Correcting the South Dakota legislature's remarkable ignorance of science

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:29 PM GMT on March 29, 2010

Share this Blog
8
+

Climate change science has come under ferocious attack in recent months. But while it is good to objectively question the science of climate change, much of what is being said in these attacks greatly distorts or makes false statements about what the science says, much to the confusion of the public and policy makers. A resolution passed last month by the South Dakota House is an iconic example of the ignorant falsehoods and distortions common in so many of these recent attacks. By a 36-30 vote, the South Dakota legislature last month passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, "Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota." Thirty-four Republicans and two Democrats voted for the resolution, which, remarkably, includes a reference to astrology as being central to the behavior of the weather. Here are the resolutions, put in italics, followed by my comments:

The South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;


This language is identical to what creationists used in their attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution, and is a standard trick used to attack the validity of any established scientific body of evidence. Here's how science works: Scientists collect data about the natural world. Using the aid of such tools as mathematics, scientists then construct theories to explain the observations. These theories must successfully pass review by several experts on the subject before they can be published in a scientific journal. Such "peer reviewed" science is a necessary but not sufficient condition for general acceptance of a theory; alternative theories compete, and the old theory must withstand the test of new theories. The old theory must also be validated by follow-up research by other scientists, who can duplicate the original findings. Gravity is one such theory that is well-supported by the available observations, and has withstood challenges over time. The theory of human-caused climate change is not as mature as the theory of gravity, but it is another theory that is well-supported by the available observations. While a number of alternative theories offering alternative explanations for the recent warming of the planet have been advanced, none of these have come remotely close to gaining widespread acceptance among the scientists publishing peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is what teachers should be emphasizing to their students, not that "global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact."

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;

This is a wildly incorrect statement. "Astrological" refers to the superstitious belief that the movements of the stars and planets can affect the weather. We don't use horoscopes to forecast the weather! "Thermology" is the analysis of detailed infrared images of the human body, and has no relevance to weather. Finally, the laws governing the behavior of the atmosphere are not "largely speculative." Our understanding of these laws has enabled scientists to make computer forecast models that successfully tell us many days in advance what the weather is likely to be. Similar models have been built to study the climate, and these models have been very successful at simulating many aspects of the climate, such as the amount of cooling major volcanic eruptions cause. I would characterize these models as "limited," but they are getting better rapidly, and are not "largely speculative." A few English errors: "interrelativity" isn't a word, and the word "affect" instead of "effect" should have been used in the sentence.

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena;

It's highly ironic that these politicians are complaining about political viewpoints complicating the issue, yet here they are asserting their own political views, laden with awful science, to further complicate things. I agree that the political debate on global warming has complicated its scientific investigation, since climate scientists must now spend time away from their research to defend their work against absurd attacks like this one. Allegations that the debate has "prejudiced" scientific investigation have not been proven, and unproven allegations have no place in an official resolution by lawmakers.

Now, here is the evidence the South Dakota Legislature uses to support their resolutions:

WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide;

The global temperature trend between 2002 - 2009 was -0.04°C, using the NASA GISS global temperature data set. This trend is not considered mathematically (statistically) significant, meaning that the trend is so close to zero that you can't say the Earth has been cooling. Note that if one picks almost any other period of averaging over the past 40 years, a positive (warming) trend results. For example, the Earth warmed 0.14°C between 2008 and 2009 (though this is also not mathematically significant, since we're only looking at two data points). One needs a lot more data points to get a mathematically significant result, and when one is talking about the climate, it is best to look at 30+ years. The Earth has warmed by about 0.16°C per decade over the past 30 years--a mathematically significant warming trend.

WHEREAS, there is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the troposphere where the majority of warming would be taking place;

Over the 31 years that we have satellite measurements, the lower troposphere has warmed by between 0.13° - 0.15°C per decade. Thus, this statement by the South Dakota legislature is undeniably false. In fact, two of the past four months have seen the warmest temperatures ever measured in the lower atmosphere, according to the University of Alabama, Huntsville. As I've discussed before, the argument made here was in vogue among climate change contrarians prior to 2004, and was the primary method of attack on the validity of global warming theory. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that global warming theory was correct, and the satellite measurements showing a lack of tropospheric warming were wrong. To continue using a skeptic argument that was discredited five years ago and is no longer used by modern-day contrarians shows a remarkable lack of political savvy on the part of the South Dakota Legislature. They should have taken a lesson from the Utah State Legislature and used the contents of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia--that is the modern preferred way to attack climate change science. As I've pointed out before, though, these attacks are also bogus.

WHEREAS, historical climatological data shows without question the earth has gone through trends where the climate was much warmer than in our present age. The Climatic Optimum and Little Climatic Optimum are two examples. During the Little Climatic Optimum, Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle. Today, ninety percent of Greenland is covered by massive ice sheets, in many places more than two miles thick;

The resolution says "without question" the Earth has gone through warmer climates, then gives one example as the "Little Climatic Optimum," which is the period from around 900 - 1200 A.D. Current climate science, as summarized in the 2007 IPCC report, rates the Little Climatic Optimum as being cooler than the present-day climate, so it is false to say the Little Climatic Optimum was "without question" warmer. Even if it was warmer, that doesn't prove that the modern warming cannot be human-caused (one can use the analogy that different diseases can produce the same symptoms, and a good doctor will perform a scientific examination to determine what is causing the symptoms.) The discussion of the Greenland Ice Sheet makes it sound as if it appeared in the past 1,000 years. That is not the case. The ice coverage of Greenland is similar today to what it was during the time of Erik the Red. Grammar errors: "Earth" should be capitalized. "Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed" is grammatically incorrect.

WHEREAS, the polar ice cap is subject to shifting warm water currents and the break-up of ice by high wind events. Many oceanographers believe this to be the major cause of melting polar ice, not atmospheric warming;

While natural wind patterns in the early 1990s are thought to be an important factor that contributed to the decline of the polar ice cap in recent years, I haven't seen any peer-reviewed scientific paper stating that this was the major cause of arctic sea ice loss. Natural wind patterns, warmer atmospheric temperatures, warmer ocean temperatures, and the warming influence of black soot on the ice are all important factors, and there is no consensus on which of these factors is the dominant cause of the melting.

WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth.

Webster's dictionary defines a pollutant as "man-made waste that contaminates an environment." Webster's defines "contaminate" as "to make inferior or impure." CO2 is man-made waste, and there is scientific evidence that added CO2 can make our atmosphere "inferior" to its present state. As just one example, when CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, the water grows more acidic. Corals and other creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate cannot form their shells if the acidity passes a critical level--their shells will dissolve. Thus, for these organisms, CO2 is definitely a pollutant. Several shell-building planktonic organisms, such as coccolithophorids, pteropods, and foraminifera, form an important basis of the food chain in cold ocean waters, and the continued increase in CO2 emissions have many scientists very concerned about a collapse of the oceanic food chain in these regions in coming decades. Presumably, the South Dakota lawmakers are taking the very narrow view that a pollutant is something that harms human health when breathed. One other note: they should have said "essential" instead of "highly beneficial" when describing the relationship between CO2 and plant life.

Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life";

As I discussed at the time, the reference to CO2 being the "gas of life" comes from a fossil-fuel industry-funded ad campaign from 2006, not from the scientific literature.

WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.

This a reference to the notorious "Oregon Petition," a product of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the Institute's web site and the book Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly home-school curricula books on surviving nuclear war. The petition they created in 1999 was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page "scientific" review of climate change science filled with scientific distortions and falsehoods, printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." A letter from Dr. Frederick Seitz, who was prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review (at the time, Seitz was working for the fossil fuel industry-funded George C. Marshall Institute, a pro-industry think tank he helped found.) No doubt, many recipients of the petition took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. While the petition does carry the names of legitimate scientists who do disagree with the IPCC consensus on the reality and dangers of human-caused climate change, the fraudulent way the petition was presented and the impossibility of verifying the signatures make its relevance highly questionable. An excellent post at skepticalscience.com explores the Oregon Petition's claim of 31,000 signatures in greater detail. It turns out that anyone can sign the petition and claim they are a scientist; there is no verification. The requirements for being a scientist include anyone with a Bachelor's degree in any of the following fields:

* Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
* Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
* Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
* Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
* Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
* Medicine: medical science, medicine
* General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science

The skepticalscience.com post argues, "if we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 "scientists" turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM's expansive definition." This represents 0.1% of the estimated 10.6 million scientists in the U.S. Now, let's consider specialists in climate change. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

Counterbalancing the fraudulently obtained and inflated "consensus" of the Oregon Petition are the official climate change position statements of the following scientific organizations, which all agree with the consensus that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities:"

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. Eleven countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 major scientific organisations to the U.S. Congress in October 2009 states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the Polish Academy of Sciences.

One can read much more on the topic at the excellent skepticalscience.com blog where I took this information from.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."

This is true, but of course neglects to mention the many harmful effects warmer temperatures will bring.

On to the Senate
The South Dakota Senate passed by a vote of 18-17 an amended version of the resolution which eliminated most of the scientific falsehoods and distortions and corrected most of the English errors (except for the use of the non-word "interrelativity.") However, the resolution still asserts that the global warming debate has prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena. The amended version now returns to the House for approval.

Commentary
The fundamental scientific ignorance displayed by the South Dakota legislature clearly makes them unqualified to recommend how science should be taught in schools. While the proposed resolution by the South Dakota legislature does not have the force of law, the debate on climate change is too important to be based on falsehoods and distortions made up by politicians or by the "Manufactured Doubt Industry." Politicians should stay out of micro-managing education, and leave the teaching to the teachers.

For further reading
Our Climate Change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has an excellent post discussing politics and global warming, titled, If Lady Chatterley's Lover, then...

The New York Times has an interesting article, Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets, that discusses how several states have introduced or approved measures mandating that opposing views on human-caused climate change and evolution should be taught in the classroom.

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: 242 - 192

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Levi can consider my questions a compliment if he wants, but sounding mature is not always a good thing. For instance, it can at times involve claiming to know things you do not actually know--the voice of authority and all that. Someone asked if I was in high school. I'll take that as a compliment. LOL.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:

A scientifically correct "teaching" tornado: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyMo4NW6zFU&feature=related

Was designed by a guy I know fairly well.

Full write up on the design here: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ758541&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ758541


Cool, thanks !

Interestingly enough, when the water temp, wind and air temp, are right, I was able to produce a vortex on my lake with a 2 million Candela power Q beam at night for a bunch of neighbors. 6-8' tall, was quite cool also...... let alone, winning some bets :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Reading the Dr's blog entry makes me scared!
That there are still people that think the way that those Legislators in places like South Dakota think, is scary stuff indeed.
Way to go guys. Onward, to join the other many societies and civilizations that could not read the writing on the wall, and are gone....

May this lot get out of the way quickly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SouthALWX:
for the record .. coming from a guy who is at most 2 years (probably 1) older than Levi, he sounds just like the rest of us pursuing Met degrees. It takes a unique skill set to do the job. I have no doubt he's as old as he says he is, because to know that much means he is in all likelihood "one of us" and his enthusiasm implies he has yet to see the "not fun" part of what we do. Had he been to college already, he wouldn't be nearly as enthusiastic .... It's worth it but it's not all fun, sorry Levi =P

No doubt about that. I'll freely admit that there are some things at which I am not good at. In school, a lot of students disappeared from the met degree program every semester. Seems like a neat field until they hit certain math courses or atmo dynamics, then they find out who they aren't.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you.
Back to weather. Paul just looks odd. Is that just a tightly coiled rain band or some extended fragment of an eyewall? I've never seen that before. Reminds me off Bill

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting all4hurricanes:
You all act like high school students are morons. I'm a sophomore and got my meteo101 degree online from Penn state. There's a hidden intelligence if you cut through the jocks and cheerleaders.
Lots of youngsters forget that u will have the same ratio of intelligent and dumb teens as u do adults. It seems kind of illogical to expect "dumb" teens to all suddenly morph into "intelligent" adults. IMO, some of the best WX minds on this blog are the "young heads". This blog is such a powerful instrument during ATL tropical season because there is a range of youthful zest tempered by the wisdom of age. There is a lot of sniping that goes on here especially during "lulls", but the "old heads" and "young heads" have mostly learned to respect each other. As a result forecasts here are often right on point with those of the best forecasters in the world. When we see the NHC update on a storm, we've usually already come pretty darned close as a blog to what NHC is saying.... So don't disrespect our youth, if u see what I'm sayin'....

[Yeah, I was gone, but came back online to retrieve an email and couldn't resist looking back in at the blog.... lol]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You all act like high school students are morons. I'm a sophomore and got my meteo101 degree online from Penn state. There's a hidden intelligence if you cut through the jocks and cheerleaders.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Eagle101:


I am actually building a vortex simulator at the request of a local elementary science teacher friend of mine. The prototype worked great. In fact, starting with a pan of boiling water, the vortex lasted for 30 some odd minutes without continual heating. The simulator uses natural draft to move the air vertically, and slots on the sides to produce the shear/rotation. She asked if I could teach a basic meteorology to about 50 screaming, I mean, well behaving students. I am also going to demonstrate warm/cold fluid masses meeting, as well as heating a container of air on a balance to show buoyancy. I am actually quite excited about the presentation. Take care and be safe all.

Very Respectfully,

Jon

A scientifically correct "teaching" tornado: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyMo4NW6zFU&feature=related

Was designed by a guy I know fairly well.

Full write up on the design here: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ758541&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ758541
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
for the record .. coming from a guy who is at most 2 years (probably 1) older than Levi, he sounds just like the rest of us pursuing Met degrees. It takes a unique skill set to do the job. I have no doubt he's as old as he says he is, because to know that much means he is in all likelihood "one of us" and his enthusiasm implies he has yet to see the "not fun" part of what we do. Had he been to college already, he wouldn't be nearly as enthusiastic .... It's worth it but it's not all fun, sorry Levi =P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
230

Thanks for the credible info.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
224

I'll go with "highly unlikely."

Lol what difference does it make? I see you harping on the same thing, what difference does it make if he's 12 or 72?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
212. 228. etc
bappit~
You all can flag this if you want. I'm just getting tired of seeing you question Levi32's age, and while I'm sure he can stand up for himself, I got something to say here.

Levi's been blogging at wu since the '06 Super Bowl. How do I know? I threw a little blog party that day because I was a Seahawk fan. So was Levi and he showed up at the party, as did a lot of other good bloggers. Most of us were shocked when he revealed to us a month or two later that he was a young teen and that his parents had thought it would be a better, maybe meaning safer, internet experience for him not to reveal that initially. He comes across on the blogs as more mature than his age. He always has. Not to mention, yeah I will mention, he understands a lot about the atmosphere and has a way of conveying his knowledge to others so they can understand what he's talking about.

And BahaHurican~Thanks for posting about the severe weather out your way.

bf out.

Ps. (Add) 1:31 GMT
This world needs scientists who think outside the box.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well, first little downpour is over. Will see if we get more as the night progresses.

Meanwhile, I'm out for the evening. Enjoy, all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
224

I'll go with "highly unlikely."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Plus I would like to say we have some pretty sophisticated teen writers on here, and the LEVEL of expression (though perhaps not the style) is not at all beyond them....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From A History of Pi by Petr Beckmann ...

Almost every country now has a law stating that no patent will be granted for an invention of a peptuum mobile of any kind. But neither man-made laws nor the laws of thermodynamics have stopped an army of mavericks from designing hundreds of versions of an alleged perpetuum mobile.

Similarly, in 1775 the Academie Francaise passed a resolution henceforth not to examine any more solutions of the problem of squaring the circle. But undaunted by either the Academy's resolution or Lindemann's proof, the circle squarers marched on; and they are still marching, spiteful of the cruel world that will not recognize their grand intellectual achievements. "The race of circle squarers," says Schubert, "will never dies out as long as ignorance and the thirst for glory remain united.

The 1897 Indiana legislature House unamimously passed a bill to set the value to 16/sqrt(3) = 9.2376... (!)The Senate of the legilature was prepared to pass the bill, too, when a math professor from Purdue saved the state.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
215

Read the whole quote. Would any high school kids you know write that?
I have read quite a bit of high school kids' writing over the years. Some of them would write like that. They tend to be ones who are relatively isolated from the "mainstream", ones who live with older parents or grandparents, or are more likely to be readers than TV watchers. There are a few out there.

I understand your point, but it doesn't mean it's impossible for a high school kid to produce such writing. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
223. beell
Quoting bappit:
215

Read the whole quote. Would any high school kids you know write that?


Are you still in high school?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Heavy rain started here (Nassau) about 5 minutes ago.


15 minutes ago nothing was happening.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:
The Democrats will see an Ice Age starting in November! When, an IceBerg hits them in November as there Ship Sinks!
TS, give us a break on the political jargon masquerading as bad wx metaphors, please. We understand ur political view, but not every single body on this blog is THAT fascinated w/ American politics....

Quoting TampaSpin:


Again, Typical General Pat stuff again. It never stops!

I posted something about Harressment and Attacks on the blog yesterday and the Adminstrator took it off. Wonder why?
Did you provide proof? Did u provide it to ADMIN? Otherwise it could read as simple libel or slander...

I can understand a little political enthusiasm at the height of a hotly contested presidential campaign, like the last one, but daily sniping from either side of the forum gets old and dreary after a while. Bad weather comes to us all, regardless of political affiliation, when all is said and done. Let's deal with that.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We used to talk about the legislature that voted to set PI=3.0. So much more convenient that way. Was that urban legend? Possibly even rural legend in its day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
219. xcool
:0
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nice blog entry. Shows there is a difference between disagreeing and just being closed minded and out of touch.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
215

Read the whole quote. Would any high school kids you know write that?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
214

Bad news.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
9

Levi just doesn't sound like a high school kid.

"Kinda one-sided though don't you think....calling for politicians to stay out of what they know nothing about, but being just fine with Al Gore, who is not a scientist, to do exactly the kind of things they condemn from the other side.

Publishing doesn't matter...he made a movie for crying out loud. He speaks to school children all the time. Just because he hasn't written a book doesn't mean he doesn't have an immense impact."


When is the last time your high school son or daughter said "for crying out loud"? I thought only parents said that.
Depends a lot on where, and with whom, the kid grows up. (and what music they like)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Evening everybody.

Yesterday's FL to NC system turned deadly in The Bahamas today when what is believed to be a tornado hit Grand Bahama around 11:30 a.m. Four workers at the container port were killed after a crane collapsed, and several others were injured. Severe weather warnings were posted for most of the NW Bahamas until 5 p.m., but storms that were expected to develop further south along the front and affect New Providence have not made an appearance.

While tornadic activity in the Bahamas is not unprecedented, it is quite unusual to experience more than the occasional waterspout here.


Storms over the NW Bahamas around 2 p. m., after the worst damage had occurred. The two northernmost islands are Grand Bahama, left, and Abaco, right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
...the mystery continues seems.

As the Entry Turns..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
9

Levi just doesn't sound like a high school kid.

"Kinda one-sided though don't you think....calling for politicians to stay out of what they know nothing about, but being just fine with Al Gore, who is not a scientist, to do exactly the kind of things they condemn from the other side.

Publishing doesn't matter...he made a movie for crying out loud. He speaks to school children all the time. Just because he hasn't written a book doesn't mean he doesn't have an immense impact."


When is the last time your high school son or daughter said "for crying out loud"? I thought only parents said that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Impressive to say the least for sure indianrivguy


TC Paul seems to be stuck in a Favored Area in the Doldrums,but is managing a good inflow from a Large Area..as well.

I wonder if Dr. Jeff Masters could give us a lil insight as to how its core is remaining in such good shape.

TC Paul Floater - Funktop Color Infrared Loop


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Those folks MUST be tired of getting pounded on.. the five day has it nearly in the same spot. I looked at storm history but it is blank... how long has Paul been there now.. 5-6 days
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TC Paul Viz Image,first Light



Rainbow Image



Dvorak

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Interesting article in the Times:

Scientists and Weathercasters at Odds on Warming

From the article:

"Resentment may also play a role in the divide. Climatologists are almost always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a doctoral degree is required. Most meteorologists, however, can get jobs as weather forecasters with a college degree.

“There is a little bit of elitist-versus-populist tensions,” Mr. Henson said. “There are meteorologists who feel, ‘Just because I have a bachelor’s degree doesn’t mean I don’t know what’s going on.’ ”

Whatever the reasons, meteorologists are far more likely to question the underlying science of climate change. A study published in the January 2009 newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000 climatologists who responded agreed that there is evidence of human-driven climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of meteorologists agreed with the statement. Only economic geologists who specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more skeptical."

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hahahahahahahahaha!

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
Thank you for that very nice compliment. However, Grothar learned a long time ago when to talk and when to take cover.

sounds like a wise married man to me...

;)


Practice makes perfect!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
205. DDR
Looks to me like the senate is stuck in a time warp,lets say somewhere in the past.

On another note,forest fires here in Trinidad have increased significantly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
Build your own tornado ? In prep for Tornado week, next week.

You can here and learn about the physics.

Pretty cool stuff. Note, you may have to install their supporting plug in, I did :)

http://intothetornado.com/

www.weather.com/intothetornado


I am actually building a vortex simulator at the request of a local elementary science teacher friend of mine. The prototype worked great. In fact, starting with a pan of boiling water, the vortex lasted for 30 some odd minutes without continual heating. The simulator uses natural draft to move the air vertically, and slots on the sides to produce the shear/rotation. She asked if I could teach a basic meteorology to about 50 screaming, I mean, well behaving students. I am also going to demonstrate warm/cold fluid masses meeting, as well as heating a container of air on a balance to show buoyancy. I am actually quite excited about the presentation. Take care and be safe all.

Very Respectfully,

Jon
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
203. xcool
Weather Underground for Chrome Provides Simple, Instant Weather Updates cool .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you for that very nice compliment. However, Grothar learned a long time ago when to talk and when to take cover.

sounds like a wise married man to me...

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
201. xcool
Grothar What type of map
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting xcool:
i'm back


Hey xcool. I think we could all use one of your images of what to expect on the East Coast storm this week. Got any intesting forecast maps?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
199. xcool
i'm back
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Build your own tornado ? In prep for Tornado week, next week.

You can here and learn about the physics.

Pretty cool stuff. Note, you may have to install their supporting plug in, I did :)

http://intothetornado.com/

www.weather.com/intothetornado
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
Hey Grothar. Ready for the season?

Thinking about firing up my generator early this year. I usually wait until mid to late May.


How are you doing Seastep? I am very ready. My generator is a built-in and cycles on every Saturday at 5:00 P.M. Just had all my trees trimmed and shutters cleaned and serviced. A lot of people don't realize they have to be maintained. I do believe we are going to have a very active season. The reason I know this is that all my banana trees are sprouting new shoots all over the place; and we all know what that means!!!!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nyhurricaneboy:
I wonder where Grothar is. He is very knowledgeable in the area of global warming, and I'm sure he'd provide a nice supplement to this discussion.


Thank you for that very nice compliment. However, Grothar learned a long time ago when to talk and when to take cover. At the moment I am in a long retreat. Some things are just not worth discussing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey Grothar. Ready for the season?

Thinking about firing up my generator early this year. I usually wait until mid to late May.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There was a spike in winds at the Settlement Point station Link around 11 am...don't know if that was related.

Anyone on here based on Grand Bahama?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
New series on Nat Geo starting Sunday.

Link

Wonder what Ramses' carbon footprint was? ;)

On another note regarding competing theories, they're going to start trying to smash 'em tomorrow.

Link

Thankfully those on both sides of the current competing theories do not simply discount the other side. Exclusionary science is bad science.

In this case it would be Higgs boson advocates (the majority view) and string theory.

String theory requires more than three dimensions, yet we cannot perceive in more than three. Why, imo, the majority opinion at the moment is leaning towards Higgs boson.

As a quick illustration for the layman, take a two dimensional being vs. a three dimensional being. A square and a sphere. Since the square can only perceive in two dimensions, when the sphere says "I'm a sphere," the square says "No you are not. You are a circle" because the square can only perceive in two dimensions. But that doesn't make the sphere a circle.


Hey Seastep. I was told the same thing by Ann Anderbow and her beaux, Beau. He was a real square, too!.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
191. tornadofan 9:26 PM GMT on March 29, 2010

Yah. Just got that news, that's the next island over (Grand Bahama). We're just now getting the main part of the front here.

I've seen a lot of waterspouts here, but never a tornado. No wonder the dogs were almost frantic to get inside.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 242 - 192

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog 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

Overcast
29 °F
Overcast