Another amazingly snowy winter for the U.S.

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:18 PM GMT on February 11, 2011

As northeast Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas dig out from the two feet of snow dumped this winter's latest epic snowstorm, it's time to summarize how remarkable the snows of the past two winters have been. So far this winter, the Northeast U.S. has seen three Category 3 (major) or higher snow storms on the Northeast Snowfall Impact (NESIS) scale. This scale, which rates Northeast snowstorms by the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm, runs from Category 1 (Notable) to Category 5 (Crippling.) This puts the winter of 2010 - 2011 in a tie for first place with the winters of 2009 - 2010 and 1960 - 1961 for most major Northeast snowstorms. All three of these winters had an extreme configuration of surface pressures over the Arctic and North Atlantic referred to as a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). In this situation, the band of winds that circles the North Pole weakens, allowing cold air to spill southwards into the mid-latitudes.

In the past twelve months, we've had six major Category 3 or stronger storms on the NESIS scale, by far the most major snowstorms in a 12-month period in the historical record. Going back to 1956, only one 12-month period had as many as four major snowstorms--during 1960 - 1961. New York City has seen three of its top-ten snowstorms and the two snowiest months in its 142-year history during the past 12 months--February 2010 (36.9") and January 2011 (36.0"). Philadelphia has seen four of its top-ten snowstorm in history the past two winters. The Midwest has not been left out of the action this year, either--the Groundhog's Day blizzard nailed Chicago with its 3rd biggest snowstorm on record. According to the National Climatic Data Center, December 2010 saw the 7th greatest U.S. snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, and January 2011 the 5th most. December 2009 had the greatest snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, January 2010 the 6th most, and February 2010 the 3rd most. Clearly, the snows of the past two winters in the U.S. have been truly extraordinary.


Figure 1. The six major Category 3 Northeast snowstorms of the past twelve months. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

A cold January in the U.S.
January 2011 was the coldest January in the contiguous U.S. since 1994, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and ranked as the 37th coldest January in the 117-year record. Despite the heavy snows in the Northeast U.S., January was the 9th driest January since 1895. This was largely due to the fact that the Desert Southwest was very dry, with New Mexico recording its driest January, and Arizona and Nevada their second driest.

A cold and record snowy winter (yet again!) in the U.S. does not prove or disprove the existence of climate change or global warming, as we must instead focus on global temperatures averaged over decades. Globally, January 2011 was the 11th warmest since 1880, but tied for the second coolest January of the past decade, according to NASA. NOAA has not yet released their stats for January. The cool-down in global temperatures since November 2010, which was the warmest November in the historical record, is largely due to the temporary cooling effect of the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific. This event has cooled a large portion of the surface waters in the Pacific, leading to a cooler global temperature.

Some posts of interest I've done on snow and climate change over the past year:

Hot Arctic-Cold Continents Pattern is back (December 2010)
The future of intense winter storms (March 2010)
Heavy snowfall in a warming world (February 2010)

Have a great weekend, everyone, and enjoy the coming warm-up, those of you in the eastern 2/3 of the country!

Jeff Masters

Snow and icicle sun (emilinetdd)
Snow and icicle sun
Cardinal City (dypepper)
Another exciting day for me, shooting the Cardinals in the Snow!
Cardinal City

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: 650 - 600

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Quoting RecordSeason:
639:

No you missed the point...That was EXACTLY my point...

No such devices existed several decades ago, nevermind 80 or 100 years ago...

Good God you people are dense...

Actually Dude, you missed my point. Those devices have been around for a couple of hundred years. And how about that linear relationship between CO2 and tropical storms? I'd really like to hear your take on that.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds.

Mark Twain
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
JFLORIDA

I'll tell you what. I'll post some really cool stuff today about the snow.

I'll even be really cool! Sound good?

Hey, check out this cool new snowfall map of the US. Thought you might like it :)

Let's just hope the warmup isn't too rapid to melt the snow. We don't need flooding problems now.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Quoting Orcasystems:


Its remarks like that peeve me. Your telling us that you are right... and everyone else is either wrong.. or on the take to the big companies.

What are your qualifications?

I can find lots of data on the supposed "good GW scientist" that is also trashed by the "Deniers"

I won't even go into the email hacking stuff.



You might is well give up with these people, their egos are insatiable. We could all get thrown into an ice age till there is ice on the equator and they would still pridefully never admit they are wrong and still insist GW is going to destroy the earth and man is responsible...


They really are blinded by their pride, you will never get them to admit their absurd bias.

Personally I'm done with them from here on out, they are hopeless to finding honesty.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 9952
Really nice summary of the 2011 Great Chicago Blizzard:

Blizzard Storm Total Snowfall Adjusted & In-Depth Look at Chicago's Big Snows
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
639:

No you missed the point...That was EXACTLY my point...

No such devices existed several decades ago, nevermind 80 or 100 years ago...

Good God you people are dense...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

I'm sorry if it "peeves" you or anyone else. But the source has to be considered in things of this import. I always question the motives of anyone trying to sell me anything. Always.


That is the main reason I question a lot of the stuff coming from you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Xyrus2000 - ignore - move on. They are just using invalid and unethical argumentative technique to initiate a personal exchange. They have no expertise in this area, certainly nothing close to approaching yours.

Look at the time and information they put into their posts. Thats what I count now. After a whale ridiculous comebacks only really work on one kind of person.

If they do it long enough even admin will get tired and then rid of them for posting attacks and misinformation in lieu of any real content.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting RecordSeason:


Provably wrong and untrue. This IS a science site, and unlike you, I can show public statistics which prove no corelation.

If there was a corelation then there should have been at least 44 cat 4 and 5 storms in the N. Atlantic in the past 30 years.

And if there was a corelation, then the "lull" in the 70s and 80s should not have happened at all, even taking into consideration for being in a downward cycle.

What have you shown?

some thermometers that are statistically within margin of error of humans and instrumentation?

The "observer effect" whereby we have 4 times as many instruments and cable and internet blabbing any time any record is tied or broken even momentarily?

Record highs several decades ago, before the "digital" age would not even have been recorded unless someone was standing there and happened to look at the thermometer at exactly the moment of the record high of that day.

In the past, like 50 to 100 years ago, people would have been outside doing something, and maybe they realize, "Damn it's hot!" and if somebody happened to have a thermometer (unlikely), then they went and looked at it.

Today, the digital instruments record it as a "record high" even if that temperature was maintained for as little as a few minutes, or even an instantaneous fluctuation, such as something caused by an accidental focal point of light. I mean damn, don't shine your watch on that thing, you might break the record high temperature!!


Please tell me that is not what people are basing AGW claims on, as a half degree isn't going to kill anyone anywhere, even if it actually is occuring.

Record high or record low temperatures on a day don't even corelate 1 to 1 with average temperature of that day. When fronts move through or it rains, temperatures can change 10 to 30 degrees in a day, sometimes more.

I'll probably regret asking this, but why do you assume there should be a linear relationship between CO2 concentration and number of hurricanes? Also, have you really never seen a high-low recording thermometer?

Hi-Low Memory Thermometer




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I already know what you're trying to do by pulling that quote out of context.

The climate from 200 million years ago cannot be compared with the climate of today without making multiple adjustments. The world was a completely different place.

The climate from the last million years or so is far more relevant, as the planetary configuration has been pretty much the same. By that I mean the distribution of land masses, oceans, solar irradiance, and the atmospheric contents have remained relatively the same.

Paleoclimate from millions of years ago can lend us insight into what major factors affect global climate, but you can't do a direct comparisons with the world of today. However, the recent past is very relevant, and provides a great deal of information on what affects global climate in the Pleistocene and Holocene (modern) era. By comparing the current environment with that over the past million years or so we can get a good idea about what has changed and what impact those changes had.

So X2, feels good, doesn't it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And even if comparing the world of today with the world of millions of years ago were an apples to apples comparison (it isn't), that still doesn't change the fact that our world depends on the climate we have today. Anything that risks disrupting that climate should be treated seriously, as it really doesn't take much change to turn once fertile lands into giant dust bowls and deserts. In fact, numerous civilizations have fallen as a result of just regional climate changes. We are not so technologically advanced that we are not beholden to mother nature, and only naive or arrogant people would believe otherwise.


past regional climate changes have been caused by excessive irrigation over centuries or millenia, or more recently in modern times by draining rivers and lakes to irrigate farms, which causes a dust bowl in the lake. This has very, very little to do with CO2, as the majority of this was done before energy levels even got anywhere near modern levels. Additionally, hydro-electric dams are more responsible for regional climate change than anything we could possibly imagine regarding CO2. Look how much habitat the Hoover Dam has totally destroyed both up stream and down stream.

Wait till you get a load of Solar Power plants. Since they'll be placing them in the deserts...

Since the heat is concentrated onto a black vacuum insulated pipe, it means the amount of heat going into the local region is actually decreased since these gigantic kilometer long, 6meter wide mirror arrays ten or a hundred rows wide, etc, are preventing sunlight from even hitting the ground.

However, because more of the energy is absorbed and contained due to hitting a black surface and due to being vacuum insulated, the total energy being absorbed is greater than it was before the power plant was present. It's just being carried away in another form that didn't exist previously (steam and electricity.)

This means the desert temperature will drop over time, while the temperatures of the surrounding regions where the steam and other waste heat gets transported to by the atmosphere will go up. Because of the insane amounts of wter involved, the humidity in these regions is likely to go up, except in the exact location of the source body of water (unless they are getting the water from a well, which is more complicated)...

So you will likely see decreased temperatures in the deserts, because their surfaces are going to be shaded and the energy contained and transported elsewhere, which will encourage condensation and precipitation, and you will see increased temperatures and increased humidity "down wind" which will produce oppressive heat index. I should also point out that this should also cause a sizeable change in local prevailing wind patterns due to such alterations of the hydrology and heat in the region.

If we're seriously talking about boiling 9000 gallon per minute at 723f per 40MW, the people "down wind" where this steam is going to be eventually condensing are going to be getting half a swimming pool or water per minute every minute PER 40MW of power produced...

It will be interesting to see how bad the tornados and flash floods become at and down wind from solar power plants as these extemely unnatural distributions of heat and water concentrations attempt to acheive a balance.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Really?


I already know what you're trying to do by pulling that quote out of context.

The climate from 200 million years ago cannot be compared with the climate of today without making multiple adjustments. The world was a completely different place.

The climate from the last million years or so is far more relevant, as the planetary configuration has been pretty much the same. By that I mean the distribution of land masses, oceans, solar irradiance, and the atmospheric contents have remained relatively the same.

Paleoclimate from millions of years ago can lend us insight into what major factors affect global climate, but you can't do a direct comparisons with the world of today. However, the recent past is very relevant, and provides a great deal of information on what affects global climate in the Pleistocene and Holocene (modern) era. By comparing the current environment with that over the past million years or so we can get a good idea about what has changed and what impact those changes had.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think WUWT is pretty much a troll site. Right? I mean its not real science, its more like little truths and truisms extended to form a pseudoscience. The whole photo analysis of temperature sensors thing without regard to past placement and past measurement techniques for instance. No statistical analysis either.

But as we all know the devil is in the details and likewise the "Nazi" "socialist" canards are thrown out whenever details arise, to avoid them at all cost.

As we have seen here even in the social sciences the earth didn't stop at 1900 or 1950. Everything has a history and a proper approach methodology.

When someone avoids that it should be the first indication that a unreasonable conversation is approaching.

Its what the readers there want to hear as opposed to what is real.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting RecordSeason:
I think part of the reason people are decieved when they look at a graph or chart is the human tendency to only be interested in "round" numbers, such as year increments of exactly 1900,1910,1920, etc.

However, those are arbitrary human boundaries.

If you are comparing "any 30 year period to any other non-overlapping 30 year period"...

Then you find no significant change between 1981 to 2010 as compared to the previous highest 30 year continuous period.


If you make the fallacy of only examining year increments in round numbers, then you will be mislead by these arbitrary boundaries, and interpret a "fluctuation" as a "trend".

For example:

1981 to 2010 = 37 intense storms
1971 to 2000 = 21
1961 to 1990 = 24

Oh no! Looks like hurricanes went up 50% to 75%!! We're all gonna die!

Oh, wait...

1951 to 1980 = 34 (missed 1 or 2)

1944 to 1973 = 36 (missed maybe 1 to 3)

1941 to 1970 = 35 (missed 1 to 3)
1931 to 1960 = 30 (missed 1 to 3 or more)
1921 to 1950 = 27 (missed a lot)

1980 to 2010 is...normal...

It would not be inconceivable to think that perhaps there were a few additional storms offshore...as you alluded to, that we did not have the capability of detecting using satellite, simply because technology was not at our disposal during the first half of the 20th century.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


WUWT really needs a troll modifier.

At least you didn't say Nazis. I should be thankful for that.

Exactly.

We should all be very thankful we have the freedom and right to think for ourselves.

Great point. I mean it too. Good point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Kinda like the Stalinists? ;)


WUWT really needs a troll modifier.

At least you didn't say Nazis. I should be thankful for that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Completely--and provably--untrue. I realize such nonsense is the coin of the realm over on WUWT, but it won't fly here; this is a science site.


Provably wrong and untrue. This IS a science site, and unlike you, I can show public statistics which prove no corelation.

If there was a corelation then there should have been at least 44 cat 4 and 5 storms in the N. Atlantic in the past 30 years.

And if there was a corelation, then the "lull" in the 70s and 80s should not have happened at all, even taking into consideration for being in a downward cycle.

What have you shown?

some thermometers that are statistically within margin of error of humans and instrumentation?

The "observer effect" whereby we have 4 times as many instruments and cable and internet blabbing any time any record is tied or broken even momentarily?

Record highs several decades ago, before the "digital" age would not even have been recorded unless someone was standing there and happened to look at the thermometer at exactly the moment of the record high of that day.

In the past, like 50 to 100 years ago, people would have been outside doing something, and maybe they realize, "Damn it's hot!" and if somebody happened to have a thermometer (unlikely), then they went and looked at it.

Today, the digital instruments record it as a "record high" even if that temperature was maintained for as little as a few minutes, or even an instantaneous fluctuation, such as something caused by an accidental focal point of light. I mean damn, don't shine your watch on that thing, you might break the record high temperature!!


Please tell me that is not what people are basing AGW claims on, as a half degree isn't going to kill anyone anywhere, even if it actually is occuring.

Record high or record low temperatures on a day don't even corelate 1 to 1 with average temperature of that day. When fronts move through or it rains, temperatures can change 10 to 30 degrees in a day, sometimes more.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:
August 2007
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ort/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.



S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a
dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.


His criticism and critiques of climate science have been thoroughly debunked, and none of his research in the area has managed to stand up to peer review. This includes his "research" that first proclaimed the ozone hole was not being made worse by man, and then his other "research" claiming that even if it was, a depleted ozone layer would not cause any harm.

Historically, he has worked for and been funded by a veritable who's who of fossil fuel industry groups and anti-environment think tanks. He was a contributing author to that travesty that came out of the Heartland Institute that was supposed to be an "answer" to the IPCC report, which was ripped to shreds by the science community.

His "research" when he was working with the tobacco and asbestos industries is, of course, completely laughable now (in a sad way).

That's not to say he hasn't made useful contributions in other areas of science. He has. But climate research is not one of them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some relief in the forecast for the Amazon

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok, before I incur wrath for posting some of this authors stuff.. what did he do wrong?

Global Warming – Man-made or Natural?
Kenneth Rundt
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
I think part of the reason people are decieved when they look at a graph or chart is the human tendency to only be interested in "round" numbers, such as year increments of exactly 1900,1910,1920, etc.

However, those are arbitrary human boundaries.

If you are comparing "any 30 year period to any other non-overlapping 30 year period"...

Then you find no significant change between 1981 to 2010 as compared to the previous highest 30 year continuous period.


If you make the fallacy of only examining year increments in round numbers, then you will be mislead by these arbitrary boundaries, and interpret a "fluctuation" as a "trend".

For example:

1981 to 2010 = 37 intense storms
1971 to 2000 = 21
1961 to 1990 = 24

Oh no! Looks like hurricanes went up 50% to 75%!! We're all gonna die!

Oh, wait...

1951 to 1980 = 34 (missed 1 or 2)

1944 to 1973 = 36 (missed maybe 1 to 3)

1941 to 1970 = 35 (missed 1 to 3)
1931 to 1960 = 30 (missed 1 to 3 or more)
1921 to 1950 = 27 (missed a lot)

1980 to 2010 is...normal...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


If you're looking for irrefutable proof, look into abstract math. In science, anyone claiming 100% proof of anything doesn't understand science. Science has very very few absolutes. Just about every result in science is given with confidence intervals and error bars.

The fact that the climate has changed in the past and has been much warmer in the past has nothing to do with the climate now. Land masses were different, the water distribution was different, solar irradiance was different, even the atmosphere was different.

And even if comparing the world of today with the world of millions of years ago were an apples to apples comparison (it isn't), that still doesn't change the fact that our world depends on the climate we have today. Anything that risks disrupting that climate should be treated seriously, as it really doesn't take much change to turn once fertile lands into giant dust bowls and deserts. In fact, numerous civilizations have fallen as a result of just regional climate changes. We are not so technologically advanced that we are not beholden to mother nature, and only naive or arrogant people would believe otherwise.


Actually one of your better and most logical posts I have seen so far.

You make a point for "both" cases (I hate that term also), I agree 100% that Global Change is happening. What degree is man responsible.. I would have to say that he is responsible to some degree.. its one of the mathematical variables in the equation.

Is man 80-100% responsible.. I highly doubt it, as the numbers that have been quoted for the rises in temperature have not happened. Have they increased ...yes. To the extremes that some "Accredited/Accepted" GW scientists have predicted... No

Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
Quoting Orcasystems:


Ok, so what percentage of GW do you attribute to man?
100-75-50-25?

You have members of the CAR group on here making statements such as;

"Finally, in answer and in contradiction to something that was said yesterday, not just some, or most, but all of the 100 or so ppm of CO2 that's entered the atmosphere in the last 100 years is from the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of land. That's pretty amazing when you think about--and also pretty alarming."

I actually respect most of Neo's postings when he doesn't go off the deep end (and no this is not a deepend posting by him). BUT, if your going to give the impression that is entirely mans fault... then you have to prove it.



Actually, this is a correct statement. Recent research using isotope analysis has shown that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere has come primarily from burning fossil fuels (the C13 to C12 ratio).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


The fact that the climate has changed in the past and has been much warmer in the past has nothing to do with the climate now.

Really?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


I will believe it if you can prove to me "climate Change" is 100% caused by man. "Climate Change" is normal, as can be scientifically proved by all of you... what you have not proven, is that it is 100% caused by man, or for that matter even 50%.

Are we responsible for some of it... of course, we are one of the variables. BUT.. all data points to the fact that the world has been much warmer then it is right now... and more then once.

I do not want to see the standard CAR (Criticize, Attack, Ridicule) response from the GW Zealots either. You have offered proof.. fire away.


If you're looking for irrefutable proof, look into abstract math. In science, anyone claiming 100% proof of anything doesn't understand science. Science has very very few absolutes. Just about every result in science is given with confidence intervals and error bars.

The fact that the climate has changed in the past and has been much warmer in the past has nothing to do with the climate now. Land masses were different, the water distribution was different, solar irradiance was different, even the atmosphere was different.

And even if comparing the world of today with the world of millions of years ago were an apples to apples comparison (it isn't), that still doesn't change the fact that our world depends on the climate we have today. Anything that risks disrupting that climate should be treated seriously, as it really doesn't take much change to turn once fertile lands into giant dust bowls and deserts. In fact, numerous civilizations have fallen as a result of just regional climate changes. We are not so technologically advanced that we are not beholden to mother nature, and only naive or arrogant people would believe otherwise.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


Its remarks like that peeve me. Your telling us that you are right... and everyone else is either wrong.. or on the take to the big companies.

What are your qualifications?

I can find lots of data on the supposed "good GW scientist" that is also trashed by the "Deniers"

I won't even go into the email hacking stuff.

I'm sorry if it "peeves" you or anyone else. But the source has to be considered in things of this import. I always question the motives of anyone trying to sell me anything. Always.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yeah, Singer is a piece of work, alright. The guy's one of those who migrated from Big Tobacco's "Cigarettes are good for you!" campaign to Big Energy's "CO2 is good for you!" campaign. He's often lauded by denialists as a climate change "expert"--though his "expertise", such as it is, is only in the eyes of ExxonMobil.

Oh, well. Denialism needs it "experts".

Kinda like the Stalinists? ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


Again.. CAR... I just looked at the qualifications of the fellow who wrote that article (None).

I have no idea who Fred Singer is.. that's the truth... but if your looking for the answer to the question... there is lots of stuff like this posted on the internet.

It would appear from his resume.. Mr Singer should be qualified.


In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States "polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming". Below is an excerpt from the article titled "Climate Killers" about Fred Singer.

A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming.

The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation.

More information Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yeah, Singer is a piece of work, alright. The guy's one of those who migrated from Big Tobacco's "Cigarettes are good for you!" campaign to Big Energy's "CO2 is good for you!" campaign. He's often lauded by denialists as a climate change "expert"--though his "expertise", such as it is, is only in the eyes of ExxonMobil.

Oh, well. Denialism needs it "experts".


Its remarks like that peeve me. Your telling us that you are right... and everyone else is either wrong.. or on the take to the big companies.

What are your qualifications?

I can find lots of data on the supposed "good GW scientist" that is also trashed by the "Deniers"

I won't even go into the email hacking stuff.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
Quoting Orcasystems:


"THIS", is a Tropical Weather Blog... not a science site.

Have a look at the current blog entry and tell me how much tropical weather you see in there. It looks more like a serious discussion of meteorology and climatology to me. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:

Fred Singer: When Promoting Doubt, Make Stuff Up! Link


Again.. CAR... I just looked at the qualifications of the fellow who wrote that article (None).

I have no idea who Fred Singer is.. that's the truth... but if your looking for the answer to the question... there is lots of stuff like this posted on the internet.

It would appear from his resume.. Mr Singer should be qualified.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
Quoting Xandra:

Fred Singer: When Promoting Doubt, Make Stuff Up! Link

Yeah, Singer is a piece of work, alright. The guy's one of those who migrated from Big Tobacco's "Cigarettes are good for you!" campaign to Big Energy's "CO2 is good for you!" campaign. He's often lauded by denialists as a climate change "expert"--though his "expertise", such as it is, is only in the eyes of ExxonMobil.

Oh, well. Denialism needs it "experts".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


I have not seen a single post on here saying GW was NOT happening. What seems to be in question is the cause, and if it can even be "fixed", by any kind of human intervention.


Oh there have been a few. Most of them are hidden though :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting caneswatch:


It could be fixed, but only if we stop the damage sooner (20-30 years) than later (60-100 years), by whatever kind of intervention necessary.


Actually, it can't be fixed. We passed that point a while ago. We do not have the technology to fix the problem. Even if we took drastic measures now to reduce GHG production, the world would continue to warm for the next century, albeit not as much.

But we simply do not possess the technology to effectively remove excess GHG's from the atmosphere at anywhere near the efficiency required. Economically and environmentally speaking, "band-aid" solutions like deploying giant solar reflectors in space are more effective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Completely--and provably--untrue. I realize such nonsense is the coin of the realm over on WUWT, but it won't fly here; this is a science site.


"THIS", is a Tropical Weather Blog... not a science site.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
Quoting Orcasystems:
August 2007
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ort/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.



S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a
dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

Fred Singer: When Promoting Doubt, Make Stuff Up! Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
Moreover, in the historical record there isn't even a corelation between CO2 and weather or climate.

Completely--and provably--untrue. I realize such nonsense is the coin of the realm over on WUWT, but it won't fly here; this is a science site.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

591:

Orca, I'm gonna say 99.9999%, but I don't think that's a sufficient enough answer for some. They like that nice, even rounded number: 100%.

I tried.


I can't find a single article... anywhere.. that even remotely supports that.

Thats why I was hoping someone had one.

I DO NOT disbelieve GW... only its causes.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
August 2007
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ort/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.



S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a
dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26525
Quoting BahaHurican:
What's the latest on the earthquakes off Chile?

Last I heard was a 6.8
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
588:

I realize that, and most of my posts today were correcting that error.

However, even a factor of 10 is irrelevant, because we still wouldn't reach 900ppm for reasons I discussed above.

At least 50 to 75 ppm would be absorbed per century anyway, and we aren't even going to burn enough carbon in the next 90 years to make 500ppm to begin with.


Moreover, in the historical record there isn't even a corelation between CO2 and weather or climate.

Take the goofy chart in post 554. According to that chart, CO2 went up 70 ppm from 1958, from around 315 to around 385.

If there was a 1 to 1 corelation, you would expect cyclones to increase by a factor of 22%, which would mean you'd expect actually a lot more category 4 and 5 storms. Didn't happen. Obviously there wouldn't be a 1 to 1 corelation anyway, just demonstrating this principle.

If there was a 0.1 corelation, you would expect cyclones to increase by about 2%.

Considering we probably missed several cyclones in the 40's and 50s, the margin of human error in observation is actually statistically as great or greater than what the expected increase would be even with a 10% corelation between cyclones and CO2 levels.


If the corelation actually were as high as 10% then the "lows" in 70's and 80's should not have happened, because by then the effects of increase in CO2 alone "should" have made the 70's and 80's noticeably worse than the 40, 50, and 60. Actually, the decreases since around the 70's and 80's shouldn't have happened at all.

In any case, the amount of intense cyclones in the 70's and 80's have a negative corelation to increases in CO2 vs the previous 30 years, while 1981 to 2010 shows no correlation to CO2 when compared to the peeriod 1944 to 1973.

If one thing has changed so much(CO2), and the other thing has changed not at all (intense storms), then there is zero or near-zero corelation over the long term.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What's the latest on the earthquakes off Chile?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Enjoyed it as per usual..

alas,parting is such schweeeet sorrow.






..."And We Bid You Goodnight, goodnight, goodnight."

A great closing act the Dead would preform with their late 1960's shows at the Fillmore West before it closed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting McBill:

No offense taken, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. If you care to provide some context and maybe comment on significance I may want to respond. Or not.


No problem. I'll work on it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Afternoon all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

C'mon McBill, I can't throw some data at you to digest. We are a community that shares.

I mean, I could take it back. Up to you. If so, I apologize.

No offense taken, I'm just not sure what you're going on about. If you care to provide some context and maybe comment on significance I may want to respond. Or not.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Enjoyed it as per usual..

alas,parting is such schweeeet sorrow.





Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 650 - 600

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

About

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

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
48 °F
Mostly Cloudy

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

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