Accuweather tells ‘Sharknado’ Santa isn’t real

YouTube

YouTube


Accuweather took a minute off from being inaccurate about the weather to shit on the science behind the SyFy movie, Sharknado. Warning: Heartbreaking alleged truth follows.

From Accuweather:

A tornado would not have the ability to sweep up marine life. Traditionally, a tornado is formed over land where a similar formation over water would be known as a waterspout. Understandably, “Shark-Spout” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

We can all agree this isn’t a “traditional” weather pattern. Plus, they were called water spouts while they were over the water and tornadoes once they moved on land.

From shark specialist Greg Skomal:

“The concept that sharks cannot only survive being swept up in a tornado but also attack humans is absurd.”

Absurd? People have survived being sucked into tornadoes, and we’re a hell of a lot weaker than sharks. Then again, we can breath air. Still, calling it absurd is a bit of a stretch by someone whose obviously butthurt because a shark didn’t eat his wife.

From Accuweather:

The likelihood of a storm like the one in “Sharknado” affecting Los Angeles is very unlikely. AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Kristina Baker explains that, “Hurricanes are extremely rare in South California because of the cool water off the shore.”

Did they not watch the movie? They reference the fact that a storm like this hasn’t been seen in decades. Extremely rare means totally possible. That’s not science, Accuweather. That’s a negative attitude.

From Accuweather:

While climate change cannot be conclusively proven to have “caused” certain weather events, climate change would have to continue exponentially for hundreds of years to create the conditions described in the film.

Suck on that, Al Gore. Go back to hunting ManBearPig.

You can read the full post of un-scientific nonsense here, or you can listen to the Jim Ross play-by-play of a shark coming off the top rope.