Another amazingly snowy winter for the U.S.

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

Share this Blog
6
+

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.

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: 550 - 500

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

Feel free to ignore the Posts of the Goofy one then.

LOL


But arrogance and ignorance are common bedfellows throughout history.


Turn yer pillow over and it will be cooler.



How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?



Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Science dont care if one believes ,,it just iz
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Quoting RecordSeason:
Then you have to figure we won't be using 65% of 22TW as oil or coal anyway, because the socialist governments are cutting back on fossil fuels or else holding even.

65% of 16tw is roughly 10tw, so if governments cut back or hold even, then 10tw is only 45.5%of 22tw, which in turn means that the ppms produced would be about 2/3rds of the calculation which assumed a 65% fossil fuels of 22TW.


Anyway, I'm still convinced it is not as bad as those graphs people posting makes it seem, because you can make any value look "scary" by plotting it on a scale that makes it look like some sort of vertical assymptote.

inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

According to this article, CO2 doesn't become directly toxic until 5% concentration, while 3% is said to double rate of respiration, and prolonged exposure to 1% may make some people drowsy, but most people don't even notice CO2 before 2%...

We wouldn't get to even 1% concentration even if we tried hard. Even the alleged 900ppm is less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Indoors CO2 levels in your house or other building are already around 600ppm, for example! Even at that concentration, the dust and pollen in the air is more dangerous than the CO2!!

It's a bit naive and unscientific to state that increased concentrations of CO2--whether that's 400ppm, or 600ppm, or 900ppm--won't be bad. The fact is, mankind is simply not equipped at the moment to adequately deal with the rapid rate with which those CO2 concentrations are rising, and the equally rapid rate at which temperatures are concomitantly rising.

Also, as to how high those concentrations may rise, your math is ignoring other sources of CO2 such as that which is locked in the now-thawing permafrost.

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.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13531
Science dont care if one believes ,,it just iz



The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

* By Brandon Keim Email Author
* December 9, 2009



Even as the science of global warming gets stronger, fewer Americans believe it's real. In some ways, it's nearly as jarring a disconnect as enduring disbelief in evolution or carbon dating. And according to Kari Marie Norgaard, a Whitman College sociologist who's studied public attitudes towards climate science, we're in denial.

Our response to disturbing information is very complex. We negotiate it. We dont just take it in and respond in a rational way, said Norgaard.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared in 2007 that greenhouse gases had reached levels not seen in 650,000 years, and were rising rapidly as a result of people burning fossil fuel. Because these gases trap the sun's heat, they would depending on human energy habits heat Earth by an average of between 1.5 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end. Even a midrange rise would likely disrupt the planet's climate, producing droughts and floods, acidified oceans, altered ecosystems and coastal cities drowned by rising seas.

If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future, said Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, when the report was released.

This is the defining moment.

Studies published since then have only strengthened the IPCC's predictions, or suggested they underestimate future warming. But as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss how to avoid catastrophic climate change, barely half the U.S. public thinks carbon pollution could warm Earth. That's 20 percent less than in 2007, and lower than at any point in the last 12 years. In a Pew Research Center poll, Americans ranked climate dead last out of 20 top issues, behind immigration and trade policy.

Wired.com talked to Norgaard about the divide between science and public opinion.

Wired.com: Why dont people seem to care?

Kari Norgaard: On the one hand, there have been extremely well-organized, well-funded climate-skeptic campaigns. Those are backed by Exxon Mobil in particular, and the same PR firms who helped the tobacco industry (.pdf) deny the link between cancer and smoking are involved with magnifying doubt around climate change.

That's extremely important, but my work has been in a different area. It's been about people who believe in science, who arent out to question whether science has a place in society.

Wired.com: People who are coming at the issue in good faith, you mean. What's their response?

Norgaard: Climate change is disturbing. It's something we dont want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it's not there, and keep it distant.

For relatively privileged people like myself, we dont have to see the impact in everyday life. I can read about different flood regimes in Bangladesh, or people in the Maldives losing their islands to sea level rise, or highways in Alaska that are altered as permafrost changes. But that's not my life.

We have a vast capacity for this.

Wired.com: How is this bubble maintained?

Norgaard: In order to have a positive sense of self-identity and get through the day, we're constantly being selective of what we think about and pay attention to. To create a sense of a good, safe world for ourselves, we screen out all kinds of information, from where food comes from to how our clothes our made. When we talk with our friends, we talk about something pleasant.

Wired.com: How does this translate into skepticism about climate change?

Norgaard: It's a paradox. Awareness has increased. There's been a lot more information available. This is much more in our face. And this is where the psychological defense mechanisms are relevant, especially when coupled with the fact that other people, as we've lately seen with the e-mail attacks, are systematically trying to create the sense that there's doubt.

If I dont want to believe that climate change is true, that my lifestyle and high carbon emissions are causing devastation, then it's convenient to say that it doesnt.

Wired.com: Is that what this comes down to not wanting to confront our own roles?

Norgaard: I think so. And the reason is that we dont have a clear sense of what we can do. Any community organizer knows that if you want people to respond to something, you need to tell them what to do, and make it seem do-able. Stanford University psychologist Jon Krosnick has studied this, and showed that people stop paying attention to climate change when they realize there's no easy solution. People judge as serious only those problems for which actions can be taken.

Another factor is that we no longer have a sense of permanence. Another psychologist, Robert Lifton, wrote about what the existence of atomic bombs did to our psyche. There was a sense that the world could end at any moment.

Global warming is the same in that it threatens the survival of our species. Psychologists tell us that it's very important to have a sense of the continuity of life. That's why we invest in big monuments and want our work to stand after we die and have our family name go on.

That sense of continuity is being ruptured. But climate change has an added aspect that is very important. The scientists who built nuclear bombs felt guilt about what they did. Now the guilt is real for the broader public.

Wired.com: So we dont want to believe climate change is happening, feel guilty that it is, and dont know what to do about it? So we pretend it's not a problem?

Norgaard: Yes, but I don%t want to make it seem crass. Sometimes people who are very empathetic are less likely to help in certain situations, because they're so disturbed by it. The human capacity of empathy is really profound, and that's part of our weakness. If we were more callous, then we'd approach it in a more straightforward way. It may be a weakness of our capacity as sentient beings to cope with this problem.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
544. mnsky
Exellent updates!!labels=1 labels=1 labels=1:)labels=1
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Did you read?

"I went to measure my attic."

There is sufficient space between the panels and my roof so that free convection can carry away the heat.

Free convection...

I am very aware of temperature effects on the panels themselves... almost had a record generation day today!

Bird, Stewart, Lightfoot.



I am curious, do you need to clear snow off of the panels in the winter? I have a roof with a 45 degree angle in northern massachusetts. I am concerned that the panels would prevent the snow from melting and possibly get covered up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Quoting IKE:
Price of a barrel of crude oil has come down a little in the last few days. Spring break is right around the corner....I've read it may go to $100 a barrel so I would look for gas prices around $3.20-$3.30 a gallon heading toward summer.

Maybe I'll be wrong.



  • Oil-1.45Price/barrel$85.28



I like your estimate, this article is predicting $3.50-$3.75, guess it depends on how the casino (wall street) bets.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Be sure to stand downwind and take deep breaths as you Burn um..

LOL

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
6.8 Earthquake Off Coast Of Chile Friday

EVA VERGARA 02/11/11 11:49 PM AP






CAUQUENES, Chile

A magnitude-6.8 earthquake struck central Chile Friday, centered in almost exactly the same spot where last year's magnitude-8.8 quake spawned a tsunami and devastated coastal communities.

Electricity and phone service were disrupted and thousands of people fled to higher ground following Friday's quake, but the government quickly announced that there was no risk of a tsunami, and there were no reports of damage or injuries.

In the following hours, a dozen aftershocks ranging from magnitude-3.9 to magnitude-6.3 shook the seismically active area.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
537. IKE
I don't see any cold weather returning to the SE USA through Feb. 22nd. It might cool off some after that. Freezing temperatures at morning at my location may be close to being finished for this winter.

Leaves are waiting to be burned. I'm about to have another hit of fresh air. L8R.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Shop at Winn Dixie here and one can get a Discount at Shell for gas,,accrued over the month,we got it the 30th of Last Mth for 2 dollars a gal..
I filled up my Car and also put 30 Gals in 5 gal containers.

You have to use the discounts by Midnight the end of the month or the discount goes back to zero.

Nuff for 1.5-2mths depending on my travels.


Loyalty Program
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Quoting Xyrus2000:


You're doing it wrong....


My simple way of doing it as promised last night.

Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI.

The earth's surface area is 1.97e8 square miles or 7.9e17 square inches

Thus the amount of atmospheric mass is 1.16e19 pounds mass or 5.27e15 metric tonnes.

CO2 emissions since 1900

This is from a compilation of sources, including the International Energy Agency, IEA, and the US Energy Information Agency, EIA.

Fossil fuel based CO2 emissions are approximately 1.08e12 metric tonnes since 1900.

Thus about 204 PPM mass of CO2 has been added since 1900 to the atmosphere.

CO2 concentration in atmosphere from 1900 to 2005 (year of emissions cumulative number) rose from 295 to 380 PPM, or 85 PPM.

85/204 is about 42% going into the atmophere, the rest going into oceans, etc...

and making the ocean more acidic, which is not good for things like coral reefs!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
534. IKE
Temp is rapidly warming up here. Mid February sun helps. Shooting for the low 60's today....upper 60's tomorrow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
G'morn Wundergrounder's

Walk me out in the morning dew, my honey
Walk me out in the morning dew today
I can't walk you out in the morning dew, my honey
I can't walk you out in the morning dew at all

Thought I heard a young girl crying, mama
Thought I heard a young girl cry today
Oh I did not hear no young girl crying, mama, mama, mama
I did not hear no young girl cry at all

Thought I heard a young boy crying
I thought I heard a young boy cry today
Oh I did not hear no young boy crying
Oh I didn't hear no young boy cry
Now there is no more morning dew
Now there is no more morning dew
What they've been saying all these years was not true
Now there is no more morning dew
No, no, no, no more - no, no, no, no more
No more morning dew
No more morning dew
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
532. IKE
It's at $3.14.9 at the Tom Thumb down the road from here. Out by the interstate it's around $3.30 a gallon.

I've got a 2010 Ford Focus....nice car...gets 32 mpg. It keeps track of it. A lot of my driving...over 50%, is a short distance...stop and go.

32 mpg isn't bad. Neither is the stereo system in the car. Sirius is worth the money. I never listen to FM anymore.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
530. IKE

Quoting twincomanche:
oops......well...maybe $3.40-$3.50 a gallon for you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Complete Update





Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26511
526. IKE
Price of a barrel of crude oil has come down a little in the last few days. Spring break is right around the corner....I've read it may go to $100 a barrel so I would look for gas prices around $3.20-$3.30 a gallon heading toward summer.

Maybe I'll be wrong.

  • Oil-1.45Price/barrel$85.28

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
524. IKE
Clear skies over most of the SE USA this morning...warmer weather ahead....


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good Morning everyone, 31.6 this morning, glad this cold is over. upper 60's today going to 80 by the end of next week.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting staylor823:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
As I was eating lunch the other day in a restaurant directly across the street from a Shell station I noticed that the station was receiving fuel. Now as many of you know Brand stations such as Shell charge a little more for their gas as it contains things like “techrolyn” or other fancy chemicals which are supposed to keep your engine cleaner.

I mention that because I noticed that the trailer carrying the gas was from “Mission truck line” not Shell. I have noticed this same truck line filling up other stations such as Race Track, Valero, even 711. I have also noticed that Chevron and Exxon have branded trucks.

My question is; is the gas that I purchase from Shell really the gas that they say it is? Does it have all that fancy stuff to keep my engine clean and another big question, does it really have an octane rating of 89?

We have all purchased “bad gas” before. I am not really sure what bad gas is other than a low grade of gas but, I use my trip meter to track my mileage. I can do the rough calculations on the gallons it took to fill it up, versus the miles driven to know that I am getting around 24MPG.

If I fill up and notice that my engine starts to run a little rough I take note of the mileage and look back at where I filled up last and with what. A log book is a good idea and really takes very little effort.

Does it pay to by a brand of gas or a higher grade of gas? Is all gas equal? It is my contention that it is not. For instance if I purchase gas from QT or 711 I don’t get the performance or the mileage that I do with Exxon? Same octane levels on the pump, different performance and mileage. Why?

I would encourage everyone to pay attention to the mileage you are getting. With gas prices where they are if we are paying for 89 octane, we should be getting that.

Someone needs to invent a litmus strip that we could test our gas with to see if it is the octane they say it is. I somehow doubt that it is. Whoever would invent this would make millions and of course aggravate a lot of gas stations owners.

Further, I think that the gas with the blended ethanol, we are also buying another chemical at $3.00 a gallon, H2o. Even on the hottest and driest of days you can see copious amounts of water coming out of tailpipes. Don’t take my word for it, notice for yourself! How can that be unless it is in the gas?

Water will not mix or blend with gas but it sure will with alcohol (ethanol) !

If my suspicions are correct how does one prove it? Can you distill it? What effects would this have on combustion engines or their ever sensitive smog devices? Is this why more and more people are having failures of their catalytic converters or fuel injectors? What in the world would happen to a catalytic converter if it were constantly bathed in steam? It is designed to run at very high temperatures. If it is bathed in steam how could it possibly operate as intended?

I have made a few drops of water disappear (blend) into a test tube full of alcohol and then into gasoline with ethanol; now what I want to know is, how does one get it out?

As H2o is a different specific gravity (heavier) than the rest of the contents of petrol could one place it into a centrifuge and spin it out? Wouldn’t that make interesting news reporting of how much water one could get out of the different brands of gasoline from different stations?

I don’t want to appear to be the conspiracy guy here. I am here to tell you that I once put 16 gallons of gasoline into an 11 gallon tank. I still had a quarter tank of gas at the time. When I questioned the gas station attendant, he no longer could speak English! We need a system of checks and balances.

We need a test strip to show the octane level and one to look for the presence of water. Surely that is something that is doable.

Now the chemist amongst you, go invent!
Most gasoline is shipped to any given distribution point in bulk via pipeline, barge or tanker. It is then transferred from storage tanks onto tanker trucks for the final leg of it's journey. So most of it is not brand specific.

The government sets standards for additives in gasoline, especially the detergent that all cars require these days to keep fuel injectors clean. So most brand name secret ingredients are just advertising hype. You can buy additives for your car's gas tank at any auto parts store to mix your own special gasoline blend - if you feel the need.

Most of the problems with "bad gas" come from mixing of 2 or more products somewhere in the distribution system. And adding 10% ethanol to gasoline reduces the amount of btu's in a gallon of fuel, so your gas mileage suffers.

In the state I live in the Dept. of Agriculture checks all gasoline pumps for accuracy. There is a chemical compound that you smear on the sticks used to measure underground fuel storage tanks that detects the presence of water in the bottom of the storage tank.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
521. IKE
5 day QPF.....


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EnergyMoron:


Okay, 13 million barrels net. We actually export 1 million barrels, primarily Alaska crude and... biodiesel.

Of course biodiesel which is sent abroad to Europe (or used to be... the bottom fell out of the market with the recession and something worse) was...

federally subsidized at a buck a gallon

Federal Subsidies for Biodiesel

Love biodiesel but there was no reason for the subsidy... back with 2008 prices it could do on its own....

But then the US government further intervened with new clean air diesel standards... of course B100 biodiesel met these like a champ BUT...

Car manufacturers decided to take a short cut that makes B100 not useable any more

Fuel injection stupidity by car makers kills B100 biodiesel

So, bottom line... they used to steal the used grease I would stick out. Now I cannot get rid of it.

The bottom has fallen out of the biodiesel market.

Here is the fact sheet for the product

Biodiesel fact sheet

But killed by the car makers like government motors

The govt here has just put a 25% tax on Ethanol and any fuel that contains ethanol. Bio-fuel is the way to go yet it's being made more expensive to buy than normal Unleaded petrol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
As I was eating lunch the other day in a restaurant directly across the street from a Shell station I noticed that the station was receiving fuel. Now as many of you know Brand stations such as Shell charge a little more for their gas as it contains things like “techrolyn” or other fancy chemicals which are supposed to keep your engine cleaner.

I mention that because I noticed that the trailer carrying the gas was from “Mission truck line” not Shell. I have noticed this same truck line filling up other stations such as Race Track, Valero, even 711. I have also noticed that Chevron and Exxon have branded trucks.

My question is; is the gas that I purchase from Shell really the gas that they say it is? Does it have all that fancy stuff to keep my engine clean and another big question, does it really have an octane rating of 89?

We have all purchased “bad gas” before. I am not really sure what bad gas is other than a low grade of gas but, I use my trip meter to track my mileage. I can do the rough calculations on the gallons it took to fill it up, versus the miles driven to know that I am getting around 24MPG.

If I fill up and notice that my engine starts to run a little rough I take note of the mileage and look back at where I filled up last and with what. A log book is a good idea and really takes very little effort.

Does it pay to by a brand of gas or a higher grade of gas? Is all gas equal? It is my contention that it is not. For instance if I purchase gas from QT or 711 I don’t get the performance or the mileage that I do with Exxon? Same octane levels on the pump, different performance and mileage. Why?

I would encourage everyone to pay attention to the mileage you are getting. With gas prices where they are if we are paying for 89 octane, we should be getting that.

Someone needs to invent a litmus strip that we could test our gas with to see if it is the octane they say it is. I somehow doubt that it is. Whoever would invent this would make millions and of course aggravate a lot of gas stations owners.

Further, I think that the gas with the blended ethanol, we are also buying another chemical at $3.00 a gallon, H2o. Even on the hottest and driest of days you can see copious amounts of water coming out of tailpipes. Don’t take my word for it, notice for yourself! How can that be unless it is in the gas?

Water will not mix or blend with gas but it sure will with alcohol (ethanol) !

If my suspicions are correct how does one prove it? Can you distill it? What effects would this have on combustion engines or their ever sensitive smog devices? Is this why more and more people are having failures of their catalytic converters or fuel injectors? What in the world would happen to a catalytic converter if it were constantly bathed in steam? It is designed to run at very high temperatures. If it is bathed in steam how could it possibly operate as intended?

I have made a few drops of water disappear (blend) into a test tube full of alcohol and then into gasoline with ethanol; now what I want to know is, how does one get it out?

As H2o is a different specific gravity (heavier) than the rest of the contents of petrol could one place it into a centrifuge and spin it out? Wouldn’t that make interesting news reporting of how much water one could get out of the different brands of gasoline from different stations?

I don’t want to appear to be the conspiracy guy here. I am here to tell you that I once put 16 gallons of gasoline into an 11 gallon tank. I still had a quarter tank of gas at the time. When I questioned the gas station attendant, he no longer could speak English! We need a system of checks and balances.

We need a test strip to show the octane level and one to look for the presence of water. Surely that is something that is doable.

Now the chemist amongst you, go invent!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
518. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL LOW 15U
4:00 PM WST February 12 2011
============================================

At 3:00 PM WST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 20.9S 99.0E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The low is reported as moving west at 12 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T1.5/2.0/W1.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 21.1S 96.7E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
24 HRS: 21.0S 94.7E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
48 HRS: 20.7S 91.7E - 25 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 21.0S 88.7E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)

Additional Information
======================
Position fair, based on animated FY2 VIS and persistence.

The system is sheared with the LLCC fully exposed and is weakening. The low is no longer expected to develop into a tropical cyclone.

Dvorak: DT=1.5 based on shear pattern, <1 1/4 deg from strong T gradient, at 0600UTC . MET=PAT=2.0. FT=1.5 based on DT. CI held at 2.0 as storm weakens.

Forecast track based on a consensus of models, which continue to steer the system to the west, under the influence of a mid-level ridge to the south of the system.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Local mets here in SW Louisiana say last really cold spell. Everything turning green in two weeks, but don't plant quite yet. LOL
I just set my new wireless network up after an hour on the phone with Net Gear. Painless, and lightening fast.
Just amazing now to type in the kitchen.. LOL

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
516. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #13
FORTE TEMPETE TROPICALE BINGIZA (05-20102011)
10:00 AM Reunion February 11 2011
=====================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Severe Tropical Storm Bingiza (986 hPa) located at 15.7S 53.5E has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving southwest at 7 knots.

Storm Force Winds
==================
20 NM from the center

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

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
100 NM from the center extending up to 120 NM in the northern semi-circle

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/W0.5/12 HRS

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 15.9S 53.1E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
24 HRS: 16.3S 52.3E - 70 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)
48 HRS: 17.0S 49.4E - 90 knots (CYCLONE Tropical Intense)
72 HRS: 17.5S 46.3E - 20 knots (Depression sur Terre)

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

Convection has clearly enhanced and is wrapping near the center for the latest hours. METEO Tromelin located about 55 NM from the center of the system observed winds of 40 knots with gusts of 50 knots. This element justifies the severe tropical storm stage. According to previous forecast, system has started west southwestward track due to the steering flow of the mid-tropospheric ridge building in the southwest of the system. Available numerical weather prediction models are in good agreement for this west southwest track towards the eastern coast of Madagascar and for a landfall between Masaola peninsula and Sainte-Marie island on Monday.

Environmental condition are improving for a regular strengthening of the system until the landfall (upper level wind shear is weakening, upper level divergence is improving, and an upper outflow channel should get in place in the south of system today, but should weaken on Sunday).

THE THREAT IS GETTING STRONGER FOR THE EASTERN COAST OF MADAGASCAR AND IT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT FOR UNHABITANTS OF THIS REGION TO CLOSELY MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 12:30 PM UTC..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
Let's try a more precise estimate:

Lot's of math deleted..


You're doing it wrong.

Right now our year over year CO2 increase is 2 to 3 ppm per year. According to the latest observations, we are at 391 ppm, which implies that if our current rate does not increase (very unlikely) we could hypothetically hit 900 ppm in under 200 years.

But there isn't enough fossil fuels to hit that mark right? WRONG. There's coal. There's natural gas. There's oil shales and tar sands (which dwarf other oil reserves). There's enough of those resources left to keep burning for a few centuries at our current rates (which again, is foolish to assume will remain constant).

But let's run some numbers. We'll just look at coal for now.

1. It takes 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to increase atmospheric concentrations by 1 ppm.

2. Coal ranges anywhere from 60% to 90%+ carbon by mass. Let's use an average of 75%Link

3. Current world reserves are 860,938 million metric tons Link

4. 1 kg of carbon burned generates approximately 3.7 kg of CO2 gas. Link

Using an average of 75% carbon concentration in coal, 861 billion metric tons of coal will yield approximately 646 billion metric tons of carbon. Each kilogram of burned carbon yields 3.7 kg of CO2, so 646 billion metric tons of carbon produces approximately 2.4 trillion metric tons of CO2.

Since it takes 8 billion metric tons to increase concentrations by 1 ppm, burning the world's coal reserves would kick us up to about 700 ppm. Add in the other fossil fuels and you can easily climb into the upper 1000 ppm range.

This only takes into account burning fossil fuels. This doesn't take things like clear cutting into account, which not only contributes CO2 but also destroys one of the natural carbon sinks.

Energy consumption continues to increase at a rapid pace. Your 1100 year projection for coal is not realistic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:


Hmmm wikipedia doesn't mention the price of cake rising, so maybe that would have been a good idea!


It was a quote attributable to Marie Antoinette when she was told the peasants had no bread to eat. I was trying to be funny there? LOL
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26133
Quoting Patrap:
Def my fav Einstein pic..


Too bad Einstein never learned much English, with all the years he lived here. Said it was too difficult. Had a very limited English vocabulary.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26133
511. xcool


posting by xcool.

Image credit by www7320.nrlssc.navy
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:
That's an old motivation. After a series of bad harvests, the price of bread rose by two-thirds in 1789 in France, from 9 sous a load to 15, according to wikipedia. We know what happened then.


Malthus wrote a totally erroneus report in 1798? Einstein hadn't published on the photovoltaic effect back then.

Time to go to bed
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:
That's an old motivation. After a series of bad harvests, the price of bread rose by two-thirds in 1789 in France, from 9 sous a load to 15, according to wikipedia. We know what happened then.


So let them eat cake!!!!
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 26133
Catalytic Cracker Unit





Operation

Crude oil is separated into fractions by fractional distillation. The fractions at the top of the fractionating column have lower boiling points than the fractions at the bottom. The heavy bottom fractions are often cracked into lighter, more useful products. All of the fractions are processed further in other refining units.




Raw or unprocessed crude oil is not generally useful. Although "light, sweet" (low viscosity, low sulfur) crude oil has been used directly as a burner fuel for steam vessel propulsion, the lighter elements form explosive vapors in the fuel tanks and are therefore hazardous, especially in warships. Instead, the hundreds of different hydrocarbon molecules in crude oil are separated in a refinery into components which can be used as fuels, lubricants, and as feedstock in petrochemical processes that manufacture such products as plastics, detergents, solvents, elastomers and fibers such as nylon and polyesters.

Petroleum fossil fuels are burned in internal combustion engines to provide power for ships, automobiles, aircraft engines, lawn mowers, chainsaws, and other machines. Different boiling points allow the hydrocarbons to be separated by distillation. Since the lighter liquid products are in great demand for use in internal combustion engines, a modern refinery will convert heavy hydrocarbons and lighter gaseous elements into these higher value products.
The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel is capable of processing about 9 million tons (66 million barrels) of crude oil a year. Its two cooling towers are landmarks of the city's skyline.

Oil can be used in a variety of ways because it contains hydrocarbons of varying molecular masses, forms and lengths such as paraffins, aromatics, naphthenes (or cycloalkanes), alkenes, dienes, and alkynes. While the molecules in crude oil include different atoms such as sulfur and nitrogen, the hydrocarbons are the most common form of molecules, which are molecules of varying lengths and complexity made of hydrogen and carbon atoms, and a small number of oxygen atoms. The differences in the structure of these molecules account for their varying physical and chemical properties, and it is this variety that makes crude oil useful in a broad range of applications.

Once separated and purified of any contaminants and impurities, the fuel or lubricant can be sold without further processing. Smaller molecules such as isobutane and propylene or butylenes can be recombined to meet specific octane requirements by processes such as alkylation, or less commonly, dimerization. Octane grade of gasoline can also be improved by catalytic reforming, which involves removing hydrogen from hydrocarbons producing compounds with higher octane ratings such as aromatics. Intermediate products such as gasoils can even be reprocessed to break a heavy, long-chained oil into a lighter short-chained one, by various forms of cracking such as fluid catalytic cracking, thermal cracking, and hydrocracking. The final step in gasoline production is the blending of fuels with different octane ratings, vapor pressures, and other properties to meet product specifications.

Oil refineries are large scale plants, processing about a hundred thousand to several hundred thousand barrels of crude oil a day. Because of the high capacity, many of the units operate continuously, as opposed to processing in batches, at steady state or nearly steady state for months to years. The high capacity also makes process optimization and advanced process control very desirable.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Quoting Levi32:
For those who appreciate an objective look at the current trends, here is a glance at what's going on right now.

Instead of struggling with the differences between the major temperature data sets, a good estimate of the recent global temperature is probably to simply combine the five major data sets together (GISS, HadCRUT3, NOAA, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU). I will call this the Composite Temperature Record.

The next step is determining a recent trend, something shorter than the century time scale that can reflect what's going on with the climate in recent years. A good time scale to use is decadal, meaning periods of 10 years. The problem with these is that the largest short-term modulator of global temperature, ENSO, has a strong effect in this range. Picking a start point at the bottom of a La Nina or the top of an El Nino can severely skew the recent trend.

Therefore, I made an attempt to create an "ENSO-neutral" roughly decadal period to analyze recent temperature trends. To do this I used Nino 3.4 SST data from ReynoldsV2 and found a time period close to 10 years, ending at January, 2011, with an average Nino index as close to zero as possible. The nino values also have to be lagged by 2 months in order to account for most of the lag effect that ENSO has on global temperature. After doing this, the period I selected for this month is January, 2001 to January, 2011, with an average Nino 3.4 anomaly of -0.00021C.

The linear trend for this period is 0.0038C per year. For comparison, the 100-year trend is currently 0.0070C. Thus, the recent decadal trend has come down to almost half of what the centennial trend is, reflecting the leveling off that occurred last decade. However, taking out ENSO biases, the trend is not completely flat yet, and will depend on how temperatures evolve this decade.



Larger size if wanted


Actually, Levi, it appears that others are also concerned with the differences between the major temperature data sets, and have decided to make their own.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study

"...The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study is using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M)..."



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Daugther's homework is on the Egypt revolution.

Simple

High food prices

Earlier posts should establish me as being on the rather market oriented side of things so don't call me a raging liberal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:




And to think all I could do was build a Ethylene Furnace and Maintain Catcrackers.


Catalyst Funnels need refractory for the unleaded spice to Flow and Doing Catcracker maintenance and turnarounds for them are enlightening in many discipline,from Brick to castables.,to gunite to Stainless welding.

Pipefitters,Teamsters,Bricklayers,Ironworkers,ele ctricians,Laborers,Engineers,and many mo.

Think about that next fill up.

Maybe google the effort that goes into a Catcracker shutdown,turnaround and re-start.

A Space Shuttle Launch is almost easy compared.

But what Shell and other big refineries know,,if it takes a month to shutdown ,tear out,and re-do,then re-start,it takes about 4-7 days to re-coup the total cost of the whole she bang.


Oil rules the roost,but refineries are limited.

To a very small let say,,room for error.,as to keeping pace for the demand.


Mull it awhile
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282
Quoting weatherboy1992:
RecordSeason made a big mathematical boo-boo. An increase from 380 ppm (it is already in excess of 390 ppm but I'll let that go) is not 0.52%. It is 0.052%. People have emitted about twice the amount of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere since Keeling started measuring CO2. The rest has accumulated in the oceans.

That error makes his conclusions totally wrong.


Exact same thing with all his math.

In every single thing he has tried to calculate today he has left out key variables.


This math IS NOT as straight forward as you think RecordSeason. The things you are attempting to calculate are much more complicated than you think.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting Xyrus2000:


More or less correct. We've added a lot of CO2, but fortunately for us up to this point the natural sinks have absorbed about half of it.

Unfortunately those sinks are either beginning to saturate or are being systematically destroyed (see deforestation). Less CO2 will be absorbed and more of it will stay in the atmosphere.


Interesting commentary on scientific consensus this post.

You see that the three folks who IMHO (as a moron) know something about the science all pulled from their memory the factor of 1/2 anthropogenic emitted CO2 being in the atmosphere.

Yes, project for tomorrow (in addition to the garden).

From the oil industry. I worked for a brilliant physical chemistry type who had this intuition that it was CO2 that destroyed a process designed to recover oil. See SPE paper 6049-MS (I have added a few more equations but the idea is correct).

Strangely enough injecting pure CO2 (later edit) in the same field is increasing recovery (sequestration project actually... nobody thought it would produce oil or they would have tried this instead of what was tried earlier).

CO2 chemistry is interesting...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Def my fav Einstein pic..
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128282

Viewing: 550 - 500

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

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.