Super Tuesday Outbreak damage surveys find five EF-4 tornadoes

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10:21 PM GMT on February 07, 2008

Share this Blog
1
+

Residents of the South continue to mourn the dead and clean up the tremendous destruction wrought by the Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. Tennessee suffered the most, with 33 dead, 189 injured, and at least 525 homes destroyed. Damage surveys indicate that at least five of this week's tornadoes were violent EF-4's on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, with winds of 166-200 mph. The tornado that hit Jackson, Tennessee, causing $40 million in damage to Union University, was rated an EF-4. Another Tennessee tornado that hit the Morris Chapel area, killing three mobile home residents, was also rated EF-4. Northern Alabama suffered two EF-4's--one that hit Rosalie on Wednesday, killing one person, and a second tornado that hit Moulton, killing four and injuring 25. In Arkansas, an EF-4 tornado cut a 120-mile damage swath through the northern part of the state. Thirteen people died in this tornado, including four people in Atkins, and seven in Clinton. The NWS office in Little Rock has an excellent web page summarizing the Arkansas storms, complete with radar animations and jet stream graphics.

At least seven other tornadoes from the outbreak have been rated EF-3, according to the excellent Wikipedia page on the event. The Memphis metropolitan area was affected by an EF-2 and an EF-3 twister, and an EF-2 tornado hit the northeastern end of the Nashville metropolitan area.

<
Figure 1. Preliminary tornado tracks and death toll from the Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. Image credit: NOAA Storm Prediction Center.


Figure 2. Damage near Mountain View, Arkansas, along the 120-mile long track of the EF-4 tornado that swept through Clinton and Atkins. Image credit: wunderphotographer dennisearle.

The total death toll currently stands at 59, across five states and 19 counties, with hundreds of others injured. The outbreak is the deadliest in the U.S. since the May 31, 1985 outbreak that killed 76 across Ohio and Pennsylvania (and also 12 in Ontario, Canada). This week's outbreak was also the deadliest tornado outbreak in Kentucky since the April 3, 1974 Super Outbreak. In Arkansas, the 14 fatalities is the most since 25 were killed during the Benton, Arkansas Tornado Outbreak on March 1, 1997. Only one other February tornado outbreak in the past century compares to the Super Tuesday outbreak--the great February 21, 1971 Mississippi Valley outbreak, which left 119 dead across the South.

Record heat helped fuel the tornadoes
Record high temperature readings were recorded at 94 airports in 18 states across southeastern portion of the U.S. on Tuesday, according the the National Climatic Data Center. The spring-like warmth, when contrasted with the very wintry conditions on the other side of the strong cold front that pushed through the region on Super Tuesday, helped to fuel the formidable tornadoes observed.

As new damage surveys come in, I'll update this blog.

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
Sunday at 8pm EST (9pm PST), there promises to be an interesting show on the National Geographic Channel called Six Degrees, which explores what might happen to the Earth for each degree of warming up to six degrees centigrade. The program is based on the book by Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (London: Fourth Estate, 2007). According to a review of this book posted by climate scientist Eric Steig at realclimate.org, "Mark Lynas will no doubt be pleased that I very much like the book. To be sure, it is alarming, but the question of whether it is alarmist is a more difficult one..."

Jeff Masters

Mt. View, Arkansas Storm Damage Feb 5th 08 (dennisearle)
Traveling along East Main Street, past the Hospital...
Mt. View, Arkansas Storm Damage Feb 5th 08
Tornado Damage (grt973)
Damage from the tornado that came through Greenville, Ky on Feb. 5, 2008.
Tornado Damage

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 151 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

151. Tazmanian
2:27 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
uh oh i see where this is going
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 115432
150. moonlightcowboy
2:24 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Composition of dry atmosphere by volume ppmv: parts per million by volume

Gas Volume

Nitrogen (N2)----780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2)------209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar)-------------9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon D. (CO2)------383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne)----------------18.18 ppmv
Helium (He)---------------5.24 ppmv
Methane (CH4)-----------1.745 ppmv

Of course, all of these combined is but a mere fraction of the single largest GHG(greenhouse gas), water vapor.

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
149. MichaelSTL
2:23 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
I shame all of you who believe that we humans have any power over Nature and her affects.

Can you prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not really greenhouse gasses (i imagine that it is very easy to check, see if they absorb infrared wavelengths, as emitted by warm objects, and in the range emitted by the Earth)? I think it is totally absurd to think that what we have observed is 100% natural. I shame people who don't think that we can have any effect on the Earth...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
148. quasigeostropic
2:22 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Man-made GW is non-provable......It's a tactic that has crept into science that says WE are to blame so the upper 10% of society can control us even more......Dont believe me?......showing me a graph doesnt prove anything....I bet those that declare this is solid science dont even consider the other side.....That's what I call BIAS...

So Michael, I suggest you lobby the admin on WUG to make YOU an admin...then you can ban the "denialists"...
Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192
147. BahaHurican
2:15 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
I found the following interesting, especially in view of the recent reading I have done on ENSO's effects on the ATL tropical cyclone season, particularly in the La Nina phase:

Also in La Ninas, losses from springtime flooding and from summer droughts and hurricanes typically are much greater than normal. Flooding in La Nina years averages nearly $4.5 billion compared to an average of $2.4 billion. Hurricane related losses in La Nina years average $5.9 billion compared to an average of $3 billion.
Take for example the 1998/99 La Nina. Hurricanes Bonnie, Georges, Dennis, Floyd, Irene and Harvey made landfall in the two summers with well over $13 billion in damages. Major tornado outbreaks occurred in January 1999 in Arkansas and Tennessee and in May in Oklahoma and Kansas with $2.3 billion in damages. The summer of 1999's heat wave and drought in the east central states added over $1 billion in losses. The total losses from La Nina related storms and lack of storms in 1998 and 1999 exceeded $16 billion.


What is interesting is that climatologically speaking, it's the ENSO neutral periods that have the highest correlations with hurricane strikes and damage, especially to the US, which this article seems to be highlighting. While ATL storm seasons tend to be more active during La Nina years when compared with El Nino, '98/'99 was not a particularly typical ENSO- year. If anything, last year, with its relatively low landfall pattern, seems to be more of a standard.

NOTE: Even in the mentioned years, the "big" hurricane news was not in the US but, as we saw this year, in Central America [i.e. Mitch]. Also, was 2004 a La Nina year?
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
146. FLWeatherFreak91
2:07 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Ok Michael STL...That graph that you showed does show that the Earth is in fact warming. But did anyone happen to check the scale on the graph. It ranges a mere 1.2 degrees over more than 50 years. The mini ice age of the late medieval times showed a temperature change of over 4 degrees in less than 10 years and some scientists believe over the entire span of the ice age temps ranged upwards of 10 degrees. I shame all of you who believe that we humans have any power over Nature and her affects. The Earth has been going through small temperature cycles through its entire life, and we just happen to be witnessing one of them now. In 200 years from now governments will be campaigning toward voluntary ejection of co2 into the atmosphere TO WARM US UP! No matter what we do on Earth, the big picture of climate will not be affected. Everything balances.
Member Since: December 1, 2006 Posts: 2 Comments: 3634
145. sebastianjer
2:07 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
JFlorida RE 134

Lobotomies took place in my lifetime, I am old but not that old, lol. A long ways is a relative term.

Would not the more prudent and far reaching answer to this perceived problem be an international agreement on R&D of alternative energy sources? Why in the world would you want to harm the economies of the countries most able to afford and technologically advanced enough to provide such long term solutions?

Personally I do not believe that there is a crisis, or even a serious problem, however the solutions that are being promoted by the IPCC, Al Gore, etc. do more harm than good! The first maxim should be the same as for doctors "First do no harm." This nonsense is not going to protect the planet, it's going to cause genocide, which in some warped way would save the planet.

The better the standard of living, the longer people live. The more prosperous a country, the cleaner they become, because they can afford to take care of themselves better in both cases.
Do you even comprehend the advances in pollution control the United States and the western democracies have made just in the last 40 years?

Unless we are willing to cut the world's population growth in half over the coming century, the solution is in technological advances, not in crippling or redistributing the world's economic growth.

If, big if, cataclysmic affects of hypothetical extreme global warming occur, what would the long term (century) death toll be as a result?
If we cut CO2 emissions enough to forestall this hypothetical cataclysm what will the death toll be?

Pretty terrible questions to be even asking, but if the world is on the brink of disaster, don't you think the portrayer's of doom ought to at least give us some stats on that? Rather than promote political scientist who make a bundle on unrealistic documentary(?) that are nothing more than science fiction. To think that National Geographic used to be the standard for American natural sciences, shameful. The author has even admitted it is an unrealistic portrayal and yet it is being promoted on this site as if it is somehow important, shameful. IMO

JER
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
144. MichaelSTL
1:59 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
There have been many agreed upon periods of even catastrophic warming periods before man ever started the first combustion engine.

Yes - due to natural cycles, like variations in the orbit of the Earth (and are usually slow, with cooling generally being faster; CO2 also amplifies these cycles, thus why temperatures rise rapidly and fall slowly, instead of rising and falling in a smooth curve, following orbital variations). As far as I know, the Earth's orbit has not drastically changed recently, and solar activity peaked in the 1950s (according to this)...

And anybody who really thinks it is a global scam of biblical proportions sounds like the kind of person who thinks the Earth being round is in the same category, despite a lot of scientific evidence...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
143. moonlightcowboy
1:55 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
-- Baha, I think you're right. It's almost unimaginable to believe we're not able to harness the sun's energy! Plus, I believe history and science soon will conclude that ACO2 is really not the problem that we're being told it is. In fact, the sun plays the largest part in our climate and always will.
Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
142. MichaelSTL
1:52 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
although global warming doesn't exist

LOL... I suppose this is fake then?



Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.


The last is also interesting to note...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
141. moonlightcowboy
1:51 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
STL, there's been countless refuting of this in Ricky's blog by myself and many others. The "burden of proof" is on the ones trying to prove ACO2, yet countless refutable data and other qualified scientists are not signing on to the IPCC's inconclusive findings.

No one is necessarily saying that there isn't any warming, but rather the "science is not in" that says that man is causing it. There have been many agreed upon periods of even catastrophic warming periods before man ever started the first combustion engine.

As far as why do anything? Well, obviously, I think at some point resources run out, unless they're quickly renewable resources. Oil is certainly not one of them. I can assure that within three feet of where you sit, nearly everything you can touch is the product of oil. And, that's scary! Now, imagine that supply totally cut off! Economies would totally collapse. And, yes, that's scare tactics, too. But, man, even with all of his power and greed struggles, is indeed innovative and while not omnipotent, generally man will find a way to survive.

And, that may indeed be all this is really about - a conditioning to adaptation to different resources and dependence - and not by just consumers, but by producers and the wealth it has to maintain not only for greed, but for profits to keep the economic machines running. What a great place it would be that if tomorrow suddenly "free energy" were unlocked and available to us all! Or would it? Think of the 1,000,000's of job loss, etc. Mitigation and adaptation are simply eloquent words to describe what would be an almost unfathomable and upsetting transformation and transition that would be. When you think it about it really, one could almost conclude that the technology already exists, but its release is being quite conditioned and the political process is being manipulated on a scale none of us can really comprehend!

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
140. BahaHurican
1:48 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Hey, Freak.

Somebody mentioned that earlier today, with links to models as well. Looks like FL is in for some serious weather the next few days.

The front that hung about over FL the past couple days went through here with nary a drop over the capital, so far, anyway. Maybe we'll get some overnight showers.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
139. FLWeatherFreak91
1:38 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Hey guys, I know this discussion on global warming is interesting (although global warming doesn't exist) BUT...have you guys been monitoring the comp, models bc it look like Tues-Wed are going to be fairly active from the midwest through s. fl
Member Since: December 1, 2006 Posts: 2 Comments: 3634
138. Tazmanian
1:32 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
i have noted that wind shear has drop 5 to 10kt today in the Central Atlantic a small part of the Central Atlantic that is

Link
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 115432
137. MichaelSTL
1:31 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Now, I simply don't believe in AGW and believe that it is in fact a scam driven by greed and power.

I want to see utterly irrefutable data that says it doesn't exist and the observed warming is 100% natural (note that this doesn't mean that it is 100% man-made - anybody should realize that there are natural fluctuations, which is why global temperatures have been rising, but not steadily)... My view of this is, if you don't think we have had ANY impact, then why bother trying to be environmentaly friendly (in any way)?
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
136. BahaHurican
1:25 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
What keeps bothering me about all this "rush to eliminate oil" is that the most obvious alternative energy source - sunlight - seems to have been overlooked.

I am completely unconvinced that the technology to harvest and store solar energy cannot be better exploited. What about solar tiling on everything, instead of fancy paints? Oil is like an organic battery of million-year-old solar energy. If we are so intelligent, why can't we invent a rechargeable battery that compresses the energy and makes it available when we are ready for it?

All I'm saying is, there is a lot of "the sky is falling" rhetoric, but the people with the money don't want to put it where the talk is.

Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
135. moonlightcowboy
1:07 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
134. JFLORIDA 1:00 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
...im sure that there are ways to reduce emmisions and spur innovations that, reduce pollution, dependence on unstable Oil producing ares and help all facets of world society.

The quick marketable political answers are generally the worst in all respects.


I know you addressed, Jer, here; but, your points are mostly very valid. And, I absolutely agree that we should be innovative and produce the technologies that are environmentally friendly and provides for a better world for all people.

In addition, again I agree, that a rush to "politically" manipulate economics or science is a mistake. However, in neither case, can the politics be left out. Those processes are fully involved by and with politics. No matter whether we think the politics is wrong or noble, it's simply the way it is and unfortunately must be. Again, that doesn't make it right - not by my standards, yours, or by the world's.

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
134. JFLORIDA
1:00 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
sebastianjer 12:55

we have come a long way since lobotomies and im sure that there are ways to reduce emissions and spur innovations that, reduce pollution, dependence on unstable Oil producing ares and help all facets of world society.

The quick marketable political answers are generally the worst in all respects.

if you are talking about the "biofuels" mess and scam - I completely agree, but its a start, and criticism of the project will keep the spotlight on hunger and perhaps reduce consumption.

well off to the studio, night all.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
133. sebastianjer
12:55 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
The truth prevails or science would stop moving forward.

True, ultimately truth always wins out, I sincerely believe that. But try to convince the thousands of lobotomized patients of consensus science. If you know what a lobotomy is, it too was a popular scientific accepted procedure. People who criticized it were considered naysayers, uninformed or worse, even some of the best doctors of their time.

The consequences of this rush to judgment by scientific consensus is not the loss of our SUVs but already a shortage of food for the poorest people on earth. Every time anyone thinks the consequences of major CO2 reductions prior to reasonable in place alternatives is alright, check the price of corn, soybeans, etc on the world market. Those rises in prices and the effect it has on world food supply which most affects the poorest among us, are directly attributable to the AGW fear mongering as is propagated by the endorsement at the top of this page. IMHO

JER
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
132. moonlightcowboy
12:40 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
-- JFL, I learn all the time. I also correct myself very humbly! But, I also speak my convictions quite plainly and emphatically, too! Pong? That was too funny! Video games sure have come a long way since Atari!

-- Baha, censor me? LMAO, one has to get up early in the morning for that! (Of course, I don't usually post very much early in the morning!) lol.

But seriously, (lol) I waded in on this anthropogenic theory and did tons of reading. One can visit Ricky's blog and find numerous posts for several months where myself and many others have researched, read and debated the issue many times. In the beginning I was very open-minded, but have grown to be quite the skeptic as there is much refuting data. And, for those that haven't decided yet, well, I encourage some research. That's what did it for me - that and engaging in lively debate, too. Now, I simply don't believe in AGW and believe that it is in fact a scam driven by greed and power. Sure, we have responsibilities to the environment and to the human race collectively - that's not for debate. But, I'll not subscribe to theories with holes in them and false science. (btw, I always enjoy your posts)

-- JER, hey man! You know we've been down this road a few times. And the answer is you can't really have one without the other! But, science eventually validates itself through its processes and repeated verification - not when even a large group claims proved theory simply by consensus - real and true science just doesn't work that way!

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
131. JFLORIDA
12:35 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
sebastianjer -- peer review, even passively, should catch it as politics, even and especially under informal conditions and in nontraditional venues.

Whats with the general atmosphere of cynicism? Cheer up! The truth prevails or science would stop moving forward.

That cant happen in an open environment.



In Art, where, if not subjectivity, then objectively Popular Culture is actually a valid movement AND consideration in deciding "validity."

Abstraction crosses all societal lines and subjects, and discerning innovation becomes a more complicated process by several orders of magnitude.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
130. sebastianjer
12:26 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
A question for all

If a scientist promotes a position that is not only not scientifically verifiable but at the extremes of scientific theory is it science or is it politics?

JER
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
129. BahaHurican
12:23 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
Speaking about predicting the 2008 ATL season, anybody read anything else interesting from NHC et al. regarding season forecasts, forecasting techniques and technologies, etc?

Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
128. BahaHurican
12:21 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
MLC, we are all here to censor you . . .

But seriously . . .

rhetoric without support is basically political filler. I like looking at more studies that quantify changes over time and take a more reasoned approach to the topic.

One reason why I continue to look at most of what is posted about the GW debate is that it keeps me looking at and learning about climate trends and issues that I might otherwise overlook. And while it may not seem to have anything to do with the ATL tropical season, I'm convinced a better understanding of the global weather system will help us solve some of the tropical prediction problems we continue to have each year.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
127. JFLORIDA
12:20 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
I'll post as I choose! I'm quite sure I'll post maturely and reasonably!

ping



GOOD! who could ask for anything more?

-- well perhaps the ability to change, move forward, learn new things and correct yourself when necessary.

pong

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
126. moonlightcowboy
12:04 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
124. JFLORIDA 11:55 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
But you should let your science and reasoning abilities be the reactionary force that modifies your politics -- and not the other way around.


What? More ping pong? Again, I'll post as I choose! I'm quite sure I'll post maturely and reasonably!

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
125. surfmom
12:00 AM GMT on February 11, 2008
ListernerVT - beautiful --said so well!
Member Since: July 18, 2007 Posts: 30 Comments: 26536
124. JFLORIDA
11:55 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
moonlightcowboy 11:10 PM GMT on February 10, 2008

I don't ignore and I really don't believe in censorship unless it facilitates more open exchange.

But you should let your science and reasoning abilities be the reactionary force that modifies your politics -- and not the other way around.


MichaelSTL we know that:

Punxsutawney Phil SAID six more weeks of winter. (note photos)

Later Fox news will have a Coalition Against the Groundhog Agenda, counterpoint opinion maintaining that the groundhog conspiracy driving our weather prediction is actually a leftwing attack on American morals and values.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
123. MichaelSTL
11:53 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
It might just be because it is uncommon, it has been a long time since the last La Nina that was this strong. Of note is that the CMA was hinting at the possibility of a severe winter this year (Google HTML cache; Word document, with images):

3. Potential Climate impacts

The impact of La Nina event on China climate is obvious and it can cause severe disaster. The statistical analyses denote that Precipitations were likely to be excessive in the northern China during autumn of La Nina year, and the precipitations were excessive in the Huanghe and the Huai River basin during autumns, especially with 50% more than normal in the middle reach of the Huanghe River (Fig. 6). In addition, temperatures were below normal over most of China during the winter of La Nina year and severe cold air could cause big loss of crops in southern China.


One thing to note:

Meanwhile, most of statistical models of NCC also predicted a weak La Nina occurring in following months. La Nina events which happened during late summer-autumn since 1951 were weak mostly. Although some factors were unfavorable for the development of La Nina, in all it is possible for a weak La Nina to form.




Ooops...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
122. Inyo
11:26 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Hmm, if that much forest got destroyed in China from a snowstorm, even an extreme one, there was probably something else going on. Perhaps the trees were planted by China and were not native and/or appropriate to the area.
Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 875
121. moonlightcowboy
11:10 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
119. JFLORIDA 10:22 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Reference only SCIENTIFIC literature when discussing it or just don't bother. Everything else is politics.


lol, JFlorida! I'm assuming you mean the "ping pong" back and forth, the seemingly endless banter! I understand and agree, but "politics" is completely part of the debate and without it, pointless. Largely, it's more politics than any real "science" anyway!

As repeated earlier, "I" will post as I choose! You can hit simply hit the "ignore" button if you choose not to read my comments. I'll also add that myself and many others have posted countless, numerous "science-related" articles on the subject. So, it's not like any statement I make is purely from opinion without having read and studied the aspects of either side of the debate. However, I do understand and reflect your same sentiments! Thanks.

-- ycd0108, btw, excellent points in your post #118!

Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
120. MichaelSTL
10:39 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Experts blame snow disaster on La Nina, atmospheric circulation

www.chinaview.cn 2008-02-02 12:10:50 Print

Special Report: China's war on snow havoc

NANCHANG, Feb. 2 (Xinhua) -- The rare prolonged snowstorms and low temperatures that have caused havoc in many parts of China are mainly related to the La Nina phenomenon and abnormal atmospheric circulation, Chinese meteorologists said.

The severe weather strongly resembled the aftermath of La Nina events, which indicated that the latest development of La Nina was a primary cause of the abnormal snow, meteorologists at the Jiangxi Provincial Meteorological Bureau said.

La Nina is a large pool of unusually cold water in the equatorial Pacific that develops every few years and influences global weather. It is the climatic opposite of El Nino, which is a warming of the Pacific.

Experts said that the latest La Nina conditions developed last August throughout the tropical Pacific and strengthened at the sharpest pace in 56 years. The sea-surface temperature during the past six months was 0.5 degree Celsius lower than normal years.

"The La Nina weather pattern is expected to prevail at least till the end of spring," said Jiao Meiyan, director of the National Meteorological Center.

Chinese meteorologists also pointed out that the abnormal atmospheric circulation in some regions of Europe and Asia, which has persisted for nearly 20 days since mid-January, was responsible for the rampant chilly weather, rain and snowstorms.

Snow storms that hit 19 provinces in southern and central China, the worst in 50 years, have killed more than 60 people and forced nearly 1.8 million people to relocate over the past three weeks, inflicting economic losses of about 53.9 billion yuan (7.5 billion U.S. dollars), according to the Ministry of Civil Affairs on Friday.


Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
119. JFLORIDA
10:22 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
93. FLWeatherFreak91 12:18 PM GMT on February 10, 2008

The New NAM run is showing more activity. It gets worse on that model each run.

The 850 vort has a persistent little something near Cuba I think that is to contribute to the mess over south fla.



The global warming he said/she said is inane. If you have new data, present it and let us all move on. If you think you are being innovative just by being critical, that's been done, on much more stringent terms in the peer review process, over several years - and correctly, before it all made it to FOX or GMA or the movie set.

Reference only SCIENTIFIC literature when discussing it or just don't bother. Everything else is politics.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
118. ycd0108
9:59 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Can we all agree that we are recording extreme weather?
Th past forty years has been benign and somewhat unusual compared to for example the "Dustbowl" years. (Candendro site shows numerous climate fluctuations logged back to the early 1800s.)
What is different today?
1)As mentioned: access to information
2)major increase in population (and property) in most areas resulting in greater casualties and damage.
3)the implied notion that now that we are getting some small understanding of global weather we should "Do something about it"
Member Since: January 1, 2008 Posts: 183 Comments: 4703
116. usmcweathr
9:30 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Global Cooling
Member Since: August 25, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 135
115. usmcweathr
9:29 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Link
Member Since: August 25, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 135
114. BahaHurican
9:22 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Reminders:

1. GW is a CLIMATE trend (i. e. taking place over long periods of time - decades, centuries) as opposed to a WEATHER trend (taking place over short periods of time - like seasons or single years). One cold or hot winter / summer is not sufficient to verify or negate a climate trend.

2. Is the debate about whether global warming exists, or is it really about the CAUSE of global warming? I notice some people are not separating, i. e. are suggesting that global warming BY DEFINITION is a man-made phenomenon.

Comment:

Everybody has a right to an opinion, but I (and quite a few others on here) have a lot more respect for your expression thereof if you at least attempt to substantiate that opinion with whatever facts you find available to support your case. Slick comments, regardless of position, are cute but not impressive for the long term.

[sitting back to enjoy the debate]
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22680
112. hahaguy
8:55 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
i'm going to the tropics chat to talk to myself if anyone wants to join me lol.
Member Since: August 12, 2007 Posts: 2 Comments: 2838
110. MichaelSTL
8:24 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
103. Ivansrvivr 12:23 PM CST on February 10, 2008
STL, do you remember in 78 when they were worried about "Global Cooling"? I have the Nat Geo mag w/ that as headline. There's nothing wrong with the debate especially if the environment gets cleaned in the process. There isn't enough data (yet) to prove or disprove GW.


I wasn't even here back then, and from what I have seen, that was media hype (see here "The global cooling myth").


And to others - you can go and post whatever in the climate change blog, but don't keep posting it in this blog (I have also seen some posts that bash Dr. Masters (at least not in this blog), because he posts what other scientists say). Or, you can, but if I post stuff like this, don't object to it:

January 2008 was Australia’s warmest January on record, with a mean temperature 1.23°C above the reference (1961−90) normal, breaking the previous record of +1.16°C set in January 1999. It was cooler than normal in much of eastern and central Queensland and north-eastern New South Wales, but very warm over most of the remainder of the continent. Rainfall was above normal over most of eastern mainland Australia, but below normal over the remainder of the continent and in Tasmania.


(interesting that 1999 was also during a strong La Nina; Indonesia has also been very warm lately, also consistent with La Nina)

Another thing that irks me is how everybody says the current warming trend started around 1970, when in reality warming has continued for over a century (with natural cycles on top of it, resulting in periods of sharp warming and cooling - although not back to levels before the warm peaks; the global cooling myth link I posted also says that aerosols caused some of the cooling, it was also mainly in the Northern Hemisphere - which had its warmest year on record last year).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
109. hurricane24
8:19 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
sky that aint a blob its a massive growing lump!!!!!!!!
108. Skyepony (Mod)
8:04 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Can't help but notice the blob SE of Hawaii today. Current Generation Probibility (pretty big area of .2-.4% chance). Yeah nil chance to develop, but can't keep from looking.

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 207 Comments: 39023
107. listenerVT
7:42 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
MNTornado, thanks for posting your story and your Dad's. I hope Dr. Masters answers your query. I am interested too, as I have certainly seen snow do amazing things here in NW VT. Ice too. It is shocking to see a 300 year old tree destroyed by an ice storm. Ice Fog is a marvel. Deep snows, wild drifts, whiteouts and avalanches, can be deadly. Especially with the climate changing patterns, we need to know all we can to respect the planet, adapt, do less harm, and co-exist. Our survival has always depended on it. Many thanks.
Member Since: July 11, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5542
106. quasigeostropic
7:04 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
101. MichaelSTL 1:17 PM EST on February 10, 2008 Seeing all of the anti-global warming denialist/coolie posts here makes me sick... what happened to this site?! Too bad I am not Admin...

Yeah! How about you the admin! So you can silence ALL DISSENT! And if we dont agree with you then we are crazy!!LOL......Why dont you sign up for a governmental job, then you can boss around the whole world!!! Round up all those GW denialists and throw them in prison!! .........Seriously, your whining is annoying, so either put up with our skepticism or bug off!!!
Member Since: November 20, 2007 Posts: 21 Comments: 192
105. moonlightcowboy
6:57 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
101. MichaelSTL 6:17 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Seeing all of the anti-global warming denialist/coolie posts here makes me sick... what happened to this site?!


Obviously, some people are willing to discern
truth for themselves and not swallow - hook,
line and sinker, what's being spoon-fed to them
in order to perpetuate agendas. I suppose in
the beginning there were legitimate, integral
efforts to understand the CO2/temp
relationship, but that was quickly seized by
opportunists. Now, as the ACO2/temp theories
get blown out of the water by "credible"
science, the AGW fanatics are on great edge as
it all comes tumbling down.

Fortunately, AGW advocates and their wide use
of scare tactics is finally being refuted! Yet,
we still have promotion of these films such as
"Six Degrees" that mis-represent truth and
manages to scare children and whomever will
listen. But, that is all changing as AGW is
being exposed for the scam that it truly
is...and that is quite "refreshing!" :)


Member Since: July 9, 2006 Posts: 184 Comments: 29610
104. MNTornado
6:27 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Dr Masters, this storm was a little spooky for me. The reason why is that I spoke with Ivansrvr a couple of days before this about the Super Storm of 1993. He was telling me things about it I wasn't aware of so I did a little research about it. When I sat up that Tuesday night helping with emergency postings on SoutherLady's blog, I started seeing a pattern to the Tuesday storm that appeared to look very similar to the Super Storm of 1993. What I would like to know is you assessment on the comparison between these two storms and their similarities and differences.
The reason why this storm was spooky for me is because back in the 70's we had a very bad blizzard that ripped through the Midwest. It was compared to the Armistice Day Blizzard and there were many discussions as to which one produced the most snow. A few days before that blizzard struck, my father showed me pictures of the Armistice Day Blizzard that he took. I saw things in those pictures I had never seen before and had trouble believing were possible like 10 foot high snow drifts crossing roads and running for 100's of feet along the ground. Well I found myself caught in that 70's blizzard and saw first hand myself snow doing things I didn't know were possible. I saw snow drifts from 7 to 10 feet high, as much as 100 feet wide, and many hundreds of feet long. Witnessing that Super Tuesday Storm was like deja vu for me, even though I was witnessing that storm on radar and by it's storm and tornado reports. Since I have seen many tornados and tornado damage, it was very easy for me to see in my mind what was going on as though I was there. A very spooky night for me.
Member Since: July 1, 2005 Posts: 154 Comments: 19315
103. Ivansrvivr
6:23 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
STL, do you remember in 78 when they were worried about "Global Cooling"? I have the Nat Geo mag w/ that as headline. There's nothing wrong with the debate especially if the environment gets cleaned in the process. There isn't enough data (yet) to prove or disprove GW.
102. Ivansrvivr
6:18 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
This next system now over baja,Mexico looks like it will be far enough south for big severe wx event for all of FL. It will have cold air to its north and if Sfc low stays south of big bend, will be bad (severe wx) but bring alot of beneficial rains.
101. MichaelSTL
6:17 PM GMT on February 10, 2008
Seeing all of the anti-global warming denialist/coolie posts here makes me sick... what happened to this site?! Too bad I am not Admin...

I have a good idea that if La Nina hadn't developed and 2007 had smashed all records for warmth (should be obvious how global temperatures dropped from the warmest on record last winter to much cooler now, just a year later, nevermind that land temperatures cooled much more slowly, indicating that ENSO is the culprit), I wouldn't be seeing all of this junk right now... (and I bet all of the denialists have no clue as to why La Nina is referred to a "cold episode"; they are also likely influenced by all of the "global warming will destroy the world" Hollywood movies and the media, which also obviously has no clue, as evidenced by half of the papers blaming the recent tornadoes on global warming - at least some actually stated that they were either caused by La Nina or not caused by global warming, same for a lot of the other weird La Nina generated weather lately...). Of course, you have to go back decades to find another La Nina like the one right now... so they obviously forgot (if they were alive then) what La Nina does to the climate.

Here is a hint:

Big Chill for the Greenhouse

Already La Nina has been credited with a role in causing this summer's drought in the Midwest, the deluges that flooded Bangladesh in September and the severe hurricane season in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. While widespread attention has been paid to the greenhouse effect -- the trend toward global warming due to the increase of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere -- some scientists believe that this winter La Nina will bring on a dramatic, though probably temporary, drop in average global temperatures. Says meteorologist and oceanographer James O'Brien of Florida State University: "We are predicting that by next year, average global temperature will retreat to 1950s levels, slowing up planetary warming by 30 to 35 years."


Note - that was from 1988; I wonder how many denialists and coolies were talking about global warming being a scam then? Probably a lot, at least until another record warm year was set a few years later, though probably picked up again after Pinatubo...
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744

Viewing: 151 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.