At least 611 dead in Brazilian floods: Brazil's deadliest natural disaster in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:05 PM GMT on January 14, 2011

Share this Blog
2
+

Torrential rains inundated a heavily populated, steep-sloped area about 40 miles north of Rio de Janeiro on Tuesday and Wednesday, triggering flash floods and mudslides that have claimed at least 611 lives. Rainfall amounts of approximately 300 mm (12 inches) fell in just a few hours in the hardest-hit regions, Teresopolis and Nova Friburgo. Many more people are missing, and the death toll is expected to go much higher once rescuers reach remote villages that have been cut off from communications. The death toll makes the January 2011 floods Brazil's worst single-day natural disaster in its history. 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 1. Flooding at Sao Jose do Vale do Vale do Rio Preto in Brazil, photographed on Thursday, January 13, 2011.

Role of near-record sea surface temperatures in Brazil's flood
This week's heavy rains occurred when a storm system crossing from west to east over southern Brazil drew in a moist southerly flow air off the Atlantic Ocean over southern Brazil at the surface. At higher levels, the storm drew in very moist air from the Amazon. Sea surface temperatures along the Brazilian coast are at near-record warm levels, which likely contributed to the heavy rains. Record rains are more likely when sea surface temperatures over the nearby moisture source regions are at record high levels. This occurs because increased amounts of water vapor evaporate into the atmosphere from a warm ocean compared to a cold one, due to the extra motion and energy of the hotter water molecules. According to an analysis I did of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre sea surface temperature data set, December 2010 sea surface temperatures in the 5x5 degree region of Earth's surface along the Brazilian shore nearest the disaster area, 20S to 25S and 45W to 40W, were the second warmest on record since 1900. Temperatures were 1.05°C (1.9°F) above average in this region last month. Only 2007, with a 1.21°C departure from average, had warmer December ocean temperatures.

Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart, with the Brazilian private weather forecasting company Metsul, wrote in his blog today, "Heavy rains early this year coincide with the strong warming of the Atlantic along the coasts of southern and southeastern Brazil. With waters up to 2°C warmer than average in some places, there is a major release of moisture in the atmosphere essential for the formation of storms."


Figure 2. Newspaper front page story in Brazil after the March 18, 1967 flooding disaster, Brazil's previous deadliest single-day natural disaster. Image credit: Metsul.

Brazil's previous worst natural disaster: the March 18, 1967 flood
The previous worst natural disaster in Brazilian history occurred on March 18, 1967 when a tsunami-like flood of water, mud and rocks swept down a hillside in the coastal city of Caraguatatuba, near Sao Paulo, killing 300 - 500 people. According to meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart with the private Brazilian weather company Metsul, a rainguage at nearby Sao Sebastao measured 115 mm (4.5") on March 17, and 420 mm (17") on March 18. Hackbart puts the death toll from the 1967 disaster at 300 - 500, and refers to it as Brazil's deadliest single-day natural disaster in history. Heavy rains at other locations in Brazil that month caused additional mudslides and flooding deaths, and Wikipedia lists the total death toll for the Brazil March 1967 floods at 785.

I looked at the sea surface temperatures for March 1967 to see if unusually warm ocean waters may have contributed to that year's flooding disaster. Sea surface temperatures in the 5x5 degree region of Earth's surface nearest the disaster site (20S to 25S, 50W to 45W) were 0.24°C (0.4°F) above average, which is not significantly different from normal. So, we can get record rains and flooding when sea surface temperatures are near normal, and it is possible that this week's catastrophe was not significantly impacted by the exceptionally warm water near the coast. However, heating up the oceans loads the dice in favor of extreme rainfall events, and makes it more likely we will have an unprecedented flood. If we look at the departure of temperature from average for the moisture source regions of the globe's four most extreme flooding disasters over the past 12 months, we find that these ocean temperatures ranked 2nd or 3rd warmest, going back through 111 years of history:

January 2011 Brazilian floods: 2nd warmest SSTs on record, +1.05°C (20S to 25S, 45W to 40W)
November 2010 Colombia floods: 3rd warmest SSTs on record, +0.65°C (10N to 0N, 80W to 75W)
December 2010 Australian floods: 3rd warmest SSTs on record, +1.05°C (10S to 25S, 145E to 155E)
July 2010 Pakistani floods: 2nd warmest SSTs on record, +0.95°C (Bay of Bengal, 10N to 20N, 80E to 95E)

The size of the ocean source region appropriate to use for these calculations is uncertain, and these rankings will move up or down by averaging in a larger or smaller region of ocean. For example, if one includes an adjacent 5x5 degree area of ocean next to Brazil's coast that may have also contributed moisture to this week's floods, the SSTs rank as 7th warmest in the past 111 years, instead of 2nd warmest. It would take detailed modeling studies to determine just how much impact these near-record sea surface temperatures had on the heavy rains that occurred, and what portion of the ocean served as the moisture source region.


Figure 3. Predicted total precipitation amounts in South America for the 7-day period ending at 7am EST January 21, 2011, as forecast by the 06Z run of the GFS Ensemble model made January 14, 2011. Image credit: Florida State University.

More rain in the forecast
The coast of Brazil is embedded in a warm, moist tropical airmass that is expected to continue to bring heavy rains over he Rio de Janeiro area for at least the next week. Heavy rains in excess of five inches in the next seven days (Figure 3) are predicted by the GFS Ensemble computer model for the disaster region, just north of Rio de Janeiro. The additional heavy rains are likely to cause more life-threatening mudslides and floods.

2010 tied for warmest year in Earth's history
Earth's warmest year in history occurred in 2010, NASA reported this week. 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 reecord. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also announced this week 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. When the planet stops producing record weather catastrophes to blog about, I'll discuss the 2010 global temperature record in more detail.

Anniversary of the Haitian earthquake
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of the great Haitian earthquake of 2010. I want to thank all of you who offered donations to such great charities as the Lambi Fund of Haiti and Portlight.org. The people of Haiti need our continued financial support and prayers in the difficult rebuilding years to come.

I'll have a new post on Monday.

Jeff Masters

Haiti Christmas (Portlight)
Haiti Christmas

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: 277 - 227

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

Quoting pottery:

Fine!
Except, the temp here went DOWN by 3 degrees centigrade in the last 4 hours.
This GW thing is a total farce.


I heard that. Look at this report for FL, my neck of the woods included, for last year. I am movin! :)

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/tbw/TopNews/PDF/2010YearlySummary.pdf
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DontAnnoyMe:


Disagree. In fact, the opposing points of view serve to stimulate the discussion.


Well disagree all you want. And you're right, they do stimulate discussion. But do you ever consider what discussion they stimulate? They stimulate the exact same discussion we have already conducted hundreds of times on this blog.

How many times has the temperature graph been shown?

How many more times need it be shown?






................
Anyway

Enough with the Ad Homenin, I'm done, sorry for calling you out Cat and Rita.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting pottery:

Fine!
Except, the temp here went DOWN by 3 degrees centigrade in the last 4 hours.
This GW thing is a total farce.


Nah, it's just that you weren't ranting ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:



LOL.

Hello there. How are things?

Fine!
Except, the temp here went DOWN by 3 degrees centigrade in the last 4 hours.
This GW thing is a total farce.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Happy B'day Patrap. Still workin on the balloons here :)


Tyvm,...

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133453
Quoting pottery:
Greetings all.
The Planet is warming because so many people are spouting-off hot air.
At least, that's what my wife told me earlier today when I was loudly ranting.
And she ought to know.



LOL.

Hello there. How are things?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Hey,,thats near District 9 I believe.



Oh boy, a movie ref. Nice Pat.


Good evening folks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


they equally disrupt the topic of discussion and offer nothing to the discussion, and if anything, regress the discussion.


Disagree. In fact, the opposing points of view serve to stimulate the discussion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Hey,,thats near District 9 I believe.


Happy B'day Patrap. Still workin on the balloons here :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


Uh-huh... that figures...



And as if it was warmer or as warm in the 1920-1930s as today! Even for the U.S. that is totally untrue (the source of the twisted claim that 1934 is the warmest year on record globally):



1934 is the hottest year on record

(they often conveniently leave off "U.S.")

Never mind this:

The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is a weak argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.


Well of course - global warming = warming of the entire globe!


Well, although not global, there was that whole "record for most number of days over 100 degrees" in Australia, during that time...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

How?


You go against everything which has been stated and proven and accepted. And you do it without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

You just go out and make some ridiculous claim.

Quoting DontAnnoyMe:


Sorry, but I don't recall any of them making specific references to your IQ or mental health status.


Yea maybe not in the same form I do it, but they equally disrupt the topic of discussion and offer nothing to the discussion, and if anything, regress the discussion. Care for an explanation, read above this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Greetings all.
The Planet is warming because so many people are spouting-off hot air.
At least, that's what my wife told me earlier today when I was loudly ranting.
And she ought to know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


But solar activity has been declining in recent decades - just when the most warming has occurred!

Of course, that means it should have been just as warm in the early 20th Century when solar activity was at similar levels.

And in either case, the solar cycle influence is too small to noticeably affect temperatures, despite the fact that global temperatures vary by several degrees over a year (satellite readings confirm this):



Note also that the Earth is closest to the Sun in early January - when the globe is the coolest (the variation in insolation is about 7%, compared to just 0.1% for solar irradiance over a solar cycle)!


Read again. The TSI is remaining relatively stable. That is the TOTAL spectrum.

What the new section is seeing are variations in parts of the spectrum (increases in IR, and decreases in UV), during the solar minimum (which was NOT expected).

In order to see the whole story, they'll probably need at least ONE solar cycle (and just as many "earth" seasons).

It may be proved, it may not. There may be an underlying cycle. This cycle may be in-phase or out-of-phase with known oscillations.

But it is a plausible theory that may account for SOME of the earth's warming. Just how much is unknown - at this time.

So, if the climate scientists want the whole story, they'll need to be able to make observations. THEN they can add to the models.

"...Of course, that means it should have been just as warm in the early 20th Century when solar activity was at similar levels..."

True, but CO2 then isn't the same as CO2 now. And, without seeing any underlying cycle, we can't hind-cast to previous solar cycles.

As of now, all they can say, with some certainty, is that parts of the spectrum are not following the TSI.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


No, I'm listening just fine, I agree with you. But they were making equally "alienating" posts.

My point is, you're pointing the finger at me, when if anything, we are both responsible. And if you're curious who threw the first rock, they did.


Sorry, but I don't recall any of them making specific references to your IQ or mental health status.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
260. xcool
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DontAnnoyMe:


Oh, I can assure you I understand perfectly. You're not listening, so I'll state it again:

"Comments like these serve no purpose other than to alienate."



No, I'm listening just fine, I agree with you. But they were making equally "alienating" posts.

My point is, you're pointing the finger at me, when if anything, we are both responsible. And if you're curious who threw the first rock, they did.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Hey,,thats near District 9 I believe.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 434 Comments: 133453
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
What is your solution ? Windmills? What does that intellect of yours say about solutions?


We have Don Quixote to take care of the windmills. ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


Lol at the bold part.

Maybe if you read there comments, you would understand.

Cat5 and Rita were basically saying that Earth isn't warming.



Oh, I can assure you I understand perfectly. You're not listening, so I'll state it again:

"Comments like these serve no purpose other than to alienate."

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
What is your solution cowboy? Windmills? What does that great big intellect of yours say about solutions?


This would be what he is ultimately after. Not a secret, just in the background :)

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Massive area of -100C cloud tops in Vince:




Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting DontAnnoyMe:


Not even considering whose reasoning is correct, comments like these serve no purpose other than to alienate.


Lol at the bold part.

Maybe if you read their comments, you would understand.

Cat5 and Rita were basically saying that Earth isn't warming.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting jwh250:
Wrong again, Michael.

Well, you've convinced me. :-\

See No Science. Speak No Science. Hear No Science.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting TomTaylor:
Cat5Hurricane, you and RitaEvac are out of your minds.

God, back to square one with these IDIOTS.

God, you are pathetic.


Not even considering whose reasoning is correct, comments like these serve no purpose other than to alienate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The first graph in № 241 really should be posted with the following disclaimer, which comes from the site that it originates on:

" Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or
interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care."


From the link below:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt



Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting jwh250:
Wrong again, Michael.


I like the part where you explained how Michael was wrong.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
The graph in № 232 sure doesn't explain warming from 1910-1945 very well. That particular time period seems to have had at least the same degree of warming as the 1975-2000 period with much less forcing. This of course, assuming the data in the GISS (I'm looking at the graph in № 229) accurately represents global temperatures at the time and the graph of radiative forcings is likewise accurate. Of course, natural variations such as that corresponding with PDO and AMO effects are not discussed there.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
Quoting KrippleCreekFerry:
What is your solution cowboy? Windmills? What does that great big intellect of yours say about solutions?

Oh, I've got lots of ideas. But for the time being I'm just doing my little part to help combat the disinformation campaign being bankrolled by Big Energy (and other) interests.

(I'm no cowboy, though I used to be; I lived in Wyoming for a number of years, and spent a lot of working hours on ranches and at the stockyards. If nothing else, it gave me a keen nose for and dislike of bovine egesta.) ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting lahcuts:
Relative to nuclear power and the main problem with it - radioactive waste. Just a thought - why cannot this material be placed in containers capable of falling from great heights into the ocean (in the event of a malfunction), having the ability to be retrieved and sent to the sun via rocket. Expense may be an issue but it is nearly fool proof and would contaminate nothing, except lack of expertise on my part cannot say how or what would happen as the rocket approaches the sun. It may be that rather than distruction of the waste material by the heat as it approached the sun, it would be dispersed into space which may not be a good thing. Your comments would be appreciated.


STLs post on this is good and I provided a link with additional information on the French use of...

US technology.

Just like CFLs we just develop technology and have the rest of the world use it.

The whole idea of next generation plants...

which are already sort of in use in France...

is to use the nuclear material to the point where the waste is essentially harmless.

The nuclear material is already in the earth already... it is not like we are creating something new.

If you read the article on France you can see that the change from waste disposal to storage is not simply a semantic one but also implies a commitment to research on how to properly use the residual.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting lahcuts:
Relative to nuclear power and the main problem with it - radioactive waste. Just a thought - why cannot this material be placed in containers capable of falling from great heights into the ocean (in the event of a malfunction), having the ability to be retrieved and sent to the sun via rocket. Expense may be an issue but it is nearly fool proof and would contaminate nothing, except lack of expertise on my part cannot say how or what would happen as the rocket approaches the sun. It may be that rather than distruction of the waste material by the heat as it approached the sun, it would be dispersed into space which may not be a good thing. Your comments would be appreciated.


They have done testing to see what is necessary for a container to survive a high speed impact without failure of the container. The biggest problem is that the volume of actual waste material compared to the size of the container is quite small.

That equates to substantially more launches and subsequent risk of a launch failure and container failure.

If the amount of waste material were such that it was what was produced over a twenty to thirty year period, while we were finalizing the development of alternative energy sources, then it would probably be worth the effort to dispose of the waste material that way.

As for the vaporization of that material as it approached the sun, remember that we are talking about a distance of over 90 million miles. That equates to an extremely small amount being spread in any given area.

Tough call any way you look at it.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
240. Skyepony (Mod)
Zeke Hausfather, Chief Scientist at Efficiency 2.0 is willing to take
Bastardi’s bet. Hausfather wants to put down $10,000 against Bastardi’s
prediction that global temperatures will decline over the next 10 years.
See it here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting lahcuts:
MichaelSTL - What do you make of this as reported in any number of websites - See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm- seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

Here is the text of the Washington Post (Associated Press) article:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.



So anecdotal (but not scientifically verified) reports of localized warming 70-odd years after we humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in earnest is somehow evidence or proof that the planet isn't warming now?

Wow.

You gotta love Watts; the guy's good for more laughs than a month at a good comedy club... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting Neapolitan:

I saw that report. Did you notice this part?

If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, "It would...imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates."

One thing this should prove to those who feel otherwise: NASA scientists are only interested in getting the science right. That is their agenda. Their only agenda.


I saw that part. It was next to this part:

"...If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City..."

From a NASA scientist, BTW. Who only wants to get the science right...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hahahaha!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MichaelSTL - What do you make of this as reported in any number of websites - See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm- seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

Here is the text of the Washington Post (Associated Press) article:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
You have obviously spent way too much time watching the "disaster" channels on cable.

no... that's me....

;)


We all know the Armageddon Channel is your favorite. (Well, and the Hello Kitty Channel too.)
:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hcubed:


Agreed with the three.

But, shouldn't we be looking at external sources of heat, too?

4. Varying amounts of IR can also cause changes in the earth's temp.

AND VARIATIONS (INCREASES) OF IR HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.

Proof:

"...Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected.

Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall..."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

You could say that this is data that disagrees with climate scientists preconceived notions.

And yet, nobody here wants to discuss it.

I saw that report. Did you notice this part?

If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, "It would...imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates."

One thing this should prove to those who feel otherwise: NASA scientists are only interested in getting the science right. That is their agenda. Their only agenda.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
230. Skyepony (Mod)
The global weather has turned so bad that ABC actually did a well researched, story on it & AGW with actual scientists..



MichaelSTL~ When I saw what you'd posted about the heat coming on in the stratosphere yesterday, I thought of the polar vortex getting torn in two like '09.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MichaelSTL:


...the whole "global cooling in the 1970s" was all based on nonsensical predictions by non-scientists - JUST LIKE THE PREDICTIONS OF COOLING TODAY!

What's the matter with you, Michael? Don't you see that global cooling is going to start any day now? Any minute? Any second?!?!?!?!?! The upward-curved trendline in this graph, which has been moving steadily and increasingly upward for a hundred years, is going to make a hard downward turn at any time, and you'll be eatin' crow. :-\

Click for larger image:
See No Science. Speak No Science. Hear No Science.

Data from here
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14450
Quoting Neapolitan:

Oh, wait; I think I'm starting to understand now. When contrarians say things like "biased" and "partial" and such, they generally mean data that disagrees with their preconceived notions and/or that wasn't found on a site such as WattsUpWithThat.com. Okay! Got it. Thanks, guys!

:-\

To reiterate, the three basic tenets of the theory of AGW over which there is very little to no disagreement among credible climate scientists are as follows:

1) The planet is warming with increasing rapidity.

2) An increasing concentration of CO2 (and other GhGs) is the primary motivator behind that rapid warming.

3) The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that rise in CO2 and other GhGs.


Agreed with the three.

But, shouldn't we be looking at external sources of heat, too?

4. Varying amounts of IR can also cause changes in the earth's temp.

AND VARIATIONS (INCREASES) OF IR HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.

Proof:

"...Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected.

Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall..."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

You could say that this is data that disagrees with climate scientists preconceived notions.

And yet, nobody here wants to discuss it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Quoting oracle28:


Do you call 9-1-1 when you burn toast?
Hahahahaha!

L8R, y'all.


Your example is flawed. Slight warming on earth can initiate positive feedback loops which can dramatically change the earth completely. Burning toast in your toaster creates no feedback loops at all.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358

Viewing: 277 - 227

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

Top of Page

About

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

Local Weather

Thunderstorms and Rain
63 °F
Thunderstorm Rain Mist

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Dunham Lake Sunset
Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto