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

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

Share this Blog
4
+

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.

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: 278 - 228

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

Apparently to the believers in AGW the Earth can't go through cycles it has to maintain an average temperature constantly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting smartinwx:


You can read into the graph what you want. Did you even visit the site that posted the graph?

You're missing my point:

CO2 does cause warming. I am aware that the earth's orbit around the sun is not the same every year and it does go in cycles. But that doesn't change the fact that CO2 has an effect on our planet's temperature. And your graph does nothing to disprove that. It only shows that there are other factors at play besides CO2 to affect our temperature on earth. You were trying to deduce that CO2 has nothing to do with temperatures. Which is absurd.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
LOL!

You don't see anything snide, nor attacking, from every one of STL and JFLORAL's posts...

Riiiiiight.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Seriously are you guys like giggling as you post this denial stuff?

Really does any of it seem valid in any way to you - not the politics - but the actual science or lack thereof?
??? Well, now I'm laughing!

You and STL couldn't handle a scientific and logical point yesterday and now you're complaining?

Did you eat your Wheaties today, or something?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Oops, just saw how I spelled...

So, that gives them license to be unprofessional and only folks that drive Fords get called out for it?

You see nothing wrong with this?


I was wrong with the flaming and spaming, I guess it is back and forth.

And I never said anything about kicking anybody out, so we can drop this argument now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Bus on Warming and the Human factors involved Left the Station years ago.

NOAA,and NASA arent Bloggers,..



The Data is above the Human Background White noise.


All the evidence shows a Warming climate.


If one cant accept it..

It changes nothing as to reality..a reality where increasing changes are evident Globally.












Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What are they hiding?


Waldo?


hahahahaha!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:

Well they do provide more evidence than the typical person coming on here saying they're wrong.
Oops, just saw how I spelled...

So, that gives them license to be unprofessional and only folks that drive Fords get called out for it?

You see nothing wrong with this?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:


..maybe you should read some of my last 250 Blog entries.


Having worked in the Oil World on both ends,,production offshore in the mid-90's and doing Catcracker and furnace repair,construction and maintenance in the late 70's..


Oil is the Life of a Modern Society..and the Human cost are high.

From Helo transport accidents to offshore rigs,to Explosions as we so sadly saw on Deep Horizon,,to Asbestos mesothelioma and Asbestosis cancers that claim Thousands in silence from years of exposure in Dusty and unsafe environments within the refineries.

Benzene, vinyl chloride,poly propelyene, Ammonia, Chlorine,,all are found in the soil in areas where refining takes place,,let alone the air.

I've run from most of them when I was young and working with my dad in those plants.

The first thing I was ever told going into a plant in 77 was look at those wind socks.,everyday.

If you hear a releease alarm, run into the wind.

FAST.

Oil and coal giveth well, but the cost to the Planet and to our own families, Wildlife onshore and offshore is higher than we could have ever imagined,50 years ago.



Lot of steps have taken place since then too, 70s and 80s were bad.  Industry has come a long way.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


Are you trying to tell me CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?


hahahaha get out of here. Have you ever considered the fact that more things go into determining our global temperature than just CO2 concentrations?????

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THAT GRAPH IS TRYING TO TELL YOU.

It's saying, "look here is the CO2 level chart, and the temperature level chart. Now clearly they aren't mimicking each other, so there must be other factors at play." IT IS NOT SAYING "look temperature graph is here and CO2 is doing something way different, so CO2 obviously doesn't effect our earth's temperature."

god you are oblivious


You can read into the graph what you want. Did you even visit the site that posted the graph?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Perhaps you, scientific-minded one, should pay attention to the current meteorology. Approximately 9 months after every La Nina or El Nino peaks, the temperatures globally spike in the same direction as the SSTs in the equatorial Pacific. The globe is already down near the 30-year average and has a ways to go before it will bottom out with this La Nina, and so far it shows no signs of weakening, which they usually do after December, but we will see how long it lasts.

It's a simple observation really. It means absolutely nothing relative century-scale climate cycles. Not yet.
That's the atmospheric lag coming into play.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
LOL!

You don't see anything snide, nor attacking, from every one of STL and JFLORAL's posts...

Riiiiiight.

Well they do provide more evidence than the typical person coming on here saying they're wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Cochise111:


Proven by whom? The University of VA is still fighting the release of their email. The reason they give is that it would cost $8000 to produce them, yet they've spent $500,000 in attorney fees fighting the request that they should have complied with under state law to begin with. What are they hiding?


Waldo?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


The thing that kills me most on this blog (and most other places where you see global warming debates) is how unprofessional and poorly the anti man made global warming side presents themselves.


Just flame flame flame, with a hint of spam. Oh and don't forget to call everything a scam.


Get some evidence for once. Look at all of MichaelSTL's posts, they're filled with EVIDENCE. Something you folk have trouble finding (GEE I WONDER WHY).
LOL!

You don't see anything snide, nor attacking, from every one of STL and JFLORALA's posts...

Riiiiiight.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
Pat, you're just copying and pasting on here...


..maybe you should read some of my last 250 Blog entries.


Having worked in the Oil World on both ends,,production offshore in the mid-90's and doing Catcracker and furnace repair,construction and maintenance in the late 70's..


Oil is the Life of a Modern Society..and the Human cost are high.

From Helo transport accidents to offshore rigs,to Explosions as we so sadly saw on Deep Horizon,,to Asbestos mesothelioma and Asbestosis cancers that claim Thousands in silence from years of exposure in Dusty and unsafe environments within the refineries.

Benzene, vinyl chloride,poly propelyene, Ammonia, Chlorine,,all are found in the soil in areas where refining takes place,,let alone the air.

I've run from most of them when I was young and working with my dad in those plants.

The first thing I was ever told going into a plant in 77 was look at those wind socks.,everyday.

If you hear a releease alarm, run into the wind.

FAST.

Oil and coal giveth well, but the cost to the Planet and to our own families, Wildlife onshore and offshore is higher than we could have ever imagined,50 years ago.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

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.


Proven by whom? The University of VA is still fighting the release of their email. The reason they give is that it would cost $8000 to produce them, yet they've spent $500,000 in attorney fees fighting the request that they should have complied with under state law to begin with. What are they hiding?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


They have some of the poorest constructed arguments ever seen.

Not to be rude, because I totally agree with you, but why are you questioning the validity of Levi32's graph?

Who cares if it's right or wrong, his graph shows that the first two weeks of 2011 have been average...can I say, "big deal?"

We are discussing global climate change. Climate is the average weather for a 30 year or longer period of time. 2 weeks holds 1/1500th of that time...pretty insignificant.


Precisely. Yet the scientific-minded ones today seem to think that is a threat if my graph is correct. My graph's trend is still up overall. We shall see where it goes next.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting smartinwx:


Yes, we're laughing that it's been proven that climate cycles over hundreds of thousands of years and everyone is upset about .1 C warmer than average.

PS The sky is falling.


...so you aren't denying the fact that it's warming? Nor the fact that humans are contributing?


Well there's a start...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:

All that graph proves is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature level of our earth.

HOWEVER, that does not disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does contribute to the warmth of our planet.


Did you even read what you wrote above? Read it again, it's RICH.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Yes Oss there must be some kinda dirt in his private emails. The data is released, the studies published and reviewed but lets go into their personal lives.

Perhaps we can video tape them in their homes - go through their personal finances and publish their addresses.

That is totally ridiculous - especially coming form someone claiming to be an advocate of the Constitution.

I have never seen such a dishonest bunch. Seriously do the denial tactics bother any of you? How bout the track record? 30 years of theories proved wrong?

Does that weigh on any of you?



Its the law, not an option. Why would they spend $500,000 in legal fee's avoiding providing publicly funded information. It aint personal, its public bro. Does that not seem a bit strange?

They lost in court and now must comply. Period.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Considering most of 2011 may end up running below normal globally, it will be interesting to see if [Dr. Masters] continues to draw attention to it monthly.

What is the factual basis for that? - two weeks on a unverified graph you generated?

Thats just beyond a bizarre comment. after everything you criticize reputable climate scientists for you are far, far worse.



Perhaps you, scientific-minded one, should pay attention to the current meteorology. Approximately 9 months after every La Nina or El Nino peaks, the temperatures globally spike in the same direction as the SSTs in the equatorial Pacific. The globe is already down near the 30-year average and has a ways to go before it will bottom out with this La Nina, and so far it shows no signs of weakening, which they usually do after December, but we will see how long it lasts.

It's a simple observation really. It means absolutely nothing relative century-scale climate cycles. Not yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Seriously are you guys like giggling as you post this denial stuff?

Really does any of it seem valid in any way to you - not the politics - but the actual science or lack thereof?


They have some of the poorest constructed arguments ever seen.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Considering most of 2011 may end up running below normal globally, it will be interesting to see if [Dr. Masters] continues to draw attention to it monthly.

What is the factual basis for that? - two weeks on a unverified graph you generated?

Thats just beyond a bizarre comment. after everything you criticize reputable climate scientists for you are far, far worse.



Not to be rude, because I totally agree with you, but why are you questioning the validity of Levi32's graph?

Who cares if it's right or wrong, his graph shows that the first two weeks of 2011 have been average...can I say, "big deal?"

We are discussing global climate change. Climate is the average weather for a 30 year or longer period of time. 2 weeks holds 1/1500th of that time...pretty insignificant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Clouds heading your way Pat
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Seriously are you guys like giggling as you post this denial stuff?

Really does any of it seem valid in any way to you - not the politics - but the actual science or lack thereof?


Yes, we're laughing that it's been proven that climate cycles over hundreds of thousands of years and everyone is upset about .1 C warmer than average.

PS The sky is falling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's interesting how the IPCC global warming projections show a large drop-off in atmospheric pressure in the arctic (more positive AO), which would naturally warm up most of the continents in the Northern hemisphere and reduce arctic sea ice. However, since arctic pressures went into the tank in the early 1990s, they have risen steadily since then, and we are now seeing some of the lowest Arctic Oscillation numbers on record during the last couple years.

The funny thing is, the negative AO is now being blamed for the reduced arctic sea ice extent, when the climate projections say a positive AO will accomplish that. Furthermore, a negative AO results in a colder arctic (where the polar easterlies dominate) than a positive AO. The reason it isn't doing so during the last two years is because both major ocean multidecadal cycles (PDO and AMO) have been mostly positive in recent history, shoving lots of warm water into the high latitudes which has stalled sea ice growth, though it has not yet dipped lower than the 2007 record 30-year low.


University of Illinois IPCC Arctic GCM Scenarios


NOAA ESRL - NCEP Reanalysis
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pat, you're just copying and pasting on here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting smartinwx:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.


All that graph proves is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature level of our earth.

HOWEVER, that does not disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does contribute to the warmth of our planet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations


Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices.

In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.




Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Humm, still dancin and avoidin? The info should be out for those who requested it shortly. Hockey mania comin around the corner :)

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/mann-from-transparency-champion-to-bully-vi ctim


Yes, Virginia, you do have to produce those 'Global Warming' documents
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting P451:

So now you're down to posting ficitious artist renderings and passing them off as fact?

Please.... enough already.

Why don't you just photoshop your own images from here on out to match your "We're all dead in 5 years" drama?

Here, let me help you.


===============




So, you can see folks, you're all idiots, and we're all dead meat! Worship me or shut up and die.




.............pft.



Waits for Michael to say "Those proportions are correct, Mr. Mayor!" (Jaws reference... if ya get it, you get a cookie. Although that cookie.)



The thing that kills me most on this blog (and most other places where you see global warming debates) is how unprofessional and poorly the anti man made global warming side presents themselves.


Just flame flame flame, with a hint of spam. Oh and don't forget to call everything a scam.


Get some evidence for once. Look at all of MichaelSTL's posts, they're filled with EVIDENCE. Something you folk have trouble finding (GEE I WONDER WHY).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Dr. Masters is an honest and open scientist; I'm sure that if the planet somehow mysteriously cools off to below normal for the year, he'll mention it. That's what scientists do, no?

But, at least for the US, cooling isn't in the forecast. The CPC says the Southwest and Alaska should be above normal for most of the year, the West should have a hot summer, Florida should be above average into fall, the northeast should be warm in the fall, and the upper Midwest should be toasty next winter. Only the Pacific northwest is expected to be below normal, and then only through spring. Bottom line: if the CPC is correct, 2011 will be yet another warmer than average year for the United States:

Click for larger image:

See No Science. Speak No Science. Hear No Science.


We shall see won't we. They completely missed the summer forecast for 2010, and they had Alaska boiling hot for this winter, yet we are suffering from well-below normal temperatures. We'll see. Climate forecasters still have major issues dealing with 3-month periods or longer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
..Bueller?











Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate




Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.




Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:


Folks...please beware of this silly claim of his.

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

For example...

"Scientists involved in last year's "climategate" leaked emails controversy, which added to scepticism about the science of global warming, were not open enough with their data and unhelpful with requests for information, an independent review of the affair found yesterday.

They and their institution, the University of East Anglia (UEA), did not embrace the "spirit of openness" enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act, according to a long-awaited report into their conduct carried out by a panel of senior academics."

And this...

"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.

It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text."

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

Such clearly unethical behavior on the part of those scientists and their cohorts is the reason why so many people are finding themselves siding against the obvious fraud of AGW.

Maybe they need to add a little more 'Ethics Training' to the program in those schools.

The AAAS article mentioned did not address anything that suggested the scientists were absolved. It tap danced itself silly instead.

When oh when will the lies end.

Oh well, looks like today is not the day.




When will it end?

When it's more profitable to proclaim "Global Cooling", that's when.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

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...please beware of this silly claim of his.

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

For example...

"Scientists involved in last year's "climategate" leaked emails controversy, which added to scepticism about the science of global warming, were not open enough with their data and unhelpful with requests for information, an independent review of the affair found yesterday.

They and their institution, the University of East Anglia (UEA), did not embrace the "spirit of openness" enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act, according to a long-awaited report into their conduct carried out by a panel of senior academics."

And this...

"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.

It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text."

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

Such clearly unethical behavior on the part of those scientists and their cohorts is the reason why so many people are finding themselves siding against the obvious fraud of AGW.

Maybe they need to add a little more 'Ethics Training' to the program in those schools.

The AAAS article mentioned did not address anything that suggested the scientists were absolved. It tap danced itself silly instead.

When oh when will the lies end.

Oh well, looks like today is not the day.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Considering most of 2011 may end up running below normal globally, it will be interesting to see if [Dr. Masters] continues to draw attention to it monthly.

Dr. Masters is an honest and open scientist; I'm sure that if the planet somehow mysteriously cools off to below normal for the year, he'll mention it. That's what scientists do, no?

But, at least for the US, cooling isn't in the forecast. The CPC says the Southwest and Alaska should be above normal for most of the year, the West should have a hot summer, Florida should be above average into fall, the northeast should be warm in the fall, and the upper Midwest should be toasty next winter. Only the Pacific northwest is expected to be below normal, and then only through spring. Bottom line: if the CPC is correct, 2011 will be yet another warmer than average year for the United States:

Click for larger image:

See No Science. Speak No Science. Hear No Science.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13538
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Right, so a century of warming is going to be erased (by the way, satellite temperatures also went negative in 2008, but they were still positive at the surface - plus UAH now uses 1981-2010, which is a lot warmer than the 1951-1980 period that GISS uses, so their anomalies are much lower):



Yes, they said the EXACT same thing in 2008!

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Some reality:

Keep those PJs on: a La Niña cannot erase decades of warming

PS: see here for the "frog" reference


Flattering.

Obviously cooling from one La Nina won't just continue down a slope forever. La Ninas naturally flip back to El Ninos every time. What will be interesting is to see if we bottom out as low or lower than 2008, which bottomed out as low as the previous La Nina in 1999-2001.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 278 - 228

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.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy