Dumb question #7,822 - Twisters
 

Harold Brooks wrote:

I see the part in the NASA release about warming Arctic winters, but I
missed the bits about record cold in the UK, tornado warnings in the US,
and tropical cyclones in Australia.

What a pity they couldn't get someone to stick with it.

I'm sure the research is continuing.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Those in the know miss an awful lot.
But since you have no way of disproving my ideas at the moment you may
as well forget it.

We have had an interesting spell and quite a lot of fireworks in it.
Whether it is just coincidence remains to be seen. One thing is for
certain you won't see it if you keep your eyes closed.

Dumb question #7,822 - Twisters
 

In article . com,
says...

Harold Brooks wrote:

I see the part in the NASA release about warming Arctic winters, but I
missed the bits about record cold in the UK, tornado warnings in the US,
and tropical cyclones in Australia.

What a pity they couldn't get someone to stick with it.

I'm sure the research is continuing.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Those in the know miss an awful lot.
But since you have no way of disproving my ideas at the moment you may
as well forget it.

The burden of proof is on you.

Your original "coincidence" would have been just as interesting with
"record cold in UK", "no tornado warnings in US", and "tropical cyclones
in Australia" as the combination you mentioned. Looking at anomalies of
monthly-mean Central England Temperature and report-inflation-adjusted
US tornadoes from 1970-2004, the correlation between US tornadoes and
CET anomalies is 0.038. (Restricting it just to winter raises it to ~
0.1.) Paying attention the time that two events happen at the same time
and not paying attention all the time they don't is a bad idea.

The biggest wintertime tornado outbreak in recent years in the US (21
January 1999) was associated with warm temperatures in the UK and
flooding rain in the southwestern UK.


We have had an interesting spell and quite a lot of fireworks in it.
Whether it is just coincidence remains to be seen. One thing is for
certain you won't see it if you keep your eyes closed.

Another thing is that anecdotal evidence of a single combination of
events doesn't mean very much, especially when you look at the
combination and find that one of them is just as likely to occur as not,
when one of the events happens.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks
Head, Mesoscale Applications Group
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory

Dumb question #7,822 - Twisters
 

In article .com,
says...

Harold Brooks wrote:
In article . com,
says...

Harold Brooks wrote:

I see the part in the NASA release about warming Arctic winters, but I
missed the bits about record cold in the UK, tornado warnings in the US,
and tropical cyclones in Australia.

What a pity they couldn't get someone to stick with it.

I'm sure the research is continuing.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Those in the know miss an awful lot.
But since you have no way of disproving my ideas at the moment you may
as well forget it.

The burden of proof is on you.

Your original "coincidence" would have been just as interesting with
"record cold in UK", "no tornado warnings in US", and "tropical cyclones
in Australia" as the combination you mentioned. Looking at anomalies of
monthly-mean Central England Temperature and report-inflation-adjusted
US tornadoes from 1970-2004, the correlation between US tornadoes and
CET anomalies is 0.038. (Restricting it just to winter raises it to ~
0.1.) Paying attention the time that two events happen at the same time
and not paying attention all the time they don't is a bad idea.

The biggest wintertime tornado outbreak in recent years in the US (21
January 1999) was associated with warm temperatures in the UK and
flooding rain in the southwestern UK.


We have had an interesting spell and quite a lot of fireworks in it.
Whether it is just coincidence remains to be seen. One thing is for
certain you won't see it if you keep your eyes closed.

Another thing is that anecdotal evidence of a single combination of
events doesn't mean very much, especially when you look at the
combination and find that one of them is just as likely to occur as not,
when one of the events happens.

There you go with the closed mind again.

You just pointed out another anomaly but because it was exactly
opposite to the one I was on about, you see proof positive of negative
proof.

What I see is no relationship between the events.


Take a stepback from defending your province and see the opportunity
before you. Look at anomalies a little more attentively. You mentioned
March in an earlier post. Mists and frosts occur here in March as often
as not. Check out everything, leave no stone unturned and mybe the one
true god will show you something.

Other than science, I'm not defending any province. The systematic
recorded data of occurrence of events (the anomalies) tell us that
record cold temperatures in England tell us nothing about the occurrence
of tornadoes in the US. If there are record cold temperatures, there
might be tornadoes in the US. Then again, there might not be. The
record cold temperatures in England tell me as much about tornado
occurrence in the US as flipping coins or studying chicken entrails
would. That's what you get from looking at the anomalies very
attentively.


But you really must try harder.

As it happens I was calling all the shots in the hurricane season last
year. Then I was left high and dry with notheing to explain the
complete blank I was drawing this year.

Then it all fell back into place with a big bang according to the way I
have stated it tends to in my folkloric methodology. Just because I am
on a steep curve doesn't mean I am heading in the wrong direction.

Actually, you've never made enough verifiable predictions to provide any
idea what direction you're running. With the precision you put out, you
essentially forecast climatology.


Get on the roller coaster or get off the effing tracks you muppet;
because I will run you over without qualm.

I don't tolerate rude people very well. Good-bye.

Harold

--
Harold Brooks
Head, Mesoscale Applications Group
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory