Record snows hit New England; Brazilian floods kill 350; Brisbane underwater

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:16 PM GMT on January 13, 2011

The Northeast U.S. is digging out today from the winter's third major snowstorm, and the nation's South continues to deal with travel disruptions caused by the nasty coasting of ice, snow and sleet the storm left behind early this week. Yesterday's Nor'easter has exited into Canada, and the storm is over for the U.S. It was a pretty average Nor'easter as far as intensity goes--the storm's central pressure bottomed out at 982 mb, and just the Massachusetts coast was subject to high winds that merited blizzard warnings. The storm did generate one hurricane-force wind gust--Provincetown airport on the tip of Cape Cod had sustained winds at 43 mph, gusting to 79 mph, at 6:35am EST yesterday, and a personal weather station at Humarock Beach in Scituate, southeast of Boston, recorded a wind gust of 64 mph at 5:51am EST yesterday.


Figure 1. A bit of work today needed before one can step out of the door in Southborough, Massachusetts! Image credit: wunderphotographer Megmdp.

But what was remarkable about the January Nor'easter of 2011 were its snow amounts. This rather ordinary-strength Nor'easter managed to assemble the perfect mix of conditions needed to transport moisture to a region of the storm highly favorable for heavy snow formation. Many heavy snow bands with snowfall rates up to 3 inches per hour formed over New England, with some of these bands intense enough to generate lightning and thunder. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont all came within an inch of setting all-time state 24-hour snowfall records yesterday. North Haven, Connecticut received 29.5", falling just short of the 30.2" 24-hour snowfall record for the state, set at Fairfield in February 2006. Savoy, Massachusetts received 34.5", falling just short of that state's all-time 24-hour snowfall record, the 36" recorded at Milton in February 1997. Wilmington, Vermont got 36" in yesterday's storm, just missing the state record of 37", set at Peru in March 1984. The capital of Connecticut, Hartford, had its greatest snowstorm in history yesterday, with 24". The old record was 23.5", set in a February 1899 storm.

Some selected storm total snowfall amounts, taken from the latest NOAA storm summary:

New York City, NY 9.1"
Albany, NY 13.2"
Worcester, MA 21.1"
Boston, MA 14.6"
Augusta, ME 14.5"
Portland, ME 9.2"
Concord, NH 22"
Somerset, PA 15"
Philadelphia, PA 5.2"
Providence, RI 9.5"
Brattleboro, VT 19"
Elkin, WV 10"
Danbury, CT 17.9"
Wilmington, DE 4.3"

According to our weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, in his latest blog post titled, "Snowstorms in the South: A Historical Perspective", the 8.9" that fell on Huntsville, Alabama from this week's storm was that city's third heaviest snow on record. The post has a nice summary of the remarkable heavy snow storms that have hit the South in the past.


Figure 2. Flooding at São José do Vale do Rio Preto in Brazil photographed on Thursday, January 13, 2011.

Brazilian floods, landslides kill at least 350
The globe's parade of massive flooding disasters in recent months continued yesterday in Brazil, where heavy rains of up to 10 inches in 24 hours inundated the region about 60 miles north of Rio de Janeiro. At least 350 are dead and 50 people missing, and the death toll is expected to go much higher once rescuers reach remote villages that have been cut off from communications. Brazil suffers hundreds of deaths each year due to flooding and mudslides, but the past 12 months have been particularly devastating. Flooding and landslides near Rio in April last year killed 246 people and did about $13 billion in damage, and at least 85 people perished last January during a similar event.


Figure 3. A woman trapped on the roof of her car awaits rescue during the Toowoomba flash flood on Monday. Image credit: Wikipedia.

New floods ravage Australia's 3rd largest city
Flood waters swept today into Brisbane, Australia's 3rd largest city, inundating 14,400 homes and businesses, partially submerging another 17,200, and cutting power to 118,000, as the Brisbane River peaked at its highest level since 1974. Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who has called the recent floods in Queensland the greatest natural disaster in their history, said, "What I'm seeing looks more like a war zone in some places. All I could see was their rooftops...underneath every single one of those rooftops is a horror story. We are facing a reconstruction effort of post-war proportions." Much of Brisbane's infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed, including 55,000 miles of roads. The Port of Brisbane, one of Australia's busiest, has been closed because of debris, and the city's largest sports stadium is under several feet of water.

The search for bodies continues in Toowoomba, about 60 miles west of Brisbane, where freak rains of 6 inches in just 30 minutes triggered a flash flood that killed 12 and left 61 missing on Monday. The flood waters from the Toowoomba disaster poured into the Brisbane River, contributing to its rampage through Brisbane yesterday. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) reported that only scattered light rains less than 1/3" fell in the Brisbane area over the past 24 hours, and no further significant rains are forecast in the Brisbane area until Tuesday next week, so the worst of the flooding is now over for Queensland. According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the December - January floods in Queenland are the most significant flooding event in Australia since at least 1974. In 2010, Australia had its wettest spring (September - November) since records began 111 years ago, with some sections of coastal Queensland receiving over 4 feet (1200 mm) of rain. Rainfall in Queensland and all of eastern Australia in December was the greatest on record, and the year 2010 was the rainiest year on record for Queensland. Queensland typically has its rainiest years when La Niña events occur, due to the much warmer than average ocean temperatures that occur along the coast. The BOM notes, "Previous strong La Niña events, such as those of 1974 and 1955, have also been associated with widespread and severe flooding in eastern Australia. Sea surface temperatures off the Queensland coast in recent months have also been at or near record levels." The BOM's annual summary also reported, "Sea surface temperatures in the Australian region during 2010 were the warmest value on record for the Australian region. Individual high monthly sea surface temperature records were also set during 2010 in March, April, June, September, October, November and December. Along with favourable hemispheric circulation associated with the 2010 La Niña, very warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring." Beginning in December, the Queensland floods have killed at least 22, and damage estimates are now as high as $20 billion. Queensland has an area the size of Germany and France combined.

2010 tied for warmest year in Earth's history
Earth's warmest year in history occurred in 2010, NASA reported yesterday. The globe's temperature beat the previous record set in 2005 by just .01°C, so we should consider 2010 and 2005 tied for the warmest year on record. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also announced yesterday that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, with temperatures during 2010 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. I'll have a full blog post on the subject Friday morning.

Jeff Masters

storm car burried (slimfast)
on a lowell mass street 1/12/11 taken off hampshire street lowell mass our streets are buried in snow we have 24-36" of snow we had unsafe intersecting roads every where un safe driving also large buildings with flat roofs are unsafe many colapsed buildings
storm car burried
Brilliance..2 (suzi46)
a brilliant mid-Winter's day..blue skies and sunshine on the clear ice of the brooks creating wonderful images..
Brilliance..2
How Many Cars? (stoneygirl)
Can you tell how many cars are under all that? We had a whopping 2 plus FEET of snow today and the snow drifts were upwards of 3 and 4 feet. Gotta love winter.
How Many Cars?

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 428 - 378

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

428. P451
Quoting Patrap:
...hears page turning in background.


LOL you have been on a ROLL the past few days, Soldier!


What a crappy subject... a theory... that brings out the worst in all camps of thought.

Oh well... free thought is still nice no matter what.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


I have a question for you HaloReachFan:

Why do you keep posting here? You have literally no points at all for your argument, AND you never make any progress in your arguments.


LOL I don't make progress because the people on this blog are so so so annoyed by the fact that they have been proven wrong and in fact man is not creating this warming that they just bash anybody who has a different opinion than theirs. That is proof. But yet again they know everything having gone to school for every subject there is apparently I'm assuming that because I never got an answer plus I think these fellow people think they know everything there is to know about everything in the world. Yes once I read this back it may make less sense than when I thought of it in my head but I'm letting it go.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
...hears page turning in background.
were the shrimp good?
Member Since: July 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 491
Quoting Neapolitan:

Really? Do you have links? Because there's this from the AAAS:

"The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent. the scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

And this: "Clear evidence of climate change is based upon “accumulating data from across the globe' that reveals 'a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, increases in extreme weather, rising sea levels, shifts in species ranges, and more,' the AAAS Board reported. Reliable sensor data show an upturn in average temperatures for at least the past 30 years."

And this: "The AAAS Board noted that 'the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

And this: "A lot of what of what they [skeptics] say—at first sight it might appear that they’re making reasonable points," Smith said. "If you look more closely... a lot of what they say doesn’t stand up to scrutiny."

And this: "Skepticism is an integral part of the progress of science and it helps keep the science on the correct path,” said veteran climate researcher Warren Washington, former chairman of the U.S. National Science Board. “However, skepticism without specifics, alternate hypotheses, and facts is worthless. It does not advance the science.”
I feel we need more time before we can say which way this thing will go. The antigreens say that the Earth is starting a natural cooling cycle again. This winter may be part of that. Europe as been getting hit real bad. I say let's all cooperate and study this for another 20 years and then make decisions based on untainted data. Besides now in not the time to hit the fragile global economy with punitive environmental regulations.
Member Since: November 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 130
But then he changed his views completely on the matter. Why is that is he in the pockets of Big Oil?

Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

DAVID BELLAMY, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I like how you answer your own question there I guess since he assumes everything that I don't need to answer it and it just proves my point.


I have a question for you HaloReachFan:

Why do you keep posting here? You have literally no points at all for your argument, AND you never make any progress in your arguments. Ever.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
"The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland."

DAVID BELLAMY
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TaylorSelseth:
When people are insulted because they prefer science to conspiracy theories about evil scientists that is to expected.

I remember reading a while ago that Big Oil pays people to post Denialist propaganda on blogs.

Absolutely true.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
Quoting HaloReachFan:
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

WILLIAM GRAY, interview, Sept. 12, 2005


Gray?

Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Includes things like:

Claim: The Thermohaline Circulation causes Global Warming, Hurricane Cycles, etc

For years, perhaps decades, Gray has been ascribing all sorts of climate changes and hurricane cycles to fluctuations in the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), an overturning circulation in the Atlantic ocean associated with formation of deep water in the North Atlantic. None of the assertions are based on rigorous statistical associations, oceanographic observations or physically based simulations; it is all seat-of -the-pants stuff of a sort that was common in the early days of climate studies, but which is difficult to evaluate when viewed as a scientific hypothesis. The THC is undoubtedly important to climate, because it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot created energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear. Thus, Gray’s statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity.


(note that he claims that the THC COOLS the climate, so if it stopped, then the climate would warm; as for hurricanes, the AMO involves atmospheric changes which in turn affects wind shear and SST patterns)
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting JFLORIDA:


I read the peer reviewed climate research and agree with the professional consensus.

Dr Gray has admitted he does not and is not interested.

Weather is not climate.

So once again you waste everyones time here not knowing what you are talking about.


I asked what do you have? I'm waiting here very patiently. Since apparently you just follow the consensus of what every buddy is saying like a sheep.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


I like how you answer your own question there I guess since he assumes everything that I don't need to answer it and it just proves my point.


I do it because I could write a bot routine to past the same repetitive garbage over and over again just as effectively as you can.

I like the referenced stuff everyone doesn't know. No one comes here to read the same thing forever.

And of course interesting posters show up after you have already irritated me with ridiculous and wasteful posts.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Thank god you did that I couldn't be bothered - essentially the most important factor in the heat equilibrium of earths atmosphere is T - time taken for energy absorbed from the sun to radiate back into space. Increase T and you increase the average temperature of the atmosphere, since its total energy increases. Increasing CO2 obviously increases T, since higher CO2 levels mean energy radiated by the earths surface at the requisite wavelengths is absorbed sooner after leaving the surface on average, and then (ironically as atmoaggie points out) is just as likely to be reradiated towards the earth. Thus any energy radiated by the earths surface has a higher percentage chance returning to the surface to be reradiated agin....heating the atmosphere.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of equilibirum mathmatics knows how senstive systems in equilibrium are to very small changes in factors like that.


Quoting MichaelSTL:
Greenhouse effect revisited



What the plot shows is a set of colored line which correspond to blackbody curves at specified temperatures. Note that we’re now looking at wavenumber on the x-axis, which is the inverse of wavelength, so the peak on the graph now shifts to the right for increasing temperature. 10,000 divided by microns will give you wavenumber in inverse centimeters, which are common units used in this case.

The red squiggly line corresponds to the Earth curve with the specified settings. The model is fixed at 288.20 K unless changed in the input settings, so the red curve is somewhere between the 280 and 300 K blackbody curves, though not emitting perfectly like a blackbody. We see that Iout is 346.97 W m-2. Now let’s add just 2 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere.



In the 2 ppm case, the OLR is now 338.8 W m-2. Since the area under the curve has been reduced due to the blip caused by CO2, we are now interested in re-establishing the outgoing flux to be 346.97 W m-2. We can do this by raising the temperature in the model by 1.9 C. Simply through fundamental physics, it can be shown that the temperature must increase as greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. Now let’s re-set the ground T offset to zero and put in 50 ppm of CO2 into the model. The resulting graph is:



If the greenhouse gas in question were absorbing only in this limited interval, then increasing its concentration further could not bring down the OLR any further, since in the spectral region where the gas is radiatively active, the atmosphere is already radiating at the coldest temperature possible. Technically, since the stratosphere cools with more greenhouse gases, this would have a minor effect on the OLR, but it is a negligible one for our purposes. If we change the amount of CO2, the intensity of light in this range does not get any lower. This is called band saturation.

Instead, further increasing CO2 will decrease the OLR essentially by filling the “wings” of the spectral bands where the atmosphere is optically thin. We can see this by putting in a modern concentration of 390 ppm CO2. The manner in which the “wings” of spectral lines become important is discussed in Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert’s RealClimate post on Angstrom.



Now let’s put some crazy amounts of CO2 into the model, say 10,000 ppm.



As we can see, the bite in the spectrum is not getting any deeper, but it is getting considerably wider. This is very important for the greenhouse effect, since you will essentially never become “saturated” and thus you will keep getting warming with more and more CO2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Greenhouse effect revisited



As we can see, the bite in the spectrum is not getting any deeper, but it is getting considerably wider. This is very important for the greenhouse effect, since you will essentially never become “saturated” and thus you will keep getting warming with more and more CO2.


This widening of the absorbed spectrum is because certain vibrational energy levels (the most probable ones to occur) are becoming saturated. In a classical sense, particles are suppose to emit a single frequency when moving between energy levels. But this is not true in reality as there are many different energy levels to be occupied; whether electronic, rotational or vibrational states. All of these combine to create a spectrum of frequencies, with the probability of each occurring defined by it's quantum properties.

When one of these energy levels becomes near saturated, the probability of occurrence drops off (near exponentially); this will allow a less probable state to become saturated next; and so on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Who has an M.S. in Meteorology. What do you again?


I read the peer reviewed climate research and agree with the professional consensus.

Dr Gray has admitted he does not and is not interested.

Weather is not climate.

So once again you waste everyones time here not knowing what you are talking about.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting JFLORIDA:


No no wrongdoing or discrepancies in the research were ever found flowing specifically form "climate gate."

Nothing credible EVEN by the denial community.

Just a lot of boring innuendo with no backing claiming a non existent conspiracy for people that cant basically think their way out of a paper bag but think they are climate experts for some reason.

Do you have a credible source to counter that?

Thought not, thank you have a nice day. Thank you for wasting all our time yet again.



I like how you answer your own question there I guess since he assumes everything that I don't need to answer it and it just proves my point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:



REDIRECTION ALERT !!!

REDIRECTION ALERT !!!

*****************

Neo, your original post...

"Oh, it looks like you're about 18 months behind the times; the whole manufactured "Climategate" thing has been proven to be nothing more than a desperate witch-hunt by the contrarian community. You should catch up."

*************

Folks, now that you can see the context of the original post, re-read his quoting of the AAAS article and you will see no mention of the Scientists or their cohorts and any determination of quilt or innocence.







I wasn't asking for "determination of quilt"; I was responding to one who claimed that AAAS found all sorts of hanky-panky after ClimateGate, so I asked for proof of that, and further stated that I could produce tons of AAAS statements stating the opposite.

This is a fast-moving discussion; you're gonna have to keep up. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14846
Quoting TomTaylor:


I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I love how the anti gw folk always try and find underlying motives like money or industry.

But when you think about it, what are Anti GW folks in it for?

UHHH IDK, maybe to preserve the largest industry in the world? OIL?

Talk about hidden agendas


Thats correct. They also create multitudes of blogs of nothing but conspiracy and previously covered innuendo that they don't allow any on that disagrees to post on and they think no one will check up on.

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Who coincidently is not a climate scientist. Another wasted post of something covered long ago.


Who has an M.S. in Meteorology. What do have you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cmon guys and gals. I get tired of GW stuff. All I want out of this blog is when to get out my umbrella or snow shoes. If I want GW debate I go to skeptical science's blog.

There is a solution to GW.



Features include

  • self replicating, self-fueling power plant that can also be used to power other systems.

  • Autonomous guidance system that can be voice operated

  • Safety system includes pre-warning system for following traffic. So safe in fact that a driver's license is not needed. Even small children can operate it on public roads.

  • Power unit is 100% recyclable on site as is exhaust product




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

WILLIAM GRAY, interview, Sept. 12, 2005


Who coincidently is not a climate scientist. Another wasted post of something covered long ago.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
...hears page turning in background.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137201
I remember reading a while ago that Big Oil pays people to post Denialist propaganda on blogs.

Why do you think I post about ManBearPig so much?
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 319 Comments: 31956
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Who exonerated them? Wasn't it his own peers or University the fine man went to?


No no wrongdoing or discrepancies in the research were ever found flowing specifically form "climate gate."

Nothing credible EVEN by the denial community.

Just a lot of boring innuendo with no backing claiming a non existent conspiracy for people that cant basically think their way out of a paper bag but think they are climate experts for some reason.

Do you have a credible source to counter that?

Thought not, thank you have a nice day. Thank you for wasting all our time yet again.

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting TaylorSelseth:
When people are insulted because they prefer science to conspiracy theories about evil scientists that is to expected.

I remember reading a while ago that Big Oil pays people to post Denialist propaganda on blogs.


I wouldn't be surprised at all.

I love how the anti gw folk always try and find underlying motives like money or industry.

But when you think about it, what are Anti GW folks in it for?

UHHH IDK, maybe to preserve the largest industry in the world? OIL?

Talk about hidden agendas
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

WILLIAM GRAY, interview, Sept. 12, 2005
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting caneswatch:
I find the lack of civility in this blog disturbing.
When people are insulted because they prefer science to conspiracy theories about evil scientists that is to expected.

I remember reading a while ago that Big Oil pays people to post Denialist propaganda on blogs.
Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
JFLORIDA do you want to post the reports exonerating the climate research unit of all misconduct? I got stuff to do.

Or has he seen them all already and ignores them?


Who exonerated them? Wasn't it his own peers or University the fine man went to?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Greenhouse effect revisited



What the plot shows is a set of colored line which correspond to blackbody curves at specified temperatures. Note that we’re now looking at wavenumber on the x-axis, which is the inverse of wavelength, so the peak on the graph now shifts to the right for increasing temperature. 10,000 divided by microns will give you wavenumber in inverse centimeters, which are common units used in this case.

The red squiggly line corresponds to the Earth curve with the specified settings. The model is fixed at 288.20 K unless changed in the input settings, so the red curve is somewhere between the 280 and 300 K blackbody curves, though not emitting perfectly like a blackbody. We see that Iout is 346.97 W m-2. Now let’s add just 2 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere.



In the 2 ppm case, the OLR is now 338.8 W m-2. Since the area under the curve has been reduced due to the blip caused by CO2, we are now interested in re-establishing the outgoing flux to be 346.97 W m-2. We can do this by raising the temperature in the model by 1.9 C. Simply through fundamental physics, it can be shown that the temperature must increase as greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. Now let’s re-set the ground T offset to zero and put in 50 ppm of CO2 into the model. The resulting graph is:



If the greenhouse gas in question were absorbing only in this limited interval, then increasing its concentration further could not bring down the OLR any further, since in the spectral region where the gas is radiatively active, the atmosphere is already radiating at the coldest temperature possible. Technically, since the stratosphere cools with more greenhouse gases, this would have a minor effect on the OLR, but it is a negligible one for our purposes. If we change the amount of CO2, the intensity of light in this range does not get any lower. This is called band saturation.

Instead, further increasing CO2 will decrease the OLR essentially by filling the “wings” of the spectral bands where the atmosphere is optically thin. We can see this by putting in a modern concentration of 390 ppm CO2. The manner in which the “wings” of spectral lines become important is discussed in Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert’s RealClimate post on Angstrom.



Now let’s put some crazy amounts of CO2 into the model, say 10,000 ppm.



As we can see, the bite in the spectrum is not getting any deeper, but it is getting considerably wider. This is very important for the greenhouse effect, since you will essentially never become “saturated” and thus you will keep getting warming with more and more CO2.


Nice work
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
392 thanks - good link.

OSS the volcano climate connection is explored in real scientific literature in excruciating detail.

Do us a favor.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Warmistas,....on Climate Change
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137201
398. DEKRE
Against stupidity
The gods themselves
Contempt in vain.

          Friedrich Schiller
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Warmistas..?

Is that like a Burrito?

Can I get one to go locally ?

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137201
Interesting read, particularly page 739

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8203
Quoting atmoaggie:
So? That doesn't matter when the gas is efficient at absorbing that wavelength. I showed you college textbook plots of what actually escapes to space under less than 400 ppm.

How many million molecules are there between the surface and the tropopause, if lined up in a straight line? Do the math before you assume it impossible.

1. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it sounds impossible.
2. Absolutely it matters that it's 400 ppm, are you kidding? What if you had 1 par per trillion CO2 levels? I guarantee in that situation, not all photons of whatever the wavelength it is would be getting absorbed.
3. I understand your idea of how many molecules there are in a straight line between earth's surface and the boundary of the atmosphere. But think of how tiny a photon is relative to a CO2 molecule. AND the fact that it travels at the speed of light. Meaning, at some point there has to be an opening. Unless our atmosphere was 1,000,000 ppm CO2, there would be an opening somewhere at some point.

^^^ These are the reasons why I find that research highly unlikely...though I'm not going to say their findings aren't true because that would be stupid.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting atmoaggie:


3. Clarification: Heat in the ocean will be transferred up by convection. Heat from the surface is only partly carried by the atmosphere, the greenhouse gas part. The rest of the heat emitted by the surface needs no medium and escapes to space after passing cleanly through the atmosphere.


But the atmosphere is not simply non-polar molecules like oxygen and nitrogen, and the molecules which absorb IR bands the most have a higher density.

oxygen (0 °C, 101.325 kPa) 1.429 g/L
nitrogen (0 °C, 101.325 kPa) 1.251 g/L
carbon dioxide (gas at 1 atm and 0 °C) 1.977 g/L

So as the surface and low altitude levels of the greenhouse gases increase, the more insulation will be added; trapping the heat below and within the layer. So there will be more explosive convection to overcome the thicker layer, at which point the radiation can freely radiate out to space (because the layer of insulation is now below). Even if the concentrations of the gases were intermixed, the same outcome would happen due to the pressure difference.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
JFLORIDA do you want to post the reports exonerating the climate research unit of all misconduct? I got stuff to do.

Or has he seen them all already and ignores them?


They can look them up - after all the times posting it its ridiculous that common knowledge has to be repeated so often. Its absurd really.

I think they know it and are just being annoying.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Greenhouse effect revisited



What the plot shows is a set of colored line which correspond to blackbody curves at specified temperatures. Note that we’re now looking at wavenumber on the x-axis, which is the inverse of wavelength, so the peak on the graph now shifts to the right for increasing temperature. 10,000 divided by microns will give you wavenumber in inverse centimeters, which are common units used in this case.

The red squiggly line corresponds to the Earth curve with the specified settings. The model is fixed at 288.20 K unless changed in the input settings, so the red curve is somewhere between the 280 and 300 K blackbody curves, though not emitting perfectly like a blackbody. We see that Iout is 346.97 W m-2. Now let’s add just 2 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere.



In the 2 ppm case, the OLR is now 338.8 W m-2. Since the area under the curve has been reduced due to the blip caused by CO2, we are now interested in re-establishing the outgoing flux to be 346.97 W m-2. We can do this by raising the temperature in the model by 1.9 C. Simply through fundamental physics, it can be shown that the temperature must increase as greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. Now let’s re-set the ground T offset to zero and put in 50 ppm of CO2 into the model. The resulting graph is:



If the greenhouse gas in question were absorbing only in this limited interval, then increasing its concentration further could not bring down the OLR any further, since in the spectral region where the gas is radiatively active, the atmosphere is already radiating at the coldest temperature possible. Technically, since the stratosphere cools with more greenhouse gases, this would have a minor effect on the OLR, but it is a negligible one for our purposes. If we change the amount of CO2, the intensity of light in this range does not get any lower. This is called band saturation.

Instead, further increasing CO2 will decrease the OLR essentially by filling the “wings” of the spectral bands where the atmosphere is optically thin. We can see this by putting in a modern concentration of 390 ppm CO2. The manner in which the “wings” of spectral lines become important is discussed in Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert’s RealClimate post on Angstrom.



Now let’s put some crazy amounts of CO2 into the model, say 10,000 ppm.



As we can see, the bite in the spectrum is not getting any deeper, but it is getting considerably wider. This is very important for the greenhouse effect, since you will essentially never become “saturated” and thus you will keep getting warming with more and more CO2.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting atmoaggie:
Find one from a real scientists that says that "This hyperfrigid air is what could get sucked down during a superstorm." Is actually possible.

In case you missed it, my response to the same question a while ago:



1.Yes the air would warm but it will still be VERY COLD. Ever been in a downburst? On July 2 1927 a downburst was so powerful it SNOWED 8 inches.
2. TS Erin. The movie stated that! It called it LIKE a giant hurricane.

3. This part is true. BUT a global superstorm would have high winds.

4. SO! This was an error. In real life the superstorm will rotate counter-clockwise.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 343 atmoaggie - So, the challenge to warmistas is to explain how more than 100% of heat gets absorbed by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Give us a physics lesson on how 0.0 transmission to space was made even less by CO2 increases, when negative numbers would mean that heat from a body in space with a similar temperature as the earth would have to be added. (I shant hold my breath)

So Venus reached energy absorbtion saturation by CO2 too at 300 ppm right? Im glad you put 100 plus of peer review and experimentally tested science right with your extremely well thought out and not all all contradictory counter-argument. Thanks, im going to burn down a rainforest to celebrate. Yee-ha
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:


It's extensively mentioned in Spencer Waert's The Discovery of Global Warming and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers

When Callendar made his presentation in 1938 saying that man made CO2 emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere, the appraisal team made much of the fact that increased CO2 concentrations at sea level pressure and moderate temperature showed no increase in absorption of IR. And that that had been demonstrated in 1910.

I was going to go into Fourier in my next entry, the section between the postwar discovery that CO2 does NOT abosrb all it can in its bands up to the IGY '57-58 is at least 6 or 7 entries ahead.

So I probably shoulda let it alone, because I'm not in the mood to research that topic now and bring links and citations.

I'll bet MichaelSTL can find some good info on this topic, however.


lol poor Michael. He does too much. Ill look at it too although im rather skeptical and almost totally uninterested - I mean i love atmo to death but um yea.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
JFLORIDA do you want to post the reports exonerating the climate research unit of all misconduct? I got stuff to do.

Or has he seen them all already and ignores them?
Member Since: December 28, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 511
Quoting atmoaggie:
That's just it...EVERYONE familiar with the ideal gas law knows it funny and way, way off.

The air would warm some but it would be .so cold that even after warming it would still be ultrafrigid.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurricaneKatrina:
>:( http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Last-Ice-Age-happened-in.4351045.jp
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm
http://www.terracycles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:superstorm s&catid= 1:earth&Itemid=2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112421.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6917215.ece
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320181838.htm
http://www.bobkingsley.co.uk/blog/?p=159
http://news.discovery.com/earth/atlantic-circulation-on-the-fasttrack-for-change.html

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/HurricaneKatrina/comment.html?entrynum=14


Find one from a real scientists that says that "This hyperfrigid air is what could get sucked down during a superstorm." Is actually possible.

In case you missed it, my response to the same question a while ago:

Quoting atmoaggie:
Some of Dr. Masters' evaluations:

"a sudden global warming-induced climate shift could not cause the kind of instant wild weather mayhem depicted in the movie. In this respect, The Day After Tomorrow is science Fiction with a capital "F". The laws of meteorology get seriously abused here."

More:
* The superstorm sucks vast quantities of frigid upper atmospheric air down to the surface, flash freezing any living thing caught outside. However, any graduate of a high school physics course could tell you that the air would warm on its descent in response to the requirements of the Ideal Gas Law, and would never be able to flash freeze anything. One scientist in the movie does remember his high school physics and asks, "But wouldn't the air warm as it descends?" But the senior scientist replies, "No, it's moving too fast!" Sorry, guy, but the Ideal Gas Law applies no matter how fast the air is moving. If you were on my thesis committee, I'd kick you off.
* Clusters of thunderstorms cannot merge together to form a continent-scale blizzard with a calm eye over land. Huge storms with calm eyes can only happen over the oceans. These storms are called hurricanes, and require that the core of the storm be over warm ocean waters in order to utilize the powerful latent heat energy that water vapor gives up when it condenses into rain. And the laws of physics do not allow these type of storms to create blizzard conditions, only heavy rain.
* A 300-foot high storm surge whipped up by the intense winds of the superstorm smashes through Manhattan. There's a little problem here--the winds needed to create a storm surge of this magnitude are probably at least twice the speed of sound (1200 mph), yet there is little apparent wind on the ocean's surface as the wave smashes ashore.
* The superstorm is shown in many scenes rotating clockwise, and in other scenes counter-clockwise. Oops, all large-scale storm systems in the Northern Hemisphere must rotate counter-clockwise, thanks to one of the laws of physics on a rotating planet called the Coriolis force.

From here: http://www.wunderground.com/education/thedayafter.asp

More links about it from actual scientists that have some familiarity with physics:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9948

"As freezing air descends it warms and then rises. However in the movie this law of physics is dismissed by one of the main characters, scientist Jack Hall, when he states that the air in the center of the super cell is "simply descending too quickly". Apparently, this super cell is an area of such extreme low pressure that cold air from the troposphere, (-150°F to -101°C) is rapidly sucked downward towards Earth's surface, instantly freezing everything it comes in contact with. The very concept defies Ideal Gas Laws.
When molecules of air descend they warm adiabatically due to compression. There are more air molecules concentrated closer to Earth's surface due to gravitational force. More air molecules means more molecular contact and collisions and this generates heat; a kinetic temperature, if you will, in proportion to the increase in kinetic energy."
http://geolor.com/The_Day_After_Tomorrow_Movie.htm

http://nsidc.org/news/press/day_after/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/abrupt-climate-change.html#DAT

One of my favorite quotes about that movie: "The Day After Tomorrow: This movie is to climate science as Frankenstein is to heart transplant surgery"

Can you find one actual atmospheric scientist that agrees that cold air can descend without warming? If so, do please post his full name and AMS or AGU member number.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Also, as CO2 gradually increases in concentration, it absorbs more and more outside its bands.

In fact, at Venus CO2 blocks almost all IR emissions except for a few very narrow bands. These can be thought of as windows.

These IR windows in Venus were discovered in 1984 and enabled more of the topography of Venus to be seen from earth. Although always the same side.
Member Since: December 28, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 511
calusakat yea there is no "climate gate" - Warming occurred. There is no conspiracy even though nepos link obviously "proved" it for you. .

Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Dont be like that.

You are the one claiming a oversight in all of climate science remember.

HK can float whatever he/she wants as long as we hopefully can get some reference for it.
That's just it...EVERYONE familiar with the ideal gas law knows it funny and way, way off.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
382. JRRP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
361 is there a link for that research?


It's extensively mentioned in Spencer Waert's The Discovery of Global Warming and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers

When Callendar made his presentation in 1938 saying that man made CO2 emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere, the appraisal team made much of the fact that increased CO2 concentrations at sea level pressure and moderate temperature showed no increase in absorption of IR. And that that had been demonstrated in 1910.

I was going to go into Fourier in my next entry, the section between the postwar discovery that CO2 does NOT abosrb all it can in its bands up to the IGY '57-58 is at least 6 or 7 entries ahead.

So I probably shoulda let it alone, because I'm not in the mood to research that topic now and bring links and citations.

I'll bet MichaelSTL can find some good info on this topic, however.
Member Since: December 28, 2010 Posts: 8 Comments: 511
Quoting atmoaggie:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No really. Laughed, I did.
>:( http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Last-Ice-Age-happened-in.4351045.jp
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/5200event.htm
http://www.terracycles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:superstorms&catid= 1:earth&Itemid=2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112421.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6917215.ece
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320181838.htm
http://www.bobkingsley.co.uk/blog/?p=159
http://news.discovery.com/earth/atlantic-circulation-on-the-fasttrack-for-change.html

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/HurricaneKatrina/comment.html?entrynum=14


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No really. Laughed, I did.


Dont be like that.

You are the one claiming a oversight in all of climate science remember.

HK can float whatever he/she wants as long as we hopefully can get some reference for it.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting TomTaylor:


So from the research you cited, you're saying they found that none of the wavelengths which CO2 absorbs is not being absorbed by CO2?

I find that impossible to believe.

I'm being 100% honest with you too. Think about that for a second. You are saying every single photon of the infrared wavelength which CO2 is capable of absorbing is being absorbed?

Simply sounds impossible, especially knowing CO2 levels are a little below 400 parts per million.
So? That doesn't matter when the gas is efficient at absorbing that wavelength. I showed you college textbook plots of what actually escapes to space under less than 400 ppm.

How many million molecules are there between the surface and the tropopause, if lined up in a straight line? Do the math before you assume it impossible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 428 - 378

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

Top of Page

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

About

Dr. Masters (r) co-founded wunderground in 1995. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990. Co-blogging with him: Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Afternoon clouds over Southwest Puerto Rico
Storm clouds gathering over Half Dome
Sierra snow
snowman at Yosemite Falls
×