The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

[Christophe]

Of course there are tornadoes 5 m and others of 100 m at the base classified as similar on Fujita because having the same wind speed! Except that at the level of damage and energy it is not really the same thing!

except if you had learned a little about the Fujita scale: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Échelle_de_Fujita

you would have seen that it is well based on the damage observed et not on the speed of the winds : it is quite logical besides because if we have all the time to measure the speed of the winds in a hurricane which lasts several days and which is observed from all angles by planes and satellites, we rarely have a guy who measure the wind of a tornado with its small pocket anemometer! the wind speed is given as an order of magnitude of what it takes to do this damage but is not used to estimate the strength of each tornado, it is based on the damage.

So the graph shows the number of tornadoes damaging more than 3, and it's going down.

But hey if you have data that shows tornadoes have increased with RC, give them away instead of reinventing the weather on your own!

Oh good ? But kilecon!

What is that : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89che ... cal-fr.svg ? A scale of damage?

Screenshot 2021-12-13 at 14-17-05 Fujita Scale - Wikipedia.png (257.76 KB) Viewed 786 times

The main criterion of classification is not the speed of the WINDS maybe?

Are you self-proclaimed a scientist? You are a zizitic bastard!

The damage is not given only indicatively informative because they are indicated qualitatively and not quantitatively (does it fit in your head of a knot or not?) ...

ABC the scientist with 2 balls who does not even understand the definition of a scale but who teaches others ...

In short again in the deep bullshit ...The tornado area is NOT taken into account on the scale! So neither did the extent of the damage! So neither does the energy of the tornado! BAR POINT!

An F3 tornado with a radius of 10 m which would devastate a small town of 5000 inhabitants over a few km is classified as an F3 tornado with a 100 m radius which devastates an area of ​​1 inhabitants over tens of km!

That's all I want to say !! You're completely picking it up my poor man! You are there just to "contradict" ...

[Christophe]

This idiot has not even read the article, while he specifies that one of them has traveled 320 kilometers, a straw!
While waiting for 4 pages (!!!) OF PURE SHIT because of this asshole !!!

Yeah, it's starting to do well with its zizitic scientist fallacies ...

[ABC2019]

The main criterion of classification is not the speed of the WINDS maybe?

Are you self-proclaimed a scientist? You are a zizitic bastard!

The damage is not given only indicatively informative because they are indicated qualitatively and not quantitatively (does it fit in your head of a knot or not?) ...

you do not know how to read ?

Classification method
The classification of a tornado is carried out by meteorologists and engineers, who intervene once the tornado has passed, after studying the damage, marks on the ground, radar recordings, video recordings, testimonies but also studies. photogrammetric and videogrammetric. It does not therefore symbolize the intensity of the tornado at the time of its passage, but its severity according to the damage it caused.

Explain to me how we would measure the wind speed of a tornado that appears at 18 p.m. in a lost place and lasts 10 minutes, with an accuracy that should reach 10 meters if that was the primary classification criterion!

Instead of insulting, think for two minutes and come back to common sense!

[Christophe]

So what ? I do not see any talk extent of damage, quantification, impacted area... We are always in the qualitative !!!

In short, it is rather you who can not read!

My old man: 2 km2 devastated is not the same as 2000 km2 ... $ 100 in damage is not the same as $ 000 million ...

So prove to me that this statement is wrong:

An F3 tornado with a radius of 10 m which would devastate a small town of 5000 inhabitants over a few km is classified as an F3 tornado with a 100 m radius which devastates an area of ​​1 inhabitants over tens of km!

[ABC2019]

So what ? I do not see any talk extent of damage, quantification, impacted area... We are always in the qualitative !!!

In short, it is rather you who can not read!

My old man: 2 km2 devastated is not the same as 2000 km2 ... $ 100 in damage is not the same as $ 000 million ...

So prove to me that this statement is wrong:

An F3 tornado with a radius of 10 m which would devastate a small town of 5000 inhabitants over a few km is classified as an F3 tornado with a 100 m radius which devastates an area of ​​1 inhabitants over tens of km!

obviously, but if the total number of F3 tornadoes has decreased, there is no reason that large F3 tornadoes have increased,

in all of this i have never seen it anywhere, you have no reference to say it, so you make it up in your fertile imagination, and then you pretend it has been proven - while insulting others in the process .

[Christophe]

Here we are ! He understood and confesses to his F3 tornado history scam but in a last effort he tries one last pirouette!

No reason ? Bin so precisely ... for the same reason that category 5 hurricanes are on average and globally more extensive today than 40 years ago!

And it is perhaps because the number of F3s decreases that their size increases! You know the dispersion of energy ...

The energy of 3 F3 tornadoes from the 60s may become an F3 from the year 2020 ... so we divide the number but we increase the damage !!

In short, your history is bullshit (with great probability)!

[ABC2019]

No reason ? Bin so precisely ... for the same reason that Hurricanes of cat 5 are on average and globally more extensive today than 40 years ago!

where do you get that hurricanes in Cat 5 are "on average and globally more extensive today than 40 years ago!", and where do you get that if something happens for hurricanes they must also to happen on tornadoes?

Do you realize that you invent your world without making any reference to any data, any publisher, no text, and that you assert things without checking anything, at least? and that you end up taking things that you yourself invented as proof?

[Christophe]

Don't you think you were ridiculous enough today?

Do you still want some?

[ABC2019]

Don't you think you were ridiculous enough today?

Do you still want some?

I just want references to the stuff you're stating: data, articles, charts. On tornadoes and on vaccines. That's enough for me, thank you, the rest I don't need.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Don't you think you were ridiculous enough today?

Do you still want some?

I just want references to the stuff you're stating: data, articles, charts. On tornadoes and on vaccines. That's enough for me, thank you, the rest I don't need.

Here, asshole (already posted on the previous page):
https://sciencepost.fr/comment-lactivit ... du-climat/