Monster tornado

As with my last post, there have been thunderstorms in Iowa before in December and if it hits 70 this week that being only time that has ever happened in December in Iowa is not true. On Dec. 8th, 1946 many stations hit that mark. Des Moines was 69. On December 13th, 1921 most of the state was in the mid to upper 60's. This type of mild weather although not the norm has happened before.

I could see a line of storms develop ahead of the cold front but not the individual supercells out of ahead of the front on Wednesday/early Thursday that would produce tornadoes. Even QLCS would be unlikely.
Here is an awesome article on the shift of tornado alley into the dixie alley since ~1979

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0048-2

41612_2018_48_Fig4_HTML.png

One if my favorite sayings, “ If God is a Confederate, Mother Nature is a Yankee”
 
I worry a little that Wednesday night could be interesting for central Iowa. If we hit the projected high of 71 degrees on Wednesday, it will be the only time that temps in Iowa have hit 70 degrees in December. The predicted high for Thursday is only 41, so you know there will be some serious storms Wednesday night when that cold front moves in.

December thunderstorms in Iowa. Welcome to the world of climate change.

It's called weather, nothing else
 
It's called weather, nothing else
I'm tempted to give you a dumb response just like you gave me, but I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I disagree with your response.

70 degrees in central Iowa in December and tornadoes in December with 200+ mile paths of destruction isn't just called weather, it's called extreme weather. And extreme weather conditions are being brought on by climate change. It's not just something we'll see in the future. We're seeing it now.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: riceville98
I'm tempted to give you a dumb response just like you gave me, but I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I disagree with your response.

70 degrees in central Iowa in December and tornadoes in December with 200+ mile paths of destruction isn't just called weather, it's called extreme weather. And extreme weather conditions are being brought on by climate change. It's not just something we'll see in the future. We're seeing it now.
Every year Missouri and Arkansas sees on average 2 tornadoes each in December. While the ones we saw over the weekend were way stronger than they probably typically see in December, it’s not totally unheard of for them to see tornadoes this time of year.

There have always been extreme weather events. Through some periods throughout history they have been more frequent and other periods not. Our climate is always changing and it always has the previous 4 and a half billion years.
 
I'm tempted to give you a dumb response just like you gave me, but I'll give you the courtesy of explaining why I disagree with your response.

70 degrees in central Iowa in December and tornadoes in December with 200+ mile paths of destruction isn't just called weather, it's called extreme weather. And extreme weather conditions are being brought on by climate change. It's not just something we'll see in the future. We're seeing it now.
Weather extremes are normal. We hit -33F here in So. Minn 3 years ago, coldest since the 1930s extremes.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: riceville98
Every year Missouri and Arkansas sees on average 2 tornadoes each in December. While the ones we saw over the weekend were way stronger than they probably typically see in December, it’s not totally unheard of for them to see tornadoes this time of year.

There have always been extreme weather events. Through some periods throughout history they have been more frequent and other periods not. Our climate is always changing and it always has the previous 4 and a half billion years.

Everyone knows this. That isn’t the problem or question at hand. Were there always 6 billion people on earth? Pollution, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions etc are like compounding interest. We’ll keep ******* around and probably find out.
 
After the 60s and 70s the fear was we were entering the next ice age. These people always need something to panic over.

Yeah focus on those tiny blue lines in the 60s and 70s and ignore the obvious straight line trend, great idea. Way to think about our children and grandchildren.
ClimateDashboard_1400px_20210420_global-surface-temperature-graph_0.jpg
 
Yeah focus on those tiny blue lines in the 60s and 70s and ignore the obvious straight line trend, great idea. Way to think about our children and grandchildren.
ClimateDashboard_1400px_20210420_global-surface-temperature-graph_0.jpg

Please graph and source a larger range, say maybe 1400 - 2020.
 
After the 60s and 70s the fear was we were entering the next ice age. These people always need something to panic over.
I remember that fear-mongering well. In the second grade circa 1970, we were given these pamphlets call Jr. Scholastica or something like that. They really bummed me out because they harped on about looming global cooling. I had no way of knowing that was just bad science, sheer nonsense.
 
I remember that fear-mongering well. In the second grade circa 1970, we were given these pamphlets call Jr. Scholastica or something like that. They really bummed me out because they harped on looming global cooling. I had know way of knowing that was just bad science, sheer nonsense.

The 70s fears are basically the lyrics to London Calling:

The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear error, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning
I, I live by the river
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turn2
Everyone knows this. That isn’t the problem or question at hand. Were there always 6 billion people on earth? Pollution, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions etc are like compounding interest. We’ll keep ******* around and probably find out.
We won't, but future generations will. It's crazy what humans have done since the industrial evolution. Good, bad, everything in between. But "the climate's always changed" simpleton excuse so many people spew is good enough, so **** it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turn2 and wxman1
Yeah focus on those tiny blue lines in the 60s and 70s and ignore the obvious straight line trend, great idea. Way to think about our children and grandchildren.
ClimateDashboard_1400px_20210420_global-surface-temperature-graph_0.jpg
Pretty tiny sample size you’re looking at when factoring the earths existence. I guess it beats the 100 feet of ice that existed at one time in central iowa. Had to see quite a warming trend to melt all that.
 
These events in generally poor areas like OK, KY, MO, S. IL, West TN, etc always brings me back to the evacuate or shelter in place debate. If someone can’t get underground in the path of an ef4 or ef5 and they take a direct hit, they aren’t going to make it.

I just can’t live with myself knowing that I could have gotten in my car and driven 10 minutes in a given direction and, while it’s taking a chance, I’d rather have my car totaled by hail and some minor injuries than to be holding on to plumbing in a bathroom at ground level while a monster comes through.

There was plenty of lead time on the main tornado that went for like 150 miles. I always think about this because my favorite broadcast tornado man Mike Morgan took so much heat for telling people to “get in their cars and get south” in front of the 2013 El Reno tornado that even killed experienced storm chasers.

Agree, if I’m without a basement and there is a big one on the ground coming towards me, I’m getting in the car and doing my best to get out of the path.

With a good basement I’ll stay put.

Survival rate in E4+ tornadoes, inside a well-built home is 99%.

In most cases, you're taking a bigger risk by leaving shelter. You aren't living through it in a car, and you're at risk to secondary threats besides the main funnel now.

Ground-level, interior room of a well-built home (not a trailer) is definitely where you want to be.

https:// journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/1/bams-89-1-87.xml
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron