[Newsbot]

Title: The Loss of Arctic Sea Ice Is Having a Strange Effect on Tornadoes in The US
Category: Weather
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2018-08-08 08:23:40
Canadian

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

possible connection

$1:

In particular, the results show that when Arctic sea is low in the month of July, tornado activity in the same month is also anomalously low.

So it could also be a postive?

$1:

To be clear, this is just a correlation. There is no definitive evidence yet that changes in weather circulation can be specifically attributed to the extent of Arctic sea ice.

"... the data alone are insufficient to answer the question of whether the Arctic sea ice losses and associated lower-tropospheric temperature enhanced the atmospheric dynamics in July 1990�2015, or whether enhanced atmospheric dynamics drove larger ice losses," the study reads.

Maybe they can get back to us when they have definitive proof because until they do that it's all supposition and unproven theories. But it does beg the question. Why are people getting paid to dream up these theories, because with no actual proof the lack of tornado's could be just as attributable to the increase in antarctic ice.

BTW the "previous research" link doesn't work which makes the whole article even more suspect.

[Zipperfish]

There's no proof in science, I'm afraid. It's a an entire edifice built completely out of unproven theories.

[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There's no proof in science, I'm afraid. It's a an entire edifice built completely out of unproven theories.

I'm beginning to think that sarcastic statement is might be closer to the truth than you think.

If you can show me one single conclusive shred of evidence that this theory is proven please do because I'd be more than happy to admit my mistake.

Otherwise I believe the term for this type of article is "scaremongering" but, given the lack of evidence and pure conjecture it appears to be far to unreliable a theory, to actually qualify for even that moniker.

But on the plus side, people living in Tornado alley are probably fervently hoping the hypothesis is in fact reality.

Unfortunately until they can conclusively prove their theory I'll remain more than a little skeptical.

[raydan]

It wasn't a sarcastic statement, it's actually the truth... there is no proof in science, and I can prove it.

$1:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

[CharlesAnthony]

$1:

The US mainland is thousands of miles away from the Arctic circle, but that does not mean the nation is immune to the steady loss of polar sea ice.
A new study suggests

Stopped reading. Not interested in "science" suggestions.

Ice melting in the arctic see is good news. Maybe our descendants will be able to walk to see Santa Claus some day.

[BartSimpson]

Ice melting in the Arctic during the summer is NORMAL.

If this were NOT HAPPENING then that would be something to be concerned about.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm beginning to think that sarcastic statement is might be closer to the truth than you think.

If you can show me one single conclusive shred of evidence that this theory is proven please do because I'd be more than happy to admit my mistake.

Otherwise I believe the term for this type of article is "scaremongering" but, given the lack of evidence and pure conjecture it appears to be far to unreliable a theory, to actually qualify for even that moniker.

But on the plus side, people living in Tornado alley are probably fervently hoping the hypothesis is in fact reality.

Unfortunately until they can conclusively prove their theory I'll remain more than a little skeptical.

It isn't sarcastic, it's fundamental science. Scientists don't say things like "well that's only a theory," because science is completely made up of theories. Theory mean something different in science than it does in common parlance. In the vernacular, one might say "that's only a theory" meaning "one of many ideas.' In science a theory is structures of ideas that interpret facts and may range from conjecture (Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) to theories that have been observed to hold predictive power millions of times (Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity).

Proof is for alcohol and logic. It doesn't exist in science. All truths are held to be provisional and subject to change. Like how Newton's Theory of Gravity gave way to Einstein's.

[Zipperfish]

raydan raydan:

It wasn't a sarcastic statement, it's actually the truth... there is no proof in science, and I can prove it.

$1:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Oh, that's put way better than I could manage!

[raydan]

I copied and pasted.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

If you can show me one single conclusive shred of evidence that this theory is proven please do because I'd be more than happy to admit my mistake.

You yourself quoted all the disclaimers, like "There is no definitive evidence yet that changes in weather circulation can be specifically attributed to the extent of Arctic sea ice.". No one is claiming this is conclusive proof. What they are saying is that there is data showing a correlation.

You know, like a correlation showing that eating too much causes obesity, or smoking causes lung cancer. The more data, the more likely of showing a cause and effect relationship exists.

You also missed important parts in your quotes:

$1:

The research is still in its infancy, and the team remains unsure why the correlation between Arctic sea ice and tornadoes is particularly evident in July.

$1:

When it comes to understanding climate change, climate variability and severe weather, the researchers admit that they have only uncovered the very tip of the iceberg.

The more data, the more likely the relationship will exist. Or not. The data might show that too. And a good pun too.

[Zipperfish]

raydan raydan:

I copied and pasted.

I knew you were too stupid to come up with that on your own.

[N_Fiddledog]

There are lots of theories, hypotheses opinions about frequency of tornadoes.

One I remember says that in America Tornadoes happen more frequently during La Nina years. I seem to recall there's supporting data of patterns.

Let's hypothesize a possibility where a "study" confused the two patterns. I'm not saying this happened. I'm just doing what the "study" did. I'm hypothesising to show something that could, maybe, might happen.

Isn't there an old saying 'hypotheses are like buttholes. Everybody's got one.?'

Something like that anyway.

[N_Fiddledog]

BTW, I hear NOAA is forecasting a likelihood of fewer Atlantic hurricanes this year.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/09/ ... rediction/

[PluggyRug]

Tomorrow there will be no weather. Until tomorrow no one is 100% sure.