Arctic sea ice at a record low again; a warmer February for the U.S. coming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:42 PM GMT on February 08, 2011

Share this Blog
9
+

Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest on record for the month, and marked the second consecutive month a record low has been set, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Most of the missing ice was concentrated along the shores of Northeast Canada and Western Greenland. Relative to the 1979 - 2000 average, the missing ice area was about twice the size of Texas, or about 60% of the size of the Mediterranean Sea. Hudson Bay in Canada did not freeze over until mid-January, the latest freeze-up date on record, and at least a month later than average. The late freeze-up contributed to record warm winter temperatures across much of the Canadian Arctic in December and January. Bob Henson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research has a very interesting post on this, noting that Coral Harbor on the shores of Hudson Bay had a low temperature on January 6 that was 30°C (54°F) above average--a pretty ridiculous temperature anomaly. He quotes David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, who discussed the lack of ice near Canada's Baffin Island: "The Meteorological Service of Canada was still writing marine forecasts as of 7 January, well beyond anything we have ever done." Henson also writes:

"The extremes have been just as impressive when you look high in the atmosphere above these areas. Typically the midpoint of the atmosphere's mass--the 500-millibar (500 hPa) level--rests around 5 kilometers (3 miles) above sea level during the Arctic midwinter. In mid-December, a vast bubble of high pressure formed in the vicinity of Greenland. At the center of this high, the 500-mb surface rose to more than 5.8 kilometers, a sign of remarkably mild air below. Stu Ostro (The Weather Channel) found that this was the most extreme 500-mb anomaly anywhere on the planet in weather analyses dating back to 1948.

Farther west, a separate monster high developed over Alaska in January. According to Richard Thoman (National Weather Service, Fairbanks), the 500-mb height over both Nome and Kotzebue rose to 582 decameters (5.82 km). That's not only a January record: those are the highest values ever observed at those points outside of June, July, and August."



Figure 1. Monthly January sea ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.3% per decade. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The warm temperatures in Canada and record sea ice loss in the Arctic were also due, in part, to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The Arctic Oscillation and its close cousin, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are naturally occurring pressure patterns in the Arctic and mid-latitudes. A negative AO and NAO results when we have weaker than normal low pressure over the Arctic, and weaker than normal high pressure over the Azores Islands. This fosters an easterly flow of air off the warm Atlantic Ocean into the Canadian Arctic, and also weakens the winds of the polar vortex, the ring of counter-clockwise spinning winds that encircles the Arctic. A weaker polar vortex allows cold air to spill southwards out of the Arctic into eastern North America and Western Europe. Thus, the strongly negative AO and NAO the past two winters have been largely responsible for the cold and snowy winters in these regions, and exceptionally warm conditions in the Arctic. I described this pattern in more detail in my December post titled, Florida shivers; Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern is back. It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter. It should not surprise us that Arctic sea ice loss would be capable of causing major perturbations to Earth's weather, since it is well known that changes from average in sea surface temperatures over large regions of the ocean modify the jet stream, storm tracks, and precipitation patterns. The El Niño and La Niña patterns are prime examples of this (though the area of oceans affected by these phenomena are much larger than what we're talking about in the Arctic.) Another example: Feudale and Shukla (2010) found that during the summer of 2003, exceptionally high sea surface temperatures of 4°C (7°F) above average over the Mediterranean Sea, combined with unusually warm SSTs in the northern portion of the North Atlantic Ocean near the Arctic, combined to shift the jet stream to the north over Western Europe and create the heat wave of 2003, the deadliest heat wave in history with 30,000 - 50,000 deaths in Europe.

References
Feudale, L., and J. Shukla (2010), "Influence of sea surface temperature on the European heat wave of 2003 summer. Part I: an observational study", Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0788-0


Figure 2. The 6-10 temperature forecast issued by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center calls for an above-average chance of warm temperatures across most of the U.S. by mid-February.

A warmer forecast for February
Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S. This warm-up is reflected in the latest 6 - 10 day temperature outlook from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (Figure 2.) Could it be the groundhog was right, and we have only three more weeks of winter left? Time will tell--we have little skill predicting what may happen to the Arctic Oscillation more than about two weeks in advance.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 359 - 309

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

359. washingtonian115
10:09 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Spring will be coming early.The trees outside have already sprouted buds.Not a good sign becuase...
1.I hate spring,and....
2.My alergies are terrible.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17604
358. hurricanelonny
9:28 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting txag91met:
Nice post Jeff...looks like the AO may trend back negative towards the end of the month.


Any graphs to back that up. I don't really see AO going neg. this month.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWli nk/daily_ao_index/ao_index_mrf.shtml
Member Since: August 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 6
357. Patrap
8:26 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Sowwy,,

new ENtry by Dr. Masters.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129418
356. jwh250
8:25 PM GMT on February 09, 2011

He flunked out of Purdue his sophomore year like Anthony Watts.

Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
355. SulgraveLLC
8:24 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Dr. Masters:

Have you had a chance to consider the implications of these two new papers below? How might they change current climate change models and interpretation of global warming trends?

Thank you.

1. Bathymetric controls on Pliocene North Atlantic and Arctic sea surface temperature and deepwater production.
M.M. Robinson, P.J. Valdes, A.M. Haywood Et Alia.
Palaeogeog., Palaeoclim., Palaeoecol., In Press, Online 1/15/2011.
doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.01.004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU RL&_udi=B6V6R-51YBTRC-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F1 5%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=se arch&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_ version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31d81caa9b7 8fcb5938ee9d81625ca4c&searchtype=a
Abstract
The mid-Pliocene warm period (MPWP; ~ 3.3 to 3.0 Ma) is the most recent interval in Earth's history in which global temperatures reached and remained at levels similar to those projected for the near future. The distribution of global warmth, however, was different than today in that the high latitudes warmed more than the tropics. Multiple temperature proxies indicate significant sea surface warming in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans during the MPWP, but predictions from a fully coupled ocean–atmosphere model (HadCM3) have so far been unable to fully predict the large scale of sea surface warming in the high latitudes. If climate proxies accurately represent Pliocene conditions, and if no weakness exists in the physics of the model, then model boundary conditions may be in error. Here we alter a single boundary condition (bathymetry) to examine if Pliocene high latitude warming was aided by an increase in poleward heat transport due to changes in the subsidence of North Atlantic Ocean ridges. We find an increase in both Arctic sea surface temperature and deepwater production in model experiments that incorporate a deepened Greenland–Scotland Ridge. These results offer both a mechanism for the warming in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans indicated by numerous proxies and an explanation for the apparent disparity between proxy data and model simulations of Pliocene northern North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean conditions. Determining the causes of Pliocene warmth remains critical to fully understanding comparisons of the Pliocene warm period to possible future climate change scenarios.

Research Highlights
► We alter GCM bathymetry to see if warming is aided by ocean ridge subsidence. ► We find an increase in both Arctic sea surface temperature and deepwater production. ► The results offer a warming mechanism and an explanation for data-model disparity. ► Our results are compatible with paleoceoanographic and geophysical evidence. ► The Iceland–Faroe Ridge has a greater effect on climate than does Denmark Strait.



2. Weakening of the equatorial Atlantic cold tongue over the past six decades.
Hiroki Tokinaga1 & Shang-Ping Xie1.
Nature Geoscience 2011
doi:10.1038/ngeo1078
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/ full/ngeo1078.html
Seasonal and interannual variations of the equatorial cold tongue are defining features of the tropical Atlantic Ocean, with significant climatic and biogeochemical effects. However, its long-term changes are poorly understood owing to biases in observations and climate models. Here we use a suite of bias-corrected observations, and find that cold-tongue variability has weakened during the past six decades. We find that sea surface temperature has increased across the basin, with a local enhancement over the eastern equatorial Atlantic. This warming pattern of the sea surface is most pronounced during boreal summer, reducing the annual cycle through a positive ocean–atmosphere feedback. Specifically, the eastward-intensified warming leads to enhanced atmospheric convection in the equatorial eastern Atlantic region, as well as to less vigorous trade winds. These in turn deepen the thermocline in the east, and reinforce the sea surface warming pattern. The flattened thermocline and reduced thermocline feedback weaken interannual variability of equatorial sea surface temperatures and Guinea coast precipitation associated with the Atlantic Niño. We suggest that the observed changes could be associated with cooling by anthropogenic aerosols, an effect that is stronger in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere. If the aerosol emissions decrease in the next decades, the tropical Atlantic may experience yet another shift as the greenhouse gas forcing increases.


Member Since: February 8, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
354. weatherboy1992
8:23 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Who's this Stephen Goddard person? Is he real?

Quoting jwh250:
Evil Oceans Produce 16 Times As Much CO2 As Humans


Posted on February 8, 2011 by stevengoddard


Maybe we can tax the oceans?

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography -book/carboncycle.htm

Member Since: January 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 173
353. Neapolitan
8:23 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Who are these thousands of certified life-long climatologists you bring up?

It's not just climatologists; it's nearly every national and international scientific body. Here's a listing of such bodies that have come out with position statements supporting AGWT: the InterAcademy Council, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the Network of African Science Academies, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, the European Science Foundation, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the European Geosciences Union, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of London, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the American Meteorological Society, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organization, the American Quaternary Association, the International Union for Quaternary Research, the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society for Microbiology, the Australian Coral Reef Society, the UK Institute of Biology, the Society of American Foresters, the Wildlife Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Australian Medical Association, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the World Health Organization, the American Astronomical Society, the American Statistical Association, the the Institution of Engineers Australia, the International Association for Great Lakes Research, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand, along with national science academies for the following nations/areas: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

(While there are a small handful of organizations that remain officially non-commital, none reject the theory of AGWT. For the record, the last one that did was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists--go figure--but even that group went non-commital a few years ago.)

(And, no, I'm not in any way saying that there are climatologists in those groups. Nor am I saying that every person in those groups, climatologist or otherwise, adheres to AGWT. But the groups as a whole have taken the majority opinion, and based their position statements on that opinion.)

Is it really anyone's opinion that the tens of thousands of scientists represented by these groups are all involved in a conspiracy to deprive people of their freedoms or to extract exorbitant taxes? And does anyone really believe that a handful of politicians bought and paid for by Big Energy carry the same science credibility as the majority of those in the above bodies do?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
352. weatherboy1992
8:21 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:


remember Global Warming activists worship the Earth, mother nature is sacred because we evolved from it, the goddess gaia wills for us not to tax her oceans. She said to tax and to take away American freedoms :)


Who is stephen Goddard? Where'd he get his degree, and in what? Where does he work?
Member Since: January 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 173
351. JLPR2
8:15 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
So this is not about weather, but I got a question.
You guys know your civil rights, right?

If the republican governor of Puerto Rico signs a law that makes illegal protests and any type of marches or manifestations by civilians that interrupt any public services related to health or education, is that legal?

Doesn't that go against the right to freedom of speech and association?
Member Since: September 4, 2007 Posts: 7 Comments: 8747
350. MichaelSTL
8:15 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
It is also funny how they claim that coming off of fossil fuels will bring us back to the stone age:



Energy and global warming news for February 9, 2011: Solar energy in CA cheaper than natural gas; Proposed EPA rules on power plants could bring jobs to Michigan

We hear it every day: “Solar is too expensive.” Well, not according to the California utility Southern California Edison.

In a recent filing to the state’s Public Utilities Commission, SCE asked for approval of 20 solar PV projects worth 250 MW – all of which are expected to generate a total of 567 GWh of electricity for less than the price of natural gas.


Michigan would gain about 12,469 construction jobs a year for five years if proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air pollution rules go into effect, according to a study released today.

The report, prepared by James Heintz of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts and released at the 2011 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference in Washington, D.C., says investment to clean and modernize U.S. power plants nationally is expected to create 1.46 million direct and indirect new jobs through 2015.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
349. jwh250
8:14 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
February 8, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”


On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.
We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/pruden tpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of
floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University1
Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado1
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 - Emeritus or Retired
2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut1
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, Engineer
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1
Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc.
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
Bob Zybach, Ecologist
1 - Emeritus or Retired
Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
348. jwh250
8:04 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
New research offers clearer picture of cold snap's effect on Everglades
Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
347. JFLORIDA
7:59 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
It is a bad time for any kind of disruption. There are a number of upward price pressures coming into play now.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
346. MichaelSTL
7:58 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting JFLORIDA:
try to find balance rather than wacked out panic over GW propaganda.

I want to know what "panic" is - as nothign has been done for 30 years - gas and FF is at near a all time high - two wars in the Mideast - Climate disasters mounting. Crop disasters. Permafrost melt, Alpine forest dying, Ocean Acidification and mercury content so high you have to limit seafood and freshwater fish intake.

What exactly is "panic" in this situation? Considering really nothign is done and we still subsidize FF to an extent.


Not to mention this:

ANALYSIS - Somali pirates grow bolder, world response lags

Somali pirates seized their second oil tanker in two days on Wednesday, capturing a Greek ship carrying Kuwaiti oil to the United States after taking an Italian oil vessel.

"The piracy situation is now spinning out of control," said Joe Angelo, managing director of industry association INTERTANKO. "If piracy in the Indian Ocean is left unabated, it will strangle... crucial shipping lanes with the potential to severely disrupt oil flows to the US and the rest of the world."
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
345. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:48 PM GMT on February 09, 2011

Quoting Patrap:
Well,,were screwed as screwed can be with Leadership like this maroon.

House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton Denies Human Role In Climate Change (VIDEO)


+ 1,000,000,000

The sad thing is that those on the Titanic that did not believe the ship would sink also did not prevent others from getting on the lifeboats. What we are seeing now is the burning of the lifeboats before anyone can put them to use. Fifty years from now, Fred Upton will be dead and will care less if he was right or wrong.


Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
344. kwgirl
7:44 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting JFLORIDA:
try to find balance rather than wacked out panic over GW propaganda.

I want to know what "panic" is - as nothign has been done for 30 years - gas and FF is at near a all time high - two wars in the Mideast - Climate disasters mounting. Crop disasters. Permafrost melt, Alpine forest dying, Ocean Acidification and mercury content so high you have to limit seafood and freshwater fish intake.

What exactly is "panic" in this situation? Considering really nothign is done and we still subsidize FF to an extent.
IMPO, I think the answer is NOW!
Member Since: March 28, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1532
343. JFLORIDA
7:39 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
try to find balance rather than wacked out panic over GW propaganda.

I want to know what "panic" is - as nothign has been done for 30 years - gas and FF is at near a all time high - two wars in the Mideast - Climate disasters mounting. Crop disasters. Permafrost melt, Alpine forest dying, Ocean Acidification and mercury content so high you have to limit seafood and freshwater fish intake.

What exactly is "panic" in this situation? Considering really nothign is done and we still subsidize FF to an extent.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
342. HaloReachFan
7:36 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Who are these thousands of certified life-long climatologists you bring up?


Yea that's what I thought. You have no idea how many states we have and you won't comment on what I asked.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
341. kwgirl
7:27 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting FFtrombi:


I dunno, you seem to be pretty certifiable. Btw, what are these American freedoms that are not normal elsewhere that you are so busy defending?
Name calling otherwise known as free speech?
Member Since: March 28, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1532
340. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
7:14 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #3
TEMPETE TROPICALE MODEREE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
22:00 PM Reunion February 9 2011
=====================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Moderate Tropical Storm Bingiza (996 hPa) located at 13.7 54.6 has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west at 5 knots.

Gale Force Winds
===============
30 NM from the center

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
50 NM from the center, extending up to 100 NM in the northwestern quadrant and up to 120 NM in the southern semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/2.5/D1.5/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 13.9S 54.3E - 35 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
24 HRS: 14.2S 54.1E - 40 knots (Tempête Tropicale Modéree)
48 HRS: 15.1S 54.1E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 16.3S 53.8E - 70 knots (Cyclone Tropical)

Additional Information
======================

The system has intensified and has been named BINGIZA by the weather service of Madagascar. Convection has significantly strengthened and is wrapping around the center for the latest hours. Moderate easterly shear is expected to maintain within the next 36 hours. Consequently as slower intensification is expected. After that (Friday night), upper level conditions is expected to improve significantly with lower shear under the upper level ridge and good outflow specially polewards. Therefore, a stronger intensification rate is expected by that time. System is moving west southwest along the western side of the subtropical ridge. Tomorrow a deep mid latitude trough is expected to be south of the system around 50E and generate a strong weakness in the subtropical ridge. This pattern should allow a gradual polewards turn and a slow down of the track. Latest models from 0:00Z agree with this southward turn for Friday and Saturday. At longer range, some models like UKMO show a more southwestward track under the steering influence of a ridge located to the southwest of the system and other models like the very last ECMWF show a now southward track. Present forecast is based on a consensus of all available models.

INHABITANTS OF MASCARENES ISLANDS AND THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR SHOULD CLOSELY FOLLOW THE EVOLUTION OF THIS SYSTEM.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Service will be issued at 0:30 AM UTC..
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 52 Comments: 46525
339. HaloReachFan
7:09 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yeah, Upton is another perfect example of just why politics needs to stay out of science. On the one hand, thousands of certified life-long climatologists saying the planet is warming up due to decades of unimpeded CO2. On the other hand, a non-climatologist heavily beholden to fossil fuel interests declaring that AGW is a fraud.

Guys like Upton are interested in taking away our rights as not just Americans, but as humans. To him and his ilk, profit is the only thing that matters. Profit over people. Profit over common sense. Profit over all. The future will judge him harshly--but by then it will be too late.


Who are these thousands of certified life-long climatologists you bring up?
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
338. Neapolitan
7:07 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Patrap:
Well,,were screwed as screwed can be with Leadership like this maroon.

Yeah, Upton is another perfect example of just why politics needs to stay out of science. On the one hand, thousands of certified life-long climatologists saying the planet is warming up due to decades of unimpeded CO2. On the other hand, a non-climatologist heavily beholden to fossil fuel interests declaring that AGW is a fraud.

Guys like Upton are interested in taking away our rights as not just Americans, but as humans. To him and his ilk, profit is the only thing that matters. Profit over people. Profit over common sense. Profit over all. The future will judge him harshly--but by then it will be too late.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13729
337. mfaria101
7:06 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Greetings all, I don't usually post much preferring to lurk most of the time but ran across this article in Slate and couldnt resist passing it on:
Link
enjoy, (back to lurking)
Member Since: May 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 30
336. alfabob
6:57 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting awatland:
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? The comments in this blog seem to state both:

"It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter"

and

"Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S"


When considering oscillations, they are just ways of measuring regional changes; from temperature, wind direction, pressure, ect. These changes are usually caused by multiple factors, although their effects are weighted differently. In my opinion the lack of sea ice is a secondary factor, while the increase in ocean temperature is the primary. The lack of sea ice is mainly due to the continuous decline in volume over the years which is now showing up in area measurements. I've said this a few times now, the high pressure is from rising heat/moisture from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans; which are forcing the polar vortex to shift over the continents. If you have even seen a simulation of fluid dynamics, depending on certain variables the motions undergo different oscillations. Recently an unstable form was occurring as the arctic mass in general is weak, while the tropical masses are stronger.

#1 factor in climate change is the ocean, next are smaller bodies of water and ice sheets, and then come glaciers, surface and atmospheric temperatures. Our current influx of energy (heat) is over 4 times what we use for primary fuel consumption, which is due to greenhouse gases; which we put there over hundreds of years. The climate and its effects on society are advancing much more rapidly than most are willing to accept.
Member Since: July 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1347
335. HaloReachFan
6:55 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting FFtrombi:


I dunno, you seem to be pretty certifiable. Btw, what are these American freedoms that are not normal elsewhere that you are so busy defending?


Compare our freedoms to Canada and Britian. Go ahead have fun. Oops my computer says I misspelled Britian but idc.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
334. Patrap
6:55 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Ramble on...
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129418
333. FFtrombi
6:51 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:



No there shouldn't be a removal of any regulation, early America, the Industrial Age, gives a great example why no regulation is bad.

However, some of us, still have our sanity, some of us, don't worship mother earth, and some of us try to find balance rather than wacked out panic over GW propaganda. Some of us believe in learning how to improve the environment, but aren't wacked out nut-cases that want utter removal of all things leading to the supposed end of the world do to Global Warming. Some of us actually have enough sanity and balance left to care about the environment. Yet realize regulating will destroy American freedoms as well as collapse society as we know it.


I dunno, you seem to be pretty certifiable. Btw, what are these American freedoms that are not normal elsewhere that you are so busy defending?
Member Since: November 6, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 165
332. Jedkins01
6:48 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


So you're saying what? There should be no regulations on what we can dump in the environment?

The rich (the ones that own and run the companies that complain about regulations) make sure they live far from any pollution. Anti-regulatory ideas are the guff they sell to the gulllible or to the politicians.



No there shouldn't be a removal of any regulation, early America, the Industrial Age, gives a great example why no regulation is bad.

However, some of us, still have our sanity, some of us, don't worship mother earth, and some of us try to find balance rather than wacked out panic over GW propaganda. Some of us believe in learning how to improve the environment, but aren't wacked out nut-cases that want utter removal of all things leading to the supposed end of the world do to Global Warming. Some of us actually have enough sanity and balance left to care about the environment. Yet realize regulating will destroy American freedoms as well as collapse society as we know it.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7960
331. Jedkins01
6:41 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting jwh250:
Evil Oceans Produce 16 Times As Much CO2 As Humans


Posted on February 8, 2011 by stevengoddard


Maybe we can tax the oceans?

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography -book/carboncycle.htm



remember Global Warming activists worship the Earth, mother nature is sacred because we evolved from it, the goddess gaia wills for us not to tax her oceans. She said to tax and to take away American freedoms :)
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7960
330. HaloReachFan
6:35 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting jwh250:
Maybe we can tax the oceans?



I think so.
Member Since: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 563
329. greentortuloni
6:22 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Surfcropper:


Are you kidding me? LOL

What grade did you get in reading comprehension in 3rd grade?

I think its terrible [all the junk that finds its way into the ocean, man-made, robot-made, natural elements that shouldn't be there, asteroids, the trans-atlantic cable,].

But I am all for the sinking of structures to produce artificial reefs. Eventhough the materials of such structures may not be natural to the environment, I've seen first hand what it produces in a short period of time. I think its very chivalric of the human to adopt such actions for our aquatic mutant cousins.




Fair enough. I assumed sarcasm. My bad. Apologies.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
328. Levi32
6:20 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:


It can be both; however, when there is less sea ice in the first place, as there is in recent years, it delays the formation of the seasonal polar vortex (the normal condition) due to the heat released into the atmosphere, which warms the air and increases heights (the polar vortex, like other low pressure areas, is an area of low heights).

There is good evidence to support this as well; until Hudson Bay completely froze over, there was a large area of temperature anomalies to 20C or more (averaged over a month) centered right where there was open water, compared to average - but it cooled down right as it completely froze over, which to me isn't a coincidence (it happened before the Arctic Oscillation changed as well):





No. Assuming the air directly above is in or near thermal equilibrium with the ocean (which is true most of the time in the high and low latitudes), if there is less ice in the first place, then there was already a greater amount of energy in the air in the first place which was why there was less ice to begin with. There is no "extra" heat being transfered to the air after the event of less sea ice being present. You can't bring up albedo either because we are talking about the polar night during the winter where there is no direct solar radiation energy.

The delay in the maturation of the polar vortex during a low sea-ice winter would be directly due to the already higher level of energy in the atmosphere, which caused the loss of sea ice in the first place.

Note: This doesn't consider atmosphere-independent ocean heating due to ocean currents and meridional overturning circulation oscillations like the AMO which does modulate sea ice. However, as we are clearly talking about AGW here, the concern is with changes in the atmosphere for this particular point. Note that this also means that the most probable cause for the large blocking high in SE Canada this winter was the exceptionally high AMO and Atlantic Tripole values during November and December which transport warm water to the high latitudes of the Atlantic, and are independent of any long-term warming trend.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
327. Surfcropper
6:11 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


So you're saying what? There should be no regulations on what we can dump in the environment?

The rich (the ones that own and run the companies that complain about regulations) make sure they live far from any pollution. Anti-regulatory ideas are the guff they sell to the gulllible or to the politicians.


Are you kidding me? LOL

What grade did you get in reading comprehension in 3rd grade?

I think its terrible [all the junk that finds its way into the ocean, man-made, robot-made, natural elements that shouldn't be there, asteroids, the trans-atlantic cable,].

But I am all for the sinking of structures to produce artificial reefs. Eventhough the materials of such structures may not be natural to the environment, I've seen first hand what it produces in a short period of time. I think its very chivalric of the human to adopt such actions for our aquatic mutant cousins.


Member Since: July 19, 2008 Posts: 28 Comments: 1960
326. greentortuloni
6:05 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting Surfcropper:


I think its terrible. Some of my favorite things to eat get affected down the eco-line. Remember all the dangerous things in the world before the nineties? Those lead fishing weights? I used to put those things in my mouth, like draw breakers tasting the ocean salt. Maybe that's why I'm the way I am now..
:0


So you're saying what? There should be no regulations on what we can dump in the environment?

The rich (the ones that own and run the companies that complain about regulations) make sure they live far from any pollution. Anti-regulatory ideas are the guff they sell to the gulllible or to the politicians.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
324. Surfcropper
5:58 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Wonder what he thinks about ocean acidification and Mercury contamination.


I think its terrible. Some of my favorite things to eat get affected down the eco-line. Remember all the dangerous things in the world before the nineties? Those lead fishing weights? I used to put those things in my mouth, like draw breakers tasting the ocean salt. Maybe that's why I'm the way I am now..
:0
Member Since: July 19, 2008 Posts: 28 Comments: 1960
323. jwh250
5:57 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
That happens roughly half the time I use the rich text feature, it can be useful though when its not glitching up on you.
Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
322. Patrap
5:50 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Another epic Fail from the Big Wind..

LOL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129418
321. jwh250
5:49 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Evil Oceans Produce 16 Times As Much CO2 As Humans


Posted on February 8, 2011 by stevengoddard


Maybe we can tax the oceans?

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography -book/carboncycle.htm

Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
320. JFLORIDA
5:49 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Wonder what he thinks about ocean acidification and Mercury contamination.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
319. jwh250
5:44 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
China's poor treated to fake rice made from plastic
Member Since: December 30, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 94
317. jeffs713
5:41 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting awatland:
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? The comments in this blog seem to state both:

"It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter"

and

"Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S"

Its a positive feedback. Weaker vortex causes more ice melt. More ice melt means the vortex becomes even weaker, due in part to changed albedo (ocean vs. ice).
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5890
316. MichaelSTL
5:30 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Sea ice hasn't really responded to the change in the AO yet, although I suppose there is a lag; of course, the AO isn't the only factor that determines ice extent:





Also, a positive AO increases the export of ice out of the Arctic, which reduces the amount of old ice present, while a negative AO keeps it in the Arctic, although it brings warmer temperatures. In addition, a new pattern called the Arctic Dipole has lately become dominant over the AO in determining ice loss. See Dr. Masters' blog here:

A new atmospheric pattern emerges: the Arctic Dipole

In a 2008 article titled, Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system Zhang et al. show that the extreme loss of Arctic sea ice since 2001 has been accompanied by a radical shift of the Arctic atmospheric circulation patterns, into a new mode they call the Arctic Rapid change Pattern. The new atmospheric circulation pattern has also been recognized by other researchers, who refer to it as the Arctic Dipole (Richter-Menge et al., 2009). The old atmospheric patterns that controlled Arctic weather--the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO), which featured air flow that tended to circle the pole, now alternate with the new Arctic Dipole pattern. The Arctic Dipole pattern features anomalous high pressure on the North American side of the Arctic, and low pressure on the Eurasian side.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
315. Skyepony (Mod)
5:14 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting awatland:
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? The comments in this blog seem to state both:

"It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter"

and

"Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S"


These statements don't really contradict each other. When there is an area that lacks sea ice that should be covered in ice a high tends to build there, blocking the polar vortex. This weakens the polar vortex & tends to spill the cold air south toward the equator while northern latitudes generally have a warmer spell. This year the Hudson Bay failing to freeze on schedule caused the cold to spill over the SE United States (despite La Nina), while the polar vortex was weak & disrupted. Now the NAO has changed since enough of the Arctic has froze that the polar low can strengthen over the northern latitudes~ helping sea ice increase, keeping the arctic cooler & the lower latitudes warmer.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 208 Comments: 39062
314. awatland
4:59 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting MichaelSTL:


It can be both; however, when there is less sea ice in the first place, as there is in recent years, it delays the formation of the seasonal polar vortex (the normal condition) due to the heat released into the atmosphere, which warms the air and increases heights (the polar vortex, like other low pressure areas, is an area of low heights).

There is good evidence to support this as well; until Hudson Bay completely froze over, there was a large area of temperature anomalies to 20°C or more (averaged over a month) centered right where there was open water, compared to average - but it cooled down right as it completely froze over, which to me isn't a coincidence (it happened before the Arctic Oscillation changed as well):





Thanks for the reply. So what I gather from this is that basically the initial formation of Arctic Sea Ice coincides somewhat with the formation of the Polar Vortex. Once these two "connected" things occur, it creates a situation where the Polar Vortex intensifies the cooling in the region and increases the extent of the Artic Sea pack. So it becomes an issue of timing. If it takes longer for the initial ice to form it takes longer for the Polar Votex to form and there is less time to thicken and extend the Sea Ice in the Arctic region.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 15 Comments: 8
313. MichaelSTL
4:49 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting awatland:
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? The comments in this blog seem to state both:

"It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter"

and

"Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S"


It can be both; however, when there is less sea ice in the first place, as there is in recent years, it delays the formation of the seasonal polar vortex (the normal condition) due to the heat released into the atmosphere, which warms the air and increases heights (the polar vortex, like other low pressure areas, is an area of low heights).

There is good evidence to support this as well; until Hudson Bay completely froze over, there was a large area of temperature anomalies to 20°C or more (averaged over a month) centered right where there was open water, compared to average - but it cooled down right as it completely froze over, which to me isn't a coincidence (it happened before the Arctic Oscillation changed as well):



Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
312. DEKRE
4:45 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
Quoting awatland:
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? ...


This is called "Feedback"

None of the parameters in the atmosphere are independent, you change one, you change everything else at the same time. A nightmare for modeling
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
311. awatland
4:35 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
I'm confused, does the reduction of Arctic Sea Ice cause the weaker Polar Vortex or does a weaker Polar Vortex cause a reduction of Arctic Sea Ice?? The comments in this blog seem to state both:

"It is possible that Arctic sea ice loss is largely responsible for the unusual Arctic Oscillation pattern we've observed during the past two winters, as well as for the record-strength ridges of high pressure observed over Greenland and Alaska this winter"

and

"Over the past two weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has undergone a major transition, changing from negative to positive. This means that low pressure over the Arctic has intensified, which will act to speed up the counter-clockwise spinning winds (the polar vortex.) This spin-up of the polar vortex will tend to keep cold air bottled up the Arctic, leading to more Arctic sea ice formation and warmer winter conditions over the U.S"
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 15 Comments: 8
310. JFLORIDA
4:28 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
The wheat failure in Russia - cereals and grains in Africa, vegetables, fruits and rice in Asia and Australia was no surprise - everyone focused on the extreme casualty weather event needs to take a step back and look at what just occurred.

Also they need to realize the more disreputable, the chronically dis-proven and corrupt would try to use it a as a means of attack. The Biofuel argument is absurd here but is still being floated as the cause of this food crisis.

It wasn't just crops involved in biofuels and the surpluses in food we once enjoined are giving way to shortages.

Statement By WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran On The Role Of Food In Civil Unrest Across The Middle East

This upward pressure adds further stress to the carefully calibrated systems in place to bring enough food into countries to feed hungry populations, and provide the subsidies that ensure it is sold at prices that are accessible to the poor and the vulnerable.

We are entering an era of food volatility and disruptions in supplies. This is a very serious business for the world. We think that we are in an era where we have to be very serious about food supply.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
309. fireflymom
4:28 PM GMT on February 09, 2011
45 degrees and light rain just SW of Houston it was 50 degrees last night.
Member Since: June 5, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 595

Viewing: 359 - 309

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog 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
53 °F
Mostly Cloudy