"Can be used as an argument, or really a pseudo-argument, for just about anything."
Tim, this is a straw man argument.
No. Just those things that chaos theory applies to. Which, as has been pointed out, was developed to model weather. And can be used to model climate.
"It doesn't show, or strongly imply that a warming globe would lead to more tornadoes."
I never said it did. I just said it predicts a situation similar to what we are seeing. Is it proof? Nope. Does it contradict the possibility? No again.
"In any case we don't have evidence of strong recent warming"
Tim, we have been seeing evidence since WWII. Longer, actually. When I got my first degree in the late 1970s, it was generally accepted by marine scientists and others that the 19cm rise in sea level since 1900 was attributable to thermal expansion of the oceans. Granted, they weren't absolutely sure of it, but they could come up with no alternative that made sense.
"it follows a recent span of no confirmed F5 or EF5 tornadoes from 1999 to 2007."
Well, duh Tim. It is a chaotic system. It doesn't behave in a straight line fashion. In and of itself it doesn't mean much. But when you look at the system as a whole, it is a lot more chaotic now than earlier with record highs and lows, severe weather causing crop failures, etc. Now these things always happen, but not on this scale that we know of. I suspect it happened at the end of the last ice age. But, we don't have very good records from then... |
