CSU and TSR predict an extremely active 2011 Atlantic hurricane season

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 12:54 PM GMT on December 09, 2010

Share this Blog
4
+

A continuation of the pattern of much above-average Atlantic hurricane activity we've seen since 1995 is on tap for 2011, according to the latest seasonal forecast issued Wednesday by Dr. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University (CSU). They are calling for 17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 5 intense hurricanes. An average season has 10 - 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 intense hurricanes. The new forecast is a very aggressive one, since only six seasons since 1851 have had as many as 17 named storms; 19 seasons have had 9 or more hurricanes. The 2011 forecast calls for a much above-average chance of a major hurricane hitting the U.S., both along the East Coast (49% chance, 31% chance is average) and the Gulf Coast (48% chance, 30% chance is average). The Caribbean is forecast to have a 62% chance of seeing at least one major hurricane (42% is average.) Five years with similar pre-season November atmospheric and oceanic conditions were selected as "analogue" years that the 2011 hurricane season may resemble: 2008, 1999, 1989, 1961, and 1956. The average activity for these years was 12 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes.

The forecasters cited several reasons for their forecast of a much above-average season:

1) Unusually warm sea surface temperatures continue in the tropical Atlantic this fall, an indication that the active hurricane period we have been in since 1995 will continue (in technical terms, the positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO, will continue.) SSTs in Atlantic Main Development Region (MDR) for hurricanes, from the Caribbean eastwards to the coast of Africa, were at a record high in October (November data are not yet available.)

2) Hurricane activity in the Atlantic is lowest during El Niño years and highest during La Niña or neutral years. This occurs because El Niño events tend to increase westerly upper-level winds over the tropical Atlantic, bringing high wind shear harmful for hurricanes. The CSU team notes that we are currently experiencing moderate to strong La Niña conditions, with an unusual amount of cool water present in the top 300 meters of the Equatorial Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America. Since 1979, only eight years have had similar amounts of cool water in November. The hurricane seasons that followed each of those eight years were unable to transition to El Niño conditions. Thus, the CSU team expects that we will have neutral or La Niña conditions in place for the Atlantic hurricane season of 2011, which should act to keep wind shear values average to below average, enhancing hurricane activity. Of the 16 El Niño/La Niña computer models that made November predictions for the July-August-September 2011 portion of hurricane season (Figure 1), only 4 (25%) predicted that El Niño would arrive.

How accurate are the December forecasts?
The CSU real-time December forecasts did not shown any skill over the period 1992 - 2007, so the forecast scheme was overhauled and a new scheme implemented for the forecasts made for the 2008 - 2010 hurricane seasons. This new scheme showed some decent skill in those three years, with skill levels 18%, 10%, and 30% above chance for predicting the number of named storms, hurricanes, and intense hurricanes, respectively. Still, three years is too short of a time period to evaluate the skill of these December forecasts, and we should view the latest forecast as an experimental research product. Last year's December forecast for the 2010 hurricane season predicted 13.5 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 4 intense hurricanes. The actual numbers were 19 named storms, 12 hurricanes, and 5 intense hurricanes.


Figure 1. Forecasts of El Niño conditions by 20 computer models, made in November 2010. The longest range forecasts for July-August-September (JAS) at the right side of the image show that 4 models predict weak El Niño conditions, 7 predict neutral conditions, and 5 predict a weak to moderate La Niña. El Niño conditions are defined as occurring when sea surface temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific off the coast of South America (the "Niño 3.4 region) rise to 0.5°C above average (top red line). La Niña conditions occur when SSTs in this region fall to 0.5°C below average. Image credit: Columbia University.

2011 Atlantic hurricane season forecast from Tropical Storm Risk, Inc.
The British private forecasting firm Tropical Storm Risk, Inc. (TSR), issued their 2011 Atlantic hurricane season forecast on Monday. They are also calling for a very active year: 15.6 named storms, 8.4 hurricanes, and 4 intense hurricanes. TSR predicts a 66% chance of an above-average hurricane season, 22% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 12% chance of a below normal season. TSR bases their December forecast on predictions that sea surface temperatures next fall in the tropical Atlantic will be above about 0.3°C above average, and trade wind speeds will be about 0.7 m/s slower than average. The trade wind speed prediction is based on a forecast for a weak La Niña in August-September 2011.

I like how TSR puts their skill level right next to the forecast numbers: 2% skill above chance at forecasting the number of named storms, 1% skill for hurricanes, and 7% skill for intense hurricanes. That's not much skill, and really, we have to wait until the June 1 forecasts by CSU, NOAA, and TSR to get a forecast with reasonable skill.

Comparing 2005 and 2010 steering currents
The U.S. got extremely fortunate during the 2010 hurricane season that the steering currents carried most of the storms out to sea, or forced them to the south. A very graphic way of looking at this is to compare the amount of rain that fell due to tropical cyclones in the Atlantic in 2005 versus 2010 (Figure 2.) The U.S. received a direct hit only from Tropical Storm Bonnie, which hit South Florida as a minimal 40 mph tropical storm and caused no significant damage. TSR is predicting that this luck will not hold in 2010; they project that five named storms will hit the U.S., with two of these being hurricanes.


Figure 2. Rainfall amounts due to all Atlantic tropical cyclones in 2005 and 2010, as measured by NASA's TRMM satellite. Steering currents in 2010 tended to recurve many storms out to sea between the Caribbean and Bermuda, due to a large number of unusually strong troughs of low pressure moving off the U.S. East Coast.

Weekend winter storm for Eastern U.S.
The latest 06Z (1am EST) set of computer model forecasts for this weekend's winter storm over the Midwest and Eastern U.S. point towards a more northerly path for the storm, bringing the axis of heaviest snow through Wisconsin and Michigan. There is still a great deal of uncertainty in the predicted timing and strength of the storm, but a renewed blast of cold air Monday and Tuesday over the Southeast U.S. is still highly likely in the wake of the storm.

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: 181 - 131

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

BTW, McBill, having read the second paragraph of your post again, I don't think we r that far apart in our thinking.... my idea is that we need to consider how to deal w/ potential effects instead of arguing over what seems to be the likely effect. As example, in the Bible, it only took a 7-year famine to change the history of the Israeli/Jewish pple... so even a 50-year "blip" of climate change could have serious impacts on world affairs...
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
Quoting atmoaggie:
I can assure you that science is all about being skeptical until hard, non-circumstantial evidence is presented to support any hypothesis and/or theory. Period.

I agree with you. And so far as AGW theory is concerned, there are piles of "hard, non-circumstantial evidence" to bolster it--the reason my initial skepticism morphed into support many years ago, and continues to solidify each day and with every new piece of evidence.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
but Jerry, you're a peace loving Hippie.....

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:


You think that it might have something to do with the fact that the planet is getting warmer? And how does this well documented warming phenomenon become "so-called" in your book? Not a fan of science, I guess.

There's no question that the consequences of our uncontrolled experiment with altering the composition of our atmosphere will amount to less than a blip in the history of the planet but I somehow take little consolation in that. Call me selfish, but I'm much more concerned about effects on our civilization. It's wouldn't take much of a change in climate to make agriculture west of the 100th meridian impractical. I'm afraid that the consequences of that happening now would be many times more serious than what we saw during the Dust Bowl years. I'm sure that we, the human race, would survive it but the disruption could be catastrophic.



Re the bold line.... nah, I'm more a fan of language and music... kinda explains my presence here on a WX blog.... Some other pple earlier got my point, which was not that the WARMING is not happening, but that the LABEL applied to it is misleading to some... i.e. if it's not getting warmer in YOUR PARTICULAR PART OF THE WORLD you feel comfortable denying that any warming exists. I think references to a global climate shift instead of a simple GW helps to imply the greater extent of the potential impacts of which the warming you mentioned is perhaps only a trigger.

BTW, I am reluctant to speak using "absolutes" because I, like Jedkins, realize that in science they rarely exist, mainly because our knowledge is constantly changing. But that was the point of another post....

Have a good one...

Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
atmoaggie, you are a calming, reasonable influence here...perhaps you're in the wroing room? LOL

You speak the truth...an internal combustion engine gets a tiny fraction of it's theoretical energy from it's fuel...maybe a better way to say it is "potential"?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

The term "global warming" is applied because, while some places may get cooler for short periods of time, the overall global climate is heating up, and rapidly.

If "this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries", the only adjustment mankind would be able to make is migrating en masse to another planet, for this one would be as uninhabitable as Venus. Not that it will continue that long; even the most ardent contrarians will be forced to admit the catastrophic error of their ways long before that. ;-)
Hook, sinker, leader, cork, line, rod, reel, fisherman, boat, lake.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting McBill:


I think this comment is a good demonstration of the confusion among lay folks about what constitutes a theory in the realm of science. The term "theoretical efficiency of an engine" has nothing to do with a theory in the scientific sense. What is really meant is the "calculated" efficiency of an engine - there is no Theory of Engine Efficiency.

I think the scientists need to come up a new word for their version of theory so that the common folks don't get so confused.

Bull. There is a theoretical amount of energy to be gained from fuel in a motor and then there is reality. Ask a scientist about the theoretical result and an engineer about the reality.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting NRAamy:
Jerry!!!!!

:)


Amy!

I was feeling ornery and decided to come in here and pick a fight...LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
I remember someone a while back saying it is unfortunate this whole climate change scenario has gotten a WARMING label, when the real result of the so-called global warming is likely to result in more of a climate shift scenario... that is, places that are "normally" warm may become colder, and vice versa, and adjustments in climate regimes are likely to trigger abrupt and "record-breaking" adjustments.

I think pple have this idea that the increase in global temperature is just going to happen as a steady increase, rather than the ratcheting back and forth that is immediately obvious whenever one looks at the wx record... also pple don't take into account that the world's own macro-patterns - multidecadal ones like the PDO, for example - will work to enhance or mute the effects of the projected warming at various points along the way.

Finally, even if this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries, it may still only be a blip in the climate history of the world... what really matters is our ability to adjust ourselves to what these changes may be, so we don't end up with the kinds of mass deaths seen in, say, the potato blights, etc, of the early 1800s....

The term "global warming" is applied because, while some places may get cooler for short periods of time, the overall global climate is heating up, and rapidly.

If "this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries", the only adjustment mankind would be able to make is migrating en masse to another planet, for this one would be as uninhabitable as Venus. Not that it will continue that long; even the most ardent contrarians will be forced to admit the catastrophic error of their ways long before that. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
168. DontAnnoyMe 4:39 PM PST on December 09, 2010 Hide this comment.
Good evening.

Quoting CybrTeddy:
Welcome to the wonderful world of post season!



And the inanity that goes with it


lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
i got me a nic new laptop
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good evening.

Quoting CybrTeddy:
Welcome to the wonderful world of post season!


And the inanity that goes with it.

Quoting plywoodstatenative:
the information that comes out early season does not take into ramification everything such as location of the High or such.


Misused word of the day. Congrats!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CybrTeddy:
Welcome to the wonderful world of post season!



yup
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
So very reasonable, HaHu. You might be in the wrong room...
Hey, it's all your fault I'm reasonable... before I was just confused... lol

Is it cold enough 4 u? I'm FREEZING.... 50 degrees in Nassau! Pshaw....
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
Jerry!!!!!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Welcome to the wonderful world of post season!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:
The one thing I'm glad to see, is the more and more use of "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming". There is actually solid science that the Earth's climate is changing. However, the whole man is leading to the earth burning up is a big bunch of political B.S. to cause public panic.

Its easy to use the fact that most Temperature data comes from the increase in temperature data over time of urbanized areas, and the lack of data from rural areas.

All you have to do, is use your head and think things through, investigate, and find out for your self, rather than listening to everything you hear. The fact is, we all struggle with often severe cases of bias, being human beings and all.


Typically political BS is started so that someone can profit; see many alternative energy companies profitting form your "panic"? Who else stands to profit from wide-spread panic...hmmm...

I grow weary of the uninformed saying things like this; you say these things to start arguments when in reality you are no more qualified to make these pronouncements than the ASE certified mechanic mentioned further down this string...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:



100


The Earths Climate is just too complex to put any one label on it. What we do know is that the climate is changing.


Yes, it is changing: it's getting warmer. And more quickly than anyone could have envisioned.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting hydrus:
Good evening FloodMan... Cold up here....:)


Mid Missouri is pretty chilly too...LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:


You think that it might have something to do with the fact that the planet is getting warmer? And how does this well documented warming phenomenon become "so-called" in your book? Not a fan of science, I guess.
You guys have got to come up with a better standard line. That qualifies as a personal attack, IMO, and has been flagged as such.

And, I can assure you that science is all about being skeptical until hard, non-circumstantial evidence is presented to support any hypothesis and/or theory. Period.

Religion and politics are about accepting what one has been told how it is.

Then, I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
As I come out of hibernation and while I am wondering why the forecast of upper 60s did not happen to day, I have one thing to say. I am not taking any advice from the different places until Hurricane season itself starts up, the information that comes out early season does not take into ramification everything such as location of the High or such.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
A lot of theory never is actually witnessed, either.

Take a look at the theoretical maximum potential intensity for hurricanes, for example. We never do actually see a system achieve it.

Or the theoretical efficiency of an engine. Or what theory says for network bandwidth, down the wire level. Or what the temperature should be tonight, in theory. (We do okay at that last one, because of all of our statistical data that shows that ways in which the theory misses on reality)

And some theories' symptoms are obvious, but not the causes or the sensitivities to slight changes in the causes, such as gravity.

As Jedkins, I have a formal education in the earth sciences and all I see in climate change is a new area of study that is not well understood, yet. So very much of the theory is based on untested physical equations that were built around the slightest bit of data and a large amount of assumption.


+100
for sure, that's exactly what I am getting at.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A lot of theory never is actually witnessed, either.

Take a look at the theoretical maximum potential intensity for hurricanes, for example. We never do actually see a system achieve it.

Or the theoretical efficiency of an engine. Or what theory says for network bandwidth, down the wire level. Or what the temperature should be tonight, in theory. (We do okay at that last one, because of all of our statistical data that shows that ways in which the theory misses on reality)

And some theories' symptoms are obvious, but not the causes or the sensitivities to slight changes in the causes, such as gravity.

As Jedkins, I have a formal education in the earth sciences and all I see in climate change is a new area of study that is not well understood, yet. So very much of the theory is based on untested physical equations that were built around the slightest bit of data and a large amount of assumption.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting ShenValleyFlyFish:
When the trout will bite!


ROFL...
Oh Snap, now you're trying to talk reality :))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Theory is not synonymous with guess, the way it is used in popular language.  Gravitation is a theory.  Yet if you jump off a diving board you will fall, all of you, just like me. 

A theory isn't a guess.  It is a collection of hypotheses and data which have been tested and give results consistent with the hypotheses' predictions.  A theory also has demonstrated predictive power in terms of how a system behaves.

Theories can be incomplete.  Or revised/supplanted.  Einstein's theories revised and replaced Newton's theories, although Newton's equations still serve very well for our scales of time and space.

But whenever someone say's "Oh it's just a theory", no matter what position they are espousing, in global warming or any other scientific topic, they are just showing ignorance of science and how it works. 


Sir I'm pretty sure I understand what theory is by now lol.

I am saying what I am about theory to state that people must be careful to not get arrogant in science. However, I also clearly stated that I myself love science and its amazing finds and accomplishments.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Can you please name some of those "lot of people", and tell us how many of them are credible climate scientists?

The planet is getting warmer. The data on that are conclusive, and the evidence overwhelming. And 2010 has been one of the warmest years on record, so a brief cold snap in the US is no more proof that the planet is cooling than a single cough is proof that an otherwise healthy person has inoperable lung cancer.



Well actually, there is some proof that melting of the ice glaciers could be the cause of the cooler winters in the Southeast U.S.

Interestingly enough, these cold outbreaks in the south really become less and less of a deal as you head further north, because the far north is actually warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
I remember someone a while back saying it is unfortunate this whole climate change scenario has gotten a WARMING label, when the real result of the so-called global warming is likely to result in more of a climate shift scenario... that is, places that are "normally" warm may become colder, and vice versa, and adjustments in climate regimes are likely to trigger abrupt and "record-breaking" adjustments.

I think pple have this idea that the increase in global temperature is just going to happen as a steady increase, rather than the ratcheting back and forth that is immediately obvious whenever one looks at the wx record... also pple don't take into account that the world's own macro-patterns - multidecadal ones like the PDO, for example - will work to enhance or mute the effects of the projected warming at various points along the way.

Finally, even if this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries, it may still only be a blip in the climate history of the world... what really matters is our ability to adjust ourselves to what these changes may be, so we don't end up with the kinds of mass deaths seen in, say, the potato blights, etc, of the early 1800s....


Nicely said, Thank you!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Neapolitan said:

"And you're right: a lot of those who believe in the theory of AGW don't know exactly how isotopic analyses of glacial ice cores work. But do they really need to? After all, I don't need to be an ASE-certified master mechanic to know what it means when the auto repair shop says my truck needs a valve job."

Well personally, I believe that what the mechanic is doing is right, because if all mechanics were wrong about peoples vehicles, the evidence would be obvious and people would boycott auto mechanics.

However, there really isn't any testing to prove that climate scientists are wrong. I mean, is it really wrong to consider that really smart people may get ahead of themselves, and you know, overshoot the 8 ball a little? You don't think that being smart can lead to a little issue of pride and overconfidence sometimes?

Look, I am not crazy and think there's proof that the earth is 6000 years old. That scientifically isn't sound because there is too much evidence that the processes of this world have been drawn out way longer than that. However, for scientists to be so dang sure about all these different events that happened millions and millions of years ago, is ridiculous. There's absolutely no way to prove such things are sound or accurate.

It is all just theory, and no, I am not some anti-scientific conservative who believes everything about scientific research that happened before our time is completely wrong, However, there is far too much arrogance involved in what is supposedly scientifically sound. Even that atom and how it functions is still theory. Science itself is all about studying what is not fact or can be proven.

That being said, I do believe scientists can get a nice idea about the Earths history through ice data cores and all the other things we use. It is awesome that we have brilliant people who are discovering more and more about the world around us every day.

But I myself am student in the process of becoming a scientist, I am working on my MET degree in which I hope to study the science of severe weather. Therefore I am not ignorant to science. In fact, I know well enough about science to know that we do not know as much in the scientific world as we claim to.

Science needs to be treated more the way it was meant to. The discovery of Climate Change, thanks to science, are helping us realize that something needs to be done about what is going on with the Climate. However, what we do know about such things are still very limited and purely theory.

In the end though, that's what make science so enjoyable, their is an immensely complicated world around us, and there is always more to be learned!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
I remember someone a while back saying it is unfortunate this whole climate change scenario has gotten a WARMING label, when the real result of the so-called global warming is likely to result in more of a climate shift scenario... that is, places that are "normally" warm may become colder, and vice versa, and adjustments in climate regimes are likely to trigger abrupt and "record-breaking" adjustments.

I think pple have this idea that the increase in global temperature is just going to happen as a steady increase, rather than the ratcheting back and forth that is immediately obvious whenever one looks at the wx record... also pple don't take into account that the world's own macro-patterns - multidecadal ones like the PDO, for example - will work to enhance or mute the effects of the projected warming at various points along the way.

Finally, even if this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries, it may still only be a blip in the climate history of the world... what really matters is our ability to adjust ourselves to what these changes may be, so we don't end up with the kinds of mass deaths seen in, say, the potato blights, etc, of the early 1800s....
So very reasonable, HaHu. You might be in the wrong room...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting P451:


This logic is lost on most. Intentionally at times it seems.

Not only what you said, but, the collection of such records, using different devices, watching these devices encroached on by urban development undoubtedly skewing the record keeping.

You put it together and it keeps AGW as a theory at present.

Faulty record keeping and faulty science cannot be used to produce facts. I generally ignore the "Hottest ____ on record! We are all DOOM DOOOOOM!" entries no matter who they come from.

*shrug*

I kinda enjoy the extreme records thing, but I also realize that extremes do not represent norms. I also realize, and I think pple sometimes do forget, that norms and records exist only in their context. Put another way, what's exotic to you is commonplace to me. So pple like to say, "Oh, u live in such an exotic setting! [meaning island, near beach, tropical waters, tropical wx, etc.]" My reply is usually something like, "Nah, that stuff's not exotic; what's exotic is SNOW! Trains!!! 14000 foot mountains!!!!!!!"

Records are impressive to us only because we don't have a fuller context.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
The insane La Nina Weather continues!!
The early 2011 ATL Hurricane Forecast is also quite concerning!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
I remember someone a while back saying it is unfortunate this whole climate change scenario has gotten a WARMING label, when the real result of the so-called global warming is likely to result in more of a climate shift scenario... that is, places that are "normally" warm may become colder, and vice versa, and adjustments in climate regimes are likely to trigger abrupt and "record-breaking" adjustments.

I think pple have this idea that the increase in global temperature is just going to happen as a steady increase, rather than the ratcheting back and forth that is immediately obvious whenever one looks at the wx record... also pple don't take into account that the world's own macro-patterns - multidecadal ones like the PDO, for example - will work to enhance or mute the effects of the projected warming at various points along the way.

Finally, even if this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries, it may still only be a blip in the climate history of the world... what really matters is our ability to adjust ourselves to what these changes may be, so we don't end up with the kinds of mass deaths seen in, say, the potato blights, etc, of the early 1800s....



+100


The Earths Climate is just too complex to put any one label on it. What we do know is that the climate is changing.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:
I read a book.. I know... surprise surprise..

That uses the present data available, and the subtle changes in ocean currents... to say we could actually be entering an ice age period... they also stated it takes about 10 years to enter an ice age (much shorter then previously thought).
So the Day After Tomorrow scenario isn't quite as far off as one would believe????

INteresting.... I still don't think we are taking into account all the possible cyclic influences, even ones related to planetary orbit, ours and others, that could be influencing a potential abrupt change event...
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
Top 10 Global Climate Change Indicators according to the NOAA

Posted by Murielle in Climate & Change, Nature, Science & Technology, 29 Nov 2010, 0


According to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization in the U.S.) there is no doubt the Earth’s climate is warming up. The data the NOAA and other organizations gather, process and combine to produce a time series of global average temperature change provides undisputable proof of a warming trend in global temperatures. This temperature change is then in turn confirmed by other observations of natural phenomena all over the world, such as rising sea levels, earlier blooming of plants in spring, melting glaciers, warming surface temperatures of lakes and reduced arctic ice (just to name a few).

To come to the conclusion that our climate is undergoing a warming trend the NOAA monitors a number of things, what they call the global climate change indicators.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128259
Quoting seflagamma:
Orca and Scott,

I still have a hard time believe "global warming" is causing all this cold weather in South Florida...

as sad as it is, I think we are going thru a climate change.. I do beleive that... and the Earth will just have to make adjustments.
If Florida keeps getting colder and colder every winter...then we will have to find someplace else to grow food in the winter months...and the tropical animals will have to move further south into the Caribbean...

but I've been brainwashed into thinking the world was getting warmer not colder....

that "sea ice" may melt some every summer but it freezes back every winter...
I remember someone a while back saying it is unfortunate this whole climate change scenario has gotten a WARMING label, when the real result of the so-called global warming is likely to result in more of a climate shift scenario... that is, places that are "normally" warm may become colder, and vice versa, and adjustments in climate regimes are likely to trigger abrupt and "record-breaking" adjustments.

I think pple have this idea that the increase in global temperature is just going to happen as a steady increase, rather than the ratcheting back and forth that is immediately obvious whenever one looks at the wx record... also pple don't take into account that the world's own macro-patterns - multidecadal ones like the PDO, for example - will work to enhance or mute the effects of the projected warming at various points along the way.

Finally, even if this global warming trend continues for 2 or 3 centuries, it may still only be a blip in the climate history of the world... what really matters is our ability to adjust ourselves to what these changes may be, so we don't end up with the kinds of mass deaths seen in, say, the potato blights, etc, of the early 1800s....
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22087
Additionally, why should us, citizens constantly have to hear about Climate Change problems, when we are not in control of the system. Guess what aristocrats and politicians, not all of us can afford vehicles with a better carbon footprint, and not all of us can afford solar panels and organic diets... I am a nature conservationist, I my self am very conscious and do my best to stand for conserving nature and ending destruction of this beautiful world that we are getting more and more distant from because of the cultural push for stressed and fast paced city life of the modern world. However, many of these new things available to help the environment I cannot afford, and neither can most Americans.

When it comes down to it, many of those who push environmental protection who actually have power to do something about it(aristocrats, politicians etc.) fail to end to put an end to environmentally damaging things and make environmentally conscious and friendly things common place and affordable. The reason is not enough of them actually care, because too many of them still make money of the greed of oil and the other junk that is polluting our world. Money is the god, and greed is the religion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program:

About NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program:
NOAA's Paleoclimatology provides the paleoclimate data and information needed to understand and model interannual to centennial scale environmental change. This site was created to introduce the topic of global warming, and to show how paleoclimate data provide a long baseline of past change. This long baseline reveals the natural variability of Earth climate, and shows how climate and greenhouse gases have changed in the past. Links to scientific research results and data sets are provided throughout the perspective.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128259
By the way, to add another note, yes man has probably screwed up the atmosphere, but the atmosphere may comparable to the human body, in that it sure can take a lot more abuse than it deserves, and the damage call also be reversed if people start giving the environment a healthier diet, so to speak.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The one thing I'm glad to see, is the more and more use of "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming". There is actually solid science that the Earth's climate is changing. However, the whole man is leading to the earth burning up is a big bunch of political B.S. to cause public panic.

Its easy to use the fact that most Temperature data comes from the increase in temperature data over time of urbanized areas, and the lack of data from rural areas.

All you have to do, is use your head and think things through, investigate, and find out for your self, rather than listening to everything you hear. The fact is, we all struggle with often severe cases of bias, being human beings and all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
according to the experts they expect this storm to be an inland runner. Non of them show anything remotely suggesting a GLC(which is impossible as it's progected to move eastward).

Since models have been inconsistant these last 24-48 hours, I'd wait till tomorrow.:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


EXACTLY! Watch yourself though...now you've admitted there is a problem, the deniers will be coming for you...LOL
Good evening FloodMan... Cold up here....:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 181 - 131

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog 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.