Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:09 PM GMT on October 27, 2010

Share this Blog
10
+

Tornadoes, violent thunderstorms, and torrential rains swept through a large portion of the nation's midsection yesterday, thanks to the strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest. NOAA's Storm Prediction Center logged 24 tornado reports and 282 reports of damaging high winds from yesterday's spectacular storm, and the storm continues to produce a wide variety of wild weather, with tornado watches posted for Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, a blizzard warning for North Dakota, high wind warnings for most of the upper Midwest, and near-hurricane force winds on Lake Superior.

The mega-storm reached peak intensity late yesterday afternoon over Minnesota, resulting in the lowest barometric pressure readings ever recorded in the continental United States, except for from hurricanes and nor'easters affecting the Atlantic seaboard. So far, it appears the lowest reading (now official) was a pressure of 28.21" (955.2 mb) reduced to sea level reported from Bigfork, Minnesota at 5:13pm CDT. Other extreme low pressures from Minnesota during yesterday's storm included 28.22" (956 mb) at Orr at 5:34pm CDT, 28.23" at International Falls (3:45pm), and 28.23" at Waskuh at 5:52pm. The 28.23" (956mb) reading from International Falls yesterday obliterated their previous record of 28.70" set on Nov. 11, 1949 by nearly one-half inch of mercury--a truly amazing anomaly. Duluth's 28.36" (961 mb) reading smashed their old record of 28.48" (964 mb) set on Nov. 11, 1998. Wisconsin also recorded its lowest barometric pressure in history yesterday, with a 28.36" (961 mb) reading at Superior. The old record was 28.45" (963.4 mb) at Green Bay on April 3, 1982. The previous state record for Minnesota was 28.43" (963 mb) at Albert Lea and Austin on Nov. 10, 1998.


Figure 1. Visible satellite image of the October 26, 2010 superstorm taken at 5:32pm EDT. At the time, Bigfork, Minnesota was reporting the lowest pressure ever recorded in a U.S. non-coastal storm, 955 mb. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

Yesterday's records in context
Yesterday's 28.21" (955 mb) low pressure reading in Minnesota breaks not only the 28.28" (958 mb) previous "USA-interior-of-the-continent-record" from Cleveland, Ohio during the Great Ohio Storm of Jan. 26, 1978 (a lower reading in Canada during this event bottomed out at an amazing 28.05"/950 mb), but also the lowest pressure ever measured anywhere in the continental United States aside from the Atlantic Coast. The modern Pacific Coast record is 28.40" (962mb) at Quillayute, Washington on Dec. 1, 1987. An older reading, taken on a ship offshore from the mouth of the Umpqua River in Oregon during the famous "Storm King" event on January 9, 1880, was 28.20" (954.9 mb)--slightly lower than the 2010 storm.

The lowest non-hurricane barometric pressure reading in the lower 48 states is 28.10" (952 mb) measured at Bridgehampton, New York (Long Island) during an amazing nor'easter on March 1, 1914 (see Kocin and Uccellini, "Northeast Snowstorms; Vol. 2., p. 324, American Meteorological Society, 2004.) The lowest non-hurricane barometric pressure reading from anywhere in the United States was a 27.35" (927 mb) reading at Dutch Harbor, Alaska on Oct. 25, 1977. The lowest hurricane pressure reading was the 26.34" (892 mb) recorded in 1935 during the Great Labor Day Hurricane.


Figure 2. Storm reports received by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center from the October 26, 2010 superstorm.

The six most intense storms in history to affect the Great Lakes
According to the Chicago branch of the National Weather Service and Christopher C. Burt, our Weather Records blogger, the following are the six lowest pressures measured in the U.S. Great Lakes region:

1. Yesterday's October 26, 2010 Superstorm (955 mb/28.20")
2. Great Ohio Blizzard January 26, 1978 (958 mb/28.28")
3. Armistice Day Storm November 11, 1940 (967 mb/28.55")
4. November 10, 1998 storm (967 mb/ 28.55")
5. White Hurricane of November 7 - 9, 1913 (968 mb/28.60")
6. Edmund Fitzgerald Storm of November 10, 1975 (980 mb/28.95")

So, the famed storm that sank the ore carrier Edmund Fitzgerald in 1974, killing all 29 sailors aboard, was weaker than the current storm. Indeed, I wouldn't want to be on a boat in Lake Superior today--sustained winds at the Rock of Ages lighthouse on Isle Royale were a sustained 68 mph, gusting to 78 mph at 3am EDT this morning!

Yet Another Remarkable Mid-latitude Cyclone so far this Year!
Yesterday's superstorm is reminiscent of the amazing low pressures reached earlier this year (Jan. 19-22) in the West, where virtually every site in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, southern Oregon, and southern Idaho--about 10 - 15% of the U.S. land area--broke their lowest on record pressure readings. However, the lowest readings from that event fell well short of yesterday's mega-storm with 28.85" (977 mb) being about the lowest recorded at any onshore site.

Commentary
We've now had two remarkable extratropical storms this year in the U.S. that have smashed all-time low pressure records across a large portion of the country. Is this a sign that these type of storms may be getting stronger? Well, there is evidence that wintertime extratropical storms have grown in intensity in the Pacific, Arctic, and Great Lakes in recent decades. I discuss the science in detail in a post I did earlier this year. Here is an excerpt from that post:

General Circulation Models (GCMs) like the ones used in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report do a very good job simulating how winter storms behave in the current climate, and we can run simulations of the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases to see how winter storms will behave in the future. The results are very interesting. Global warming is expected to warm the poles more than the equatorial regions. This reduces the difference in temperature between the pole and Equator. Since winter storms form in response to the atmosphere's need to transport heat from the Equator to the poles, this reduced temperature difference reduces the need for winter storms, and thus the models predict fewer storms will form. However, since a warmer world increases the amount of evaporation from the surface and puts more moisture in the air, these future storms drop more precipitation. During the process of creating that precipitation, the water vapor in the storm must condense into liquid or frozen water, liberating "latent heat"--the extra heat that was originally added to the water vapor to evaporate it in the first place. This latent heat intensifies the winter storm, lowering the central pressure and making the winds increase. So, the modeling studies predict a future with fewer total winter storms, but a greater number of intense storms. These intense storms will have more lift, and will thus tend to drop more precipitation--including snow, when we get areas of strong lift in the -15°C preferred snowflake formation region.

Invest 90L
A low pressure system (Invest 90L) in the middle Atlantic Ocean has developed a broad circulation, but has very limited heavy thunderstorm activity. NHC is giving 90L a 10% of developing into a tropical depression by Friday. Another area of disturbed weather a few hundred miles west of 90L is disorganized, and is also being given a 10% chance of developing.

Next update
I'll have an update on Thursday morning. I'm at the National Hurricane Center in Miami this week, as part of their visiting scientist program, and hopefully the weather in the rest of the country will slow down enough so I can write about goings-on here at the Hurricane Center!

Christopher C. Burt is responsible for most of the content of this post, with the exception of the commentary, which I wrote.

Jeff Masters

The Big Blow! (pjpix)
This photo and the other in my series were both take from the same spot ... just different directions and just a representative scene mirroring so many others here in the midwest. These were taken yesterday morning right after the thunderstorm front had gone through but the winds continued to increase in intensity as the barometer dropped ... to a record low in some midwest spots. The big Blow was the equivlant of a Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricane and indeed a very unusual storm in the upper midwest for this time of the year.
The Big Blow!
Cell Rotation Animation (SunsetSailor)
Gif Created on Make A Gif
Cell Rotation Animation
()
Disappearing Pier 5 (mactoot)
I posted a video of continuous hits at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpWF-dXwU
Disappearing Pier 5
October Storm (cambuck1)
October Storm

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: 498 - 448

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting KerryInNOLA:
The Key question in the whole GW debate is do greenhouse gasses cause warming. Think Venus. Ask those who would like to terraform Mars also


And if GHGs don't cause warming...who's gonna tell the physicists?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:


Methinks thou doth complain too much.


"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AEKDB1990:
Still waiting for the source of the buildings in Greenland being uncovered by retreating glaciers, as VABeachHurricanes promised.
wait till ya got to wait for the gold at the end of the rainbow
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:God helps those that help themselves.
Just a thought....


LOL

Don't get me started on God! ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:


You show yourself for who you are. Circumventing a perma-ban is a no-no. Do you live on Simon's Island? Gottcha. Admin, please take note.
please dont quote the trol...

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HEY RICH...THE GAME IS UP..YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL TROLL...BUSTED!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
pertified trees of tropical origin found in high artic of canada where they come from


KOG that's easy. Everyone knows that half of Canada vacations in Florida. They obviously brought some species back with them.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 2146
Quoting Birthmark:


The Earth will go on, as everyone probably agrees.

What will happen to humanity is the subject under discussion. And that depends upon what actions, if any, we undertake to alleviate the problem.

My personal guess is that we won't do much until it is too late to avoid some pretty serious consequences...unless we get "lucky" and some sort of limited disaster forces us to face facts. If we don't get "lucky", then my guess is that in the 2030s civilization will begin to collapse due to massive food and water shortages. (Again, my guess based on the science.)

Anyone who thinks that the ideas proposed to deal with AGW are tyranny...well, just wait until you see the outcome of NOT dealing with AGW now.


I'll take my chances.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 2146
Quoting txngeo:

Greenland was a tropical country because it was located near the tropics during the Cretaceous and was moving northward due to plate tectonics. Animations of the plate motions can be found Link" target="_blank">here
All I am saying is that the tropical fauna in that article was described as being Cretaceous in age, which is very consistent with where Greenland was at that time (over 65 million years ago) and has no relavence to the current GW debate.
pertified trees of tropical origin found in high artic of canada where they come from
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


Science doesn't "prove" things.

That said, virtually all of the science is on one side of this issue --the current warming is largely the result of human activity. To believe anything else one must discount the science and believe in half-formed fairy tales.

It is a fact that the Earth has a radiation imbalance, making it warmer.

It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is a fact that CO2 is a by-product of combustion of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that we are burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased by >30% over the last 150 years or so.

It is a fact that the isotopic ratio of C13/C12 is decreasing --indicating an increase in "old" carbon.

All of that is consistent with AGW theory.

It is also a fact that no other explanation is scientifically plausible.


Which reminds me of a story--
A man got down on his knees and prayed, to win the lotto.
He did not win.
He prayed again.
Ditto.
This went on for several weeks.
Then a Loud Voice addressed him and said "Man, I am prepared to help, you know. But you HAVE to buy a ticket"

God helps those that help themselves.
Just a thought....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
Quoting AEKDB1990:


Nope.


Oh, I think I hit the mark. Methinks thou doth complain too much. I see you sport.

FL weather still very humid.
Member Since: July 23, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 12414
Eep -- I seem to be attempting to break the record for the greatest average number of words per post. Sorry for the epic walls of text folks... the curse of being passionate about things, and typing fast enough to create streams of consciousness...

@476 -- wow -- the eye is amazing! awesome images!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Has their ever been 3 invest get named on the same day? That would kick azz.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

Brilliant.
But you do realize that you are calling on The People to close down the Party, right?



I am afraid that it will not happen.
Even if things get progressively worse, it aint our fault....
Prepare....


I realize that it is inferred that the party must close down. But that inference displays a remarkable lack of imagination and confidence, imo.

But even if it does indicate that the party must end...well, most parties do end once the house catches fire. Even the good parties.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country.
Link

Greenland was a tropical country because it was located near the tropics during the Cretaceous and was moving northward due to plate tectonics. Animations of the plate motions can be found Link" target="_blank">here
All I am saying is that the tropical fauna in that article was described as being Cretaceous in age, which is very consistent with where Greenland was at that time (over 65 million years ago) and has no relavence to the current GW debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok I've had it with the liberals here talking about GW. Get some scientifical facts behind your empty claims about today 50 high temp records were broken.

LEARN a little bit about atmospheric chemistry and calculate the molecular weight of air by taking a weighted average of its main componenets and fractional element ratios to the molecule. Off course I'm not going to give you the elements, fractional ratios, formulas, Or M(kg / mole values). If you wanna learn get a book! Anyways, after you do all this and find the molecular weight of CO2 you will realize that the greater molecular weight of CO2 WILL NOT allow it to levitate over the air we breathe as we know it and will stay down on the bottom for plants to use as food for photosynthesis. So your greenhouse effect just got flushed down the toilet. These liberals go as far as saying that the CO2 exhaled by breathing living organisms is contributing to this. I love them!

Wanna argue about oxygen displacement by proportionate CO2 molecule production? Maybe true, some studies support that BUT more studies have suggested that a large fraction of this CO2 is absorbed by oceans. Plants use CO2 for basic photosynthesis and guess what the waste product is you guessed it! Oxygen..... Believe you me, if we were in such a high risk someone would have figured out the proportional CO2 to O2 displacement and there would be a very accurate time frame before O2 depletion would get below acceptable values for human substincense so everyone could walk around with an oxygen tank.

I notice the liberals never mention when a record low temp pops up but that is expected from their manipulating propaganda.

Climate is changing? Sure it is! How many times in earth's history has this happened before? Again, go get a book!

What other arguments do you all make? I'm asking fact based arguments not opinions made in the Clinton News Network (CNN)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
Neo, love your science, but again, you lack the art to "prove" your point. You quote very reputable people that do not participate in this blog. Others quote every bit as much reutable people. To have a debate, each must accept that the other point is possible and PROVE the other not possible. Neither has succeded in such proof, at least not here. You set forth your science but ignore the other science based on your belief. The art is to convince the other side that their science in wrong and yours in right. As long as you use terms such as "intentionally missing" your art will not convince others of your science...


Just a minor pedantic point... one of the problems with the presentation of science these days is the whole issue of proof.

The problem is that, when you're at school (certainly, when I grew up in the UK), you're presented with science as fact, and talk about things being proved (e.g. Newtonian gravity has beeen proved). Similarly, when you see science portrayed in the media, you get the same thing ("Global warming proved by new result!" "Global warming disproved by new results!"). It makes for good, combative stories, and all seems straight forward.

The problem is, at least from where I stand, that science just doesn't work that way. You can never prove a theory.

So - gravity. Good example. We have the theory of Newtonian Gravitation. Good old F = GMm/r^2 -- what you throw up, will fall down. You're taught this at school as fact. It happens. Go on -- throw an apple in the air. Using Newtonian physics, you can predict how high it'll go, how far you'll throw it, all the rest (ballistics, basically).

Well, there are two points with that -- firstly, it's a theory, not a fact. The difference is a fact (something proven) is absolute, while a theory is something that needs testing to destruction. You throw apples in the air time and time again, and each time they behave as you expect, that's another boost to the theory, meaning you can place more weight on it, and people are more confident using it to make predictions. However, all you need is for one apple to behave differently, and the theory comes crashing down, and you need to develop a new one.

That's where the whole media "proof/certainty" thing becomes a real bugbear of mine (and hence caused this rant - sorry folks!). The minute the apple behaves differently, scientists go "Oooh -- interesting... something we need to investigate. We need a new theory". The media goes "Scientists proved wrong!" "Scientists lied to us!", and build conflict. People's trust of scientists goes down ("If they were wrong on this, how can we EVER trust them"), and that opens the door for cranks, crackpots, and contrarians to play on that. It upsets me (had you guessed? :D).

So, a theory can never conclusively be "proved", but it can be shown to be flawed, or an incomplete explanation of the facts, or just plain wrong.

It's also the difference between science and faith, but that's a whole different argument, and I'm staying well clear ;)



Oh, and for the record, Newtonian physics has been proved wrong. The apple did misbehave. Or, rather, Mercury did. The rate at which Mercury's orbit precesses (think a spinning top slowing down - it's axis precesses, and the top wobbles) doesn't fit with that predicted by Newtonian Physics. So we need a better model. Fortunately, we have one -- General Relativity. When you take into account the effect of relativity, the precession rate of Mercury drops out perfectly (or, rather, is accurate to the best precision we can measure it). The reason we still use Newtonian physics (which I use all the time in my Solar system dynamics work) is that it is far, far simpler, and, in most cases (when relativity isn't important) gives results that are indistinguishable from the real world.

---------------------

Long rant, and very off topic, I'm sure -- but the whole scientific proof/scientific fact thing really bugs me, and the disparity between how we're taught, and how things actually works, is one of the most widely used tools in the scientific denier's armoury (whether it's creationists arguing against evolution, astrologer's arguing for their trade, or professional deniers arguing against AGW).

AGW is a theory, and it does a far better job of explaining all the observations than any other theory out there. For that reason, I, personally, think we should be seriously looking into the possible effects of climate change, and doing all we can to minimise our future influence on the Earth's climate.

It might well be that, in a month, or a year, or a decade, results/observations come in that conclusively disprove AGW. In that case, I'll hold my hat up, admit I was wrong, and hope people find a better theory that explains the data. That's how science works :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Well, then, I guess you and I will have to disagree here, if on no other point than on our own personal definitions of the word "reputable". Cheers...
If you're going to quote me, then quote me completely, don't cherry pick. I'm questioning your art, not your science. Both are required to "prove" a point. You lack half of the requirement in my opinion. Weather by the numbers must be conveyed by someone with art to be believed or accepted. You are probably the only blogger here that has the potential to convince the "non-believers" (your term). Lack of labels and agenda could work...just suggesting
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
Neo, love your science, but again, you lack the art to "prove" your point. You quote very reputable people that do not participate in this blog. Others quote every bit as much reutable people. To have a debate, each must accept that the other point is possible and PROVE the other not possible. Neither has succeded in such proof, at least not here. You set forth your science but ignore the other science based on your belief. The art is to convince the other side that their science in wrong and yours in right. As long as you use terms such as "intentionally missing" your art will not convince others of your science...


Science doesn't "prove" things.

That said, virtually all of the science is on one side of this issue --the current warming is largely the result of human activity. To believe anything else one must discount the science and believe in half-formed fairy tales.

It is a fact that the Earth has a radiation imbalance, making it warmer.

It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It is a fact that CO2 is a by-product of combustion of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that we are burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

It is a fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased by >30% over the last 150 years or so.

It is a fact that the isotopic ratio of C13/C12 is decreasing --indicating an increase in "old" carbon.

All of that is consistent with AGW theory.

It is also a fact that no other explanation is scientifically plausible.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
new satellite IR image showing convection beginning to form on the east side of center
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stoormfury:
latest sat pics show 91L getting better organised and moving north of west. Pottery it looks like some excitement tor trinidad abd southern windwards this weekend

Indeed!
Looking to see how those westerlies in the upper levels behave over the next couple of days.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
Quoting AEKDB1990:


I heard you've stolen people's pictures from here and put them on nasty sites, CaneVet. And that's not a lie. I have heard it.

Seriously out for the night. Have fun y'all.


You show yourself for who you are. Circumventing a perma-ban is a no-no. Do you live on Simon's Island? Gottcha. Admin, please take note.
Member Since: July 23, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 12414
Quoting Birthmark:


The Earth will go on, as everyone probably agrees.

What will happen to humanity is the subject under discussion. And that depends upon what actions, if any, we undertake to alleviate the problem.

My personal guess is that we won't do much until it is too late to avoid some pretty serious consequences...unless we get "lucky" and some sort of limited disaster forces us to face facts. If we don't get "lucky", then my guess is that in the 2030s civilization will begin to collapse due to massive food and water shortages. (Again, my guess based on the science.)

Anyone who thinks that the ideas proposed to deal with AGW are tyranny...well, just wait until you see the outcome of NOT dealing with AGW now.

Brilliant.
But you do realize that you are calling on The People to close down the Party, right?
I am afraid that it will not happen.
Even if things get progressively worse, it aint our fault....
Prepare....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
latest sat pics show 91L getting better organised and moving north of west. Pottery it looks like some excitement tor trinidad abd southern windwards this weekend
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Post 463, very good.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
Quoting scott39:
Ok-- I get it The planet is warming--How long do we have, because man is not going to change the way we are doing things on Earth. Also the Earth was rockin and rollin long before man was here. So with all the scientific evidence we have on global warming, what is the expiration date on man and will the Earth continue to go on or will it expire with man also?


The Earth will go on, as everyone probably agrees.

What will happen to humanity is the subject under discussion. And that depends upon what actions, if any, we undertake to alleviate the problem.

My personal guess is that we won't do much until it is too late to avoid some pretty serious consequences...unless we get "lucky" and some sort of limited disaster forces us to face facts. If we don't get "lucky", then my guess is that in the 2030s civilization will begin to collapse due to massive food and water shortages. (Again, my guess based on the science.)

Anyone who thinks that the ideas proposed to deal with AGW are tyranny...well, just wait until you see the outcome of NOT dealing with AGW now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
You quote very reputable people that do not participate in this blog. Others quote every bit as much reutable people.

Well, then, I guess you and I will have to disagree here, if on no other point than on our own personal definitions of the word "reputable". Cheers...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
18Z HWRF on 91L Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


It has been proven the Norse reached at least 75N and today that is hard to do even with our modern technology. Its just one of those things, they grew their own crops there at one point, as stories tell on runic stones found all the way back to 1135. So there is much supporting evidence that it has been warmer before.


My parents live on the Isle of Skye, on the north-west coast of Scotland (they are about 57.3 degrees north). Despite their latitude, they rarely get snow, and in fact, I believe there a palm trees growing just down the coast from them.

The climate on Skye (aside from being wet/windy most of the time) is remarkably clement/temperate for somewhere at that latitude - the result of the gulf stream ploughing into the UK.

The fact it is so clement there is not evidence of global warming. The fact that the palm trees were planted (if I recall correctly) in the 1800s is not evidence that Skye was warmer in the past, or that the 1800s were as warm as now.

Skye is just a small part of the global climate. It's an unusual part, and the effects of any putative climate change there will not be the same, necessarily, as the effects elsewhere. Similarly, the past history of Skye's climate, while interesting, are just a tiny part of the overall picture of global climate.

Now why have I gone off topic to such a degree? Well, I don't know much about Greenland - but as far as I remember, the areas that were inhabited in the past are a thin strip around the edge. A small area, therefore. It doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that such a small area may well have had a different climate in the past (and may even have been more clement, e.g. during the medieval warm period) than it is today. Most climate models actually show areas that will behave unusually if the planet warms.

---------------

Because I know I waffle on and get distracted, here's a TLDR summary :D

Climate data from small areas (whether it shows warming or cooling, or anything unusual) can't be used as an argument for, or against, global warming. It's the global changes that are important. It is quite possible that Greenland was warmer, and more habitable, 1000 years ago, than it is today. It's equally possible (say), that Skye was colder, and less habitable at that time. Both of them are small areas, single data points on a global picture. So one place being a bit warmer in the past (which is under debate) does not bring AGW arguments tumbling down, no more than the fact that palm trees can survive in north-west Scotland suggests that the 1800s were warmer than today.

Hope that makes some sense ;) Just bothers me intensely when people on either side of the GW argument use single small cases to argue the other side has to be wrong! We have to look at the big picture, not just focus on localised oddities - however interesting they are.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tornado warning out for hampton roads area. First one for them today.


BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA
939 PM EDT WED OCT 27 2010

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN WAKEFIELD HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
NORTHEASTERN ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
EXTREME SOUTHEASTERN YORK COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
CITY OF HAMPTON IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
SOUTHEASTERN CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...
SOUTHERN CITY OF POQUOSON IN SOUTHEAST VIRGINIA...

* UNTIL 1030 PM EDT

* AT 935 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS
STORM WAS LOCATED NEAR SMITHFIELD...AND MOVING EAST AT 35 MPH.

* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
LANGLEY AFB...HAMPTON...BATTERY PARK...RESCUE...BEACONSDALE...
NORTHAMPTON...FORT MONROE...BUCKROE BEACH...GRAND VIEW...BENNS
CHURCH...MOGARTS BEACH...CARROLLTON...HILTON VILLAGE...RALEIGH
TERRACE...LANGLEY VIEW...PHOEBUS...MESSICK...HALLWOOD AND FOX HILL.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE HOME...A VEHICLE... OR
OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND PROTECT
YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.
Member Since: September 2, 2006 Posts: 110 Comments: 6878
Quoting help4u:
A NEW ARTICLE OUT TODAY SAID GLOBAL WARMING CREATED THE EARTH 200 MILLION YEARS AGO AND THAT EVERY 50 MILLION YEARS IT HAPPENS AGAIN THUS CREATING THE OTHER PLANETS,SCIENTIEST SAY THAT IF IT IS NOT STOPPED WE WILL HAVE TOO NUKE OTHER PLANETS BEFORE THEY BLOCK THE SUN.THIS COULD BE THE END WE ALL ARE FEARFUL IS COMING!

Thank the Gods, for Rum....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
Quoting Neapolitan:

Simply awesome. +10^100

Please back this up with some facts!
I don't recall seeing a Socialist and Atheist only clause on Dr. Masters Blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
458. JLPR2
90L looks like a sheared TS now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AEKDB1990:


I'm looking back at where I've used that word today. Yesterday too. Can't find it.

I guess a holocaust denier is not bigoted in your mind. We'll just have to disagree there.


You've used that word a lot. "Comment removed" doesn't qualify as not uttering it.
Member Since: July 23, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 12414
Quoting Neapolitan:

You seem to be (intentionally?) missing my point, so perhaps I made it too obscure for you. Please allow me to try again: those who believe in the Easter Bunny have no scientific backing. Those who believe the planet isn't warming have no scientific backing. Was that comparison clearer? ;-)
Neo, love your science, but again, you lack the art to "prove" your point. You quote very reputable people that do not participate in this blog. Others quote every bit as much reutable people. To have a debate, each must accept that the other point is possible and PROVE the other not possible. Neither has succeded in such proof, at least not here. You set forth your science but ignore the other science based on your belief. The art is to convince the other side that their science in wrong and yours in right. As long as you use terms such as "intentionally missing" your art will not convince others of your science...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is very strange, how the Atlantic has replaced the Caribbean as the area of action recently.
Throws Climatology right out the window............
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
Quoting stormpetrol:
+100

Look like you might get some rain and squalls from 91L at the very least if it holds together.

Looking forward to some rain!
It has been strangely dry for a couple of weeks (scattered showers, nothing heavy) which is unusual for now.
The strong upper level Westerly winds are doing a job on the area though...
Another wave coming off Africa as well. Good!
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
450. stormpetrol
1:37 AM GMT on October 28, 2010
Quoting pottery:
So, are we prepared to maintain the status quo, on the possible chance that the people who argue for a reduction in emissions are wrong?
Or do we attempt to reduce emissions, in case they are right?

Before you answer the above, know that it is possible that it may be more difficult to correct the situation later, rather than sooner, if correction is needed.

The fact that some areas of the Earth were once warmer than they are now, is, frankly, a ridiculous argument in any discussion about anything to do with current GW.
+100

Look like you might get some rain and squalls from 91L at the very least if it holds together.
Member Since: April 29, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 7929
449. pottery
1:34 AM GMT on October 28, 2010
Quoting Neapolitan:
The latest from ATCF:

90L: 30 knots | 1008 mb | 26.9N / 40.9W
91L: 25 knots | 1008 mb | 06.0N / 44.7W
92L: 25 knots | 1010 mb | 22.9N / 55.3W
------------------------------
I just noticed that cell rotation animation above. Amazing!

Me too. I dont think it was there before...
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24373
448. Neapolitan
1:33 AM GMT on October 28, 2010
Quoting SuperTyphoonLionrock:
Coincidentally, today is Climate Fools Day.

Happy Climate Fools' Day!



Delingpole's been making up both his own "science" and his own facts for a long time, so making up his own holiday isn't really a very big deal...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549

Viewing: 498 - 448

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog 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.