And that photo looks like what you see in that kind of storm. When we used to live down south a sky like that would of had us heading for shelter because one was going to hit somewhere soon.

You do realize that resources are finite and population that fail to curb consumption and expansion will suffer?

Matt Drew: Unfortunately, the climate change discussion is also riddled with such breathless predictions of ultimate doom – precisely the thing this author both argues against, while simultaneously engaging in the same practice.

Trent Says: In regards to climate predictions can you be more specific please.

So it is perhaps not a complete surprise that at a House hearing on UN climate talks chaired by Rohrbacher, he actually asked:

“Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the California Republican asked Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat and lead witness at the hearing. “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?”

The UNEP website then put up a story, presumably based on this study, but adding a headline to the effect that 50 million refugees created by climate change would be seen.

This is a hyperbolic interpretation of the facts. And one posted on the UNEP web site. Your “research” doesn’t refute the claim originally made, and in fact goes some way in confirming it.

http://www.amazon.com/Building-Thinking-Skills–Critical-reading/dp/1601441495/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1306692669&sr=8-5

See Post #53 The 50 million refugee estimate is a fact and I included the link to the 2005 Gaurdian Paper which is a pro-AGW paper in the UK. Trent’s source did not do enough research as it took me all of 1 minute to find a credible newspaper with the information. I also sent an email to the “Covered in Bees” blogger and hopefully he will correct his erroneous post. I did see the UNEP web page before it was taken down. As always do the research. I hope this helps you guys resolve your issues.

To wit, “Well, it’s not the best idea to seriously investigate whether AGW actually causes these tornadoes. Much better to use the fear of getting creamed by a tornado as leverage to gin up the political action we want, without looking too hard at the actual science.”

I was just wondering whether you would take the same approach in other current controversies where there is an intersection between scientific analysis and political action.

One of the local forecasters here in my area of Pennsylvania said that we normally get 2.75 tornadoes a year here. So far we’ve had eight, with two more likely to be declared from yesterday’s storm which left 60,000 people without power for 24 hours.

So, I’m jazzed that with such an explosive growth in the number of tornadoes the number of deaths is so low comparatively. But still, the number we’ve had is staggering.

The world’s trees, shrubs and other plants do produce massive amounts of hydrocarbons – nine times as much as do automobiles, by some counts.

Those gases, most notably isoprene, are major ingredients of ozone, a lung irritant linked to asthma and other serious respiratory ailments.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/tech/main544188.shtml

… because during a tornado all cameras automatically switch to HDR photography mode.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-cover-up/

I took the photo used in this post, linked to here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mccun934/5262033742/

It was taken back in December 2010 in Beaverton, Oregon during the day we had a tornado strike south of Portland near Salem. I have been getting a lot of hits and re-uses of the photo because I license ever photo I take with CC+Attribution and it comes up a lot for searches of ‘tornado weather’

It is very much an HDR and a particularly bad HDR at that. I chose to use HDR just to cheaply bring out the detail in the clouds which to the eye actually did look like they do in the photo but didn’t spend much time processing or correcting the photo. I just fired off 3 exposures, loaded up PhotoMatix, processed and uploaded the photo. I don’t think it is art or even a good photo but people seem to like to use it to illustrate a point so in that respect I suppose it served the intended purpose.

I don’t generally like or use HDR that much but in cases where you want to easily bump up the contrast of a photo and get people’s attention it is a tool that can be used.

The climatologists argue that non-climatologists need to stay out of the climate change debate. Similarly, people who have no experience with Photoshop should stay out of the discussion. :->

Take a look at the map of tornado tracks here from 1950-2006. You should notice a trend. That trend is that there is a high density of bad and long-track tornadoes in the South.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/redefining-tornado-alleys.html

That being said, I should point out that Southern tornadoes AREN’T more deadly. Most of the tornadoes in the South go through farmland and don’t hurt a lot of people. But the South has a whole damn lot of tornadoes, and so even if most go through farms, there are still a lot that go through towns and cities.

TL;DR There is probably an order of magnitude difference between the number of tornadoes in Minnesota vs. Mississippi. And there’s probably an order of magnitude difference between the occurrence rate of F3+ tornadoes in Minnesota and Mississippi. That’s why you might be noticing that geographical skew.

Pick from the following subjects: genetically modified food, climate change, family planning, evolution, genetic disease (etc etc). Big, controversial stuff.

Research it. Talk to your family, you don’t have to agree, but you should be respectful enough to learn their opinions. Research some more. Form an opinion.

Write a letter to a relevant government official (state or federal) expressing what government action you should be taken (for, against, whatever). Give solid scientific reasoning and facts and cite your research.

Finally, write an argument for the opposite.

The kids absolutely love it. She refuses to share her personal opinion on any of the subjects, telling them they have to decide for themselves.

Your contention that the U.N predicted fifty million refuges by 2010 is refuted here: A Lie Revealed. I suggest you become more skeptical of the press. Disagree? Then show me the original report.

Gravy Top Says: I have no dog in this race.

Trent Says: You live on another planet?

Since we can’t change the past we really need to think about the future and see what hard science tells us will happen when there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thank you. Thank you. This piece of knowledge needs to be on the wall in front of every science teacher’s desk, at every science museum, and at every vote for science funding.

How can we make that more broadly realized?

Then we have statements from people like “All these disasters must be connected and only willful ignorance allows us to ignore that.” – who sound just as ridiculous as people say it’s god punishing us for the new Lady Gaga album (as if the album wasn’t punishment enough.)

One thing to consider, while we have had an uptick in the number, May IS the #1 month for tornadoes, and it is possible that the year will end average or only a little bit above. Even if we do set a record, you can look at the number of F3-F5 tornadoes and see that 1974 sticks out like a sore thumb with nearly 2x as many tornadoes than any other year in the last 60 years (other than 1965). What was so special about 1974? Could it be that ‘shit happens’, and there may not be direct causes? That there is a factor of randomness?

With the comparison of DEATHS, it is more or less irrelevant in my opinion. DEATHS have more to do with dumb luck. If a tornado hits in the middle of a field, it can harm no one. The same storm slams into the middle of a town – and you get Armageddon.

So yeah… I hate climate change. The whole debate will be moot when everything north of South Dakota is under a mile of ice.