tacoman25

Thank you for the response. 1. I understand, but using the phrase "the Arctic is boiling methane" sounded kind of misleading and overly dramatic to me. 2. I understand the math (though it is a rough approximation), but what is that number saying? For one area they have looked at, at one point in time, there was roughly that much more methane being released? It's not like there's a million times more methane being released from the Arctic this year, though you wouldn't know it from the OP. 3. I'm talking about the Independent, that newspaper. They are not exactly an objective source. Alarmists don't like it when skeptic websites or other skeptic-leaning sources are cited. 4. Ok...but that doesn't answer my question. What Arctic records of methane release do we have to compare this to? And how much of area has actually been studied/documented? If we can't answer these questions, we don't know the historical signficance of this occurrence. 5. Wait, so methane release only warms the Arctic? I thought GHGs are distributed throughout the atmosphere, warming the globe?

So in other words, you are unable to address my points/questions. The only rationale answer is PANIC!!!

1. I'm pretty sure the Arctic is not boiling. 2. How did you arrive at that million percent factor? 3. The article comes from a source that is known to be tabloidish and alarmist. Just look at their silly title. 4. What historical records of methane release in that particular area, or even the Arctic as a whole, do we have to compare this to? 5. Even if your figure was correct and the Arctic had released a millions times more methane this year, wouldn't that be bringing out the "severe and sudden" warming the article references? Instead, we've seen global temperature drop rapidly over the past several months.

Shocking. A scythe, huh? Like the grim reaper? No sir, no overhyped, fear-mongering alarmism here!

DEADLY gases?!? That does sound bad.

Amazing video. Really makes you glad the tornado didn't hit during school hours...a terrible situation could have been even worse.

That's a bit harsh...but you illustrated the point I was hinting at pretty well. If one feels that building codes "take away their liberty", it might make more sense for them to move to a third world country.

There are plenty of laws out there that take away the individual's right to "make their own decision" - for their own protection and others. Most of them you probably have no problem with. Why is this such a big deal?

Right. You're always going to have the rogue wackos speculating about massively inflated numbers. Just like people who think every storm/event is going to be historic. Occasionally they're right, but most of the time they don't have a clue.

Yes. That way people only have to read exactly what they want to read, all the time.

I said "True", meaning I agree with your basic premise. I was just pointing out that this type of scenario is so rare, it's hard to make relevant comparisons.

Right, and this goes along with what I was telling JoMo earlier: people are free to make their own choices. If they are knowledgable enough about the weather to safely flee, they can do just that like you did. Or even if they don't know what the hell they are doing, they can try to get out of the way. But if you tell the general public to do that, it's a recipe for much greater disaster.

True...but this type of event is anything but common.

Yeah, I suppose it could work for some very small, compact neighborhoods (or apartment buildings). But certainly not very well for most.

Well then what would be? People have been trying to explain that there really isn't a better option. Telling people to evacuate would only work if we knew well in advance exactly when and where a tornado would be. Look what happened with Houston and Hurricane Rita a number of years ago...you tell people to evacuate a major metro area and you are going to instantly create huge traffic jams. Works to an extent for hurricanes, but would be the worst case scenario for tornados, for obvious reasons.

I think that about sums it up.

It would be foolish to ever tell anyone "you'll be safe" from a tornado (it would also be foolish to believe it). What the TV people probably said, or should have, was simply to take shelter in the lowest level of an interior room - which honestly is the best advice you can give someone. People make their own choices...if they felt they'd be safer trying to flee, then they can try. But that's just not the wisest move.

That might be an option for some neighborhoods. But even if it's a small neighborhood (30-50 residences), you're going to need a huge shelter. And you'd have to be able to get everyone in the neighborhood there within a few minutes of the tornado siren going off. This could be difficult, especially with elderly or disable people. Finally, you'd still be asking people to go outside in potentially dangerous situations...even if the tornado doesn't get there, hail/wind/lightning would all pose a threat. I'm just not sure it's a feasible option.

Exactly. Well said.

What's your point? In a scenario like this, all you can do is go with the best odds...some people are going to die no matter what, sadly. Telling people to flee a tornado when you don't know exactly where it's going to go or how long it will take to get there is not a viable option.

If you're unlucky enough to be directly in the path of an EF4+ tornado, I think you could live (pun intended) with 60% survival odds...especially compared to potentially lower odds if you try to flee on foot or by car. The fact is, no one knows exactly what path a tornado will take, so telling people to stay in place and take shelter is certainly no more dangerous than telling them to leave their homes and try to flee.

Agreed. We would see a lot more fatalities every year if "taking shelter" like that wasn't effective. I'd say it is 95% of the time, for people who live in normal, well-constructed houses. If you're in a mobile home and get hit by an EF-2 or higher, though, you're pretty much screwed.

Exactly. I was pretty sure by late in the morning given the setup with the big, slow-moving MCS in TN/KY that serious convection would have trouble getting going further north...and sure enough, the most favorable dynamics weren't able to push further north than southern KY. That being said, we won't be able to truly compare 1974 to 2011 until we get all the numbers in...number of strong and violent tornados, EF-3/EF-4/EF-5, track lengths, etc. But I'm pretty sure we will fall well short of the Super Outbreak in just about every category, except damage and deaths (and maybe sheer number of twisters). But that is more due to where exactly the strongest/most dangerous storms tracked.

Not to be morbid, but I have to think the total death toll this spring from severe weather will be the greatest in a long time. I know there have been a number of other deadly tornados this spring. Amazing year/event from a weather standpoint, yet horrifying for so many people.