Top climate story of 2008: Arctic sea ice loss

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:03 PM GMT on January 12, 2009

Share this Blog
4
+

The top climate story of 2008, as it was in 2007, was the extraordinary summertime sea ice retreat in the Arctic. For the second consecutive year, we experienced the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic waters. Explorers have been attempting to sail the Northwest Passage since 1497, and 2007 and 2008 are the only known years the passage has been ice-free. In addition, 2008 saw the simultaneous opening of the Northeast Passage along the coast of Russia. This meant that for the first time in recorded history, the Arctic ice cap was an island--one could completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters. Although the summer ice extent in 2008 finished 9% higher than 2007's record minimum, it was still an extraordinary 34% below average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Furthermore, the ice was thinner at the September 2008 minimum compared to 2007, so the total ice volume (thickness times area) was probably at its lowest point in recorded history in 2008.


Figure 1. Daily arctic sea ice extent for September 12, 2008. The date of the 2008 minimum (white) is overlaid on September 16, 2007--last year's minimum extent (dark gray). Light gray shading indicates the region where ice occurred in both 2007 and 008. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Arctic "perfect storm" of summer weather in 2007 did not repeat in 2008
The summer of 2007 saw a "perfect storm" of weather conditions favorable for ice loss. Unusually strong high pressure over the Arctic led to clear skies and plenty of sunshine. Arctic winds, which usually blow in a circular fashion around the Pole, instead blew from the south, injecting large amounts of warm air into the Arctic. How unusual were these conditions? Well, at last month's meeting of the American Geophysical Union, the world's largest scientific conference on climate change, J.E. Kay of the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed that Arctic surface pressure in the summer of 2007 was the fourth highest since 1948. Cloud cover at Barrow, Alaska was the sixth lowest. This suggests that once every 10-20 years a "perfect storm" of weather conditions highly favorable for ice loss invades the Arctic. The last two times such conditions existed was 1977 and 1987.

The 2008 melting season began in March with slightly greater ice extent than had been measured in previous years, thanks to a relatively cold winter during 2007-2008. However, since so much ice had melted during the summer of 2007, most of the March 2008 ice was thin first-year ice, which extended all the way to the North Pole. The total ice volume in the Arctic in March 2008 was lower than what the record-breaking year of 2007 had seen. This led to speculation that a new record minimum would be set in 2008, and Santa's Workshop would plunge into the ocean as ice melted at the North Pole. However, the "perfect storm" of summertime weather conditions did not materialize in 2008. From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss occurred. When very warm temperatures moved into the Arctic in August, the ice loss rate accelerated to levels higher than in 2007. However, with sunlight waning, ice loss was not able to reach the levels seen in 2007. Arctic temperatures in the summer of 2008 were up to 4°C cooler along the Siberian coast than in 2007 (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Difference in surface temperature (°C) between the summer of 2008 and the summer of 2007. Blues and purples indicate areas where is was cooler in 2008. The biggest change was over the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia, where exceptionally sunny weather with southerly winds in 2007 caused record-breaking warmth. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

The future of arctic sea ice
Climate models have done a poor job predicting the recent record loss of arctic sea ice (Figure 3). None of the models used to formulate the official word on climate, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, foresaw the shocking drop of 2007-2008. At the December 2008 AGU meeting, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Navy Postgraduate School hypothesized that the reason for this was the models' improper handling of ocean currents and how they transport heat. He blamed 60% of the melting during the past decade on heat brought in by ocean currents, and projected that summertime arctic sea ice would completely disappear by 2016. Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was more conservative, projecting a 2030 demise of arctic sea ice. He thought we would be "hanging around where we are for a while", and thought it would take two more unusual summers like the "perfect storm" of 2007 to push the system to an ice-free state. He further noted that while summertime air temperatures have been near record levels the past few years in the Arctic, there has been one period of comparable warmth, in the 1930s and 1940s. The year 1941 still ranks as the warmest year in the Arctic, though 2007 was virtually tied with it. However, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s was different than the current warming, and was caused by the Siberian High moving unusually far east over Europe, driving warm, southerly winds over Greenland. The warmth in the past decade, in contrast, is associated with a warming of the entire planet, and is not due to an unusual pressure pattern driving warm air into the region. This means that the current warming is accompanied by much warmer ocean waters, which have helped caused much of the arctic sea ice loss the past two years by melting the ice from beneath.


Figure 3. Arctic sea ice extent from observations (thick orange line) and 13 model forecasts used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report (light lines). The thick black line is the multi-model ensemble mean, with the standard deviation plotted as a dashed black line. Image has been updated to include the observed 2007 and 2008 measurements. Image credit: Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast by Stroeve et al., 2007.

The impact on the jet stream
The unprecedented melting of arctic sea ice the past two summers has undoubtedly had a significant impact on the early winter weather over the Northern Hemisphere. Several modeling studies presented at the December AGU meeting showed that sea ice melt on this scale is capable of injecting enough heat into the atmosphere to result in a major shift in the jet stream. Dr. Overland remarked that the early cold winter over North America this winter, and the exceptionally cold and snowy early winter in China last winter, were likely related to arctic sea ice loss. The sea ice loss induced a strong poleward flow of warm air over eastern Siberia, and a return flow of cold air from the Pole developed to compensate. Thus regions on either side of eastern Siberia--China and North America--have gotten unusually cold and snowy winters as a result.

The impact on sea level rise
The loss of arctic sea ice will have little impact on sea level rise over the next few decades. Since the ice is already floating in the ocean, melting it does not change sea level much--just like when ice melting in a glass of water will not change the level of liquid in the glass. In the case of sea ice, there is a slight sea level rise, since the fresh melt water is less dense than the salty ocean water it displaces. If all the world's sea ice melted, it would raise global sea level by only 4 mm. This is a tiny figure compared to the 20 feet of sea level rise that would occur from complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet--which is on land.

The impact on melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
The big concern with arctic sea ice melt is the warmer temperatures it will bring to the Arctic, which will bring about an accelerated melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. As the sea ice melts, the resulting warmer average temperatures will increase the amount of dark, sunlight-absorbing water at the pole, leading to further increases in temperature and more melting of sea ice, in a positive feedback loop. As temperatures warm, partial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will raise global sea levels. While no one is expecting 20 feet of sea level rise from the total melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet for many centuries, even one meter (3.3 feet) of sea level rise due to the partial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet can cause a lot of trouble. The official word on climate, the 2007 IPCC report, predicted only a 0.6-1.9 foot sea level rise by 2100, due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet and other factors. These estimates did not include detailed models of ice flow dynamics of glaciers, on the grounds that understanding of the relevant processes was too limited for reliable model estimates. The IPCC estimates were also made before the shocking and unexpected loss of arctic sea ice of the past two summers. In light of these factors, a large number of climate scientists now believe the IPCC estimates of sea level rise this century are much too low. The most recent major paper on sea level rise, published this month by Grinsted et al., concluded that there was a "low probability" that sea level rise would be in the range forecast by the IPCC, and predicted a 0.9 - 1.3 meter (3 - 4.3 feet) rise by 2100. Pfeffer et al. last month concluded that a "most likely" range of sea level rise by 2100 is 2.6 - 6.6 feet (0.8 - 2.0 meters). Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model--the ice flow dynamics of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The authors caution that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial. Other recent estimates of sea level rise include 1.6 - 4.6 feet (0.5 - 1.4 meters) by Rahmstorf (2007).

What would 3 feet of sea level rise mean?
Rising sea levels will lead to permanent and intermittent flooding in low-lying coastal areas across the world. A global sea level rise of .9 meters (3 feet) would affect 100 million people worldwide, mostly in Asia. The impact of hurricane storm surges will significantly increase as a result of sea level rise. Given a 3 foot rise in sea level, Hurricane Ike's storm surge would have overwhelmed the levees in Port Arthur, Texas, flooding the city and its important oil refineries. Galveston's sea wall would have been overtopped and possibly destroyed, allowing destruction of large portions of Galveston. Levees in New Orleans would have been overtopped, resulting in widespread flooding there, as well. I'll have a full analysis of who's at risk, and what the risks are, in a series of forthcoming blog posts this year.

What can we do?
One reasonable suggestion, presented by Trish Quinn of NOAA at the December 2008 AGU meeting, would be to limit the amount of crop residue burning that goes on in Eastern Europe and Asia each year. These fires generate large amounts of black soot that blows into the Arctic. These black particles on the white ice leads to a significant amount of warming during the summer months, when the black particles absorb sunlight.

For more information
The wunderground sea level rise page has detailed background info on sea level rise.
The wunderground Northwest Passage page is also a good reference.
realclimate.org has a nice post summarizing the recent sea level research.

I'll have a new blog post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 469 - 419

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Quoting BahaHurican:
Sorry stat. This is a conversation we started a couple days ago. Doesn't it count that we're not really fisting out, only "discussing"?????

LOL


Ya, I've been lurking... ironically the combination of STL's overzealousness and the overdiscussion on it has driven me crazy and I'm not quite the advocate for change that I was beforehand.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
461. Stanb999 8:08 PM EST on January 14, 2009

I'd worry more about trends in say, the last 5 - 10 thousand years, by that I mean short term trends. I say that because I think we are in a better position to test, evaluate and interpret data on the smaller scale. If we could figure out how PDO, AMO, ENSO etc. interact with each other, for example, we might be better able to predict 5, 10 and even 25 year trends in summer and winter temp ranges, rainfall amounts / locations, even TC formation frequency (if not strength). And while I believe change is inevitable, that doesn't also mean it will be FAST.

If I was going to use the older record of glaciation, I'd try to figure out what triggered the end of that last period of glaciation. I'd look for previous warm periods and hypothesize about what tipped the planet over into a cooling trend.

What do you see in the current record to suggest we are going to start cooling? Have we reached an observable tipping point in the long scale warming trend?

Also, u do realize that one argument that MMGW proponents have used is that even though the earth SHOULD be in a cooling trend, it seems to be getting warmer than ever! :o)

BTW, if u are going to say there are flaws in my argument, I'd be glad to hear what they are.


I have a much more immediate threat.
Sorry all the wife has said for the third time.
What are you doing!!!!
Go night all. Stay warm!!! it will be a cold night for the east coast.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Sorry stat. This is a conversation we started a couple days ago. Doesn't it count that we're not really fisting it out, only "discussing"?????

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurristat:


and yet...
Sorry stat. This is a conversation we started a couple days ago. Doesn't it count that we're not really fisting it out, only "discussing"?????

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
461. Stanb999 8:08 PM EST on January 14, 2009

I'd worry more about trends in say, the last 5 - 10 thousand years, by that I mean short term trends. I say that because I think we are in a better position to test, evaluate and interpret data on the smaller scale. If we could figure out how PDO, AMO, ENSO etc. interact with each other, for example, we might be better able to predict 5, 10 and even 25 year trends in summer and winter temp ranges, rainfall amounts / locations, even TC formation frequency (if not strength). And while I believe change is inevitable, that doesn't also mean it will be FAST.

If I was going to use the older record of glaciation, I'd try to figure out what triggered the end of that last period of glaciation. I'd look for previous warm periods and hypothesize about what tipped the planet over into a cooling trend.

What do you see in the current record to suggest we are going to start cooling? Have we reached an observable tipping point in the long scale warming trend?

Also, u do realize that one argument that MMGW proponents have used is that even though the earth SHOULD be in a cooling trend, it seems to be getting warmer than ever! :o)

BTW, if u are going to say there are flaws in my argument, I'd be glad to hear what they are.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Man, I wish I had more time this week to do some refresher reading. I know I saw a couple articles last spring on cyclone patterns in the S. Hemi, but I didn't save links, and now I can't remember all the stuff I read . . . .



Your right, worry not your thoughts are spot on for the Aussies. When we get La Nina they get storms.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurristat:


I thought after days of GW discussion the blog could use a good laugh.
Quoting Stanb999:



Their are a few flaws in your argument, But the logic is sound. I mean that....

First if one looks at history, you will note that we are at or near the peak temperature for the last 100,000 years. Am I right? This is what the geological evidence says. Where I currently reside their was 8,000 ft of ice. I've even seen the scrapes in the rock. Now if one was to prepare for the bad one would worry about the ice. No?


and yet...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Man, I wish I had more time this week to do some refresher reading. I know I saw a couple articles last spring on cyclone patterns in the S. Hemi, but I didn't save links, and now I can't remember all the stuff I read . . . .

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
I'm thinking that the change is inevitable. (Isn't there a saying about the only thing you can count on is change?) Consider the information we have available about climate differences in Western Europe and the NATL since, say 1000 AD. It's obvious that climate patterns are not static; it's inevitable that our climate is changing. By recognising that the earth's climate is warming or cooling, by learning about the larger-scale weather patterns, we can prepare more effectively for potential problems. A simple example: if you know a hurricane is coming and you live in a flood plain, do you sit there and hope nothing bad happens, or do you move? 75 years ago people had few options; they didn't know a storm was on its way, resulting in loss of life as well as destruction of property. Today we have more options.

My point about global warming is that we need to use the opportunity to learn more, so that in the future (so what if we are not the ones who are directly impacted by it?) human beings can be better able to adapt to their circumstances and survive non-cataclysmic weather changes.

As human beings, should we be the proverbial grasshopper, or should we follow the example of Aesop's ant?



Their are a few flaws in your argument, But the logic is sound. I mean that....

First if one looks at history, you will note that we are at or near the peak temperature for the last 100,000 years. Am I right? This is what the geological evidence says. Where I currently reside their was 8,000 ft of ice. I've even seen the scrapes in the rock. Now if one was to prepare for the bad one would worry about the ice. No?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



So, I was being argumentative. lol

Yeah, I've been blogging with some Aussies. They are saying the weather service is worried. But they are saying it's too cold. Who knows?
I'm wondering if it's cold AIR temps. If the residual heat in the SW PAC waters is great enough, the cooler temps otherwise might actually contribute to increased stability. I need to dig through my myriad of links to find the one with the SSTs for the PAC and the ENSO info. . . .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
I like a good joke as much as the next guy!

(love the song too, BTW)


I thought after days of GW discussion the blog could use a good laugh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I like a good joke as much as the next guy!

(love the song too, BTW)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Never gonna give you up.
Never gonna let you down.
Never gonna run around and desert you!

LOL


You got rickrolled!! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Never gonna give you up.
Never gonna let you down.
Never gonna run around and desert you!

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



You are assuming that there will be changes, This is a common trap. What is much more likely is nothing substantial will change.


I'm thinking that the change is inevitable. (Isn't there a saying about the only thing you can count on is change?) Consider the information we have available about climate differences in Western Europe and the NATL since, say 1000 AD. It's obvious that climate patterns are not static; it's inevitable that our climate is changing. By recognising that the earth's climate is warming or cooling, by learning about the larger-scale weather patterns, we can prepare more effectively for potential problems. A simple example: if you know a hurricane is coming and you live in a flood plain, do you sit there and hope nothing bad happens, or do you move? 75 years ago people had few options; they didn't know a storm was on its way, resulting in loss of life as well as destruction of property. Today we have more options.

My point about global warming is that we need to use the opportunity to learn more, so that in the future (so what if we are not the ones who are directly impacted by it?) human beings can be better able to adapt to their circumstances and survive non-cataclysmic weather changes.

As human beings, should we be the proverbial grasshopper, or should we follow the example of Aesop's ant?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Stan,

Not all tropical cyclones are products of cold fronts.

Cold front have been known to spawn tropical cyclone development when sitting over warm enough water for a long enough time. But tropical cyclones form from all sorts of meteorological phenomenon.

A fair portion of them form within the ITCZ where trade winds converge, thunderstorms develop, latent heat is released perpetuating rising air in the atmosphere and coriolis forces take over.

Others simply form from mesoscale convective complexes moving offshore and retain their strength over water, allowing for the 850-500mb vorticity maximum to build down to the surface. This happens more or less every other day off the coast of Africa as 'waves' move off the coast.

Other topical storms form from upper level low pressure over tropical waters as thunderstorms gradually warm the atmosphere (through release of latent heat of condensation) again allowing for low pressure to gradually build down to the surface.

Tropical cyclones have even formed from rather benign barotropic areas of surface low pressure just meandering over tropical/sub-tropical waters.



Your right sully, I miss spoke. I was really speaking of hurricanes. I got carried away with myself.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sullivanweather:
Stan,

Not all tropical cyclones are products of cold fronts.

Cold front have been known to spawn tropical cyclone development when sitting over warm enough water for a long enough time. But tropical cyclones form from all sorts of meteorological phenomenon.

A fair portion of them form within the ITCZ where trade winds converge, thunderstorms develop, latent heat is released perpetuating rising air in the atmosphere and coriolis forces take over.

Others simply form from mesoscale convective complexes moving offshore and retain their strength over water, allowing for the 850-500mb vorticity maximum to build down to the surface. This happens more or less every other day off the coast of Africa as 'waves' move off the coast.

Other topical storms form from upper level low pressure over tropical waters as thunderstorms gradually warm the atmosphere (through release of latent heat of condensation) again allowing for low pressure to gradually build down to the surface.

Tropical cyclones have even formed from rather benign barotropic areas of surface low pressure just meandering over tropical/sub-tropical waters.



This youtube video explains what you just said well: Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Uh, Stan, the Fiji comment was a TC comment / question - nothing to do w/GW of any kind. After all, this is IS a Tropical weather blog. . . .

(ya think?) lol

I was just wondering if there is some correlation between La Nina and increased tropical cyclone activity in the South Pac. (I know Queensland usually gets more TCs in those years.)



So, I was being argumentative. lol

Yeah, I've been blogging with some Aussies. They are saying the weather service is worried. But they are saying it's too cold. Who knows?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stan,

Not all tropical cyclones are products of cold fronts.

Cold front have been known to spawn tropical cyclone development when sitting over warm enough water for a long enough time. But tropical cyclones form from all sorts of meteorological phenomenon.

A fair portion of them form within the ITCZ where trade winds converge, thunderstorms develop, latent heat is released perpetuating rising air in the atmosphere and coriolis forces take over.

Others simply form from mesoscale convective complexes moving offshore and retain their strength over water, allowing for the 850-500mb vorticity maximum to build down to the surface. This happens more or less every other day off the coast of Africa as 'waves' move off the coast.

Other topical storms form from upper level low pressure over tropical waters as thunderstorms gradually warm the atmosphere (through release of latent heat of condensation) again allowing for low pressure to gradually build down to the surface.

Tropical cyclones have even formed from rather benign barotropic areas of surface low pressure just meandering over tropical/sub-tropical waters.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Well said. Nobody is being convinced by that talk, and more serious considerations are not being made. Whether GW is manmade or not, we need to first examine as much data as we can and second make some decisions about how we are going to adapt to the changes we face.



You are assuming that there will be changes, This is a common trap. What is much more likely is nothing substantial will change.



While I agree that we need to research the science. Generally most folks are set in their ways before the conversation is started. It really is a shame, we could actually learn something about our climate and really advance forecasting(something very useful). But instead we spend our efforts trying to proclaim ourselves right.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



I was preempting your argument. Tropical cyclones are caused by COLD fronts. With global warming their will be less storms.
Uh, Stan, the Fiji comment was a TC comment / question - nothing to do w/GW of any kind. After all, this is IS a Tropical weather blog. . . .

(ya think?) lol

I was just wondering if there is some correlation between La Nina and increased tropical cyclone activity in the South Pac. (I know Queensland usually gets more TCs in those years.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting barryweather:
I believe in natural global warming and global cooling as well as AGW and AGC. I also find it offensive that someone can label an entire group of people freaks simply for caring about our environment and childrens future. Although I suppose that is your intention Fire. I guess I'm used to being dog-piled though for my views are typically not those of the mainstream.
Well said. Nobody is being convinced by that talk, and more serious considerations are not being made. Whether GW is manmade or not, we need to first examine as much data as we can and second make some decisions about how we are going to adapt to the changes we face.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
thanks pearl....I try...

;)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
LOL @ 441, 444!
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Evening, all.

What I am finding fascinating about the tone of fire's conversation about global warming is represented in the phrase "believe in". I'm still trying to figure out how believing or not believing in something makes it scientific fact. I don't think people are politicizing GW; I think some people are acting like it's some kind of religion to believe in or not as one sees fit.

I'm tired of that kind of talk; instead of proving that you are right or I am wrong, can't we look at the science? By that I mean, let's examine what facts we have; let's get more facts. We all need to remember that hypotheses and theories are NOT facts, and not invest so much in them on an emotional level.

Oh, and fire, while I really don't agree or disagree with MMGW, you make me want to agree with the "other" side simply because of your tone. Additionally, if you have never believed in GW, it makes me wonder how carefully you have actually evaluated the facts. Are you only selecting those facts that support your viewpoint while ignoring others? That's something a "believer" or "disbeliever" will do.

The other day, some people were denigrating and throwing jeers at MichaelSTL because of his passionate defense of GW. Now I'm seeing some of the same kind of attitude, only on the other side. Nobody benefits from this kind of mental browbeating of others.

The comment I respect the most today (I stopped reading at "Got to put that in there for the GW freaks who actually believe in that trash") is Pottery's comment about the ice buildup in the N hemi. vs. the S. hemisphere. It seemed to me that was logical thinking rather than emotional ranting. Too many bloggers of late (on both sides of the issue) are coming across like raving fanatics rather than aficionados of weather science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
They are ruthless to pundants both sides

yeah, and to pundits too...
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting barryweather:
Fire

When the cup is full and you put the ice in what happens?

Stan

Does anything else come out besides co2 and water vapor? Do you have measurements of coral growth correlated to co2 consentration from the time that the bluffs were created? Was the Earth warmer and the water higher then? Can the previous periods of Earth history exactly correlate to present time? Might there be different conditions present now that can explain phenomenon we are seeing today?


Barry, I can't lead you to all the water. One must seek the truth. If you really can't find the truth your looking in the wrong spot. Try......www.solarcycle24.com goto the message board. Goto the global warming section..... Their are more scientists and physicists than you can shake a stick at. Read, But let me warn ya. If you bring thoughts of your own you will be corrected mildly and nicely. If you choose to spout talking points like above you will be called out. They are ruthless to pundants both sides.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting fire831rescue:


Would be 20.01 with GW.



Sure this is the case.... Hahaha

Your playing into their lies, Look on the the back of the box or in the little packet that comes with that temperature sensing device, It says i'm sure plus/minus 1F or more so the best you can hope for is the actual temp is between 21.01 or 19.01 or a standard deviation of about 1C. So does this one run high or low? Then we can decide which way it needs adjusted.

Hmmm!!!! What is the total amount of global warming so far?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
riddle me this, batman...why was the Dobson spectrophotometer invented to study ozone concentration anomalies in 1956 (i.e., long before air conditioning was mainstream)?

wasn't that used in the Deloreon in Back to the Future?

Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting BahaHurican:
What are you talking about??? This is totally not clear to me. . . .



I was preempting your argument. Tropical cyclones are caused by COLD fronts. With global warming their will be less storms.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
436. check this out....

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?

riddle me this, batman...why was the Dobson spectrophotometer invented to study ozone concentration anomalies in 1956 (i.e., long before air conditioning was mainstream)?

seems to me a LOT of manufacturers of refrigerants and a/c equipment made a LOT of money on this one over the years...
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting Stanb999:



So, storm fronts like hurricanes are caused by "warm" fronts. HAHAHAHA

It's well known that a cold world makes hurricanes,cyclones/typhoons more prevalent.

The latest postulation is that warming will make them stronger.... Is this based on observation or ????.




Good morning everyone.
What are you talking about??? This is totally not clear to me. . . .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Freezing three nights in a row here in Northern Hillsborough County. I don't remember this happening before... BUUURRRRRRR
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
436. HTV
I'd like to point out that we were successful is slowing and even reversing ozone depletion by banning CFCs.
Do we really know for sure we were responsible? I seem to remember reports of ozone holes improving before or right at the time CFC's were changed. Cyclical or hype?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I really do hope that the lack of sunspots will cause us to have colder winters because I miss having an occasional snow here in Southeastern NC. In the 80's we got a decent snowfall every 3-4 years when I was a kid. We haven't had a good snowfall here now since January 2000.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
431. Exactly what I was saying. When we alter the environment, it leads to consequences that we often don't forsee. Continuing to emit massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is NOT leaving it alone. That's our impact on the environment although unintended whereas in your article our impact was intentional.

I'd like to point out that we were successful is slowing and even reversing ozone depletion by banning CFCs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I can relate to this!

We have had ice coming down the Detroit River now non-stop since December 15th, 2008 (and no, it is not from melting icecaps in the UP). Last winters here this bad were 1993 and 1994.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm going to do my part to help. I have to turn my computer off now. :)
430. natrwlkn

Here is one small example of humans thinking we can act in the best "conscience" for the environment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't post on here often, but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring on the whole global warming issue.

First of all, the science behind the global warming theory is not JUNK science as some here have said. Astrology is JUNK science or pseudoscience. The global warming theory is a valid scientific theory that scientist worldwide look for evidence to support or refute. Just as with evolution or many other controversial scientific theories in the development stage, there will naturally be skepticism and criticism from the public and the theory may be eventually rejected by the scientific community. Currently, there is a lot of support for it because many of the early predictions have come true.

I agree with the skeptics that there are many other factors that affect the Earth's climate and we still have much to learn about them. However, rather than focusing strictly on global warming, perhaps it's better to say that HUMANS HAVE ALTERED THE CHEMICAL MAKEUP OF THE ATMOSPHERE. Global warming may be but one effect of that. It's highly likely that there will be consequences far beyond a slight change in global temperature that we don't even know about yet. I think it's highly UNLIKELY that we can continue spewing chemicals into Earth's atmosphere and just expect everything to take care of itself without some type of dire consequences to how hospitable the Earth is to human life.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am doing my part for Global Warming. I burn a few old tires out back every night, but soak them in used motor oil so they smoke extra long.

And now, another victim of global warming - Snorklers!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
When everything is quiet...GW is the main subject lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I believe in natural global warming and global cooling as well as AGW and AGC. I also find it offensive that someone can label an entire group of people freaks simply for caring about our environment and childrens future. Although I suppose that is your intention Fire. I guess I'm used to being dog-piled though for my views are typically not those of the mainstream.
Might see snow tonight for the first time in 3 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
With a compination of dewpoints possibly in the negative values Friday/Saturday Morning along with clear skies and a strong arctic high buiding somewhere between north and central Florida, look out for ideal radiational cooling Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee!

Florida will be living up to it's nickname for the next several days(Sunshine State). But certainly not in the temperature department.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting fire831rescue:


Not accusing... I don't believe in it either. They tried to shovel that stuff down my throat when I was in grade school. I never once believed it.... JUNK SCIENCE.


I know that you werent...I was just saying I never had patience and cared to read or believe about GW. Yeah it is junk science...waste of text book pages for our kids.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
420. wth is that supposed to be? LOL
Member Since: September 14, 2007 Posts: 3 Comments: 3963
Quoting NRAamy:


"I'd like my GW well-done, please...with some home fries on the side."


Leave Domo out of this. Don't want him hurt.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807


"I'd like my GW well-done, please...with some home fries on the side."
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting Stormchaser2007:


I have never believed in GW my whole 29 years of life.


Not accusing... I don't believe in it either. They tried to shovel that stuff down my throat when I was in grade school. I never once believed it.... JUNK SCIENCE.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807

Viewing: 469 - 419

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron