never seen anything like this".
I then found an article by Andrew Freedman which says there's a wide range of tornado types and that storms which split aren't all that rare.
Pioneering tornado scientist Theodore Fujita, who devised the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale that is still used to classify tornado intensity, identified many types of tornadoes, some of which bore similarities to the twin twisters in Nebraska on Monday.
For example, the Palm Sunday tornado outbreak of 1965, during which nearly 50 tornadoes touched down and 271 people died, there was a well-documented dual tornado that struck close to Toledo, Ohio. A study Fujita published with his colleagues found that this tornado split for only a short time, coalescing back into a larger funnel soon after a famous picture was taken that bears some resemblance to the Pilger tornado.
"A single funnel split into two and then reorganized into one after about a minute," the study says.
Interesting reading.
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Saturday June 21 2014, @04:26AM
It's equally obvious that we can ask more than 1 question at a time.(Some people i.e. scientists are better qualified than you or I to pick the questions in this area.) We don't need to wait decades for your data and answer. We can still ask other questions,do other research and find out useful things in the meantime.
How much data are you going to wait for? Keep collecting it until it matches the answer your looking for?
Seems people are already trying to answer your impossible question.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kevin-trenberth-on-climate-change-and-tornadoes/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130522-tornado-climate-change-oklahoma-science-global-warming/ [nationalgeographic.com]
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday June 21 2014, @02:33PM
So what? Answers are easy to come by. Note that Trenberth in the first story glibly claims that tornadoes are up to a third more damaging due to climate change without even a shred of supporting evidence. That's an answer to an "impossible question".
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Saturday June 21 2014, @03:56PM
Great, now we have some answers we can do something useful with them, save money/lives/taxes/whatever/use the information(data) in related questions and learn more useful things, rinse, repeat.
If answers are so easy to come by, why are you still waiting for data? Where is your easy answer?
You did read the bit at the top that said it was 'an edited transcript of an interview' and not an article in a peer reviewed journal right? You still have decades to wait for your data, use some of that time and dig a little further if you really care.
So how's that data collecting of yours going anyway, anything useful so far?
You didn't answer my other questions so I'll repeat them again.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday June 23 2014, @02:47AM
Answers aren't inherently useful or truthful. If the answers happen to be very wrong, that is, wildly divergent from reality, then we can cause a great deal of harm by attempting to act on that answer.
It would still an assertion without evidence even if it were an article in a peer reviewed journal. The outlet is irrelevant to the assertion unless you are going to claim that Trenberth wasn't speaking at the time with the authority of a scientist in the field, but rather just expressing a personal opinion as a private individual.
As an aside, this is another example of the problem I pointed out at the beginning of the thread. I honestly don't know what it will take to convince me. But it's disingenuous to imply that no answer except the one I want will satisfy me. Note that your snide second question and my answer to it don't "do something useful with them, save money/lives/taxes/whatever/use the information(data) in related questions and learn more useful things, rinse, repeat".
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Monday June 23 2014, @05:10AM
We like to use this thing called science to help us here.
No, then it would be an explanation of the answer with supporting evidence that had been look at by other scientists trying to find errors and mistakes.
If I write a thesis and you interview me about it, ask me a question. I answer the question based on my thesis, I don't just read the entire thing to you. The outlet is completely relevant.
Not science obviously.
So you're not sure what data you're looking for, or even if any answers will be suitable to you even after waiting for all the data. You disagree with all the science because 'pineapples' or something, still not sure what. You can't think of any questions to ask, or what data to look for to answer those questions.
It's clear no amount of science will convince you, maybe you can meditate or something and then the answers will just come to you, pray for guidance or something.
I don't think there is anything further I can say to you at this point.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:15AM
In the example, I noted, science is not being used. Instead we have someone using their authority as a climatologist to state an unsubstantiated claim as fact.
You wrote above:
This is a dishonest answer. Trenberth stated it as a fact to a public media outlet. There was no cautioning that we haven't yet properly looked at this assertion. There was no peer review. It is foolish to assume that the audience isn't going to take away the message that tornadoes are a third stronger these days due to human-caused global warming. You did.
Science is evidence-based. You can't seem to get that. I don't accept argument from authority, confirmation bias, observation bias, ad hominems, argument through massive obfuscation, conflating the parts with the whole, semantic games, etc. That doesn't leave much left in the climate change debate right now. Something is happening, but given the massive conflicts of interest (such as tens of billions of dollars each year in public funding conditional on the public thinking AGW is a real threat) I think it's best to wait and watch. Once we see what actually happens and how bad it actually is, then we can make rational decisions.
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Tuesday June 24 2014, @08:24AM
Did you look behind the interview for the science, no. So of course you didn't find any.
You will never find any answers, because you are not looking for any.
You are just using your 'doubt' as an excuse to do nothing.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:04PM
Yes, if there was actual evidence of this, someone would have made considerable effort to make sure I heard about it.
The climate change side is not completely incompetent. If there ever is "smoking gun" evidence, it will be spread around so much, I can't miss it unless I'm cowering in a Montana bomb shelter.
This just continues your dishonest efforts in this thread. Do you really expect anyone to buy the argument that I should look really hard for imaginary evidence before discounting unsubstantiated opinion?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:50AM
caffienated bacon,
To elaborate on my claim about dishonesty, we have the following observations. You started with a Socrates-flavored questioning (such as "If answers are so easy to come by, why are you still waiting for data? Where is your easy answer?"). Then once you got enough dirt, you switched to accusation and unsupported assertion all on the strength of the single statement, "I honestly don't know what it will take to convince me." I consider that a rhetorical game of ambush. Start with seemingly innocent questions then "Burn the witch!"
You also baldly assert in the most recent post "Did you look behind the interview for the science, no. So of course you didn't find any." This is also dishonest because I already noted the huge problem with the assertion that I quoted from the interview - not backed by evidence. So is science solely evidence-based? Yes. So yes, I did look for the science - long before I read that interview. I didn't find it. It's a typical game of the climate change side to claim that one needs to do even more reading and other research than one has already done in order to have an opinion, unless, of course, you happen to agree. Then carry on.
I also notice here that you never can be bothered to explain what you mean by "science" such as "We like to use this thing called science to help us here." I find there is a lot of anti-scientific language and behavior you exhibit throughout this thread. Not merely the witch hunting or the empty accusations of not doing due diligence, but also more serious errors such as begging the question (here, assuming that I was some anti-scientific nut and then going from there). I find this just as facile and small-minded as the people who assert global warming can't be happening because snow. outside. window.
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:57AM
If the shoe fits.
You have no data, you have no questions, you don't believe answers. But you know what questions are good or bad or helpful based on your gut feelings. You don't like answers from authority, but if the 'right' answer was found 'someone would have told you by now'. You looked into the research but couldn't say 1 thing about why it was flawed or wrong.
And now you wan't me to explain to you what science is?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:11PM
Funny how this completely characterizes your approach.
1 thing: no evidence to support the assertion made. That's a deal killer.