Quantcast

Countering Global Warming Alarmists and Putting The Oklahoma Tornado Into Perspective

Ken 2013/05/22 20:26:42
Putting the Moore Oklahoma Tornado Into Perspective
Comment:

No
sooner had the Moore, Oklahoma tornado hit than the Global Climate
Change Alarmists were out in force proclaiming that manmade climate
change was the cause of these horrific weather events. Newscasters were
calling it the most powerful tornado in world (mind you, not just
U.S.!) history. Here's a flash for all of them, it comes in, at best, a
distant third in the U.S. In 1805, a massive tornado hit the mid-west
leaving "an impassable wall of downed trees, two miles wide and hundreds
of miles long." Inasmuch as the region was largely unsettled,
casualties were very limited.

However,
in 1925 the great "Tri-State Tornado" with wind speeds up to 300 mph
cut a swath of destruction across Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, 219
miles long and up to a mile wide, killing nearly 700 people in a region
that wasn't nearly as densely populated as Oklahoma is today. The
Tri-State Tornado lasted three hours, the tornado that devastated Moore,
Oklahoma, lasted 40 minutes. While there is no time estimate for the
1805 tornado, given the distance it traveled it must have lasted even
longer than the three-hour-long Tri-State Tornado.

The
moral of this story is that you should take with a grain of salt any
report from the media blaming man-made climate change for these "extreme
weather events" -- they are no more extreme than weather events back in
the days before pseudo-science could blame mankind for them.


ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

Tri-State Tornado of 1925




Tri-State Tornado of 1925, also called Great Tri-State Tornado,the
deadliest in U.S. history, that traveled from southeastern Missouri
through southern Iliinois and into southwestern Indiana on March 18,
1925. The storm completely destroyed a number of towns and caused 695
deaths.




The tornado materialized about 1:00 pm
local time in Ellington, Mo. It caught the town’s residents by
surprise, as the weather forecast had been normal. (To prevent panic
among the public, tornado forecasting was not practiced at the time, and
even the word “tornado” had been banned from U.S. weather forecasts
since the late 19th century.) The storm moved quickly to the northeast,
speeding through the Missouri towns of Annapolis, Biehle, and Frohna and
killing 11 people before crossing the MIssissippi River
into southern Illinois, where it virtually destroyed the towns of
Gorham, De Soto, and
Murphysboro, among others. Murphysboro was the hardest-hit area in the
tornado’s path, with 243 fatalities. After killing more than 600 people
in Illinois, the tornado crossed the Wabash River into Indiana, where
it demolished the towns of Griffin, Owensville, and Princeton and
devastated about 85 farms in between. Having taken 71 lives in Indiana,
the storm dissipated about 4:30 pm approximately 3 miles (5 km) southwest of Petersburg.


With winds of roughly 300 miles (480 km) per hour, the tornado
lasted 3.5 hours and traveled 219 miles (352 km)—setting records for
both duration and distance. Its width of up to 1 mile (1.6 km), average
speed of almost 62 miles (100 km) per hour, and peak speed of 73 miles
(117 km) per hour also make it one of the largest and fastest tornadoes
in U.S. history.
In addition to the 695 casualties, there were more than
2,000 injured survivors, as well as thousands who were left homeless
and without food. Fires, looting, and theft in the tornado’s aftermath
exacerbated its effects.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1472896/Tri-State-Tornado-of-1925

1925 Tri State Tornado

USA Today


Putting Oklahoma tornado in perspective

By Lee Sandlin, 5/22/1013 (excerpt)

Consider for a moment another tornado that happened more than 200
years ago, on the afternoon of June 8, 1805. An enormous black cloud
came out of the Missouri hills, crossed the Mississippi River, cut
through Southern Illinois, and finally petered out somewhere in Indiana.
The land there was heavily forested and sparsely settled. There were
few witnesses and fewer reports of injury or property damage. It might
have left no trace in history, except for the aftermath. Travelers found
an impassable wall of downed trees, two miles wide and hundreds of
miles long, that remained in place for decades.

The 1805 tornado
might be dismissed as some unrepeatable fluke -- except that 120 years
later, on March 18, 1925, another tornado traced out almost the exact
same route. It became known as the Tri-State Tornado. Witnesses didn't
see a classic funnel cloud. Instead they described it as a wall of fog
that moved across the landscape at more than 70 miles an hour,
destroying everything it touched. Monday's tornado in Moore lasted 40
minutes. The Tri-State tornado lasted three and a half hours. The
country there was no longer uninhabited, as it had been in 1805, and
almost 700 people died.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/21/lee-sandlin-on-putting-oklahoma-tornado-in-perspective/2348147/
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Prairie Wind 2013/05/23 06:26:20 (edited)
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    Foremost, Global Warming is a scam.

    To accomplish MAN-MADE global warming, get out your chemistry and physic handbook and this is the formuila:

    "The mass of gas which dissolves at constant pressure in a given mass of liquid diminishes which increase of temperature."

    What's that mean? Ok, compare it to this example: take a cold can of unopened soda pop out of the refrigerator. Pop the tab ... hear the fizz and see the bubbles? Thats CO2 or carbon dioxide.

    Yummm. Take a drink and set the can down, leaving it alone for...lets say 10 minutes or any amount of time. When you pick it up again, what's different? Not as much fizz is there? The soda is more warm, right? What you've done is reduced the amount of liquid by taking a drink; the tab is gone, so the CO2 or carbon dioxide has risen up out of the can and now the drink is more flat, plus you've exposed the can to warmer temperature,

    That's all there is to it. Oh ....the carbon dioxide? Any trees, grass, plants or pet jungle laying about, all yummy with chlorophyll to keep them green? What do they do with CO2? Well, they suck up the CO2 and convert it to O "oxygen" ... you need it breathe or you'll croak.

    For those who want to battle it even more, read up on the Dansgaard-Osechger cycle research that presents the phys...






    Foremost, Global Warming is a scam.

    To accomplish MAN-MADE global warming, get out your chemistry and physic handbook and this is the formuila:

    "The mass of gas which dissolves at constant pressure in a given mass of liquid diminishes which increase of temperature."

    What's that mean? Ok, compare it to this example: take a cold can of unopened soda pop out of the refrigerator. Pop the tab ... hear the fizz and see the bubbles? Thats CO2 or carbon dioxide.

    Yummm. Take a drink and set the can down, leaving it alone for...lets say 10 minutes or any amount of time. When you pick it up again, what's different? Not as much fizz is there? The soda is more warm, right? What you've done is reduced the amount of liquid by taking a drink; the tab is gone, so the CO2 or carbon dioxide has risen up out of the can and now the drink is more flat, plus you've exposed the can to warmer temperature,

    That's all there is to it. Oh ....the carbon dioxide? Any trees, grass, plants or pet jungle laying about, all yummy with chlorophyll to keep them green? What do they do with CO2? Well, they suck up the CO2 and convert it to O "oxygen" ... you need it breathe or you'll croak.

    For those who want to battle it even more, read up on the Dansgaard-Osechger cycle research that presents the physical evidence throught ice core sampling, world-wide, which sholw cold to warm cycles, occur approximately every 1,200 to 1,500 years.
    http://members.casema.nl/erre...
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
    http://www.mattstonesenvironm...

    Currently, the Earth's overall temperature has reduced, minimally, in the last 150 years and ice caps at the Arctic and Antarctic poles are thickening, even though the edges have been withdrawing. Why? Change in ocean currents and the temperatures of the currents.

    We've been through this before, warm to cold and back, read your history, and we'll do it again.
    (more)
  • Ken Prairie... 2013/05/23 20:00:21
    Ken
    +1
    Excellent!!! An even more telling experiment would be to have two cans of soda side-by-side, one well-chilled, the other at room temperature. Open them both and see which expels the most carbonization (CO2) and in the case of the room temperature one, possibly quite a bit of soda.
  • Prairie... Ken 2013/05/24 00:23:48
    Prairie Wind
    Sure, it would be an example of the same experiment, recognizing the relationships between mass and temperature effect the dissipation of the carbon dioxide from an opened pop can. You either drink more or less of it, reducing the quantity of carbon dioxide and the warmer or colder the can is will effect the residual left in the can once you've taken a swig out of it and set it down.

    Source: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 89th edition, 2008-2009 "Solubility of Carbon Dioxidein Water at Various Temperatures and Pressures"
  • RevJim 2013/05/22 22:50:31
    RevJim
    +1
    It seems as though the issue has become a battle between traditional, observational science and this new "consensus" science that passes for fact, whether the theory is proven or not. I tend to believe the observational science, as, in the long run, it seems to be more accurate.
  • Ken RevJim 2013/05/22 23:34:58
    Ken
    +2
    Great observation - I never heard of the "consensus science" when I studied the scientific method.
  • jeane RevJim 2013/05/23 01:31:52
    jeane
    +1
    I thought about that but did not know what to call it - thank you Rev.Jim!
  • Cognito22 2013/05/22 22:28:03
    Cognito22
    +4
    IPCC Chief: Oklahoma tornado ‘can’t be related to manmade climate change… not possible. Scientifically… not valid’

    http://junkscience.com/2013/0...
  • Prairie... Cognito22 2013/05/23 07:02:25 (edited)
    Prairie Wind
    +2
    Three things ... warm, moist air coming from the south hitting a cold front blasting from the north over a dry area, all into a pot of nightmares, blasting back out west to east, reminding life can be snuffed out in a dip and swirl, at counter-clockwise speed, lifting loaded train cars off of railroad tracks, peeling the bark off of trees, driving wood into metal, cattle found flown miles away, perhaps the possiblity of recognizing where Main Street used to be and wherever you stopped to give thanks to God for your life.
  • Ken Prairie... 2013/05/23 20:07:40
    Ken
    +1
    True. It is also the unique geography of North America - Alaska and the Bering Sea to the Northwest and the Gulf of Mexico to the South-South-East. At changing seasons, when the Gulf warms up in the spring and cold air masses are still coming down from Alaska and the Bering Sea, the two fronts, warm moist air from the Gulf and cold air from the Northwest generally meet on a diagonal line running from west-central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Indiana. "Tornado Alley" is broad enough to also take in states which border these five.
  • Prairie... Ken 2013/05/24 00:31:36
    Prairie Wind
    Am at the tip of the pot, stirring boiling nightmares, but that's just living out on the open rangeland where you watch which direct your cattle face to know what next is coming from Mother Nature.
  • Allbiz - PWCM - JLA 2013/05/22 22:11:59
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +3
    There really isn't anything to put in perspective here as tornadoes are caused by cool air. Not warm air. This tornado occurred because of global cooling.

    And besides, it doesn't even rank in the top 100 most dangerous tornadoes. 40% of all tornadoes annually occur in Bangladesh. The worst they have experienced was in 1989. It killed over 1300 people. Bangldesh has recorded 19 tornados killing over 100 people.

    Having once lost a home in a flood, I can empthasize with the victims of Moore, OK. However, I am convinced this storm is being used by the news to distract Americans from Obamagates.

    Yeah. Call me a skeptic. I am.
  • Cognito22 2013/05/22 22:07:32
    Cognito22
    +3
    1975 : Tornado Outbreaks Blamed On Global Cooling

    http://stevengoddard.wordpres...
  • Sawdust_128 2013/05/22 20:52:44
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    Tracks of all hurricanes recorded

    hurricanes

    Tornado risk map.

    risk map

    So, global climate change changed what?
  • JMCC 2013/05/22 20:39:04
    JMCC
    +1
    Taken in isolation, then you almost certainly be right...

    The problem is that this tornado isn't one isolated extreme weather event - it is one of a great many that have struck the US in recent years.

    In a minute, people are going to start to realise that the cost to life, property and crops is rising year on year in such a way that Climate change will not be so easy to dismiss.

    Last year was one of the most expensive years that there has ever been, and given how close the Oyster Creek nuclear facility (located in Lacey Township, near Barnegat Bay, New Jersey) came to catastrophic failure due to flooding, it could easily have been much, much, worse.

    Already farmers in the northern hemisphere are looking at a second year of failed crops, giving rise to speculation that food prices are set to rise up to 40% before the 2014 harvest is in - presuming we don't have yet another failure...

    One thing is for sure, people who believe in Global Warming are only "Alarmists" to people in denial of what is actually happening in the world around them...
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/22 20:48:33
    Luca
    +5
    If you review the tornado data from 1950-1960, it is no different than 2002-2103

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?...
  • Sawdust... Luca 2013/05/22 20:56:28
    Sawdust_128
    +4
    Same for hurricanes.
  • Luca Sawdust... 2013/05/22 20:59:21
    Luca
    +5
    Life is a circle...and for every climate cycle in the history of mankind, there has been politicians trying to capitalize upon it...dating back to Babylonian days..In more recent history...Robert Kennedy ran his election campaign on "global warming" (this was before the politicians changed it to Global Cooling in the 70's) lol
  • Sawdust... Luca 2013/05/23 00:02:16
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    ... and now global climate change, just in case the thermometer changes direction again.
  • Luca Sawdust... 2013/05/23 00:08:48
    Luca
    +3
    yeah....! When I see an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, then I can believe what I am seeing and act accordingly..until then, I believe if politicians would just STFU it would greatly reduce greenhouse gases...:-)
  • Sawdust... Luca 2013/05/23 00:24:31
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    .... 5 days of thunder storms = global climate change
    .... 5 days of hot days with sunshine = global climate change
    .... 5 days of blizzard conditions = global climate change
    .... 5 days of temps below freezing = global climate change

    After each of these insert "We need $billions to study these and make amends to the under developed countries of the world", ... because we are evil, because we are greedy, because it sounds really good for a liberal to spout this crapola, specially to the American Hating zombies who want to hear it. Junk science rules, YAYYYYY!
  • Luca Sawdust... 2013/05/23 00:29:14
    Luca
    +4
    well...as i have clearly said to all...even if i wanted to be a "believer", there is to much politics involved for me to "buy it". If a politician is FOR IT, then it is prudent to be against it. Not one of them practice what they preach. When Al Gore sells his latest 9 million dollar beachfront home to move inland to some Eco-Hut that is sheltered from the "rising oceans that will consume the seaboards"...THEN and only then will I consider acting in kind :)
  • Sawdust... Luca 2013/05/23 03:03:09
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    I think the phenomenon there is

    Al Gore-balls warming.
  • Luca Sawdust... 2013/05/23 03:15:07
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/22 21:06:11
    JMCC
    +1
    How about correlating them to other weather related disasters such as Superstorm Sandy?

    Not to mention the damage caused by storms, floods, droughts and fires worldwide in the last 12 months?

    What I tried to get across in the above post is that these have to be taken in context with the whole biosphere and not in isolation.

    For example weather records being broken used to be a rare thing, yet in the past few years it is a rare month or season that doesn't break one record or another.
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/22 21:32:26 (edited)
  • Ken Luca 2013/05/22 22:12:11
    Ken
    +2
    Great post - thanks for all of the excellent information.."Deniers" , i.e. scientists who don't go along with the scam, are always charged with being in the pocket of "big oil" but nothing is said about the scientists who are in the pocket of "big government," who receive hundreds of millions in "grants" to come up with studies that support the scam. Heaven forbid their study doesn't come out supporting AGW, they will be shunned and even fired, as was a University of Oklahoma scientist, David Deming, after he blew the whistle on another scientist who sent him an email saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Deming did ice core studies that confirm a 150-year warming trend, but refused to credit it to man-made causes.
  • Luca Ken 2013/05/22 22:13:47
    Luca
    +3
    Yes, the outcomes are pre-ordered before they qualify to get the grant money...its a huge SCAM.
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/22 22:32:49
    JMCC
    +1
    I too share your mistrust of all professional politicians, and as a scientist by nature and profession, have to be convinced by logic and not by pretty words.

    I also share your concern about their being an awful lot of money at stake, yet an analysis of who stands to lose the most from encouraging people to be energy independent might surprise you considerably.

    For one moment consider a world in which people were able to generate all the energy they needed and didn't have to buy any energy from a third party. Irrespective as to whether it is a combination of green tech, like solar and wind power, ground water heating or gas reclamation from waste.

    The fossil fuel industries suffer primarily, as well as the energy distribution companies - but also government revenue shrinks considerably too...

    The financial motivation for going green then is what exactly?

    The people who both recognise a problem and the solution are always going to try to capitalise on being the first to do so - can you blame them?

    The fossil fuel industries are going to fight with everything they have to keep their "captive" customers returning, I don't blame them either.

    Ultimately this is why I only listen to scientific reason on this - informed by my own specialisation which is complex systems analysis - after all the biosphere is one complex system... ;)
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/22 23:25:38
    Luca
    +3
    Well, when it comes to the biosphere in general, it only makes common sense that human sprawl is going to have some sort of impact on something...but any/all of these anomalies have to be weighed against the regenerative prowess of the earth itself, and the human technologies that may lag behind "need", but eventually will come into play in a restorative manner. I am NOT a scientist, I am a Doctor...so much of the nomenclature used in scientific explanations is unfamiliar to me, and hence, myself nor MOST others really have any basis to interpret the data. Man made or natural causal factors? I do not believe anyone can PROVE irrefutably either paradigm. All i know is that for 2,000 years politicians have been saying..."if we don't do something NOW, within the next 10 years mankind will be at great peril". In fact, those very same words were uttered by Al Gore in 1992...yet, here we still are!

    As far as OIl Companies go...I can see the desire to perpetuate the continued dependency on fossil fuels, that's just business. For politicians to capitalize on Bills they foist upon us 'under the table' WHILE at the same time speaking badly of others...is not in the least the same...that is downright criminal in my mind. Again, if those Scientist that think it is man-made would ...
    Well, when it comes to the biosphere in general, it only makes common sense that human sprawl is going to have some sort of impact on something...but any/all of these anomalies have to be weighed against the regenerative prowess of the earth itself, and the human technologies that may lag behind "need", but eventually will come into play in a restorative manner. I am NOT a scientist, I am a Doctor...so much of the nomenclature used in scientific explanations is unfamiliar to me, and hence, myself nor MOST others really have any basis to interpret the data. Man made or natural causal factors? I do not believe anyone can PROVE irrefutably either paradigm. All i know is that for 2,000 years politicians have been saying..."if we don't do something NOW, within the next 10 years mankind will be at great peril". In fact, those very same words were uttered by Al Gore in 1992...yet, here we still are!

    As far as OIl Companies go...I can see the desire to perpetuate the continued dependency on fossil fuels, that's just business. For politicians to capitalize on Bills they foist upon us 'under the table' WHILE at the same time speaking badly of others...is not in the least the same...that is downright criminal in my mind. Again, if those Scientist that think it is man-made would hold an open debate with those that do not..then perhaps the public might have a balanced presentation of facts. This has NEVER been "allowed". Additionally, those that oppose this notion of man made causes getting harassed only suggests something is amiss...otherwise, why go thru such great lengths to silence them. I have no alternative than to allow my own intelligence conclude "its a game".
    (more)
  • Ken Luca 2013/05/22 23:37:20
    Ken
    +1
    You are right, not only has it not been allowed, dissenting scientists are rarely allowed to get papers published in peer-review journals, so the supporters of AGW can continue to claim that there are no peer reviewed articles opposing their view.
  • Luca Ken 2013/05/22 23:50:45
    Luca
    +3
    Exactly..Truth is not the outcome of suppression.
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/22 23:50:42
    JMCC
    +1
    "all of these anomalies have to be weighed against the regenerative prowess of the earth itself" - unfortunately there are several problems here.

    One the earth is under multiple assaults at once, it is not just the fact that we are burning fossil fuels, but also damaging those parts of the earth that would help to absorb or otherwise capture the carbon.

    Another is that the seas are becoming increasingly more acid which when it rains it destroys carbon sinks such as forests.

    Even when the planet responds by creating blue green algae (it loves CO2 rich atmospheres), we eradicate it. In other words we tend to cripple every attempt that the planet makes to repair itself.

    As for a simple logical proof that cuts through all the ephemera:

    1) If you add something to a system that wasn't there before, it changes it's behaviour.

    2) Man has added CO2 to the active biosphere that was not there before and couldn't have got there through natural process.

    3) Increased CO2 levels in an atmosphere causes it to thicken,

    4) Heat travels more slowly through a thick atmosphere than a thinner one.
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/22 23:53:07 (edited)
    Luca
    +2
    Ergo...tornadoes and hurricanes clean the air! I just knew there was some principle of homeostasis involved here somewhere! :-)
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/23 00:07:59
    JMCC
    +1
    "Ergo...tornadoes and hurricanes clean the air" - if only it were as easy as that - unfortunately not though.
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/23 00:10:07
    Luca
    +3
    probably not...but I am a meteorological layperson...i get to over-simplify things :-)
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/23 00:15:26
    JMCC
    +1
    LOLOLOLOLOL
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/23 00:19:48
    Luca
    +3
    you cant fault me for my logic......a "big wind" has got to have some scrubbing affect on the atmosphere...:-)
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/23 00:28:21
    JMCC
    +1
    Not as much as any would like. In fact a good many winds pick up dust and rubbish into the upper atmosphere where it gets suspended in the jetstream.

    If ever you fly to the UK, you will see a pall of black over much of the Northern Atlantic, and over the UK itself (small island large concentration of vehicles).

    The contrast is much more apparent when flying into the UK from france, because you can see a definitive boundary to it as you cross the channel.

    The only time I have ever seen a similar effect on the ground was in the US driving down the I15 from Barstow to Victorville.

    There was this enormous yellow layer above Victorville, and I remember thinking "Good grief what sort of industry do they have there?". It was only when I got up close that I realised that this was the pollution being driven inland from LA by the Pacific breeze.
  • Luca JMCC 2013/05/23 00:33:47
    Luca
    +3
    Well...i am an optimist...so it seems to me the problem is not the pollution itself...but where it resides...So a LOT of the worlds problems could be resolved simply by finding a way to collect and re-direct where all the worlds pollution resides...say...somewhere in the Middle East for example LOL
  • JMCC Luca 2013/05/23 00:39:55
    JMCC
    +1
    Pollution and CO2 build up are two different problems, but I take your point.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/30 18:32:39

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals