Heavy snow, rain, and flooding for the Northeast U.S.

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:21 PM GMT on February 25, 2010

Share this Blog
0
+

The winter of 2009-2010 continues its relentless onslaught over the U.S. today, as a powerful low pressure system intensifying along the East Coast brings heavy snow, flooding rains, and high winds to New England and the Mid-Atlantic. The storm has already dropped more than two feet of snow over Eastern New York near Albany, and surrounding regions of Western Massachusetts and Southern Vermont. These regions are now seeing rain mixed in with the snow, which will limit further accumulations to 1 - 3 inches. Farther east, flooding is a concern for most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, southern New Hampshire, and portions of western Maine, where heavy rainfall of 1 - 3 inches on top of a snow pack with a high water content has created runoff that has already swollen many rivers to flood stage. Heavy snow is the main concern over southeast New York, northern New Jersey, and northeast Pennsylvania. The unusually slow-moving storm is expected to drop snow amounts of up to 18" in the Pocono Mountains of northeast Pennsylvania, and in northern New Jersey. New York City, whose 30.5" of snow so far this winter is 13" above average for this date, could get up to a foot of wet, heavy snow. Philadelphia's 73" of snow for the season will get an 8 - 12" boost from the storm, taking their record snowiest winter even further into record territory. Wind gusts of 30 - 40 mph in combination with the very wet, heavy snow will make power outages a problem over much of the region.


Figure 1. Visible satellite image at 9:30am EST Thursday, February 25, 2010 showing today's Northeast U.S. snowstorm. Image credit: NASA GSFC GOES project.

Some selected storm-total snowfall amounts, from Tuesday morning through 10am EST today, courtesy of the National Weather Service:

...CONNECTICUT...
BURLINGTON 10.0
NEW HARTFORD 3.8 W 9.0

...KENTUCKY...
OVEN FORK 1 NE 5.0
BLEDSOE 2 SE 4.0

...MASSACHUSETTS...
SAVOY 28.5
ROWE 25.0
CHESTERFIELD 24.0
ASHFIELD 23.6
HEATH 22.0
SHELBURNE 22.0
PLAINFIELD 21.5
PITTSFIELD 20.0
BECKET 19.8
CHESTER 19.5
BLANDFORD 19.0
ASHBURNHAM 16.8
LANESBOROUGH 16.0
NORTH OTIS 16.0
NEW ASHFORD 13.0
WORCESTER 10.7

...NEW HAMPSHIRE...
EAST LEMPSTER 20.0
WASHINGTON 18.5
PETERBOROUGH 18.0
RANDOLF 17.6
GREENFIELD 16.0
NEWPORT 15.3
WILTON 14.0
BENNINGTON 13.0
WAPOLE 12.9
WEST CHESTERFIELD 10.8
LEMPSTER 10.0

...NEW YORK...
ALTAMONT 26.5
WESTERLO 26.0
WILLARD MTN BASE 25.0
NORTH HEBRON 24.0
MEDUSA 23.0
MORIAH 22.5
TABORTON 22.0
DURHAM 20.0
PORTER CORNERS 20.0
ROXBURY 18.9
PHOENICIA 18.5
CHATHAM CENTER 18.0
SCHENECTADY 15.0
ALBANY 12.4
BINGHAMTON 10.5

...OHIO...
CARROLOTON 5.5

...PENNSYLVANIA...
PONOCO PEAK LAKE 13.0
HAWLEY 3.8 NE 11.0
WANTAGE 11.0
PLEASANT MOUNT 10.0
DINGMANS FERRY 3.9 WSW 9.2
MILANVILLE 1.5 SE 8.9
SAYLORSBURG 8.5
BEEMERVILLE 8.0
EAST STROUDSBURG 8.0
THOMPSON 8.0

...RHODE ISLAND...
BURRILLVILLE 6.5
WEST GLOCESTER 5.1
WOONSOCKET 0.3 W 3.4

...TENNESSEE...
APPALACHIA 3.0
ROAN MOUNTAIN 3.0

Update on this Saturday's major winter storm in Europe
Computer forecast models continue to forecast the development of a powerful winter storm that will rapidly intensify Saturday morning into a meteorological "bomb" that will bring high winds and flooding rains to Portugal, northern Spain, and possibly France. However, today's model runs are less aggressive in deepening the storm, and no longer call for the storm to be as intense as last year's Winter Storm Klaus. Klaus, which hit northern Spain and southwest France January 23 - 25, was Earth's most costly natural disaster of 2009, causing $5.1 billion in damage and killing 26. Klaus peaked in intensity at 967 mb, and brought wind gusts of 120 mph (193 km/hr) to Formiguères, France, 125 mph (200 km/hr) to Portbou, Spain, and 134 mph (216 km/hr) to Port d'Envalira, Andorra. Last night's 00Z (7pm EST) run of the ECMWF model and GFS model called for Saturday's storm to have 974 - 976 mb central pressure. Saturday's storm still has the potential to be plenty damaging, as winds of tropical storm force with gusts to hurricane force should affect a large swath of Portugal and northern Spain.


Figure 2. Forecast from the 1am EST 2/25/10 run of the GFS model for 18 GMT Saturday for surface winds. The GFS is predicting that Saturday's storm will peak in intensity at this time with a pressure of 974 mb. Sustained winds just below hurricane force of 60 - 75 mph (green colors) are expected offshore from Portugal. Image was generated using our wundermap for Spain with the "model" layer turned on.

Next post
My next post will be Friday.

Jeff Masters

Tear Drop (suzi46)
this frozen drop was suspended on the thinnest filament of ice over our frozen brook..so very delicate and beautiful
Tear Drop
()

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: 321 - 271

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

Quoting AstroHurricane001:


Um, it's off-season right now...


You have got to be kidding? You mean I have been on a tropics blog and it ain't even Hurricane season????? How come none of yous all told me that???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


LOL It is fun, until it hits that "OH CARP, it's coming my way" point.


Carp? Fish-spinner?
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
Quoting Grothar:


Will you drop me a line when it is safe to come back on the blog? Who knew Hurricane season could be so much fun!!


Um, it's off-season right now...
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
Quoting PcolaDan:


LOL It is fun, until it hits that "OH CARP, it's coming my way" point.


That's when Oz comes out Lol
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting Grothar:


Will you drop me a line when it is safe to come back on the blog? Who knew Hurricane season could be so much fun!!


LOL It is fun, until it hits that "OH CARP, it's coming my way" point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anyone on here want a copy of the old best-seller "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? I might have some spare copies lying around.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


It will calm down (get more crazy) when hurricane season comes. GW will be a long-forgotten debate as long as a storm is out there.


Problem is, putting away the discussion doesn't cause it to be invalidated.

Quoting AussieStorm:

now you know why I have "him" on ignore.


Unfortunately, ignoring a global problem, or similarly ignoring the people who talk about it will not cause the problem to subside.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
Quoting CycloneOz:
Let me know. I'm sitting here smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer.

We're almost finished!

now you know why I have "him" on ignore.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:

Is that before or after the more water vapor that you guys have been trying hard to attribute all of the snowfall to?

As everyone knows, extra humidity doesn't work out too well for either fires or drought...so it cannot be simultaneous.

Quoting Levi32:


What are you talking about. I'm basing that statement off of this official graph that everyone uses.



If you look at the graph between 2002 and now, ignoring this year's January spike, the temperature trend has clearly flat-lined. There will be warming this year because of the El Nino.

Don't try to turn this around on me, your data was unreliable and computed by an amateur who doesn't know what he's doing.
Quoting atmoaggie:
I do believe the fit is about to hit the shan...

Levi, I know the urge to show others that he believes a little too strongly. We know, you don't have to bother.
Quoting Levi32:


I don't claim to know everything that effects the world climate. I have an opinion, and I stand by it, but that doesn't mean I know everything about how the world works. There are likely many processes and cycles we haven't even discovered yet that effect world climate patterns, so obviously we can't know for sure what will happen in 20 years. My opinion is that the natural drivers we already know about will cool the earth slightly over the next 20-30 years. We will see what happens. The problem with GW alarmists is their amazing appetite for using unreliable data and a lack of common sense. Anything at all that happens, be it snow or strong hurricanes, is blamed on GW.
Quoting tornadodude:
Levi,

as much as I hate to say this,

you might as well not argue with him, you wont change his opinion. :p



El Nino increases forest fires in Indonesia because there is more drier and hotter air, but cooler SSTs. Global temperatures have been fairly stable recently but the recent spike (might not be just a spike) proves that this is all over. The skeptics say that the views of the "warmists" are too extreme, but that's only because we understand the true scale of this issue. If you only looked at the data that seems to prove your viewpoint, you're only going to reinforce a conclusion. But coming up with a conclusion then trying to find evidence to support it is neither skepticism nor science. It is denial and deceit. If you think that the opponent's views are too extreme, try looking at your own arguments from their point of view. Sure, we'll know a lot more about global warming in 20 years, but the problem is we might not have that long. Any more time wasted debating is a waste of the lifeblood of future generations, fact. It is possible to tie so many weather events to GW, although almost never directly, because the whole of the climate system is changing and any abnormalities in it can be attributed to a change in the overall system. It shouldn't matter if the arguments are posed by an expert, just as long as they are not funded by fossil fuel companies. :P
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
Quoting PcolaDan:


There are going to be a few fairly new people that are going to be in for a rude awakening once the tropics start heating up and they won't be able to talk about.... that stuff. Or if they do, they'll wonder why they get banned.


Will you drop me a line when it is safe to come back on the blog? Who knew Hurricane season could be so much fun!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
311. DDR
Hello,It was a very hot day in Trinidad today,max temp at piarco was 36.Its hot hot hot!
Levi keep up the good work,and don't let them get to you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


There are going to be a few fairly new people that are going to be in for a rude awakening once the tropics start heating up and they won't be able to talk about.... that stuff. Or if they do, they'll wonder why they get banned.


I'm gonna try real hard to stay on topic this coming season...real hard!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WaterWitch11:
what i would give to have the old blog back!?

i have a couple of bags of nuts i would gladly part with!

lol


There are going to be a few fairly new people that are going to be in for a rude awakening once the tropics start heating up and they won't be able to talk about.... that stuff. Or if they do, they'll wonder why they get banned.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Facts that you believe just because a random guy created and posted them.

The only true facts about world temperature data are from 1979 onward and that's IT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm done for now this is getting too crazy lol.

Fine here is more - is NASA now a random guy too?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Let me know. I'm sitting here smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer.

We're almost finished!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


It will calm down (get more crazy) when hurricane season comes. GW will be a long-forgotten debate as long as a storm is out there.

You will need to accept that the climate already changed to a dangerous level. And btw the news today writes about the hurricane hitting the US.

But hej according to your very opinion it is normal and all will be good in 20 years.

Lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


You mean empirical like the fact that this January was the warmest for the world as a whole since 1998 and yet the entire world is like what the heck because the major energy centers of the earth, eastern USA, Europe, and the far east, were all far colder than normal?? That's empirical for you.

I have no idea how you come up with this nonsense.

Fine here for you the GISS Temps in color.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WaterWitch11:
what i would give to have the old blog back!?

i have a couple of bags of nuts i would gladly part with!

lol


It will calm down (get more crazy) when hurricane season comes. GW will be a long-forgotten debate as long as a storm is out there.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting Levi32:


Facts that you believe just because a random guy created and posted them.

The only true facts about world temperature data are from 1979 onward and that's IT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm done for now this is getting too crazy lol.

Afraid of the Facts?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:
Levi,

as much as I hate to say this,

you might as well not argue with him, you wont change his opinion. :p

The diffrence between my opinion and Levi's is that i base my opinion on Facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
what i would give to have the old blog back!?

i have a couple of bags of nuts i would gladly part with!

lol
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 3 Comments: 1569
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

Your opinion is fine as long you don't pretend to know it better than the FACTS. And thats exactly what you doing here through the day.


Facts that you believe just because a random guy created and posted them.

The only true facts about world temperature data are from 1979 onward and that's IT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm done for now this is getting too crazy lol.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting Levi32:


Don't forget about the IPCC scam.


Excuse the sarcasm but….

To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.

NOT ONE.

Do you really believe that the scientists at CRU were able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, 2009 was the second warmest year since 1850 even though it was the “weakest sun” in 100 years!)

Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

I could go on ad infinitum.

For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/comment-p age-3/#comments
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dude...
check e-mail and reply fast.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Levi,

as much as I hate to say this,

you might as well not argue with him, you wont change his opinion. :p
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting Levi32:


I don't claim to know everything that effects the world climate. I have an opinion, and I stand by it, but that doesn't mean I know everything about how the world works. There are likely many processes and cycles we haven't even discovered yet that effect world climate patterns.

Your opinion is fine as long you don't pretend to know it better than the FACTS. And thats exactly what you doing here through the day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


I told you twice. It was computed by a random person on a blog that nobody knows, and all he did was predict temperature based on CO2 concentrations, which is ridiculous, since CO2 is not the only factor determining temperature. That makes the data unreliable, it is not from an official source that knows what they're doing.

And as for the rest of the data out there a lot of it is manipulated and put together from scanty data since reliable global observations have only been around for 30 years. Don't forget about the IPCC scam.

So now GISSTEMP is manipulated? Why don't you make the math if you are so brilliant in drawing your conclusion in seconds.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

One way or the other? So you actualy are willing to take the risc of runaway climate change?


I don't claim to know everything that effects the world climate. I have an opinion, and I stand by it, but that doesn't mean I know everything about how the world works. There are likely many processes and cycles we haven't even discovered yet that effect world climate patterns, so obviously we can't know for sure what will happen in 20 years. My opinion is that the natural drivers we already know about will cool the earth slightly over the next 20-30 years. We will see what happens. The problem with GW alarmists is their amazing appetite for using unreliable data and a lack of common sense. Anything at all that happens, be it snow or strong hurricanes, is blamed on GW.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting Levi32:


I told you twice. It was computed by a random person on a blog that nobody knows, and all he did was predict temperature based on CO2 concentrations, which is ridiculous, since CO2 is not the only factor determining temperature. That makes the data unreliable, it is not from an official source that knows what they're doing.

And as for the rest of the data out there a lot of it is manipulated and put together from scanty data since reliable global observations have only been around for 30 years. Don't forget about the IPCC scam.

Actualy i have missed something but i did not read about manipulated data.
HadCru is actualy with a cool bias, same as the US temperature readings. Looks like you missed some of Dr Masters blog posts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

The problem with your opinion is that it stands against the empirical data.


You mean empirical like the fact that this January was the warmest for the world as a whole since 1998 and yet the entire world is like what the heck because the major energy centers of the earth, eastern USA, Europe, and the far east, were all far colder than normal?? That's empirical for you.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting Levi32:



Again, the next 20 years will likely prove something one way or the other.

One way or the other? So you actualy are willing to take the risc of runaway climate change?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Levi where is it flawed?


I told you twice. It was computed by a random person on a blog that nobody knows, and all he did was predict temperature based on CO2 concentrations, which is ridiculous, since CO2 is not the only factor determining temperature. That makes the data unreliable, it is not from an official source that knows what they're doing.

And as for the rest of the data out there a lot of it is manipulated and put together from scanty data since reliable global observations have only been around for 30 years. Don't forget about the IPCC scam.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Levi where is it flawed?

Well, for one thing, you post the same thing over and over again. Two, you are a parrot...no thoughts of your own, just what you have been told to say.

EDIT: Ohhhhh, "where is it flawed"...sorry. My bad, got used to the combative attitude.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Accurate global temperature readings did not become available until 1979 when the satellite era began. Anything before that is based on a highly incomplete surface weather observation network that has grown but was very limited in the past.

Again, the next 20 years will likely prove something one way or the other.

The problem with your opinion is that it stands against the empirical data.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Levi where is it flawed?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


More fires and drought in the Indopacific region means more CO2 and methane release into the atmosphere from rainforests and peat bogs. The same is true for the Amazon, which could collapse with a 2C rise in global temperatures.



You can't just factor anthropogenic influences and solar activity out of the equation, as those two will cause the warming to accelerate and natural causes already lost the battle for forcings in the 1970's. Also the increase from the 1980's to 2000's was greater than the decrease from the 1940's to 70's. (graph only goes to late 1990's and excludes natural oceanic and atmospheric oscillations)



Accurate global temperature readings did not become available until 1979 when the satellite era began. Anything before that is based on a highly incomplete surface weather observation network that has grown but was very limited in the past.

Again, the next 20 years will likely prove something one way or the other.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting AstroHurricane001:


More fires and drought

Is that before or after the more water vapor that you guys have been trying hard to attribute all of the snowfall to?

As everyone knows, extra humidity doesn't work out too well for either fires or drought...so it cannot be simultaneous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


I just don't want them showing me un-reliable and flawed data after lecturing everyone else about using faulty data.

I posted the link and now again with the full comment.

I used GISTEMP together with CO2 concentrations from Law Dome and the Keeling curve to construct a global temperature predictor, decade by decade, using the previous decade’s CO2 to compute the average temperature for the following decade. In the following, GTA is the decadal average GISTEMP anomaly, AE is the Arrhenius formula Estimated anomaly and the resdiuals are the differences.
decade GTA AE residual
1880s -0.28 -0.28 +0.00
1890s -0.25 -0.23 -0.02
1900s -0.26 -0.20 -0.05
1910s -0.28 -0.17 -0.10
1920s -0.18 -0.13 -0.04
1930s -0.04 -0.09 +0.05
1940s +0.03 -0.05 +0.08
1950s -0.02 -0.03 +0.01
1960s -0.01 -0.00 -0.01
1970s -0.00 +0.07 -0.07
1980s +0.18 +0.18 -0.01
1990s +0.31 +0.33 -0.02
2000s +0.51 +0.47 +0.04
2010s xx.xx +0.64
Note the prediction of great warmth in the decade just now starting.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/met-office-re-examine-of-climate-data-temperature-record/#com ments
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Global SST anomalies:

Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8201
Quoting Levi32:


What are you talking about. I'm basing that statement off of this official graph that everyone uses.



If you look at the graph between 2002 and now, ignoring the January spike, the temperature trend has flat-lined. There will be warming this year because of the El Nino.

Don't try to turn this around on me, your data was unreliable and computed by an amateur who doesn't know what he's doing.

Ignoring doesn't count levi and you should know that climate is observation over more than just 12 years.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
I do believe the fit is about to hit the shan...

Levi, I know the urge to show others that he believes a little too strongly. We know, you don't have to bother.


I just don't want them showing me un-reliable and flawed data after lecturing everyone else about using faulty data.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:
Could this be the driest February on record?
05:55 AM Feb 26, 2010
SINGAPORE - This month could turn out to be the driest February ever recorded in Singapore, if current conditions continue.

The National Environment Agency said only 5.3 mm of rainfall has been recorded so far, compared to 18.7 mm in the same period last year.

February is traditionally one of the driest months in the year. And this year, the El Nino effect is making it worst.

A historical comparison: 1968 and 2005 have had the driest Februaries so far, when 8.4 mm of rain fell in each instance.

The Public Utilities Board said the dry spell is also causing record water consumption. Some 590 Olympic-sized pools of water are being consumed daily on average, or about 7 per cent more than last February.

The national water agency is advising households to practise good water-saving habits, such as taking shorter showers.

The dry spell has also seen an increase in the outbreak of grass, lalang and vegetation fires.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force said it has responded to 92 cases so far this month alone, and is appealing to the public to help minimise such fires.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100226-0000070/Could-this-be-the-driest-February-on-record


More fires and drought in the Indopacific region means more CO2 and methane release into the atmosphere from rainforests and peat bogs. The same is true for the Amazon, which could collapse with a 2C rise in global temperatures.

Quoting Levi32:


I guess that's what we will find out during the next few decades. I'm betting the earth's temperature will cool at least 1 degree Celsius over the next 30 years due to the cold PDO and the following cold AMO, just as it did in the 1940s through the 1970s. The earth's average temperature has neither increased nor decreased since the 1998 El Nino, which fits in with the PDO which is in the middle of changing-over from warm to cold.


You can't just factor anthropogenic influences and solar activity out of the equation, as those two will cause the warming to accelerate and natural causes already lost the battle for forcings in the 1970's. Also the increase from the 1980's to 2000's was greater than the decrease from the 1940's to 70's. (graph only goes to late 1990's and excludes natural oceanic and atmospheric oscillations)

Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 8 Comments: 2835
I do believe the fit is about to hit the shan...

Levi, I know the urge to show others that he believes a little too strongly. We know, you don't have to bother.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:

Your comment ther eis no warming since 1998 applies too:
I'm sorry but that is un-reliable data, and from a random guy commenting on a blog no-less.


What are you talking about. I'm basing that statement off of this official graph that everyone uses.



If you look at the graph between 2002 and now, ignoring this year's January spike, the temperature trend has clearly flat-lined. There will be warming this year because of the El Nino.

Don't try to turn this around on me, your data was unreliable and computed by an amateur who doesn't know what he's doing.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
The HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.

Levi if you insist i can post other data.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:

I'm sorry but that is un-reliable data, and from a random guy commenting on a blog no-less. Don't cite that stuff.

Your comment there is no warming since 1998 applies too:
I'm sorry but that is un-reliable data, and from a random guy commenting on a blog no-less.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
WU's very own Floodman will soon be on the Barometer Bob Show with an update on Haiti.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting drg0dOwnCountry:


decade GTA AE residual
1880s -0.28 -0.28 0.00
1890s -0.25 -0.23 -0.02
1900s -0.26 -0.20 -0.05
1910s -0.28 -0.17 -0.10
1920s -0.18 -0.13 -0.04
1930s -0.04 -0.09 0.05
1940s 0.03 -0.05 0.08
1950s -0.02 -0.03 0.01
1960s -0.01 -0.00 -0.01
1970s -0.00 0.07 -0.07
1980s 0.18 0.18 -0.01
1990s 0.31 0.33 -0.02
2000s 0.51 0.47 0.04
2010s xx.xx 0.64


Guess what, I know where you got that, and it was from a random person who computed those numbers based on CO2 concentrations that he used to predict the temperature for each decade. You cannot use only CO2 to compute the temperature. I'm sorry but that is un-reliable data, and from a random guy commenting on a blog no less. Don't cite that stuff.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26547
Increase in mean near-surface temperature (C) from (1989-98) to (1999-2008)



The lower figure is the ECMWF analysis which uses all available observations, including satellite and weather balloon records, synthesised in a physically- and meteorologically-consistent way, and the upper figure represents the same period from our HadCRUT record. The ECMWF analysis shows that in data-sparse regions such as Russia, Africa and Canada, warming over land is more extreme than in regions sampled by HadCRUT. If we take this into account, the last decade shows a global-mean trend of 0.1 C to 0.2 C per decade. We therefore infer with high confidence that the HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/met-office-re-examine-of-climate-data-temperature-record/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PcolaDan:


I just figured if a low crossed the equator it would automatically become a high. ;)
If I ever cross the equator It is a sure bet I will be high too.>)
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20493

Viewing: 321 - 271

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy