Tornado in Southeast Dallas 4/3/2012

Dallas Tornado 2012 semi trucks April 3, 2012

BREAKING - LARGE TORNADO ON THE GROUND NEAR I-35 IN THE DALLAS AREA

Tornadoes On the Ground In Dallas Texas 4-3-12 Raw Footage

Arlington, Texas Tornado April 3, 2-12

"Summary:

A full assessment of the events of April 3, 2012 is not complete. However, we can review the NOAA/NWS/SPC historical tornado record for some insight into these recent tornado events in the DFW area.

Over the last 60 years (since 1952), a total of 172 tornadoes have been reported in either Tarrant or Dallas Counties, Texas. Of these, 42 have been rated at least EF2 (wind speeds over 110 mph). The strongest, rated EF4, hit Dallas on April 25, 1994, killing 3 people and injuring 48. Neither county has ever reported an EF5-rated tornado."

You can download (pdf) the report here:

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/2012/20120403-summary.pdf

Trend line for July year to date for the past century:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=pcp&month=7&year=2011&filter=ytd&state=41&div=0

"

Another Dust Bowl?

What      is the likelihood of another Dust Bowl-scale drought in the future?      No one is yet able to scientifically predict multi-year or decadal      droughts, but the paleoclimatic record can tell us how frequently      droughts such as the 1930s Dust Bowl occurred in the past or      if droughts of this magnitude are indeed a rare event. If such      droughts occurred with some regularity in the past, then we should      expect them to occur in the future."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_history.html

"Last summer, Aggie joke Dessler went completely hysterical ranting about the permanent man-made drought in Texas, and basically blamed it on Rick Perry.

Rick Perry calmly replied "the rains will come, they always do."

Precipitation has been well above normal in Texas this year. Dessler owes Perry, and everyone else an apology for his infantile hysterics."

I think you owe Rick Perry an apology as well.

BBC Horizon has an interesting review of 'Global Weirding' (note that they don't discuss the causes of climate change, just the effects so there's no reason not to watch):

Herbie

"IPCC Confirms: We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme

The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while. –Roger Pielke Jr, 28 March 2012 "

There are a lot of people whose livelihoods now depend on climate change being real. There are currently 85,000 jobs in the US alone described as Climate Change consultants.

I have an open mind, but I have training in science and something like that BBC show is anecdotal evidence, not science. I continue to make observations, looking at the daily ice extent reports, the monthly temperature reports. Here is the latest global temperature from satellites report that just came out yesterday (see end of comment).

Whether global warming or climate change is real or not, we all can do things that makes the world a better place. I don't think reducing carbon emissions will make the world a better place, but creating better energy efficient devices for example is always a good idea.

I grew up during the energy crisis of the 70's. I formed a habit of turning off the lights when not in use. I even did a oral science presentation in science class on solar energy production. I really get turned off by all these good ideas getting appropriated by so called "green" advocacy. They had me at energy efficient, and they lost me at global warming / climate change.

ps. I'll watch that just because of you Herbie, though I have to set up a different computer so I can have sound.

We have more people on the globe, so floods and storms are bound to have a greater impact. Instead of trying to fight the chosen cause, we should prepare for it. That's way more cost effective  then employing the ghostbusters to chase ghosts.

Thinking that we can just implement some laws to change the climate, sounds like visions of grandeur. We do not have such and impact, neither do we wield such power over the climate.

I'm with Proton, I'll do everything to be more energy efficient, because it saves me money.

Going to watch the BBC video when I get home from work.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Thinking that we can just implement some laws to change the climate, sounds like visions of grandeur. We do not have such and impact, neither do we wield such power over the climate.

*snip*

You keep saying that, and I keep having to pwn you.

Yeah, humans had absolutely no impact on the Aral Sea. *rolls eyes*

Did AGW dry up Bonneville salt flats aswell?

No doubt we can destroy our own environment, but the climate, no.

8 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

@cbae: You bring up Perry for some reason? Is it related to this:

"Last summer, Aggie joke Dessler went completely hysterical ranting about the permanent man-made drought in Texas, and basically blamed it on Rick Perry.

Rick Perry calmly replied "the rains will come, they always do."

Precipitation has been well above normal in Texas this year. Dessler owes Perry, and everyone else an apology for his infantile hysterics."

I think you owe Rick Perry an apology as well.

But he didn't believe that the rains would come on their own:

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/16038/

Perry is a certifiable religious nut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/us/politics/07prayer.html?_r=1

And he even appoints other religious nuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McLeroy

Governor Perry reappointed McLeroy, an advocate of creationism, as Chairman to a second term to last until February 1, 2011,^[5] but on May 28, 2009, the Texas Senate rejected the re-appointment; although the vote was 19-11 in favor with one member abstaining (along party lines; all 19 Senate members voting to reappoint were Republicans, while all 11 Senate members voting to reject and the one abstaining member were Democrats) the reappointment required a 2/3 majority for approval.^[10] McLeroy lost re-election to a moderate in the Republican primary in March 2010.^[11]

...

A creationist, McLeroy is known for his criticism of evolution and has tried to convince textbook publishers to demonstrate what he considers the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.^[1] The board can refuse to place materials it disagrees with on the state approved list. If school districts want textbooks not on the list, the districts must purchase such materials entirely from their own funds. The SBOE thus selects the textbooks for the entire state's 4.7 million schoolchildren,^[8] where in most other states this selection is made in individual school districts. As a result, it "has outsized influence over the reading material used in classrooms nationwide, since publishers craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers."^[13]

According to Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, since his election, McLeroy had dragged the Texas State Board of Education into a series of "divisive and unnecessary culture-war battles".^[14] This included McLeroy voting in 2001 to reject the only advanced placement environmental science textbook proposed for Texas high schools even though panels of experts – including one panel from Texas A&M – found the textbook free of errors. Baylor University in Waco used the same textbook.^[14]

In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution.^[14]

Over objections by experts in 2004, McLeroy voted to approve health textbooks that stress "abstinence-only" in regard to instruction about pregnancy and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.^[14]

In 2005, McLeroy conducted a sermon in his church, talking about the Board of Education, saying naturalism is "the enemy" and he said: "Why is Intelligent Design the big tent? Because we're all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you're a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it's all in the tent of Intelligent Design."^[15] An mp3 of the sermon remains online^[3] as well as McLeroy's powerpoint^[16] and notes.^[17]

According to a 2008 article in The New York Times, "Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth's appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. 'I believe a lot of incredible things,' he said, 'The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.'"^[18] McLeroy's statements regarding science have been criticized.^[19] McLeroy and other Board members who want to challenge evolution have received criticism from more than fifty scientific organizations over an attempt to weaken the currently-accepted science standards on evolution.^[20] In particular, biologist Kenneth R. Miller called McLeroy's statements on science "breathtakingly" incorrect.^[21]

In March 2008, McLeroy was criticized for racially and culturally insensitive remarks saying: "What good does it do to put a Chinese story in an English book?" he said. "So you really don't want Chinese books with a bunch of crazy Chinese words in them."^[22] He later apologized.^[23]

In 2009, McLeroy spoke at a board meeting using several quotes from scientists in an attempt to discredit evolution. A biology teacher later found the quotes to be incomplete, out of context, and/or incorrectly taken from a creationist website.^[24][25] McLeroy said that while "some of the material was taken from the creationist site [...] a lot of the quotes I did get on my own."

That single act alone of appointing McLeroy for head of the Texas State Board of Education warrants any derision that I hold for him.

6 minutes ago, Blue Ink wrote

@cbae: I'm not sure I understand what the Aral Sea has to do with climate, or droughts in general. Care to clarify?

He thinks humans are too puny to have any effect on the globe and therefore could not be responsible for AGW. I gave an example of the kind of impact humans can have.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: This proves AGW how?

Did AGW dry up Bonneville salt flats aswell?

No doubt we can destroy our own environment, but the climate, no.

Backpedaling again, I see. You have that move down to an art.

What if it turns out he is right about the rain in Texas, that would mean that creationism is actually true!

The horror!

11 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Backpedaling again, I see. You have that move down to an art.

Where did I backpadel?

I claimed we have no impact on the climate, I did not say we have no impact on our environment.

If you look at floods, if they are in fact increasing, you will find that local land use changes is most likely at fault. Mudslides at Haiiti for instance, they cut down the trees on the hill and the hill comes down in a mudslide. Same with the glaciers, land use changes are more likely to impact them then the CO2 concentrations.

17 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: So if the guy is wrong on creationism, he's wrong about the rain in Texas?

What if it turns out he is right about the rain in Texas, that would mean that creationism is actually true!

The horror!

It's not just about being right or wrong. It's about not taking responsibility for ANYTHING. Why even hold the office of governor if your only move is to encourage others to pray to an imaginary god to fix all the plights of the world?

9 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Where did I backpadel?

I claimed we have no impact on the climate, I did not say we have no impact on our environment.

Do you really think that the elimination of a large body of water has no impact on the climate there?

If you look at floods, if they are in fact increasing, you will find that local land use changes is most likely at fault. Mudslides at Haiiti for instance, they cut down the trees on the hill and the hill comes down in a mudslide. Same with the glaciers, land use changes are more likely to impact them then the CO2 concentrations.

Localized environmental destruction impacts micro-climates. The global climate is an aggregate of all the micro-climates.

Let's take this from a different angle. Do you think we can affect the climate globally if we simultaneously set off all the nuclear arsenals held by all the countries of the world?

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

It's not just about being right or wrong. It's about not taking responsibility for ANYTHING. Why even hold the office of governor if your only move is to encourage others to pray to an imaginary god to fix all the plights of the world?

That's a whole different story. I don't believe in a god either, but I respect the beliefs of others if they do, as long as they do not force their belief onto me. That's why I have such an issue with this climate bullcrap, it's starting to sound like a religion and debating with proponents is like debating with religious people.

Do you really think that the elimination of a large body of water has no impact on the climate there?

Global climate. no. Local climate, no. And why are you asking me? You are the one making the claim!

Localized environmental destruction impacts micro-climates. The global climate is an aggregate of all the micro-climates.

Micro climates? First I heard of those. Climate is all weather processes over a longer period of time, there are no micro climates.

Let's take this from a different angle. Do you think we can affect the climate globally if we simultaneously set off all the nuclear arsenals held by all the countries of the world?

Would you think a tax on nuclear missiles would solve the problem of a nuclear winter?