Extreme weather and climate change: a new IPCC report

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:48 PM GMT on November 18, 2011

Share this Blog
35
+

Extreme weather events are already being affected by human-caused climate change, and will increase in destructive power during the coming decades as huge cost, reported the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today. The IPCC issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, concern over the possible impact climate change may already be having on extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and droughts prompted the IPCC to release their first-ever Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX report was divided into two sections: how human-caused climate change has already affected extreme weather events, and predictions on how these events will change during the rest of the century. Here are some highlights on how the climate has already changed, according to the SREX report:

- Globally, cold days and nights have decreased, and warm days and nights have increased (90 - 100% chance).

- In many but not all regions of the globe, the length or number of heat waves has increased.

- Some areas have seen more intense and longer droughts, in particular, southern Europe and West Africa. However, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter in some areas, such as central North America and northwestern Australia.

- Heavy precipitation events have changed in some regions. There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that more regions have seen increases than decreases in heavy precipitation events.

- The historical data base on hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not good enough to tell if they have changed.

- The jet stream has shifted towards the poles, meaning that the tracks of rain-bearing low pressure systems have also shifted towards the poles.

- Rising sea levels have led to an increase in extreme coastal flooding events (66 - 100% chance).

- Damage from extreme weather events has increased. Increases in population and wealth, and the fact more people are living in vulnerable areas, is a major cause of this increase in damage. It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage.


Figure 1. Predicted return periods for 1-day extreme precipitation events that occurred, on average, only once every 20 years between 1981-2000. A decrease in return period implies more frequent extreme precipitation events (i.e., less time between events on average). For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century, according to these climate model predictions. The box plots show results for regionally averaged projections for two time horizons, 2046 to 2065 and 2081 to 2100, as compared to the late-20th-century, and for three different emissions scenarios--a scenario where humans emit relatively little CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses (B1, blue bars), and two higher-emission scenarios (A1B and A2, green and red bars). Humanity is currently on a pace to emit more CO2 than the highest emission scenario shown here. Results are based on 14 climate models that contributed to the 2007 IPCC report. The level of agreement among the models is indicated by the size of the colored boxes (in which 50% of the model projections are contained), and the length of the whiskers (indicating the maximum and minimum projections from all models). Values are computed for land points only. The “Globe” inset box displays the values computed using all land grid points. Averaged over all areas of the globe, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-8 to 1-in-12 year event by the end of the century. Image credit: The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX), 2011.

Here are some highlights of the forecasts for the future from the 2011 SREX report:

- A 1-in-20 year hottest day is at least 66% likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.

- For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century.

- For Eastern North America, a maximum high temperature that occurred only once every 20 years during 1980 - 2000 is predicted to occur between once every three years and once per year by 2100.

- Extreme high temperature readings that occur once every 20 years will increase by 1°C to 3°C (1.8°F - 5.4°F) by mid-21st century and by about 2°C to 5°C (3.6°F - 9°F) by late-21st century.

- It is at least 66% likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases of total precipitation in those regions.

- Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are at least 66% likely to increase with continued warming, and the maximum winds will increase. The total number of these storms is likely to remain about the same or decrease.

- There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, Central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa are at particular risk.

- In some regions, the main driver for increased damages from extreme weather events will not be climate change, but increases in population and wealth and vulnerability.

Intoducing climatecommunication.org
For those of you seeking detailed information on the research linking extreme weather events to climate change, I recommend a new website dedicated to improving communication of climate change information to the public, media, and policy makers, climatecommunication.org. The group is led by Susan Joy Hassol, a veteran climate change communicator, analyst, and author known for her ability to translate science into English, making complex issues accessible to policymakers and the public. Climatecommunication.org has put together an overview of extreme weather and climate change that I find a helpful resource when I am looking for the latest research results on the subject. I serve on their advisory board, along with a number of leading climate scientists.


Figure 2. Still image of the Bangkok, Thailand floods of October - November, 2011, as seen on the inaugural episode our new bi-monthly Extreme Weather video series.

Wunderground launches new Extreme Weather video series
Wunderground now features a new, twice-monthly Extreme Weather video series from GREEN.TV, with the latest reports and analysis on extreme weather around the world. From droughts to hurricanes to blizzards to flooding, Extreme Weather will cover the story and the science behind the events to try to understand their causes and consequences. The Extreme Weather series is sponsored by Vestas, the world's leading wind turbine manufacturer. The inaugural episode, launched yesterday, features video of the great Thailand flood, destructive floods in Italy, the $3 billion Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29 - 30, the massive Bering Sea, Alaska blizzard of November 9, the Texas drought, and the launch of a new polar-orbiting weather satellite. Look for a new video every two weeks on our Climate Change Videos page.

Resources
For those of you who haven't seen it, my top "must-read" post of 2011 is called, 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?. Back in June, I went through the ridiculous barrage of extreme weather events the planet saw in 2010 and early 2011, and concluded: But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.

Wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has some thoughtful observations on the communication of the extreme weather/climate change link published in earthzine magazine titled, Changing the Media Discussion on Climate Change and Extreme Weather.

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: 262 - 212

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

Quoting ScottLincoln:


Which means...? The globe doesn't just warm up because it was colder at one point. There must be a physical mechanism by which the energy balance changes.


I have been dying to talk to, and perhaps debate with an actual climate scientist on this issue.

A few years ago, I full heartedly believed that humans were the primary cause of the warming that was occuring. Now I am convinced that most of climate change that has occured up to this point since the late 1970s has largely been natural.

Yes, CO2 has added 1.4 w/m^2 of energy to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790, which is cited by the IPCC, but this forcing is dwarfed by simple albedo changes alone over a 21 year timeframe, as the solar physicists that measured the Earthshine reflecting off of the moon.

Measuring albedo through this method is fairly complicated. When ISR reflects off of Clouds, it subsequently reflects off of the moon, which becomes "Earthshine." This can be seen here:



The prominent Solar Physicsists, which are led by Professor Phillip Goode and Dr. Enric Palle have calculated that albedo changes have added 7 w/m^2 of Energy to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe.



This graph from Palle 2004 shows the albedo reconstruction from the Earthshine data with the blue line, and the ISSCP reconstrcution in black. Both decreased, until early this century, which is coincidentally when we stopped warming. For a comparison to how small the CO2 and GHG effect is, the amount of Energy that GHGs have added since 1790 is shown in red.

They document these findings in Palle and Goode 2007

They also document that the sharp uptick in albedo seen in 2003 was just a spurious reading.

Dr. Enric Palle presents these findings in a PDF presentation, where he rules out the cause of the warming as being due to Greenhouse Gases.

Many have tried to debunk Clouds being the cause of Global Warming, by simply saying that the Clouds are decreasing as a positive feedback to warming temperatures. However, a recent analysis by Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer says that this is not the case.



The graph above shows 3 month variations in the CERES Global Radative Energy Balance (black), which is comprised of radiative forcing and radiative feedback, which is shown in red and blue respectively. The Radiative feedback is calculated from the HadCrut Global Temperature anomalies, and uses a relatively simple formula (which is shown in this graph) to calulcate that radiative feedback.

However, the changes in the CERES measured radiative flux look completely different than if it were simply measuring radiative feedback. As Dr. Spencer puts it:

Quoting Dr. Roy Spencer:
The above chart makes it clear that radiative feedback is only a small portion of what CERES measures. There is no way around this conclusion.




So if one is to try and argue that the decrease in Cloud Cover is due to a positive feedback, they are disagreeing with measurements from CERES, since the analysis above shows that the radiative feedback is very small compared to the radiative forcing.

Now what could possibly be the cause of the decrease in Cloud Cover?

The GCR hypothesis was developed by Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, and looking at all of the evidence available, there is pretty good evidence that GCRs have caused at least some changes in the Cloud Cover.

Take this paper, which shows that GCRs have a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range during FDs, when they have the most evident effect on Climate.

They found that within a few days of the Forbush Decrease, (which is a small lag) the diurnal temperature substantially deviates from the normal diurnal temperature mean.

The diurnal temperature mean can be best described as the difference between the daytime and nightime temperatures.

The reason for why the diurnal temperature range would increase right after a FD, indicates not only that GCRs can influence the atmospheric processes on Earth substantially, but they also do so through Cloud Cover changes.

A sudden reduction in GCRs would substanitally lower Cloud Cover for those few days, which would substantially increase the difference in nighttime and daytime temperatures, since Clouds reflect ISR and trap OLR, reducing the diurnal temperature range.

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011 .pdf



Quoting Paper


The result strongly supports the idea that
cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.




Or take this paper, which also finds a strong correlation between FDs and Global aerosoles, the "seeds" for the Clouds.

http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/F RSEMR22l/Sources/03-Cosmic-rays/3-Svensmark-et-al- 2009-GRL.pdf




The dashed line is the GCR count and the solid blue line is the aerosol number. A short lag in Global aersoles can clearly be seen right after a Forbush Decrease, which indicates a significant CR-Influence on climate, if Forbush Decreases can have that much of an impact on aerosoles.


Or take this paper which shows a strong correlation between GCRs and Mid Latitude Clouds.



http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp- 10-10941-2010.pdf

Quote:
The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary magnetic field. However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover. These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions.
------------

Or take this study which highlights GCRs being a "plausable" Climate Driver:


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_20 08.pdf


Quote:
In conclusion, a CR–climate link seems to be a
plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of
statistical studies and existing theoretical models.
----------



Low Level Cloud Cover and GCRs for Europe as presented by Usoskin et. al 2008.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Chances for Tammy are going buh-bye...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trunkmonkey:
Climate change folks and those with communist agendas are simular, many belong to the same organizations, tha is why i don't agree with Climate change, I can post the communist organizations if needed.
I would guess many in here support the communist supported and funded occupy 99% while those in our government are stealing the taxpayers money!
Giving them a pass because of their ideology towards communism!

So long as you're admitting that your rejection of the science behind climate change theory has nothing to do with the science itself but is instead based entirely on your own political and ideological beliefs, I can accept that. Honesty is always welcome.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Here's some cell phone video of a fairly rare tornado tearing through a portion of Cochabamba, Bolivia, this past week. (Rare, as Cochabamba sits at 8,445 feet above sea level.) One thing is obvious: tin roofs and twisters don't mix. Even so, there were no fatalities.



FWIW, Cochabamba was host to last year's World People's Conference on Climate Change.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting AussieStorm:


I don't think there is a big enough island to fit them all on, I live on the biggest and it's full of them.


You moved to Greenland? ;)

And thanks to ScottLincoln for the links on previous page. Interesting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Well how are ya this early morning? Im up doing thermodynamics homework at 2am on a friday night... what fun.
lol why?

I know the feeling though, I was up after 1 last night studying for a Calc test. And I didn't do much this Friday either, just stayed at home and worked on my college apps (I'm a sr in hs). It's only 11:59 PM here though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
I'm here...


Well how are ya this early morning? Im up doing thermodynamics homework at 2am on a friday night... what fun.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
Anybody here? It is cold out :( where did summer go so quickly?
I'm here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anybody here? It is cold out :( where did summer go so quickly?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting chrisale:
I know... lets round up all of the Deniers and stick them on some Atoll in the Pacific that is eventually going to be swamped by rising sea levels due to climate change.

If they choose to accept reality, they can leave the Island. If not, they're left to fend for themselves. If they're right, they get to live on a beautiful Island for the rest of their lives. If they're not right, they eventually have to do the Polynesian thing and build an outrigger to save themselves.

It's sort of a reverse super-slow-motion Survivor.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can finally move on.


I don't think there is a big enough island to fit them all on, I live on the biggest and it's full of them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Article on climate extremes came up in the Google news window... has a brief mention about Dr. Masters in it.

U.N. panel's report predicts more extreme weather Link

Edit: it really isn't an in-depth article at all... the writer could do some good by actually stopping by this blog entry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Speaking of extreme weather... some pretty nasty record lows out in Alaska recently. Down to -45 in some places.. high of -30 in Fairbanks. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Did everyone go to bed? ....... Hey! Who took the remote????
I'm still here.

Rookie, where are you from? I'm from San Diego, California, same state as Taz
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Glad to hear that. What is your take on this season? Weird, I would say.




it was good can say the same for NC and up the E cost they had got in hit vary hard this year it olny takes one too make it a bad season MX has got in hit a few times has well



good night
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 114775
Quoting swflurker:
Climate change is real. Who know's if this is a normal cycle! I think it is. It has been changing since the start of time! Check the history of your area. Are humans to blame? Nope, no humans here. LOL Just a normal Earth cycle, with a little human input!

P.S More CO2=more air for plants.
Humans are definitely contributing. The Greenhouse Gas Theory insures this. How much is uncertain, but there is a human factor involved.

P.S. More CO2 = many complications, some understood, some yet to be discovered.

P.S.S. It's not like plants are suffocating lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:




doing vary vary well


Glad to hear that. What is your take on this season? Weird, I would say.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


How are you doing tonight, Taz? How is the weather doing in your neck of the woods?




doing vary vary well
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 114775
Climate change is real. Who know's if this is a normal cycle! I think it is. It has been changing since the start of time! Check the history of your area. Are humans to blame? Nope, no humans here. LOL Just a normal Earth cycle, with a little human input!

P.S More CO2=more air for plants.
Quoting TomTaylor:
Sorry to debate global warming/climate change, I know most people hate it so I usually try my best to avoid the topic. However, it frustrates me to see people be so irrational and illogical sometimes.

The Earth is clearly warming and has been doing so for around the last 40 years. All evidence supports this. The greenhouse gas theory also supports the idea that humans are partially responsible for this warming. To what extent is unknown. What will happen in the future is also unknown. However, computer models forecast that if current CO2 emission trends continue, warming will follow. This should be enough reason for all of us to recognize the need to attempt to reduce our emissions. Furthermore, actions which would reduce CO2 emissions would help the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign nations, and advance our nation as a whole.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


How are you doing tonight, Taz? How is the weather doing in your neck of the woods?


Did everyone go to bed? ....... Hey! Who took the remote????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:



thats ok i for give you


How are you doing tonight, Taz? How is the weather doing in your neck of the woods?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Sorry Taz! didnt see ya around, but the job needed to be done ;)



thats ok i for give you
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 114775
Sorry to debate global warming/climate change, I know most people hate it so I usually try my best to avoid the topic. However, it frustrates me to see people be so irrational and illogical sometimes.

The Earth is clearly warming and has been doing so for around the last 40 years. All evidence supports this. The greenhouse gas theory also supports the idea that humans are partially responsible for this warming. To what extent is unknown. What will happen in the future is also unknown. However, computer models forecast that if current CO2 emission trends continue, warming will follow. This should be enough reason for all of us to recognize the need to attempt to reduce our emissions. Furthermore, actions which would reduce CO2 emissions would help the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign nations, and advance our nation as a whole.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, right?

Link


There is nothing prohibiting faster than light travel. The problem is getting past the speed of light itself. It is an asymptotic limit.

Hypothetically, if you are already traveling faster than light then it is just as hard to slow down to below light speed as it is for something traveling below light speed to travel faster than light. Hypothetically a massless particle, something appearing as massless, or something with negative mass (not the same as anti-matter), or a particle with enough energy to "tunnel" would also have no problems exceeding the light barrier.

Muon neutrinos (what they're measuring) have almost no mass and barely interact with any sort of matter. One possibility is that they are actually traveling at the "real" speed of light, since they react with almost nothing in their path (as opposed to just about everything else, including light). Another possibility is that they are "tunneling" through the light barrier. But there could also be some systemic error they haven't found yet or other issue.

It's still early on, but it is exciting nonetheless.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


You're not serious, are you?

I drink it every day in my soda.

50,000ppm (impossible) is toxic. Takes 10,000ppm for even the slightest effect (drowsiness, not breathing issues).

And, that all depends on the amount of O2 present.


Perhaps you may wish to rethink your statement? Your statement is not exactly correct.

"The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."

Link

and

Link

and

Link

I agree that the amount of O2 present is a factor. Since carbon molecules combine with O2 molecules to form both CO and CO2, then O2 is being consumed to form the CO and CO2 molecules. Thus lowering the amount of O2, in the atmosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
234. j2008
Well I'm out, You all have fun debateing tonight. I'll be back sometime tomorrow afternoon to cheak in.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


1) That is the agenda. Or are you Nuclear? If so, then I apologize.

2) Yes, they are 2100 vs. 2000. That is where the 2000 comes from. 2000-2010... nothing yet.
That is what you interpret as their agenda. I support a shift off of non-renewables and toward renewable energies. That includes, but is not limited to, wind and solar. There are other options like hydroelectric, geothermal, and tidal. Nuclear is also an option but it's not necessarily one I support.

2. So I'm not sure what your point is if models weren't forecasting 10 years out. How can you say evidence isn't following the models if the models never said anything about 2010?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:




thats my line lol





Sorry Taz! didnt see ya around, but the job needed to be done ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


OK, so what is the evidence that the models are verifying so far?

They start in 2000.
Is this really all you care about, the models?

Models are just that, models, they are not intended to predict exactly what will occur, they are designed to help a forecaster forecast what will occur in the future should current trends continue.

How much faith do you put in the GFS or ECMWF model? I know I don't put very much faith in them, I just try and get the general idea and move on. I can't imagine putting much more faith in a model that is trying to predict the climate in 100 years from now. It's going to be inaccurate. The point scientists are trying to make is that if current trends continue this is what models believe will happen. Whether or not it will actually happen, nobody knows. However, to bet that we won't warm or not do anything when we have all our models pointing in one direction is not very smart, is it?

It's like predicting it will snow over the weekend when all the models are saying it will be sunny and in the 80s. Sure there's a chance you could be wrong, but it's incredibly small and it would be unintelligent to hold on to that idea given the strong evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
230. j2008
And here is the other one and we could have a TD by tomorrow afternoon :
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1000 PM PST FRI NOV 18 2011

FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

1. SHOWERS ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM LOCATED ABOUT
450 MILES SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE GULF OF TEHUANTEPEC CONTINUES TO
BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS APPEAR CONDUCIVE
FOR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT...AND A TROPICAL DEPRESSION COULD FORM
DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS THE SYSTEM MOVES WEST TO WEST-
NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH. THIS SYSTEM HAS A HIGH CHANCE...
60 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT
48 HOURS.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BEVEN

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:




thats my line lol





On that, I am definitely off to bed.

Love ya, Taz.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Re-ported.




thats my line lol



Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 114775
227. j2008
Here it is, hot off the press.
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
100 AM EST SAT NOV 19 2011

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

1. A LARGE AND ELONGATED AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS CONTINUES OVER
THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC OCEAN APPROXIMATELY 800 TO 9000 MILES EAST AND
NORTHEAST OF THE LEEWARD ISLANDS. THIS ACTIVITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN A SURFACE TROUGH...A TROPICAL WAVE...AND AN
UPPER-LEVEL LOW. SLOW DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE AS THIS SYSTEM DRIFTS
GENERALLY NORTHWARD OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS...AND IT HAS A LOW
CHANCE...20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A SUBTROPICAL OR TROPICAL CYCLONE
DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.

$$
FORECASTER BEVEN

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:


1. I never said I wanted all wind and solar, so I have no idea where you are pulling that from.

2. Where are you finding model predictions for 2010 from 2000? All IPCC model predictions I have seen are for the end of the 21st century or the year 2100.


1) That is the agenda. Or are you Nuclear? If so, then I apologize.

2) Yes, they are 2100 vs. 2000. That is where the 2000 comes from. 2000-2010... nothing yet.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting TomTaylor:
Evidence means everything, that's the basis of those predictions. Idk what you're talking about


OK, so what is the evidence that the models are verifying so far?

They start in 2000.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Seastep:


No we are not. Not since the predictions start in 2000.

That is precisely the point.

And, yes, I am monitoring those models and they aren't panning out. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Qualifications are irrelevant. Logic is all that it takes. Science is not a vote, which exactly what you are inferring.

Wind and Solar?


1. I never said I wanted all wind and solar, so I have no idea where you are pulling that from.

2. Where are you finding model predictions for 2010 from 2000? All IPCC model predictions I have seen are for the end of the 21st century or the year 2100.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


Nope. Nor you or Climate Science.

Evidence means nothing if it doesn't verify.

Goodnight.

Think about the wind and solar. No rush. Figure it out.
Evidence means everything, that's the basis of those predictions. Idk what you're talking about
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sar2401:


Me too. :) I'm really on the fence about this. There's no doubt the climate is changing, but it's done that since the globe cooled off. There's also no doubt we've pumped an awful lot of crud into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. I'm still not sure the correlation proves causation. One of my stat professors did an interesting exercise in predicting the future using statistics. He took the total number of horses used for transport in 1880 and did both a straight line and exponential graph of the amount of horse manure we'd be dealing with given a certain rise in the human population. No matter how you worked it, the earth would have been 8 or 10 feet deep in horse manure that needed to be disposed of somehow. Of course, this prediction would have been wrong, if done in 1880, because we completely changed what we used for transport. The IPPC predictions are also based on us not making any changes in what we are doing now, even though many steps are underway to reduce the CO2 footprint of humans. I'd really be interested to see how those numbers change if, for example, we were able to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by the year 2100.


That example doesn't have much to do with climate modeling. Climate models are physical simulations, not statistical extrapolations.

The IPCC provides several scenarios in their reports, and there are multiple research papers that show other scenarios. Regardless, the main issue is that the carbon cycle for additional CO2 is very long. So even if we halted all our CO2 emissions now, we would still get additional warming over the next century. A 50% cut in emissions by 2100 will only alter the amount of warming, not abate it.

Also, if you're really interested in seeing how different scenarios play out, have a decent level of technical knowledge, and have a fairly good idea about climate parameters, you can download, compile, and run a climate model with different setups. The easiest one is probably ModelE provided by NASA GISS.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Sorry the world doesn't revolve around you, good night.


Nope. Nor you or Climate Science.

Evidence means nothing if it doesn't verify.

Goodnight.

Think about the wind and solar. No rush. Figure it out.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting TomTaylor:
If temps are flat for the next 30 years then we obviously wouldn't be warming...duh.


The point is we are currently warming and we are partially responsible. You can speculate about the future all you want, but it's your word vs hundreds of climate scientists and sophisticated computer models. You have zero qualifications so I have no idea what makes you think you can outsmart them...I understand there is some reason to hold doubt, but I can not fathom why one would think they have it right over the entire scientific community.


No we are not. Not since the predictions start in 2000.

That is precisely the point.

And, yes, I am monitoring those models and they aren't panning out. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Qualifications are irrelevant. Logic is all that it takes. Science is not a vote, which exactly what you are inferring.

Wind and Solar?
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Seastep:
No answer to my all wind and solar question so I am truly off to bed now.
Sorry the world doesn't revolve around you, good night.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


Ironic.
Ironic that you found it ironic because I was referring to skeptics.

I'm the one who has evidence on my side, not you. Don't forget that. If you'd like to post some evidence, go ahead, but you have none so far. If you'd like to see my evidence, then by all means ask me, you'll be sure to get the same evidence that has been posted hundreds of times before.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:


Yeah, and?

Let's see if the theory holds. Good luck.

If temps are flat for the next 30-40 years, would you still believe it?

And, for your "do something," what is that?

Would you be happy if all power were wind and solar?
If temps are flat for the next 30 years then we obviously wouldn't be warming...duh.


The point is we are currently warming and we are partially responsible. You can speculate about the future all you want, but it's your word vs hundreds of climate scientists and sophisticated computer models. You have zero qualifications so I have no idea what makes you think you can outsmart them...I understand there is some reason to hold doubt, but I can not fathom why one would think they have it right over the entire scientific community.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
No answer to my all wind and solar question so I am truly off to bed now.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Speaking for myself, I would be extremely elated!

I would be more than satisfied to learn that CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas and we can dump all we want into the atmosphere. We still have a problem though. Once atmospheric CO2 hits 800 ppm, we will have great difficulty breathing. Perhaps this too will magically become a non issue?


You're not serious, are you?

I drink it every day in my soda.

50,000ppm (impossible) is toxic. Takes 10,000ppm for even the slightest effect (drowsiness, not breathing issues).

And, that all depends on the amount of O2 present.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
214. j2008
EP, 90, 2011111900, , BEST, 0, 94N, 970W, 25, 1006, DB. Just for kicks, pressures down 1 MB wind still about the same. So sad I missed Grothar earlyer.....look like there was some fun and lightheartedness in here. Doesnt happen very often anymore. New TWO should be comeing out soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Sometimes I wish we could just ship off stubborn ignorant people, they literally prohibit progression of the human race with their irrational mindset. No matter how much evidence you supply them, their mindset never changes. Its incredibly frustrating and disappointing.


Ironic.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Seastep:


Yeah, and?

Let's see if the theory holds. Good luck.

If temps are flat for the next 30-40 years, would you still believe it?

And, for your "do something," what is that?

Would you be happy if all power were wind and solar?


Speaking for myself, I would be extremely elated!

I would be more than satisfied to learn that CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas and we can dump all we want into the atmosphere. We still have a problem though. Once atmospheric CO2 hits 800 ppm, we will have great difficulty breathing. Perhaps this too will magically become a non issue?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 262 - 212

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

Top of Page

About

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

Local Weather

Light Rain
64 °F
Light Rain