2011 the most expensive year for natural disasters in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:42 PM GMT on July 14, 2011

Share this Blog
1
+

An exceptional accumulation of very severe natural catastrophes, including earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand, tornadoes and flooding in the U.S., and flooding in Australia and New Zealand, make 2011 the highest-ever loss year on record, even after the first half-year, said re-insurance giant Munich Re in a press release this week. The $265 billion in economic losses accumulated this year exceeds the previous record year, 2005, which had $220 billion in damage (mostly due to $125 billion in damage from Hurricane Katrina.) Unlike 2005, this year's losses have been headlined by two huge earthquakes--the March 11 quake in Japan ($210 billion) and the February 22 quake in New Zealand ($20 billion.) But with the Northern Hemisphere's hurricane season just beginning, this year's record losses may see a significant boost from hurricanes.


Figure 1. Stunned survivors survey the destruction left by the EF-4 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado of April. With a price tag estimated at $2 billion, this was the single most expensive tornado of all-time. The record stood only three weeks, being surpassed by the $3 billion in damage from the Joplin Missouri, tornado. The two tornado outbreaks that spawned these tornadoes rank as the globe's 3rd and 5th most destructive natural disasters so far this year. Image from an anonmous posting to Twitter.

Climate change and damage from weather-related disasters
In an interview with MSNBC, Peter Hoppe, who runs Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center, said that while the damage trend for earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions is fairly stable, damage from severe weather events is on the upswing, even after factoring in increases in population and wealth. He cited natural events such as La Niña and El Niño as factors in some of the damaging weather events, but added that warming temperatures appear to be adding a layer "on top" of that natural variability. In particular, he noted that the floods this January in Australia--that nation's most expensive natural disaster of all time--occurred when ocean temperatures off the coast were at record warm levels. That meant "more evaporation and higher potential for these extreme downpours", and "it can only be explained by global warming."


Figure 2. The five most expensive natural disasters of 2011, as estimated by Munich Re.

However, the there is a lot of controversy on whether economic losses due to weather-related disasters is increasing due to climate change. A 2010 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Netherlands researcher Laurens Bouwer titled, "Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?", looked at 22 disaster loss studies in various parts of the world. All of the studies showed an increase in damages from weather-related disasters in recent decades. The big question is, how much of this increase in damage was due to increases in population, and the fact people are getting wealthier, and thus have more stuff to get damaged? Fourteen of the 22 studies concluded that there were no trends in damage after correcting for increases in wealth and population, while eight of the studies did find upward trends even after such corrections. In all 22 studies, increases in wealth and population were the "most important drivers for growing disaster losses."

Bouwer's review of these 22 disaster loss studies was critiqued this year by Neville Nicholls of the School of Geography and Environmental Science of Montash University, Australia. His analysis, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, notes that Bouwer's study of damage losses did not include the impact of improvements in building codes and weather forecasting. We can expect both factors to have significantly reduced damages due to storms in recent years. Nicholls concludes, "The absence of an upward trend in normalized losses may be due to a balance between reduced vulnerability (from improved weather forecasting and building techniques) and increased frequency or intensity of weather hazards." In his reply to Nicholls' comments, Bouwer states that Nicholls "provides no support that these factors have actually contributed to a substantial reduction in losses over the period of the last decades."

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: 241 - 191

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

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Carbon tax plan to hit bus, train commuters

COMMUTERS could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.

Fears of fare rises came as retail giant David Jones' boss Paul Zahra yesterday blamed consumer concerns about the carbon tax, the high Australian dollar and the federal government's flood levy for a record 12 per cent sales slump.

The federal government claimed the overall cost-of-living impact on prices from the tax would be only 0.7 per cent of CPI.

However the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone - due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries - could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent.Some fare increases would be expected to be hit from the date of the carbon tax, July 1, 2012 - while others would start in 2013 and 2014.

Commuters travelling longer distances to the city from places such as Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Gosford and Heathcote would be worst affected.

The Treasury document assumed that the full cost of the carbon tax would be borne by commuters rather than by taxpayers.

It is understood that Mr O'Farrell wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard last night, asking for a full briefing on carbon tax impacts on state government services - in particular public transport.

Mr O'Farrell said yesterday it was "crazy" that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: "This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax.

"The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars."

Public transport fares are set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

An inquiry into the carbon tax impacts on fares would need to be held before fare rises could be approved.

Online poll.
Would you stop using public transport if the carbon tax pushed fares up $150 a year?

Yes 79.5% (384 votes)
No 20.5% (99 votes)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
12z GFS run was very interesting.
Our SW Caribbean system spins up into a 1005 mb low, probably a TD or minimal TS.


But what real caught my eye was what the GFS is showing in the extreme long range, while its not going to happen its starting to show what pattern is going to be in place by the end of the month.

Super long range 288 hrs, system off Africa.


Ridiculously long range, but it shows you what pattern could be in place in that timeframe which is why the GFS goes out that far.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For those of us needing a nice Storm Loop

Ma-on Floater - Rainbow Color Infrared Loop
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting andrewTXmet:
IMO, GW talk should be perma-bannable, seriously. I want to see guys like Neapolitan talk tropics for a change -- and not coming at us an SST map with an article saying humans are causing the water to be at record levels.

The problem is we don't have very many invests and entities to watch as we have had in most other years. At least in weak starting years like 2007 (hell, even the horribly inactive 2006 season!) we had entities all over the map this time of year even though most of them didn't develop they were fun to watch and speculate and argue about.


2006 was actually pretty normal. If you want inactivity, look at a season in the 70s or 80s.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For tropical bloggers..GFS calling for a storm in the GOM..next Monday..thats less than the 7 day criteria

Link



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting andrewTXmet:

lmao thanks but I'm faaaaarrrrrr from new lol. I've been around since the term 'wishcaster' was in its infancy and there was no JFV. And the line I posted wasn't meant to be rude, it's part of the chorus of a song I like and sing and play on the guitar, "Holiday" by Green Day.
Well, ya pretty look new.
Member Since: July 13, 2011

Either way, well, I didn't recognize it.
Maybe some sort of attribution along with the line would have clued us in? I really thought we'd found ourselves a punk. sorry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link

Good Afternoon, I think the wave located between 40w and 50w deserve some attention, because throughout the morning its been increasing in convection and a cyclonic turning is starting to appear on visible images.
850 Vorticity map shows more consolidation:
Link

Wind-Shear is not too bad either:
Link

The wave is also improving the lower convergence and the upper divergence, In my opinion it deserves 20-30% chance at the 8:00 pm TWO. Let the show begin!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CybrTeddy:
heh, I remember back in 2007 people where complaining and saying 'I remember back in 2004 when this site had good info' ect.


What was good about the user blogs is that if you didn't want someone on your blog, you just ignore the person, poof. Virtually troll free, with the occasional drive by trolling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Shucks,,I "member" back in 65' when ol Betsy was a blowing all night too.

..days After it Hit Miami.



45 years tween Majors,,save for Elena in 85,,she was a pretty Hairy Night and early morning too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Don't listen to him, Pat.

Thanks for posting this new, intriguing information. I had not ever seen this before and I'm sure almost no one else in here has, either.


Well you do work way down "under,,...ground".

LoL

Listen to who?,,me view is "vary" limited to say da least
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Hmmm. I think I would rather have 4 very well reasoned comments than 90,000 some comments where 99.9% of them are this same, goofy link.

Go ahead Pat, swallow everything that is spoon fed to you. That'll go well with that Gumbo.

Interestingly, he is prepared to at least taste from another spoon.
You seem to be stuck with the same spoon between your teeth like you are afraid that you may not like the taste of the New Corrected
Flavor.
But carry on. Regardless.

Reminds me of a Horse that has managed to get the Bit between its teeth.
Watch out for them, they are Dangerous things....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have an idea, How about we all turn our pc/laptops and tv's off and go outside for a walk. The more time people spend outside the less power they will use. hence lessening there carbon foot print.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
Yeah, that's been said every year, hasn't it?


Every year that I can remember being on here with the exception of 2005.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Bret watch continues..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CybrTeddy:
heh, I remember back in 2007 people where complaining and saying 'I remember back in 2004 when this site had good info' ect.
Yeah, that's been said every year, hasn't it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Meanwhile, looking out in the Tropical Atlantic.. if anyone missed. 10% in the SW Caribbean.

1. AN AREA OF DISTURBED WEATHER HAS FORMED OVER THE SOUTHWESTERN
CARIBBEAN SEA. DEVELOPMENT...IF ANY...OF THIS SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO
BE SLOW TO OCCUR AS IT REMAINS NEARLY STATIONARY OR DRIFTS WESTWARD
DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.
THIS SYSTEM HAS A LOW CHANCE...10
PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.
REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT...LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL IS POSSIBLE OVER
PORTIONS OF CENTRAL AMERICA DURING THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:



www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators


Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

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.
Don't listen to him, Pat.

Thanks for posting this new, intriguing information. I had not ever seen this before and I'm sure almost no one else in here has, either.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
heh, I remember back in 2007 people where complaining and saying 'I remember back in 2004 when this site had good info' ect.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting andrewTXmet:
South Florida got Wilma, weak Katrina, weak Rita.
Mainland Mexico got Emily, Stan and an armada of tropical storms.
Yucatan got Emily, Wilma and several tropical storms.
Central America got Beta.
Cuba and Jamaica got Dennis and a slew of passing weaker tropical entities.
The Antilles got Dennis, Emily and passers.
The East Coast got headcase Ophelia-itis and a TS or two.
The fishies still got more than their share.
Above, you see the decent, respectful portion of your post. The other part might be construed to be rude, baiting, etc. and will likely get you flagged.

Just letting you know, as you appear to be a new visitor.

Welcome, BTW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
co2now.org

What the world needs to watch

Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth%u2019s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

393.69ppm







Atmospheric CO2 for June 2011

Preliminary data released July 5, 2011 (Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Aussie, isn't it true that most of Australia's coal is being exported to China now? The coal is in Australia and the coal industry is profiting by exporting their product to mainly China. I do not favor a carbon tax but, how would a carbon tax change the profits from exporting coal to China? The industry is in Australia and you cannot export the location of the mines to China. You can only export what you harvest from the mines. Am I missing something here? What are the major products produced in Australia and how will a carbon tax impact them?

Our coal is exported all round the world and mainly to China. yes you are right. What will be taxed is: All Transport, anything that has to be transported will have a carbon tax on it. Even public transport will have a carbon tax on it. Food, Electricity, Gas, everything will have a carbon tax on it. The govt has said it will compensate families but didn't say for how many years. What my main fear is once the carbon credits go onto the free market, the price could double or it could halve. Petrol and Diesel for private cars will not have a carbon tax on it but petrol and diesel for company cars and trucks, buses will not have to pat a carbon tax for 2 years after that they will. Imagine paying $400 for 3 month, then the next bill comes in after the next 3 months and it's $600 of $800. We also pay 10% GST(Goods and Services Tax) on most things.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
lol Hilarious. It started clearing up after a downpour/thunderstorm, I heard birds chirping, until this freak thunderbolt showed up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators


Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

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: Posts: Comments:
Quoting thefallingman:
When assessing the amount of damage caused by weather, earthquakes should be excluded. Earthquakes are caused by the shifting of the tectonic plates which is the result of mantle convection. Whether or not the climate is changing and whether or not humans are affecting the climate is irrelevant because earthquakes are not caused by the climate.
Quoting nymore:
I noticed that forest fires were added to the natural disasters under climate events. This is a bad metric to figure in to climate events. The fires are apart of the natural process of renewing the forest, the problem is man puts them out there by storing more fuel for the next one. The only things you should maybe try and save is peoples homes other than that they should be allowed to burn naturally. Take Yellowstone Park for example all you heard back them was the forest would be ruined for decades but look what happened. The results are amazing scientists. Also if they are insuring the price of the timber that could really escalate the property damage. Warn climate ( Arizona ) or cool climate ( Alaska ) forests burn naturally. much humans were born to grow up and die, forests are born to grow up and burn. The same goes for grasslands example burn a field of grass next thing you know healthy green grass
Whatever is allowed to burn now would be less fuel in the coming years, especially in arid locations were fuel dries, but never seems to fully decompose.

In line with these, flood costs, magnitude, and duration over the decades isn't exactly objective, either. We have built dams, levees, canals, etc. In a purely natural state, a flooding river should fill it's flood plain and become, for a time, a very wide river slowly moving massive amounts of water downstream. Instead, we sometimes have dams storing water until the dam's capacity is exceeded, very high volumes of water (sometimes intentionally released), that water trapped in a width and shape of the river's main channel by levees, flows in the neighborhood of hundreds of times the normal cfs, then the weakest part of a levee is found and exploited. Record flood. Record expense.

Using the biggest example, the Mississippi River, we have trapped the volume per second of that river's flooding events into a one mile wide channel, whereas it historically has become more than 50 miles wide, in places, during high water events. The pressure of one mile in width instead of 50 is astounding. Many other rivers also have a 50:1 floodplain to leveed width ratio. Expect more "record flood expenses" and not limited to the US.

So besides the normalizing of the cost of structures and other construction (erroneously) in the worst parts of flood plains, comparing any two floods upon any man made change in the hydrological components is rather inaccurate, as well. It may be anthropogenic, but not for the reasons we are led to assume here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just cuz apparently nobody bothered to read the link...
With the year only half complete, 2011 is already the costliest year for natural disasters
(PDF of MunichRE's Half-Year Review for Stockholders)

Amongst MANY other interesting tidbits, if the SpringTornadoes were combined to be considered as a single event, it alone would be:
the 5th most costly weather-related event in US records,
the 9th most costly weather-related event in World records.
Member Since: August 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 4860
Quoting andrewTXmet:
IMO, GW talk should be perma-bannable, seriously. I want to see guys like Neapolitan talk tropics for a change -- and not coming at us an SST map with an article saying humans are causing the water to be at record levels.



+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog


+1
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ma-on

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting kshipre1:
hello all. I know it is supposed to be quiet this time of the year in the Atlantic and GOM, but anyone have any idea when things could start getting active?

All I can say is that ENSO neutral is here and that scares me because all I think about is 2005!!
I don't think it'll be that bad in numbers, anyway. Frankly, I'm more worried about a 2004 or 2008 setup, where just about everybody in the basin got something at some point.... as bad as 2005 was, activity was mostly concentrated in one area of the basin.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BullShoalsAR:
yeah, i wondered the same. i guess throw it all in cuz it's all climate change. maybe that's the rational? I'm not entirely sure though.



It's hard not to relate physical and geographic factors to weather. The formation of the Earth affects climate.
Earthquakes are associated with plate movement and volcanism.
We all know the effects volcanism can have on climate.

So I can see how Earthquakes could be tied to weather.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

Nice post.

The thing is, some people are still "waiting" on the evidence.
Without "seeing" the evidence.
It's a difficult concept to grasp, that we can indeed affect our Climate.
Especially if one accepts that everything is pre-ordained and someone else is in control of our destiny.

It's a conundrum really.
Thanks Pottery. At least you and I can grow our own food year round. That is until the ocean swallows the keys because we are only 3 feet above sea level, or maybe lower now. And so far, there are still edible fish in the ocean.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Torgen:


Bet you see calls for tariffs on imported goods to "equalize the playing field," then. Wonder how that will play out? The big corporations will probably call it "socialism," since it impacts their profits. I imagine that Australia has "free trade" agreements with everyone, like the US? That would prevent tariffs being levied.

Correct, we have free trade agreements with many countries. We send out iron ore to china so they can make steel then they send it back at a higher cost.
We have very rich deposits of Coal enough for 1000's of years, which earns my country Billions of $$$$ in export cash that is then spend by the govt on roads, schools, hospitals. Yet the greens party wants them all shut down, where will the billions they make for my country came from if that was to happen? From the carbon tax?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stormwatcherCI:
Re Current TCF possibilities... ATL sure looks boring by comparison w/ WPac... lol ... and as Levi mentioned, even with MJO in their basin, things are more favorable than the ATL in July...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

Most big companies will move off-shore likely to China and sell the same products made at a cheaper price and sell for the same or higher price.
Small and medium size businesses will have to choose to either raise there prices to cover the cost of the new tax and make less sales thus decreasing there cash inflow or close down. Imported products won't have much of an increase compared to Australian Made products cause the companies that make those imported products won't have to pay the tax.


Aussie, isn't it true that most of Australia's coal is being exported to China now? The coal is in Australia and the coal industry is profiting by exporting their product to mainly China. I do not favor a carbon tax but, how would a carbon tax change the profits from exporting coal to China? The industry is in Australia and you cannot export the location of the mines to China. You can only export what you harvest from the mines. Am I missing something here? What are the major products produced in Australia and how will a carbon tax impact them?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Agreed.

It does appear more and more that as of late, the topics of this blog are global warming and climate change based, rather than tropical weather based. His posts by themselves are fine, but the never ending debate which follows are ridiculously redundant and hostile.

Like you said, it's his blog, and I respect that, but perhaps he should consider changing the title of the blog.

...and if he does end up doing that, I can assure you I would leave this blog in an instant. The gw/cc debate is one of the most pathetic debates I've ever known and people can't even see my comments on this blog so I have absolutely no reason to stay here.
Hey, I read all ur posts... u usually have something sensible / wx-related to say.... just my current browser keeps having problems w/ ur graphics....

Quoting muddertracker:
Good grief...*sigh* If Dr. M. posts about GW then it is free game for the blog....right? After all, it is his blog...That being said, I ususally check out when the GW discussion heats up. Would I get banned for posting the beating of a dead horse?
Sad thing is, today we are only talking about the GW discussion. There isn't actually any genuine GW discussion going on... closest is P451's questions about worsening weather, which could be loosely construed to be focused on wx trends, and thereby climatology...

Quoting ProgressivePulse:
Dr. Masters has never been big on speculation.

None of the models are showing anything significant and none of the models are being consistent with either area. Once the yellow circles come out I am sure Dr. Masters will have a commentary on it. In the meantime there are many other tangible topics occurring across the globe that are significant.

Wunderground's best times were when there were several other active user blogs that discussed the tropics 24/7. Dr. Masters blog in those days was considered a place of last resort as it typically featured trolls and extremists, nothing different from what we see today. Difference is that there is no place else of interest to go so everyone remains here.
Thanks 4 the reminder... Unlike a lot of the newer bloggers, I remember 2006... my soul...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Hurrykane:
Starting to display cyclonic turning
Link

Last few frames look interesting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I noticed that forest fires were added to the natural disasters under climate events. This is a bad metric to figure in to climate events. The fires are apart of the natural process of renewing the forest, the problem is man puts them out there by storing more fuel for the next one. The only things you should maybe try and save is peoples homes other than that they should be allowed to burn naturally. Take Yellowstone Park for example all you heard back them was the forest would be ruined for decades but look what happened. The results are amazing scientists. Also if they are insuring the price of the timber that could really escalate the property damage. Warn climate ( Arizona ) or cool climate ( Alaska ) forests burn naturally. much humans were born to grow up and die, forests are born to grow up and burn. The same goes for grasslands example burn a field of grass next thing you know healthy green grass

Very true. If people didn't build in and very close to forests then people wouldn't die. Here, the Aborigines would light bush fires and grass fires to flush out animals for food. The bush here has grown to be accustomed to bush fires, some plants don't let go of there seeds until there seed pods have been heated by a bush fire. It's call evolution. I think a guy called Darwin wrote a few books about it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 241 - 191

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

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.