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: 512 - 462

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

Quoting Snowlover123:


I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "Cloud Forcing." Wiki has a nice page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing

Quote:

Cloud forcing (sometimes described as cloud radiative forcing) is, in meteorology, the difference between the radiation budget components for average cloud conditions and cloud-free conditions.
------------------------------------------------


You forgot the very next sentence from that source you cited:

"Much of the interest in cloud forcing relates to its role as a feedback process in the present period of global warming."

Clouds are considered a feedback by climate scientists, not a forcing. The difference in terminology is important.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting CybrTeddy:
Here comes what appears will be our last named storm of the season. 99L.


If 99L is named, that would give us Tammy and tie us with last year and the 3rd most active hurricane season ever.

We're not done yet....Models are showing 1-2 more in the next 168 hours.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32822
Quoting Snowlover123:


Dr. Spencer has become a laughingstock because he uses evidence to base his claims instead of Climate Models like the AGW Supporters like to use?

He has become a laughingstock because in the face of modelling everything to fit CAGW, he and his team have continued to find that negative feedbacks exist within Earth's Climate, when it is abundently clear that they have always existed by simply looking at the paleoclimatological data?

Just because he notes, by looking at the evidence, that Cloud Cover changes could be responsible for most of the warming, and that they act as a negative feedback AND a forcing, makes him a laughingstock?

If you want evidence based off of models, here you go:



The above image shows that the computer models are not handeling how the Earth radiates heat. Actual observations show that the Earth can radiate much more thermal energy out into space than the models suggest, which would mean that the Earth is less sensitive to changes in the Global Energy Budget.

What I posted about the CERES Radiative flux is not a computer model. It is simple, direct, observations that show that the change in the total radiative flux does not look ANYTHING like a radiative feedback. The radiative forcing makes up a large portion of the total CERES radiative flux, which indicates that whatever changed the Cloud Forcing, rather than a radiative feedback is responsible for most to about all of the decline in Cloud Cover.

May I ask, what is this observed "human signature" that you are talking about that makes it incontroversial that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming?


You're making an incorrect assumption. The models are based on the results of scientific research, not vice versa. The models can then be used to study other characteristics of the climate that would not be possible or difficult to do otherwise.

You make it sound like the scientists just made the models out of thin air and started using them for the hell of it. That is not the case. The earliest computer climate models to the '60's-'70's.

You also cast aspersions that climate scientists do not account for negative feedbacks, which is patently false. You'll find more than one paper on negative feedbacks, and any GCM worth it's salt will also account for them.

And while cloud cover certainly would have an impact on temperature, his claims that cloud cover is the main contributor to the planetary warming trend have been thoroughly debunked. And "debunked" is putting it very mildly.

Spencer is not credible because his research does not stand up to scrutiny. And when he can't get his papers through peer review in credible journals, he pushes them through rubber stamp junk science journals or blogs instead.

Posting graphs, explanations from his site, rejected papers, WUWT, or whatever isn't going to help your case. If the research hasn't been able to stand up to peer-review then it is, at best, unverifiable hypotheses.

People like Spencer are making extraordinary claims and attempting to throw out decades of well established research in science. Those kinds of claims require an extraordinary amount of proof. And so far, people like Spencer have fallen well short of that bar.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My prediction is below. We'll find out who is right.

Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Another red herring.

1. Using monthly timeseries data, it has been found that a 15yr or longer period is required in order to discern the long-term trend from natural variability.
2. Statistical analysis has also shown no evidence for a changed trend since 2000.
3. According to NCDC data, every year since 2000 was warmer than 2000. The decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.


Just for Nea, I am going to do GISS, too, after this year is over.

Yes, the decade is warmer, but not getting warmer. There is a difference.

Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Neapolitan:
Anyone who's caught even a glimpse of either of the BBC's amazing "Earth" nature documentary series (The Blue Planet and Planet Earth) knows how great they really are: beautifully produced, expertly filmed, lovingly edited, professionally narrated by David Attenborough.

The most recent--Frozen Planet--spends time looking at Earth's north and south polar environments, and the challenges wildlife faces living in such a harsh places. Frozen Planet started airing last month in the UK, and it's already become the highest-rated nature program there in over a decade. Luckily for us here in the states, the Discovery Channel will begin airing the seven-part series sometime in the spring of 2012.

However--

United States viewers won't be able to watch the final episode ("On Thin Ice") of Frozen Planet, as it focuses on climate change. Yes, some higher up(s) at Discovery decided the topic was too much for sensitive American tastes, so we won't be able to watch it here (despite that fact that Discovery was a producing partner for the series). Discovery claims they're not airing the episode due to "scheduling issues", but that's difficult to believe: the network, which claims to be dedicated to "nature programming at its finest" currently airs 25 reality series about such "natural" subjects as guns, cars, trucks, motorcycles, hunting, fishing, logging, auctioneering, and so on. I'm certain they could show one less re-run of "Swamp Loggers" or "Auction Kings" or "Carfellas" to make room for "On Thin Ice", so that excuse doesn't wash.

In case you ever wonder just why it is that Americans as a whole are having a more difficult time accepting the overwhelming science behind climate change, you need look no further than this kind of silliness. It's sad. Pathetic, even.


Yes, Frozen Planet is a wonderful series. It's halfway through over here. Shame it's a touch short.

These series cost a lot of time (2 years at least to film) and money to do. I'm sure Discovery pitched in at some point (either in the making or to 'licence' the series out) so the idea of spending potentially millions for a programme to fall shy of 'scheduling issues' is risible. If it's true, that is.

Perhaps American viewers will be able to watch it via Youtube or some such (or maybe BBC America can be naughty and show the last episode anyway).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
Please, Scott, show me how it is not true that there has been no significant temp increase since 2000.

Are you asserting otherwise?


Another red herring.

1. Using monthly timeseries data, it has been found that a 15yr or longer period is required in order to discern the long-term trend from natural variability.
2. Statistical analysis has also shown no evidence for a changed trend since 2000.
3. According to NCDC data, every year since 2000 was warmer than 2000. The decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
I have a question about the SREX ensemble projections. If the "blue bar" box and whiskers represents a status quo atmosphere, why aren't the ensembles centered along a 20 year return period? Or is the B1 scenario based on increasing CO2 etc up to 2046 and then no change thereafter?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good morning everyone. I just want to share my new video named "Chain Lightning" I hope you like it.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anyone who's caught even a glimpse of either of the BBC's amazing "Earth" nature documentary series (The Blue Planet and Planet Earth) knows how great they really are: beautifully produced, expertly filmed, lovingly edited, professionally narrated by David Attenborough.

The most recent--Frozen Planet--spends time looking at Earth's north and south polar environments, and the challenges wildlife faces living in such a harsh places. Frozen Planet started airing last month in the UK, and it's already become the highest-rated nature program there in over a decade. Luckily for us here in the states, the Discovery Channel will begin airing the seven-part series sometime in the spring of 2012.

However--

United States viewers won't be able to watch the final episode ("On Thin Ice") of Frozen Planet, as it focuses on climate change. Yes, some higher up(s) at Discovery decided the topic was too much for sensitive American tastes, so we won't be able to watch it here (despite that fact that Discovery was a producing partner for the series). Discovery claims they're not airing the episode due to "scheduling issues", but that's difficult to believe: the network, which claims to be dedicated to "nature programming at its finest" currently airs 25 reality series about such "natural" subjects as guns, cars, trucks, motorcycles, hunting, fishing, logging, auctioneering, and so on. I'm certain they could show one less re-run of "Swamp Loggers" or "Auction Kings" or "Carfellas" to make room for "On Thin Ice", so that excuse doesn't wash.

In case you ever wonder just why it is that Americans as a whole are having a more difficult time accepting the overwhelming science behind climate change, you need look no further than this kind of silliness. It's sad. Pathetic, even.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
Good morning. Foggy and very humid down on the bayou as the sun comes up. I see it is the same as it ever was here on WU.


Yeah, Science trumping Ideology..or the er, "Oz" factor you could say.

There is a Bunker available though..

LoL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129841
Fouling our nest! This is a heartbreaking story about an aspect of the Fukushima catastrophe that most folks probably haven't considered! Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here comes what appears will be our last named storm of the season. 99L.


If 99L is named, that would give us Tammy and tie us with last year and the 3rd most active hurricane season ever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
[Quote="Neapolitan"]

The issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).[/Quote]

[Quote="Snowlover123"]
This is a bit irrelevant, since I am refering to Clouds and not Water Vapour.[/Quote]

Did you consider that if water residence time is around 10 days then cloud residence time is shorter again?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well I'm going to get going... see you all later...
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Neapolitan:

For an excellent explanation, have a look here: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

"While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days)...Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time."


This is a bit irrelevant, since I am refering to Clouds and not Water Vapour.

Irrational skeptics will try and claim that Water Vapour will "drive" temperatures, when it is clearly a feedback to increasing temperatures.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting ScottLincoln:


The blogs I posted were blogs from actual scientists, who heavily sourced their material from multiple peer reviewed journal sources.


Real Climate is run by scientists, but Skeptical Science is not.

Skeptical Science is run by a cartoonist who has no science degree.

Skeptical Science does use the peer reviewed literature, but they make their own conclusions off of the peer reviewed literature. Some conclusions that are different than the author of the paper's conclusions.

For example, With Palle 2004, SkS used that as evidence to show that albedo can not be driving Global Temperatures, because there was a spike in albedo in the Earthshine data, and no observed change was evident in the temperature data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effe ct.htm

The authors themselves ruled 2003 to be anomalous, and possibly faulty.

Quoting ScottLincoln:

You have shown no such thing.


Yes I have...



http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_P alle_JASTP_2007.pdf

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meetings/session_1_2 _3/presentations/session3/3_06_Palle.pdf

All old links from before.

Quoting ScottLincoln:

You also didn't seem to grasp that with solar irradiance currently decreasing, a positive feedback for reduced solar irradiance such as the one they suggested is actually evidence of a stronger enhanced greenhouse affect, because it would require more energy imbalance from greenhouse gases to overpower the solar feedback.


TSI is not what makes Cloud Cover change, so I'm not sure what your main point here is.

I'm not sure how clouds decreasing on a Global scale is evidence of a stronger Greenhouse Effect... could you please explain?

Quoting ScottLincoln:


Even if substantiated further, the 7 w/m^2 was not a sustained, growing amount as with greenhouse gases. It was range over a solar cycle of 11 years, peak-to-peak.


We can clearly see though in ISSCP data that Cloud Cover changes do NOT follow an 11 year solar cycle, which is indicative that Clouds have a weak correlation to GCRs and the Solar AA Index. In addition, we do not have adequate data in the past to say that clouds have not been decreasing since the beginning of the 20th Century, and they, along with increasing TSI (until around 1980) could have continued to contribute all throughout the Century, alongside with CO2, the PDO/AMO Ozone etc.

Quoting ScottLincoln:


If you continue having difficulty understanding these items, yet continue claiming that you know more than 90% of climate scientists who have studied this issue far longer, then it would not be accurate to consider you an actual skeptic or scientist.


I have not claimed that I know more than a climate scientist. The main reason why I want to debate with one, is to see if they can find any flaws in my argument, and I can patch up my argument, and help me learn some more.

If you convince me that most of Global Warming in the late-20th Century was anthropogenic, you will have yourself quite a strong ally ;)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting WxGeekVA:
Look at the craziness of the 18Z GFS with it's triple Fujiwhara with a Nor'easter and two subtropical/tropical systems at 192 hrs...

Link
I'm not sure, I'm not too much of a weather expert, but wouldn't that be setting up a Perfect Storm-like scenario?
Member Since: August 18, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 994
Quoting Snowlover123:


I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "Cloud Forcing." Wiki has a nice page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing

Quote:

Cloud forcing (sometimes described as cloud radiative forcing) is, in meteorology, the difference between the radiation budget components for average cloud conditions and cloud-free conditions.
------------------------------------------------

For an excellent explanation, have a look here: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

"While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days)...Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
700 AM EST SUN NOV 20 2011

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

SHOWER AND THUNDERSTORM ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A LOW PRESSURE
SYSTEM LOCATED ABOUT 550 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHEASTERN
LEEWARD ISLANDS HAS BECOME SLIGHTLY BETTER ORGANIZED DURING THE
LAST SEVERAL HOURS. CONTINUED SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DISTURBANCE
IS POSSIBLE DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS IT MOVES SLOWLY NORTHWARD
INTO A REGION OF MORE FAVORABLE UPPER-LEVEL WINDS. THIS SYSTEM HAS
A MEDIUM CHANCE...50 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A SUBTROPICAL OR
TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.


Possibly two back-to-back seasons of 19 storms. Incredible.

Just five behind the collective total of 2004-05.

This AMO upswing (since '95) has shown to be really powerful or we really missed a lot more storms than first thought in earlier episodes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good morning. Foggy and very humid down on the bayou as the sun comes up. I see it is the same as it ever was here on WU.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Clouds are rarely, if ever, considered a forcing. Just because a few scientists decided to call it as such does not make it so.


I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "Cloud Forcing." Wiki has a nice page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing

Quote:

Cloud forcing (sometimes described as cloud radiative forcing) is, in meteorology, the difference between the radiation budget components for average cloud conditions and cloud-free conditions.
------------------------------------------------
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
Sorry, just boggles the mind that scientists would actually consider a theory as fact without any observational verification after said theory is presented.

That is not science.

The following passage is from an about-to-be-published book on evolution, but for this conversation it could just as easily be talking about climate change:

"Scientists will tell you that most of the conceptual problem lies in the general public's misunderstanding of the word "theory". A scientific theory is not a hypothesis or guess, as the word commonly means when used in casual conversation. A scientific theory is the one explanation that is confirmed by all known and validated experiments performed to date. Experiments involving evolution have numbered in the hundreds of thousands over the past 150 year. A theory is thus among the most certain forms of scientific knowledge, and evolution is among the most certain of theories. But because science is inductive, scientists recognize that there is still a chance it could be wrong.

"In the case of evolution, the chance that it is wrong is somewhat smaller than that of, say, Earth being destroyed by a meteor in the next five minutes. We can see it working with our own eyes by watching viruses and bacteria evolve under the microscope. And biologists can show it to you so you can see it with your own eyes too, and when you do, it becomes difficult to see how anyone could construe it as a matter of "belief". It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity". It's ignorance of the evidence of observation."


--Otto, Shawn Lawrence. Fool Me Twice. Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2011.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
700 AM EST SUN NOV 20 2011

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

SHOWER AND THUNDERSTORM ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A LOW PRESSURE
SYSTEM LOCATED ABOUT 550 MILES NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHEASTERN
LEEWARD ISLANDS HAS BECOME SLIGHTLY BETTER ORGANIZED DURING THE
LAST SEVERAL HOURS. CONTINUED SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DISTURBANCE
IS POSSIBLE DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS IT MOVES SLOWLY NORTHWARD
INTO A REGION OF MORE FAVORABLE UPPER-LEVEL WINDS. THIS SYSTEM HAS
A MEDIUM CHANCE...50 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A SUBTROPICAL OR
TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good morning to all.

We have invest 99L.

INVEST, AL, L, , , , , 99, 2011, DB, O, 2011112006, 9999999999, , , , , , METWATCH, , AL992011
AL, 99, 2011111912, , BEST, 0, 223N, 524W, 25, 1013, LO
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


We can easily observe gravity at work however, it can be tested. Unlike string theory, which can't be yet therefore it is a philosophy at this point.


Yes but, it takes a theory to explain what is being observed with gravity. Try to explain gravity without using any theories.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting Seastep:
No. You don't understand. Observe.

And, you have no idea of what I accept, clearly.

What are your thoughts on string theory?

Anyway, goodnight.



I believe that string theory has its merits. Since it is as yet untestable, it is not a true science.

What do you mean by "observe"?

Scientist have observed a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. There is no other competing theory that explains this rise, in CO2 atmospheric concentrations, better than does the AGWT.

Scientist have observed, through tests, that CO2 behaves as an insulator in our atmosphere. The greenhouse effect.

Scientist have observed a warming to our atmosphere. There are no other competing theories that better explains this warming than does the AGWT.

Are you looking to observe a 10 foot rise in sea levels, a 10 degree rise in atmospheric global temperatures and mass extinctions as your "proof" of the AGWT?

"you have no idea of what I accept, clearly." - Clearly
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Ah! I am know beginning to understand your distrust of Science. ... You simply do not understand how Science works.

"Gravity", is a Scientific theory. A cheap shot, I realize, but, will suffice in the understanding of how Science works. The current Scientific theory of gravity best explains what we observe, for now. Should a better theory come along that better explains what we observe, then this will become the new Scientific theory of gravity. Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity stood the test of time until Albert Einstein came up with a new Scientific theory for gravity that better explains gravity. Even then, much of Newton's theory was retained. Einstein merely tweaked it to better explain gravity. Scientific theory is not fact. Scientific theory is the best explanation for what is being observed.

Perhaps this will help you? - Science

AGWT is the theory that best explains what we see concerning our global climate. Scientist have no other competing theory that better explains what is being observed about our global climate.

Do you believe that an object can be in two places at once? - Yes, it can be. - Another example. - This is the experiment I am familiar with.

Isn't Science a fascinating study?


We can easily observe gravity at work however, it can be tested. Unlike string theory, which can't be yet therefore it is a philosophy at this point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
No. You don't understand. Observe.

And, you have no idea of what I accept, clearly.

What are your thoughts on string theory?

Anyway, goodnight.

Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Seastep:
Sorry, just boggles the mind that scientists would actually consider a theory as fact without any observational verification after said theory is presented.

That is not science.


Ah! I am know beginning to understand your distrust of Science. ... You simply do not understand how Science works.

"Gravity", is a Scientific theory. A cheap shot, I realize, but, will suffice in the understanding of how Science works. The current Scientific theory of gravity best explains what we observe, for now. Should a better theory come along that better explains what we observe, then this will become the new Scientific theory of gravity. Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity stood the test of time until Albert Einstein came up with a new Scientific theory for gravity that better explains gravity. Even then, much of Newton's theory was retained. Einstein merely tweaked it to better explain gravity. Scientific theory is not fact. Scientific theory is the best explanation for what is being observed.

Perhaps this will help you? - Science

AGWT is the theory that best explains what we see concerning our global climate. Scientist have no other competing theory that better explains what is being observed about our global climate.

Do you believe that an object can be in two places at once? - Yes, it can be. - Another example. - This is the experiment I am familiar with.

Isn't Science a fascinating study?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Bedtime.

Scientific method. Observe.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Please, Scott, show me how it is not true that there has been no significant temp increase since 2000.

Are you asserting otherwise?
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting ScottLincoln:


A nice red herring. Your mind is only boggled because you are asserting something that isn't true.

The IPCC discusses observations heavily in their most recent reports. The observations are "unequivocal" that warming is happening, and very likely due to human activities. The measurements showing this to be true are there, for everyone to see. Just because you chose not to see them does not make them invisible. This doesn't work like playing peek-a-boo with a baby.


Nope. Just think for myself.

Let me know when there has actually been an increase since the prediction start of 2000.

Well, you don't have to because I track it... with raw data.

No need to argue, just need to observe.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting Seastep:
Sorry, just boggles the mind that scientists would actually consider a theory as fact without any observational verification after said theory is presented.

That is not science.


A nice red herring. Your mind is only boggled because you are asserting something that isn't true.

The IPCC discusses observations heavily in their most recent reports. The observations are "unequivocal" that warming is happening, and very likely due to human activities. The measurements showing this to be true are there, for everyone to see. Just because you chose not to see them does not make them invisible. This doesn't work like playing peek-a-boo with a baby.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
With work, (possibly) two storms, and a seasonal summary blog due by December 1, I have my work cut out for me. But I'm not a quitter!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:


Thanks! You'll probably be seeing blogs on Tammy soon.


Just checked sat before your post and I think she will be born.

Loving the sat watching this one form.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting TomTaylor:
What's a GCR? and why does radiative flux allow us to rule out temperature? Temperatures have been found to be increasing throughout the troposphere, which lowers dew points, making condensation harder. How does radiative flux make this not true/not a factor?


GCRs = galactic cosmic rays. Some research has suggested that galactic cosmic rays from the sun may help form clouds. But the mechanism by which this happens is not direct, and several things must happen.
1. GCRs must help form aerosols, then
2. The aerosols must grow to a size that is suitable as cloud-condensation nuclei
3. The condensation nuclei must then form cloud droplets.

Having condensation nuclei does not necessarily imply clouds will form. Some parts of the globe are saturated with nuclei, yet no clouds form due to insufficient moisture. Most GCRs also do not make it through the atmosphere.

The hypothesis is that increased cosmic rays lead to more cloud cover (cooling) and decreased cosmic rays lead to less cloud cover (warming). As one can see, several things must line up for this to work for clouds in a particular area, let alone the entire globe. It should also be noted that studies have shown very little trend in GCRs over the last several decades, and the slight trend found in some studies has actually been toward more GCRs (cooling) - the opposite of what would be required to cause the observed temperature changes.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-a t-galactic-cosmic-rays.html

For GCRs to be the dominant driver of climate change over the last several decades, proving the GCR mechanism would not be enough. One would also have to invalidate multiple lines of evidence from up to a century of research showing that greenhouse gases regulate the earth's temperature, and the dominant driver of climate today is greenhouse gases.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting Seastep:
Keep it up Kori.


Thanks! You'll probably be seeing blogs on Tammy soon.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Keep it up Kori.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Sorry, just boggles the mind that scientists would actually consider a theory as fact without any observational verification after said theory is presented.

That is not science.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Quoting KoritheMan:
Blog update on TD13E. Yes, I neglected to mention the Atlantic, but that's because I need to get my seasonal summary blog finished, so I won't be dealing with that system until it is labeled an invest.


Good job Kori, impressive as always
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ScottLincoln - None of that matters if the predictions do not occur.

Real simple.
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3414
Blog update on TD13E. Yes, I neglected to mention the Atlantic, but that's because I need to get my seasonal summary blog finished, so I won't be dealing with that system until it is labeled an invest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
[removed double-post]
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting Snowlover123:


What the heck? Of course there is a Cloud Forcing. The Cloud Forcing is how much energy Clouds would add to Earth's Energy Budget if all Clouds were subtracted from Earth's Global Energy Flows.


Clouds are rarely, if ever, considered a forcing. Just because a few scientists decided to call it as such does not make it so. Even somewhat skeptical scientists I know that are hesitant of climate models due to the need for better cloud modeling refer to clouds as feedbacks. The way you word it so authoritatively continues to show that you are not a skeptic.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Well I'm off for the night.Good night K-man and other fellow members of the blog I don't really talk to.Night all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just like you, I will post two links that support my argument, however, instead of blogs, I shall post the scientific peer reviewed literature on this subject.


The blogs I posted were blogs from actual scientists, who heavily sourced their material from multiple peer reviewed journal sources.

I have shown with observational evidence that the change in the Cloud Forcing has resulted in 7 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget over a 21 year timeframe, compared to CO2 adding 1.4 w/m^2 since 1790 to Earth's Energy Budget. The cause of this change is due to an external factor such as the Solar AA Index inflicting changes upon GCRs rather than temperature.


You have shown no such thing. You did no original research, you published in no journals. You posted a link to journal article where its own conclusion claimed a possible short timescale positive feedback from clouds that enhanced solar radiation changes. You also didn't seem to grasp that with solar irradiance currently decreasing, a positive feedback for reduced solar irradiance such as the one they suggested is actually evidence of a stronger enhanced greenhouse affect, because it would require more energy imbalance from greenhouse gases to overpower the solar feedback. Even if substantiated further, the 7 w/m^2 was not a sustained, growing amount as with greenhouse gases. It was range over a solar cycle of 11 years, peak-to-peak.

If you continue having difficulty understanding these items, yet continue claiming that you know more than 90% of climate scientists who have studied this issue far longer, then it would not be accurate to consider you an actual skeptic or scientist.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
Quoting KoritheMan:


Not much, writing a blog on TD13-E actually. You?


multivariable calc homework, and college football. Lots of upsets
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


sup kori, haha


Not much, writing a blog on TD13-E actually. You?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 512 - 462

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

Overcast
29 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron