Do humans have any part in the forming of all these tornados?

36 answers

Recent Questions Environmental Issues


ANSWER #1 of 36

I dont think so. It's considered a natural disaster.


ANSWER #2 of 36

No they are dormed by wind in opposite directions causes disbalance in the air then it slowly forms into a funnel and starts lowering to the ground also humidity adds in on the speed and size.



ANSWER #3 of 36

"Agreed, it is an act of nature.


ANSWER #4 of 36

no humans have no part in what takes on all these natural disaters its all part of nature spring and summer are known as the tornado seasons anyway just be glad no real disater has happened but if u live in tornado valley GOOD LUCK



ANSWER #5 of 36

not at all... we do not control weather.if we did then global warming would also be real


ANSWER #6 of 36

It is certainly likely. There were more than double the number of tornadoes reported in the 1990's than in the 1950's. Tornadoes and hurricanes are formed from warm air currents and the theory that the increase in frequency and intensity of these storms are a result of the warming trend fueled by greenhouse gases is supported by climate models.



ANSWER #7 of 36

Global warming is real, and anyone telling you otherwise is not well-informed.


ANSWER #8 of 36

Na wat can we do to control the weather.....?..... :)



ANSWER #9 of 36

no.. tornados happen when warm air mixes with cool air.. there was a cold front that came in from canada. global warming has nothin to do with it.


ANSWER #10 of 36

That's entirely unrealistic, the concept of global warming is real? But I'm curious as to what makes you think otherwise.


ANSWER #11 of 36

i no global warming is real. we should clearly understand, at this time, it is absolutely impossible to tie any single weather event, any specific ‘abnormal’ temperature, any storm to the effects of Global Warming.

Thus, it is impossible to state that “Global Warming caused the tornadoes” with any confidence


ANSWER #12 of 36

global warming in fact is reducing the chance for tornados


ANSWER #13 of 36

Angel if warmer air is a cause of tornadoes, and global temperatures are rising due to human activity, and the number of tornadoes per year are rising, it is not a stretch to think they are related.


ANSWER #14 of 36

warm air and cold air are the cause of tornados.. when they mix together. so if its warmer then there is hardly cold air to mix with .. there has not been any increase in tornados .“By comparison, merely 26 F3-to-F5 tornadoes have struck the U.S. on average each year since the turn of the century. The frequency of strong-to-violent tornadoes has been cut in half during the past 40 years.”“like virtually all other asserted global warming impacts, we have a very simple choice to make. We can believe real-world climate data or we can believe alarmist computer models that are programmed by alarmists, exist purely in cyberspace, and are consistently contradicted by real-world observations. When the real-world facts are known, the choice should be quite clear.”

By determining the relationship between a global-warming variable such as average sea surface or surface air temperature to frequency of hurricanes or tornados, it would be possible to confirm or, at least, support the results of climate models.


ANSWER #15 of 36

i quote "The larger and more violent the thunderstorm complex the greater the chance is for the occurance of tornadoes. Now you would think that warming temperatures would cause a greater occurance of severe weather due to a warmer moister layer in the low levels but the dynamics of it is dependent on the temperature/density gradient between the mid levels and the low levels, a warming atmosphere tends to warm the mid levels just as much as the low levels so your temperature gradient stays the same but warm air holds more moisture so your density gradient decreases. This increases the chance of thunderstorms, but decreases your chance of severe thunderstorms.
*A warming atmosphere reduces the chance of tornadoes."


ANSWER #16 of 36

Angel, where did you cut and paste this info from. It sounds like an anti-global-warming propaganda website. Here are the statistics on tornadoes from the 1950's through the 2000s from NOAA.

Total number of tornadoes in the US"
1950s - 4796
1960s - 6813
1970s - 8579
1980s - 8141
1990s - 10696
2000s - 9992

We are seeing more than twice as many tornadoes now than we did in the 50s. The steep rise in the 90s was probably due to the severe el nino effect we had in 98.


ANSWER #17 of 36

And in 2010 alone we had 1543 tornadoes, and so far in 2011 we have already had 846 in less than 4 months.


ANSWER #18 of 36

i dunno Jimahl.. just goin by wat i read all over the internet. a few websites actually. Still cannot blame Global warming for the tornados. it could be true but it is impossible to say thats why there has been more tornados


ANSWER #19 of 36

It is not about "blaming' global warming. It is about the statistics, and they are completely contrary to what you posted. And it is possible to say there is a correlation between rising temperatures and the increase in tornadoes. To dismiss it as impossible is rather silly. That is the same thing as global warming detractors who say there is no correlation between human industrialization and the rise in global temperatures. I prefer to take the word of scientists who are experts in the field. Not stuff you read on websites that are put up by groups with an agenda to debunk climate change science, and not based on actual data and facts.


ANSWER #20 of 36

Did any one read the news articuls from around the world at iceagenow.com? It doesn't exist.


ANSWER #21 of 36

http://funadvice.com/r/bijrosrcmd7 this is the NOAA u r talking about?


ANSWER #22 of 36

http://funadvice.com/r/151vj3fmmf8

and wat about this one?


ANSWER #23 of 36

No, neither of them are it, and I can't seem to find it again. When i do I will post it.


ANSWER #24 of 36

ok then


ANSWER #25 of 36

Lily, that is not a reputable website. It is a website funded by the heartland institute, a well-known anti-climate-change propaganda group. Their is almost universal acceptance among climate scientists that human caused climate change is real. There are tons of these phony websites that claim global warming is a hoax. They are all funded by huge corporations and oil companies that stand to lose money by having to comply with clean air standards. So whose word would you take? Scientists who have studied this their entire lives, or corporations that are trying to save money?


ANSWER #26 of 36

Climate change skeptics have always been guilty of cherry picking statistics. Any bit of data that implies climate change isn't true is trumpeted as proof of a liberal conspiracy against everything American while reams of data supporting climate change is ignored. Since climate change skeptics are so well funded by the corporations that would be hurt by carbon limits people are under the impression that the question is still up in the air with some experts believing in climate change and others questioning. In truth the vast majority of climate scientists are on the climate change side while the skeptics are the small but very vocal and well funded fringe.


ANSWER #27 of 36

The articles on that website were not all written by them. You should check our Peirs Corbyn and Willie Soon. They are both scientists that don't believe in manmade global warming along with many others. My dad aslo went to college for 9 years in a science field and knows a high level physicist that also says it is BS. :) :D U need to read the individual articles to see what they say. :D =D ~Lily :D


ANSWER #28 of 36

Well said Filet...


ANSWER #29 of 36

These websites and articles do not represent real climate scientists. They represent corporations that are fighting tooth and nail against any carbon reduction regulation. As Filetofspam says above, they are well funded, and have plenty of money to spread this propaganda. They have done a great job at sewing the seeds of doubt in the public, particularly in the US, but among the scientific community (the people who actually study this stuff) there is no doubt. Do you have any links for work this physicist has done in climate change? What is he basing his opinion on?


ANSWER #30 of 36

hmmmmm i see


ANSWER #31 of 36

Did u actually watch Piers and Willie? They are both astrophiysicsts. My Dad says the IPCC has lots of money too. It is funded by the UN and it's head,Phil Jones, admitted the Earth has been cooling 4 abt 10 years. U can argue abt it all night but u should really read the news stories abt the glaceirs growing, the oceans r warming bcus of under sea valcanoes and u can c how much rain and snow we have had this year. And 100 yr record low tepms. in America and Europe plus supr hevy snow storms. :) Ther r many climate things heppening that dont have any thing to do with co2. :) U can't believe the IPCC bcus all of their projections r based on fantasy computer models.
I'm glad I'm homeschooled. My Dad teaches me a lot! =D


ANSWER #32 of 36

@filletofspam: Taking your word for the doubling of reported tornadoes since 1950... could this not be attributed to an advancement in modern radar and doppler technology?

Concerning the cherry picking of data... Is climategate no longer relevant in the discussion? The intercept of over a thousand CRU emails shows that AGW proponents deliberately manipulated data that contradicted their position.

AGW proponents are well funded. The Chicago Climate Exchange... the medium for trading carbon credits being advocated by the public AGW proponents... was projected to have had a $10 trillion a year market according to its founder, Richard Sandor. ManBearPig... Al Gore himself... co founded Generation Investment Management LLP with David Blood... former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management 1999-2003.<--flags raised hopefully. Generation Investment Management owned a 2.98% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange. Goldman Sachs owned about 10% of the exchange. Maurice Strong... the energy speculator and someone implicated in the Oil for Food UN scandal... helped develop the CCX. Numerous multinationals were invested in it. Cap and Trade legislation would mandate energy companies to buy into these types of exchanges... and would cause a more competitive market to coalesce and be controlled by the "philanthropists" investors. There is a heavily vested interest in advocating AGW.

Arguments appealing to popularity and authority are disregarded because they aren't substantive. Scientists may be mistaken... and/or bribed. To be fair... however... there are a number of credible scientists skeptical of AGW.

http://funadvice.com/r/bik2t6aa9b0

This issue isn't so black and white. Money stands to be made or loss from either perspective. I advocate activities that will help ensure a better living environment for future generations... but I am cautious of ulterior motives and hasty decisions that leave the common people further at the mercy of big business.


ANSWER #33 of 36

No, climategate is no longer relevant. Every independent analysis of those emails showed the climate change skeptics cherry picked portion of them and when taken in full context did not show any intent to hide or manipulate the data. Mostly they were being defensive because of the lies and misinformation being spread by GW opponents. And please do not offer a report sponsored by Inhofe as evidence of there being disagreement among climate scientists. There is virtually none. Inhofe is completely bought and paid for by the oil industry. You are right, no issue is ever black and white, but if you start by looking at the motives and history of both sides, it should tell you a lot about their integrity and intent. Oil and big business have clearly shown that they do not care in the least what happens to people or our environment if it has any impact on their profits. Scientists in general are only trying to find the truth, and while there certainly have been exceptions, there has never been evidence of collusion or ulterior motives in scientific study. I know you will think I am only being a partisan here, but to me this issue is way beyond political ideology. It almost seems like you agree with the need to reduce CO2 and fossil fuel consumption, but are reluctant to align yourself with something that is perceived as a left leaning issue.


ANSWER #34 of 36

"Every independent analysis of those emails showed the climate change skeptics cherry picked portion of them and when taken in full context did not show any intent to hide or manipulate the data." "There is virtually none [AGW skeptics]" These are statements that you cannot possibly substantiate... but they carry the gravitas that accompanies bombastic declarations. "there has never been evidence of collusion or ulterior motives in scientific study." The audacity of this statement boggles the mind. Yes... I think your rebuttal epitomizes partisan rhetoric. You display the cognitive dissonance I associate with partisanship. You completely ignore or dismiss any countervailing evidence. For the record... I am on board any attempt to free mankind from the yoke of the oil industry... but I fail to see how cap and trade accomplishes this. I am not of the same mind concerning carbon dioxide emission. I have taken on the mantle of a few perceived "left" positions. Have you ever disavowed any?


ANSWER #35 of 36

I aggree that we have no part in it. The global warming freaks would sure love to put a guilt trip on us for it though.


ANSWER #36 of 36

yes


Add your answer to this list