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: 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.