iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

2011 Tornadoes: Is Climate Change To Blame For The Devastating Weather? [UPDATE]

Tornadoes 2011 Climate Change

First Posted: 04/29/11 01:34 PM ET Updated: 06/29/11 06:12 AM ET

The tornadoes that tore through the southeast United States on Wednesday were cumulatively the deadliest twister disaster since 1932, with the death toll at 318 people and still rising.

"In my career I have never seen this many tornadoes or this many fatalities," said Joshua Wurman, the lead tornado researcher and president of the Center for Severe Weather Research. He is more widely known for his role as the scientist on the Discovery Channel's "Storm Chasers" show.

April has already shattered the benchmark for the number of tornadoes in a single month by a long shot. Meteorologists estimate that close to 600 tornadoes have formed thus far in April. That's nearly four times the average of 160, and twice the amount of the previous April record, 267 twisters in 1974.

Until Wednesday, the deadliest day of tornadoes since the Great Depression was in 1974, when a series of tornadoes killed 315 people. Yet, as state officials confirm a death toll of at least 318 people, with more than 200 in Alabama alone, Wednesday is now the deadliest day of tornadoes in nearly 80 years. In March 1932, a series of tornadoes killed 332 people.

This April’s historic devastation has many wondering: What’s with all the tornadoes? The question is far from reactionary. Data shows a steady, overall increase in tornadoes over the last 50 years. But as for this April, the jury’s still out on whether climate change or regular old bad weather is to blame.

"Climate change? No,” said Howard Bluestein, professor of meteorology at University of Oklahoma. "This is something that happens every 10 or 20 years when everything comes together like this. This is just natural variability.”

Most meteorologists agree with Bluestein.

“Any particular years you can’t attribute to changes in global climate," said Wurman. "If we started seeing this every year, we’d say that this is a climate change. But we’re not seeing that." Rather than a climactic shift, he said, “this is really just bad luck.”

While the number of officially recorded tornadoes has risen dramatically, that’s primarily due to better reporting, tracking and more people, homes and infrastructures in the twisters’ paths, say researchers.

That means that small twisters -- ones that do little more damage than tear the branches off trees or peel the surface off roofs and may have flow below the radar screen in the past -- are now being counted. The number of serious tornadoes, on the other hand, has stayed constant, evidence that Wednesday was a rare event rather than part of a trend.

Yet some scientists say that climate change -- especially the increased greenhouse gas concentrations associated with global warming -- may be at least somewhat related to the formation of tornadoes.

A 2008 report from the U.S. Global Change and Research Program, a federal interagency research program overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, found that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could lead to an increase in severe storm conditions that make tornadoes possible.

"We can’t say there is a correlation between a specific tornado and global change," said program director Thomas Armstrong. "But the reports do indicate that there is a positive correlation between climate change and the frequency of conditions favorable to the formation" of tornadoes, he said, while stressing that the research is still preliminary.

Just because there are favorable conditions for twisters -- which includes wet, hot air near the earth’s surface and a strong, cold jet stream above -- doesn’t mean you’ll get one. Meteorologists still can't definitively say there will be a tornado, even when staring down a serious, twister-producing thunderstorm called a "supercell."

"We knew that the general condition of warm soupy air below and wave of jet stream aloft provides the condition for circling,” said Wurman. "But we just don’t understand the details. We don’t know exactly where, or exactly when."

Whether climate change may have contributed or not, what researchers do know is that Wednesday’s disaster began with a far more innocuous -- and more typical -- event late last week: a gust of warm air.

Last Friday, a mass of hot, humid air started traveling north from the Gulf of Mexico. It blew ashore and crept slowly north over the weekend, blanketing the Southeast in the type of thick, 80-degree air that that keeps one’s skin feeling sticky even after stepping out of a cold shower.

By Wednesday, the dew point -- a measurement of how much water is in the air -- was hovering around 70 degrees, and meteorologists knew bad weather was brewing.

"That’s a very humid air mass," said David Imy, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. "Several days of Gulf moisture coming up from the south set up this scenario perfect for long-track tornadoes."

This hot air near the earth’s surface collided with the colder, fast-moving air in the upper-level jet stream, creating an unstable atmosphere. To try to bring the atmosphere into balance, a supercell erupted. Inside the storm, the warm air got sucked up into the upper levels of the atmosphere and the colder air moved lower. As these upward and downward drafts became more powerful, they turned into violent tornadoes.

Soon, about a hundred twisters were whipping across much of the Southeast. Some were a mile wide and tearing across the land at 55 to 65 miles per hour. That's about as big and powerful as tornadoes can get.

"Some were reported as a mile wide -- they don’t get much wider than that," said the University of Oklahoma's Bluestein. When asked whether he was tracking the storms on the ground, Bluestein was shocked. "Oh no. We can’t keep up with tornadoes moving 60 miles an hour.”

In addition to the states where people were killed, tornadoes touched down in at least nine others: Arkansas, Missouri, both Carolinas, both Virginias, Maryland, Indiana, Ohio. Reports of nighttime twisters forming as far north as New York are thus far unconfirmed.

Most of the tornadoes occurred outside Tornado Alley -- the swath of land in the middle and south of the U.S. where twisters often strike -- but the location was not unexpected. Tornadoes hit the Southeast every year, and they are often more deadly because the Southeast and the Eastern seaboard are far more densely populated than Tornado Alley.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the states where Wednesday’s tornado struck rank fairly high by population density. Most average between 40 and 50 people per square mile. In contrast, Tornado Alley states like the Dakotas have a mere seven or eight people living in the amount of space.

For researchers, who know they can’t control the tornadoes path, the events were still hard to swallow.

"It is sobering to us to see that tornadoes in the 21st century can still cause so many deaths," said the Center for Severe Weather Research's Wurman. "We had hoped that through increased warnings, better buildings and increased public awareness, the years of these events had passed.”

Click here to see how you can help relief efforts in the South.

This report has been updated to reflect that the death toll has officially eclipsed that of the 1974 twister disaster.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

The tornadoes that tore through the southeast United States on Wednesday were cumulatively the deadliest twister disaster since 1932, with the death toll at 318 people and still rising. "In my care...
The tornadoes that tore through the southeast United States on Wednesday were cumulatively the deadliest twister disaster since 1932, with the death toll at 318 people and still rising. "In my care...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,059
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (53 total)
PATOISJAM
reason: strategize: succeed
01:23 PM on 06/22/2011
The disagreements between the scientists, the back and forth between the commentators and the constant drivel about whether bad weather can be attributed to climate change remind me of the seven dwarfs in the cottage that just couldn't agree.

Don't worry humans, we can pollute water, air and land, litter the ocean with fertilizer and plastic, deplete the ozone, chop down the Amazon forest, tear off the tops of mountains for coal, spill gallons of oil and nothing will happen at all. All is well, all is cyclical and the all-knowing science poeple will have all the solutions.

Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow .........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
04:35 PM on 05/27/2011
Here's a link to a good editorial on this from Bill McKibben at 350.org: http://action.350.org/signup_page/connections

My take is that it's a great editorial but we'll probably need two decades of extreme weather events--accompanied by great loss of life and economic losses of hundreds of billions of dollars--before we finally go "Duh, maybe we shouldn't have decided there was a global warming 'debate' based on political party."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
11:19 PM on 05/26/2011
If people think the kool-aid of "peer review" fraud and crony agenda setting stops with AGW, they are mistaken;

"An NSF spokeswoman said they have a “gold-standard approach to peer review” for the projects they spend money on.";

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/tax-dollars-shrimp-treadmills-jell-o-wrestling/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:03 AM on 05/27/2011
Here with the same nonsense once again.

Which other system of evaluating data and analysis should we rely on, if not peer review? I've asked you this before, and you refuse to answer?

Market solutions, perhaps?

As to your link, please.

“There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a ‘robot hoedown and rodeo,’ or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair,” Mr. Coburn wrote to taxpayers in introducing the 73-page report, which has more than 350 footnotes.

In one instance, he said NSF employees, in their spare time, engaged in a jello-wrestling contest at the agency’s McMurdo research station in Antarctica. In another instance, the agency paid $559,681 to test sick shrimps’ metabolism, which one researcher said was “the first time that shrimp have been exercised on a treadmill.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:03 AM on 05/27/2011
1. I would need to know more about the video. Was it also in "spare time", like the wrestling, and therefore NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS? The taxpayer is not entitled to tell people who receive government funding what to do in their spare time. Especially in Antarctica, where cabin fever is a real issue. Get a grip.
2. A review of prices is a very normal study to do. We do it all the time in marketing. Why not science? Cheap attack for political points with no merit.

3. Robot competitions happen all the time. It's called a field trial. How else do you know whether the robot can execute complex tasks if you don't give it complex tasks to do? More nonsense.

4. Virtual re-creations are part of the science landscape. Get over it. Museums use them, television programs use them, and they are highly lucrative, in many cases. It's the height of folly to critique this.

5. How else would you test metabolism? Treadmills are used for virtually every species of animal. And before you say this is useless, how much is the global take in shrimp farming (to which, understand shrimp metabolism is very useful)? Hint: billions.

Next time, read your link, and learn some science. All of these, besides the video, appear not only to be scientific, but profitably so.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:25 PM on 05/26/2011
"And that folks is the religious left. The masses easily led."

I love science denier irony.

Here folks are actual religious science deniers. "The masses easily led."

----------­----------­----------­----------­---------

We believe that idea - we’ll call it “global warming alarmism” - fails the tests of theology..­. with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...

Earth and all its subsystems - of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving - are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeab­le Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation. Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transformi­ng it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule.

Calling them to be His vicegerent­s over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws - in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience - in their stewardshi­p...

The Biblical worldview contrasts sharply with the environmen­talist worldview.­..

The providence and promises of God inform a Christian understand­ing of creation stewardshi­p, helping to avert irrational or exaggerate­d fears of catastroph­es - fears that are rooted, ultimately, in the loss of faith in God.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:08 PM on 05/26/2011
"We believe that idea - we’ll call it “global warming alarmism” - fails the tests of theology".

Because as we know, theology has always had great success in engineering, chemistry, biology and physics.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:42 PM on 05/26/2011
The kicker is that the University of Alabama's Dr. Roy Spencer is on the Board of Advisors for this group - the "Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardshi­p of Creation".

Spencer is also of course one of the very few AGW "skeptics" who is a climate scientist.

Coincidence? We report, you decide.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:53 PM on 05/25/2011
"this is really just bad luck"

I agree it is bad luck, but not "just" bad luck.

One ingredient of the storms has been the extra moisture in the air, created by an extra warm Gulf of Mexico.

It seems reasonable that a warmer Gulf could be directly related to the general warming trend in progress.

Human use of fossil fuels contributed to these storms.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
05:47 PM on 05/26/2011
Seems to me that "really bad luck" is occurring more frequently as the climate warms.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:41 PM on 05/25/2011
Bob Hunter of Greenpeace.

" Pat, this is the beginning of something really important and very powerful. But there is a very good chance it will become a kind of ecofascism. Not everyone can get a Phd in ecology. So the only way to change the behavior of the masses is to create a popular mythology, a religion of the environment where people simply have faith in the gurus."

And that folks is the religious left. The masses easily led. Say hi Jimboy. Just simply have faith.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:48 PM on 05/25/2011
I kinda despise Greenpeace. What does that tell you? Don't even get me started on PETA.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:52 PM on 05/25/2011
It means we may agree on something.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:53 AM on 05/26/2011
Here we go again. AGW is a religious conspiracy by the left.

It just couldn't be because the science stands up, could it?
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
05:14 PM on 05/25/2011
Ugh, the headline could also have read: "Recent Tornado Events Not Attributable to Climate Change"... but no... need to have a "scary" headline that puts the thought in people's minds that it might be due to climate change. A perfect example of bad biased journalism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:32 PM on 05/25/2011
You'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't these days. Perhaps you're more into the FOX "no spin zone"?
02:42 PM on 06/01/2011
The problem is that your suggested headline : "Recent Tornado Events Not Attributab­le to Climate Change" would be inaccurate. We don't know that they are attributable to climate change, but we don't know that they are NOT either. It could turn out over time, if we ever get enough data to convince the most die-hard deniers that climate change is occurring, that they really WERE a result of the increase in global temperatures. But as of right now we don't have enough evidence, based on this one year's events, to say definitively that they are or are not. If the trend continues, these tornadoes may fall in line with the expected results that such a trend would lead to. That is one of the problems with people who don't understand the scientific method trying to interpret scientific data, especially when some people (including some news agencies, politicians, and even some overenthusiastic scientists) try to make it say more or less than the data supports.

Also, newspapers and news services depend on the sensational for ratings and sales. The headline asked a sensationalistic question in your eyes, but that is the type of headline that catches people's attention. They asked a perfectly legitimate question, considering the controversy about global warming these days, then did a pretty good job of answering it correctly. You wouldn't begrudge any other free market businesses from legally trying to make a profit, would you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
03:20 PM on 05/25/2011
"Climate scientists have told city planners that based on current trends, Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a Northern metropolis before the end of this century."

"So, Chicago is getting ready for a wetter, steamier future. Public alleyways are being repaved with materials that are permeable to water. The white oak, the state tree of Illinois, has been banned from city planting lists, and swamp oaks and sweet gum trees from the South have been given new priority. Thermal radar is being used to map the city’s hottest spots, which are then targets for pavement removal and the addition of vegetation to roofs. And air-conditioners are being considered for all 750 public schools, which until now have been heated but rarely cooled."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
03:00 PM on 05/25/2011
The modern individualist, whether Randian, Rapturist or cryptofascist is exemplified by an emotional and cognitive ret/ar/dation. This is to say, their psychosocial development remains ideologically fixed in a simplistic world of archetypes and easily digested myths, which at once provide a "security blanket" lens through which to distort a complex world, but also a grave inhibitor in proper neurocognitive development.

As such, this individual is fixed in a recurrent cycle of emotional crisis, very much like a toddler, who, incapable of handling long periods of profound sensory or intellectual stimulus, is given to fits of anger, and crying. The normative adult manages to overcome this state through a combination of education and will.

The result of the maturation process is that the nuances of the adult world sharpen, while the emotional trauma caused by conflict, whether ideological or physical (stress) soften. The mature adult human is capable of highly complex conflict resolution, compromise, and generosity, and sees these traits as positive.

The immature, cognitively and emotionally stunted individual is afaid of these, and views them with great suspicion precisely because they remind them of the authoritarian parent that never escaped, they nonetheless wish to be. This state is incapable of understanding the intersubjective nature of being, and of the social necessity of cooperation.

Strinkingly, it is precisely this diminished skill set that is lauded by modern capitalist culture, precisely because it is controlable, and predicable, even though it is nihilistic and short sighted.
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
05:15 PM on 05/25/2011
Wow, it looks like a psuedo Psych 101 book blew up and a bunch of buzz phrases landed in random order.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:21 PM on 05/25/2011
To you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:22 PM on 05/25/2011
Moreover, you took it personally.

Why?
05:16 PM on 05/25/2011
Spot on.

Outwardly, this plays out like an extended version of the Lord of the Flies.

"At an allegorical level, the central theme is the conflicting impulses toward civilization—live by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and towards the will to power. Different subjects include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality. " Wikipedia
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
02:33 PM on 05/25/2011
The issue of acidification as explained by Dr. David Suzuki. Check out the documentary in the link.

http://oneocean.cbc.ca/pledge/issues/acidification
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:55 AM on 05/25/2011
If the climate isn't warming, by what mechanism are growing zones moving ever northward?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-04-23-gardening-map_N.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:01 PM on 05/25/2011
Note the short time frame.
01:37 PM on 05/25/2011
If the climate isn't warming, why are the birds spending winter farther north?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2008726599.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:55 PM on 05/25/2011
We'll not hear from the deniers on these points.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
11:34 AM on 05/25/2011
Part II - The Green Agenda - The Unified Green Religion
http://green-agenda.com/unitedfaith.html

"Dr Robert Muller, until recently the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and its #2 ranked official, appears to be the driving force behind the plan to create a new United Religion.
Dr Muller’s clearly outines his vision for a New Green Religion on his websites In one article he recounts a conversation between himself and God, as equals no less. These are quotes from that article (remember this is not some fruitcake standing on a streetcorner, this guy was responsible for formulating many UN policies) :

God: "Dear Robert, congratulations for having finished your 4000 ideas. May I ask you: which one do you consider the most important?"

I: Well, my most important idea and conclusion after all my adult life as a world civil servant is this: The United Nations must be vastly strengthened to resolve the major global problems henceforth increasingly confronting humanity and the earth. It must be empowered to adopt and enforce world laws and regulations. Let us perform this miracle in the House of Mica, on the shores of the River of the Rising Sun, wherefrom our indigenous brethren prophesized that a civilization of peace will extend to the entire world.

God: "Thank you, dear Robert, for what you are recommending. Perhaps after all, the greatest jewel of my Creation, the Earth, can be saved.“ "

WOW!!
HE MAYBE CRAZIER THAN UNCLE SPOOKY DUDE!!
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:00 PM on 05/25/2011
"...this guy was responsibl­e for formulatin­g many UN policies..."

What policies? I find it strange that you should assert that anyone person is steering such a larger international body with diverse interests and agendas. If the UN wants this poorly described things you complain about, doesn't that mean that the world wants it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
01:02 PM on 05/25/2011
Out of the mouthes of babes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
11:29 AM on 05/25/2011
For the folks who haven't prostrated themselves at the altar of the Church of Climatology an interesting website to peruse is The Green Agenda.
I would look at:
http://green-agenda.com/science.html
"Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel. "
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:05 PM on 05/25/2011
Everybody who disagrees with the religious left is a shrill. Oh my a link from Real Climate. It must be real.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
01:03 PM on 05/25/2011
"The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborat­e to write its climate change assessment­s but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualificat­ions in climatolog­y, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences."

I'm not sure about your numbers, but it is true that the IPCC includes people who aren't climatologists, but have expertise in other fields related to the effects on climate.

So what did Lindzen write and what was it changed too?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:53 AM on 05/25/2011
Spamming.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:55 AM on 05/25/2011
"More agw hyperbole resolved"

More? Don't you have to have some before you can claim more?

You use the word "hyperbole." Does that mean that you agree with most of the science of global warming but feel that some things are occasionally exaggerated?