Damage losses and climate change

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10:58 PM GMT on January 03, 2012

Share this Blog
35
+

During 2011, a series of violent tornado outbreaks hit the Plains and Southeast U.S., bringing an astonishing six billion-dollar disasters in a three-month period. The epic tornado onslaught killed 552 people and brought three of the five largest tornado outbreaks on record in a six-week period, including the largest and most expensive tornado outbreak in U.S. history--the April 25 - 28 Super Outbreak, which did $10.2 billion dollars in damage. Insured losses due to thunderstorms and tornadoes in the U.S. were at least $25 billion in 2011, more than double the previous record set in 2010. Damages from thunderstorms and tornadoes since 1980 have shown a clear increase since 1980 (Figure 2.) Disaster losses world-wide from weather-related natural disasters have also shown a significant increase in recent years, as has the number of these disasters. But how much of this is due to a change in the climate, and how much might be due to increases in population, wealth, and other factors?


Figure 1. Damage in Tuscaloosa, Alabama after the April 27, 2011 EF-4 tornado. Image credit: NOAA.


Not enough evidence to judge if climate change is affecting tornadoes
As I discussed last week in my post, 2011: Year of the Tornado, as far as we can tell, the number of damaging tornadoes has not increased in recent years, though the quality of the data set is to poor to know for sure. This is largely due to the fact that we never directly measure a tornado's winds--a tornado has to run over a building before we can make an EF-scale strength estimate, based on the damage. As tornado researcher Chuck Doswell said in a 2007 paper, "I see no near-term solution to the problem of detecting detailed spatial and temporal trends in the occurrence of tornadoes by using the observed data in its current form or in any form likely to evolve in the near future." My 2008 post, Are tornadoes getting stronger and more frequent?, discussed how a better way to assess how climate change may be affecting tornadoes is to look at how the large-scale environmental conditions favorable for tornado formation have changed through time. The most important ingredients for tornado formation are usually high atmospheric instability (as measured by the Convective Available Potential Energy, or CAPE), and high amounts of wind shear between the surface and 6 km altitude. Not enough work has been done on the subject to judge whether or not climate change is affecting severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, though.


Figure 2. Insured losses due to thunderstorms and tornadoes in the U.S. in 2011 dollars. Data taken from Property Claims Service MR NatCatSERVICE. Image credit: Munich Re.

Are the number of weather-related disasters increasing?
At a talk given last month at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Mark Bove of Munich Re insurance company examined trends in both damages and number of natural disasters since 1980. These numbers have shown significant increases since 1980. After we take out the increase in disasters reported due to an increasing population, greater wealth, and more advanced communications, is there a trend due to climate change? One way to check is to compare natural disasters due to geophysical events--earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions--to weather-related disasters. Geophysical disasters should remain relatively constant in number in a changing climate (unless sea level rise is occurring so rapidly that it is causing significant changes in stress on earthquake faults, something that is theoretically possible, but has not yet been observed.) If we then look at trends in the number of geophysical disasters versus weather-related disasters reported, it should give us an idea of how much of the recent increase in weather-related disasters may be due to climate change. Between 1980 and 2010, geophysical disasters increased by about a factor of 1.5, while weather-related disasters increased by a factor of 2.7 to 3.5 (Figure 3.) Bove stated that he thought weather-related disasters were likely subject to a higher increase in reporting rate than geophysical disasters, but not enough to account for the huge difference. Climate change was the likely reason for a large portion of the increase in weather-related disasters in recent years, he argued. His talk concluded, "there is quite some probability that natural catastrophe losses are driven already by human-caused climate change."


Figure 3. The number of natural disasters reported has increased markedly worldwide since 1980, particularly for weather-related disasters. Image credit: Munich Re.

However, this conclusion is controversial. 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 world-wide, published between 2001 and 2010. All of the studies showed an increase in damages from weather-related disasters in recent decades. 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, bringing up the question whether or not climate change could be responsible for the increased disaster losses. However, Bouwer found that "studies that did find increases after normalization did not fully correct for wealth and population increases, or they identified other sources of exposure increases or vulnerability changes or changing environmental conditions." In all 22 studies, increases in wealth and population were the "most important drivers for growing disaster losses." He concluded that human-caused climate change "so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."

Using storm surge to evaluate damage normalization studies
Damage from landfalling storms can be used to estimate if hurricanes are growing stronger with time, but damage estimates must first be corrected to account for changes in wealth and population over time. A 2008 study by Pielke et al. found that although hurricane damages had been doubling every ten years in recent decades, there were no increases in normalized hurricane damages in the U.S. from 1900 - 2005. They used census and economic data to adjust for how increases in populations and wealth may have affected hurricane damages over time. However, Grinsted et al. (2012) questioned whether or not this was done correctly. They found that storm surge heights of U.S. hurricanes and tropical storms correlated very well with metrics that looked at storm intensity, when looking at many decades of data to see long-term trends. However, the researchers found that while short-term trends in normalized hurricane damage estimated by Pielke et al. (2008) did correlate well historical storm surges, these normalized damages had poor correlation with the storm surge record, when looking at decades-long time scales. This implies that the corrections were biased. Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia makes the case that efforts such as the one done by Pielke et al. (2008) to normalize disaster losses are probably biased too low, since they only look at factors that tend to increase disaster losses with time, but ignore factors that tend to decrease disaster losses. These ignored factors include improvements in building codes, better weather forecasts allowing more preparation time, and improved fire-fighting ability. He writes, "Most normalization research to date has not accounted for those variables because they are extremely difficult to quantify. (And most researchers have been at pains to point that out; e.g., Neumayer & Barthel, 2011, pp. 23-24.) In effect, normalization research to date largely rests on the oddly inconsistent pair of assumptions that (a) we have built up enormous wealth during the 20th century but (b) did so without any technological advance whatsoever." For example, during a severe October 2013 windstorm that did over $1 billion in damage to France, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, "The insured losses for the St. Jude's Day storm would have been significantly higher but for the accuracy in weather forecasting several days ahead of the storm's formation", said financial information services company Fitch Services, since "policyholders have more time to protect their property from potential damage, while government agencies, utility firms and transport companies can make logistical arrangements to minimize disruption to power supplies and transport networks."

Conclusion
Studies showing no increase in normalized damage from storms have high uncertainty, and it is possible that higher economic damages due to stronger storms is indeed occurring, though the current research does not show this. Looking at disasters losses to make an argument that climate change is affecting our weather is difficult, due to the rarity of extreme events, and the changes in wealth and population that also affect disaster losses. We are better off looking at how the atmosphere, oceans, and glaciers are changing to find evidence of climate change--and there is plenty of evidence there.

References
Tornado researcher Dr. Harold Brooks has a May 2012 op-ed in New Scientist that discusses the difficulty in predicting how climate change will impact tornadoes.

Bouwer, L, 2010, "Have disaster losses increased due to anthropogenic climate change?", BAMS, January 2011, DOI:10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1

Doswell, C.A., 2007, "Small Sample Size and Data Quality Issues Illustrated Using Tornado Occurrence Data", E-Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology Vol 2, No. 5 (2007).

Del Genio, A.D., M-S Yao, and J. Jonas, 2007,
Will moist convection be stronger in a warmer climate?, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16703, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030525.

Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, "A homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923," PNAS 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1209542109

Marsh, P.T., H.E. Brooks, and D.J. Karoly, 2007, Assessment of the severe weather environment in North America simulated by a global climate model, Atmospheric Science Letters, 8, 100-106, doi: 10.1002/asl.159.

Neumayer, E. & Barthel, F. (2011). Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis Global Environmental Change, 21, 13-24.

Pielke et al., 2008, "Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005", Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42.

Riemann-Campe, K., Fraedrich, K., and F. Lunkeit, 2009, Global climatology of Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE) and Convective Inhibition (CIN) in ERA-40 reanalysis, Atmospheric Research Volume 93, Issues 1-3, July 2009, Pages 534-545, 4th European Conference on Severe Storms.

Trapp, R.J., N.S. Diffenbaugh, H.E. Brooks, M.E. Baldwin, E.D. Robinson, and J.S. Pal, 2007, Severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing, PNAS 104 no. 50, 19719-19723, Dec. 11, 2007.

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: 540 - 490

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Wow! This is just the beginning as there are indications that the Gulf region, SE US, & FL are in for a very wet pattern of the next couple of weeks as the Gulf Coast & FL will be the battle ground for storms traversing the country.

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
The ECMWF's 6-10 day 850 mb. temperature anomaly map shows below average temperatures for the Eastern USA, with warmer than normal temperatures on the west coast.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31433
Joke of the day: What do a Weatherman, a SI Swimsuit issue photographer, and an Architect have in common? Answer : They all look at models all for a living!
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3468
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I noticed Nea's 10,000 for this and I'm not surprised.

How idealistic you guys must be! In the real world, greed, for lack of a better word, is the driving force behind most of the advancements mankind has made. People are driven to excel by the desire to better their position in this world. Success in this world equals money. Money equals freedom. Freedom from want for yourself and your loved ones. Freedom to travel. Freedom to practice philanthropy. Turns out that non-successful people make lousy philanthopists.

Yes, many people are driven to excel by the desire to better their position in this world (though just as many are driven by altrusitic forces every bit as motivating to them: the thirst for knowledge, the desire to help others, personal satisfaction, etc.). And there's nothing wrong with that. It's when that "drive to excel" causes people to let loose of their moral compasses that damage results. Most thinking people have no problem at all with some playing the game better than others and making a fortune by doing so. But "playing the game" and "cheating at the game" are two entirely different things, and problems arise when those doing the latter delude themselves that they're doing the former.

(On a side note, I would have to disagree with your statement that greed is the driving force behind most of the advancements mankind has made. Spaceflight wasn't driven by greed. Neither was the Salk vaccine, or the invention of the wheel, or the taming of fire, or language, or law, and so on... People have certainly profited from each of those over time, but they didn't come into being for that express purpose.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13455
Anthropogenic Climate Change

Chinese Government Plans to Cause Ten Percent More Rain By 2015
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:


I thought GM recalled all the leased vehicles and GM destroyed all but a few museum pieces. Can you provide a link to the oil company comment?


I think he's trying to refer to the following: "...In 2001, oil company Texaco purchased General Motors' share in GM Ovonics (makers of the batteries used in the EV1). Texaco was itself acquired by rival Chevron several months later. The same year, Ovonics filed a patent infringement suit against Toyota's battery supplier, Panasonic, that ultimately succeeded in restricting the use of its large format NiMH (nickel–metal hydride) batteries to certain transportation uses. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between ChevronTexaco and Ovonics, now known as Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics..."

Sounds to me like an oil company seeing an investment in "green" energy. And the new companies (ECD and Cobasys) are still providing NiMH batteries for "transportation" purposes (NiMH batteries are or were used in all-electric plug-in vehicles such as the General Motors EV1, Honda EV Plus, Ford Ranger EV and Vectrix scooter. Hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Escape Hybrid, Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, and Honda Civic Hybrid also use them).

So if the oil company was so worried about loss of their sales of gas, why would they invest in a company that is expanding the use of batteries in vehicles?

BTW, the batteries that are burning up in the Volt are Li-ion (lithium-ion), not NiMH.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

I have to quote from the link you provided again.

"While people in some places have the luxury to doubt whether climate change is real, it’s harder to be a doubter in the Rocky Mountains. Glaciers in Glacier National Park and elsewhere are shrinking, winters are warmer and shorter, and the intensity of forest fires is increasing. But the most obvious sign is the red and dead forests that carpet the hills and mountains. They have transformed life in many parts of the Rockies.

"It has hit home for me on a personal level. Virtually every one of the hundreds of old-growth ponderosa pines on the 15 acres of land where I live near Helena, Montana is dead, and we are surrounded by a valley of dead and dying forest. Most trees have been logged and taken to a pulp mill, where they were turned into cardboard for boxes."


The debate is not and never has been about whether or not climate change is taking place. Only a fool would say, "Now listen! The climate simply is NOT changing." So who exactly is doubting that climate change is happening?

Furthermore, is not climate change wholly natural, as evidenced by the by climatic record that has been obtained through ice core sampling, tree ring studies and many other scientific methods which have been well-established and practiced over many decades now? Obviously this is the case and it is more than a bit troubling, in my view, when the term "climate change" is used in substitution for anthropogenic global warming. The latter description is at least more to the point. But when one uses climate change in a context which suggests that it is either harmful or abnormal then this implies that a changing climate is not normal and we should expect the planet's climate to remain static indefinitely were it not for artificial and mitigating factors being present.

The real or intelligent debate centers around the question of just how much has the human race contributed to climate change, is this process ultimately and agreeably harmful overall and would the climate of the Earth not be changing as much or in the same way if human influences were absent. And from that point the next and logical extension of the debate is the question as to whether or not the climate of our planet has changed in the past as rapidly as it apparently is changing now, or more so, and whether or not this clearly natural process which occurred in the past and before human beings were capable of influencing climate change on a large scale was harmful to the natural environment, and if so, to what extent?

It seems to me that there is little doubt as to the existence of climate change today and not much question that the extent and rapidity of climate change today is greater than it has been in the recent past. Once again, the core of the issue is whether or not human beings are responsible for all of this change or at least the greater part of it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's nature not rocket science
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MTWX:

A warming climate doesn't help matters at all either!! Link

I have to quote from the link you provided again.

"While people in some places have the luxury to doubt whether climate change is real, it’s harder to be a doubter in the Rocky Mountains. Glaciers in Glacier National Park and elsewhere are shrinking, winters are warmer and shorter, and the intensity of forest fires is increasing. But the most obvious sign is the red and dead forests that carpet the hills and mountains. They have transformed life in many parts of the Rockies.

"It has hit home for me on a personal level. Virtually every one of the hundreds of old-growth ponderosa pines on the 15 acres of land where I live near Helena, Montana is dead, and we are surrounded by a valley of dead and dying forest. Most trees have been logged and taken to a pulp mill, where they were turned into cardboard for boxes."
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5941
Quoting bappit:

When people point to unusual cold weather as "proof" that AGW is bunk, you can probably always point to some place with unusual warmth as "proof" that AGW is true--and vice versa. The moral is perhaps that climate is not weather ... ummm, or weather is not climate.

How did I get to this point, continuing a kind of inane thread where what seemed obvious to me, at least, has seemed obscure to some? Well ... I suspect that a lot of long posts are probably never read by the audience they are aimed at. With that in mind, in this case I wanted to keep the message short and simple, but it might be hard sometimes to make the context of a simple statement clear. I suspect a lot of people in fact did understand what I was saying while--perhaps--others were too busy thinking of what they were going to post to stop and read the blog, i.e., look for and understand the context. That said I probably could do a better job of indicating the context.

While confessing, even though I see the disadvantages of long-winded posts, I do occasionally make them. If this thread continues any further, the trend is that my next post will probably be even longer.
it's no problem lol

At the time I didn't realize what you were getting at, but now that I understand it, you were bringing up a good point
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting MTWX:

A warming climate doesn't help matters at all either!! Link

I heard a talk show this evening where they were talking about the effects of a warmer climate out west. They pointed out that more insects is one consequence since winters would be milder and warm weather longer. That would give more insects to start with after the winter freezes and more time for them to feed and multiply.

So I read your link (duh) which says:

'"A couple of degrees warmer could create multiple generations a year," she said, as she chopped off a piece of bark on a dead lodgepole pine to show the galleries of burrowing larvae. "If that happens, I expect it would be a disaster for all of our pine populations."

'Across western North America, from Mexico to Alaska, forest die-off is occurring on an extraordinary scale, unprecedented in at least the last century-and-a-half -- and perhaps much longer. All told, the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the United States have seen nearly 70,000 square miles of forest -- an area the size of Washington state -- die since 2000. For the most part, this massive die-off is being caused by outbreaks of tree-killing insects, from the ips beetle in the Southwest that has killed pinyon pine, to the spruce beetle, fir beetle, and the major pest -- the mountain pine beetle -- that has hammered forests in the north.'
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5941
Quoting TomTaylor:
I think you're right lol

When people point to unusual cold weather as "proof" that AGW is bunk, you can probably always point to some place with unusual warmth as "proof" that AGW is true--and vice versa. The moral is perhaps that climate is not weather ... ummm, or weather is not climate.

How did I get to this point, continuing a kind of inane thread where what seemed obvious to me, at least, has seemed obscure to some? Well ... I firmly believe that a lot of long posts are probably never read by the audience they are aimed at. With that in mind, in this case I wanted to keep the message short and simple, but it might be hard sometimes to make the context of a simple statement clear. I suspect a lot of people in fact did understand what I was saying while--perhaps--others were too busy thinking of what they were going to post to stop and read the blog, i.e., look for and understand the context. That said I probably could do a better job of indicating the context.

While confessing, even though I see the disadvantages of long-winded posts, I do occasionally make them. If this thread continues any further, the trend is that my next post will probably be even longer.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5941
Quoting Jedkins01:



Ahhh but I didn't say anything about Climate scientists doing that did I?
I said people, which could speak for anyone, in this case I'm speaking of people other than scientists, cause if you actually read my post you would have been able to acknowledge that my entire point in my comment was about those who are claiming that scientists are using the urban heat island effect to prove GW are wrong.

But do you want to get my opinion on if Climatologists directly try and hide the truth? I would say no, because there is no direct proof.
I try to think the best of people, so no, I'm not going to do a huge investigation on trying to uncover climatologists and other scientists to discover if they are really telling the truth about AGW. It would truly be a pathetic and mindset full of anger and opposition just to spend my career focus on "exposing" scientists who might be lying. I don't think it does exist, and if it does that would be pretty lame of them, and I have better and more important things to be concerned of in life.

However I have observed enough stubbornness and pride by those who stand by AGW to suggest that there is a bias toward AGW. However I am not putting a target on Climatologists back, or any other scientists who strongly stick by AGW. What I'm saying is that a bias might exist, not that for sure it does, but that it might. In the same way I believe some referees have a bias for some players and teams yet they try their best to give an honest call because that's what they love to do as their job. Its part of the human condition to be biased and proud, and if your someone very smart with a Doctorate in Climatology who has done a large amount of research for AGW, it would certainly be hard not to be proud and have somewhat of a bias. I have often succumbed to a bias myself and I'm not exactly among the worlds brightest minds and don't posses such credentials.


To believe scientists can't be influenced by a bias even a strong one at times like the rest of us is choosing to believe in foolish philosophies about human beings that don't reflect the realities of life and actual human behavior. Climatologists are not the gods of science. I respect their research and opinions and they certainly have gathered lots of scary evidence about how humans have negatively affected the earth. However however I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions they draw from their research. Yes, I am allowed to disagree without being a fool. Science is about studying the unknown, lets not forget that.


An excellent and balanced assessment, in my view.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ima turn in early tonight. night all
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting MTWX:

I wouldn't have an issue with it if they were naturally occuring in Montana... Problem is, they are an invasive species that was carelessly transported there, and have spread so rapidly that they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land.


just like the coyote issue...they were let loose in North Carolina years n years ago, for what reason? heh, there aint one. I guess to control deer population, but it aint gone down hardly if at all, but coyote's have put a hurtin on the rabbit and quail population in NC.

PERSONALLY....i like coyotes cuz they add a danger of me riding my ATB back into the woods at 5 PM. LOL
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
525. MTWX
Quoting MTWX:

I wouldn't have an issue with it if they were naturally occuring in Montana... Problem is, they are an invasive species that was carelessly transported there, and have spread so rapidly that they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land.

A warming climate doesn't help matters at all either!! Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
“We are so much the victims of abstraction that with the Earth in flames we can barely rouse ourselves to wander across the room and look at the thermostat.”

— Terence McKenna
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 420 Comments: 127541
523. MTWX
Quoting SPLbeater:
#519 - yeah, all these people worried about saving trees and spraying pestiside on them to kil the bugs, thats pathetic from my view(protecting from deforestation is VERY different). its natures' cycle oughta let it be, if there are beetles killing some woodlands, so be it.

hope i ddint step on any1s toes here :D

I wouldn't have an issue with it if they were naturally occuring in Montana... Problem is, they are an invasive species that was carelessly transported there, and have spread so rapidly that they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#519 - yeah, all these people worried about saving trees and spraying pestiside on them to kil the bugs, thats pathetic from my view(protecting from deforestation is VERY different). its natures' cycle oughta let it be, if there are beetles killing some woodlands, so be it.

hope i ddint step on any1s toes here :D
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
lets see how wacky we can get yet
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
and the doc already coined the year anyway

its now known as wacky 2012
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MTWX:

They really need it up there, especially in the mountains! Between the pine borer infestation the last couple of years, and the current lack of snowpack, another record fire season seems to be in the works for the area.
nature will balance itself dont worry always does just how extreme the balance well thats in the works
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:


I think you missed his point. He's saying that it's colder in the south right now than in the northern tier of the country, which is clearly anomalous.
I think you're right lol
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357


you can see second system drop down the coast in deep sw before commencing eastly movement with a building rtn flow over west gom the second one will carry more the first now we got something else to watch going to get interesting i think
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
516. MTWX
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
we are working on that the ultra zonic atomspheric wave generating device looks to give entire winters worth of snow in one and a half months looks like that anyway get ready to get an entire season worth of snow for the second half of jan and all of feb natures idea of a 2 month winter in a month and and a half

They really need it up there, especially in the mountains! Between the pine borer infestation the last couple of years, and the current lack of snowpack, another record fire season seems to be in the works for the area.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

This is all beside the point I was making.
I missed your point then, sorry for the mishap.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting MississippiWx:
Hey, everyone. Haven't been on really since hurricane season. However, I'm always here lurking. Just wanted to agree on how odd this winter has been. I'm a cold buff and love snow, so I'm hoping we can catch a break and get the cold to flow in the latter part of the winter. Still not sure if I'm buying in on the cold hype that is around. The strong polar vortex has me doubtful about cold weather in the South...could mean really cold weather farther north though. We'll see. Hope you all are doing well and are having a great start to the new year!
Hey Mississip haven't seen you in a while.

Yeah we shall see what happens. Models are in pretty good agreement on a stratospheric warm up, however, which could very well work its way down to the lower atmosphere. Models are already showing the AO near neutral or even negative and this would only enhance that. This would normally produce colder weather across most of the us, but then again with the La Nina still here the south could avoid the cool weather.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
Quoting SPLbeater:


can u give me link to that map?
mail sent
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
Maybe if you meant it also goes east, west, south, and every direction in between it would make a little bit more sense. Cold air does not solely go south and warm air does not solely go north. High pressure moves toward low pressure. Air flows down pressure gradients. While temperature influences air pressure, it is not the only factor, as water vapor also plays a large role.

Also, the coriolis force and centrifugal force prevents air masses from behaving the way you describe them. Not to mention it would be the opposite in the southern hemisphere.

I know I'm being a stickler with the technicalities, but I've seen you post it a few times now and just thought I'd remind everyone.

This is all beside the point I was making.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5941
Quoting MTWX:

And my hometown in Montana, which normally has 1-2 feet of snow this time of year has none, and for the last week has been 25-30 degrees above average.
we are working on that the ultra zonic atomspheric wave generating device looks to give entire winters worth of snow in one and a half months looks like that anyway get ready to get an entire season worth of snow for the second half of jan and all of feb natures idea of a 2 month winter in a month and and a half
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
i can give ya the link its self updating there is nothing there but the run
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
509. MTWX
Quoting MTWX:

Same in the states for the most part. Here in my part of Mississippi, we have been, pretty consistently, 10-15 degrees F above average this winter.

And my hometown in Montana, which normally has 1-2 feet of snow this time of year has none, and for the last week has been 25-30 degrees above average.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
first comes secondary then comes prime get set ready the storms come with time
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:



then there is two


can u give me link to that map?
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx:
Hey, everyone. Haven't been on really since hurricane season. However, I'm always here lurking. Just wanted to agree on how odd this winter has been. I'm a cold buff and love snow, so I'm hoping we can catch a break and get the cold to flow in the latter part of the winter. Still not sure if I'm buying in on the cold hype that is around. The strong polar vortex has me doubtful about cold weather in the South...could mean really cold weather farther north though. We'll see. Hope you all are doing well and are having a great start to the new year!


Mississippi!!! hey man how you doin, i been missin ur posts round here! you was one of them who is always posting comments about WEATHER, with sense lol.
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
504. MTWX
Quoting PlazaRed:
Noting 472. Jedkins01
This is not a factor of remote heat islands!
I can not and would never feel qualified to comment on other areas of the northern hemisphere but:-
The facts are that we in Europe have been having a very unusual winter as of the beginning of January 2012
I hasten to apologise to Jenkins and anybody else if I have caused or implied any indication that you may have seen the potential of global warming and other factors as being connected with as you say "heat islands,"
All I can say in my amateur status, is that I have been observing in remote areas of Europe unusually high winter temperatures and a lack of snow, ranging form the Alps to the Iberian peninsular.
Although this is not yet by any means a trend, we must consider it a potential indicator of possible warming features that should not be dismissed.

Same in the states for the most part. Here in my part of Mississippi, we have been, pretty consistently, 10-15 degrees F above average this winter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



then there is two
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey, everyone. Haven't been on really since hurricane season. However, I'm always here lurking. Just wanted to agree on how odd this winter has been. I'm a cold buff and love snow, so I'm hoping we can catch a break and get the cold to flow in the latter part of the winter. Still not sure if I'm buying in on the cold hype that is around. The strong polar vortex has me doubtful about cold weather in the South...could mean really cold weather farther north though. We'll see. Hope you all are doing well and are having a great start to the new year!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I noticed Nea's 10,000 for this and I'm not surprised.

How idealistic you guys must be! In the real world, greed, for lack of a better word, is the driving force behind most of the advancements mankind has made. People are driven to excel by the desire to better their position in this world. Success in this world equals money. Money equals freedom. Freedom from want for yourself and your loved ones. Freedom to travel. Freedom to practice philanthropy. Turns out that non-successful people make lousy philanthopists.
You make a good point here. Being wealthy for all the right reasons is terrific, and when those who are wealthy give money to charities and other organizations, certainly helps less fortunate people to survive. When these motives become excessively rapacious, misdeeds committed by the obsessed and selfish can cause great harm to countries and their citizens...Just my harmless opinion..:)
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20492
Quoting KoritheMan:


Not to mention Europe's crime rate, at least insofar as it pertains to drinking, is generally lower than that of the United States. I know you're Canadian, so I can't speak for your country, but it goes to show just how backward things are here. Prohibition does not solve things. Never has.


Well, everywhere has something or other that is backwards. Alcohol in Europe really is a culture, while in the same sense guns are in America. (probably the biggest "backwards" thing as an outsider looking inside to the US")

Must agree with the prohibition though. Thank god we only had it in WW1 and Quebec didn't allow it to happen in their province. My history teacher who taught me post independence Canada was really for prohibition and strongly against drugs. We spent a few extra days talking about prohibition and even with her pro-prohibition attitudes she still couldn't cover for the negative sides of it and ended up teaching us that prohibition never works.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:


Not to mention Europe's crime rate is generally lower than that of the United States. I know you're Canadian, so I can't speak for your country, but it goes to show just how backward things are here. Prohibition does not solve things. Never has.


Things are really backward around the world though, its just different regions of the world seem to have different issues.

I agree though prohibition doesn't solve anything. Prohibition is bred out of self-righteous anger in thinking that trying to control people with law will fix their problems. We all know that's not true. Its also laziness. We all know that investing personal love and mercy and time in people's lives is what stops addiction not prohibition.

Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7271
Quoting yqt1001:


Well, I'm guessing you don't know much about Europe. :P

It's standard tradition for kids (or was, not sure now) in Europe to have alcoholic beverages. And besides by that rule they don't mean beer, they mean...other stuff...


Not to mention Europe's crime rate, at least insofar as it pertains to drinking, is generally lower than that of the United States. I know you're Canadian, so I can't speak for your country, but it goes to show just how backward things are here. Prohibition does not solve things. Never has.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yqt1001:


Well, I'm guessing you don't know much about Europe. :P

It's standard tradition for kids (or was, not sure now) in Europe to have alcoholic beverages. And besides by that rule they don't mean beer, they mean...other stuff...


ah, ok lol...i gues i dont know bout europe cuz i dont live there, or vacationed there lol. only thing i know bout europe is where our Marines made landing on the beach in France xD (my 2nd hobby is military)
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting TomTaylor:
No, not really.


I think you missed his point. He's saying that it's colder in the south right now than in the northern tier of the country, which is clearly anomalous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Sure there is bias in science. But the thing is, bias in science means wrong answers. If it is an active area of research, such biases and errors are found pretty quickly. There is very very little research that does not build upon the research of others, so any research built upon previously biased results or incorrect research reveals itself as so in short order.

That's one of the great things about science. You can't just say whatever you want, cook up some numbers , and present it as truth. Even if it gets rubber-stamped through some journal, eventually someone is going to try to use that research and find that it doesn't hold water. Science journals have plenty of back and forth on research and results, corrections, retractions, modifications, etc. .

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But scientific research is on a whole different level. When you disagree with a peer-reviewed result, you need more than just a gut feeling to back up your argument. If you think a result is biased, you better bring a solid case demonstrating that bias. If you disagree with a conclusion, you better have the data to show why it is wrong.

The scientific process inherently removes bias as time goes on. If it didn't, pretty much all of science today would have as much credibility as mythological texts and would certainly not have nearly the predictive power it has.


Nice points.

However, people that are in like groups often think like minded and agree like minded. Human beings are social creatures, there's no doubting that. Scientists in a similar field and experience are going to be more likely to agree with other scientists in that field. I agree there is lots of evidence for the theory of AGW but I tend to find a collective bias for those in the associated field. A scientific journal could be peer reviewed, but that doesn't mean the peers will necessarily disagree with the material if it is biased.

We shouldn't elevate science, and the scientific community to god-like status of ultimate authority when it isn't. I love science and highly respect those in the field being that I'm a college student seeking to be a meteorologist, but I don't think every single claim about global warming is correct.

I am not a gambler because its foolish and pointless but if I was I would be willing to bet an awfully large amount of money that the general consensus on Climate Change will evolve quite significantly even within the next 10 years. That's because science is always changing and we are always learning more.

The more we are willing to admit we are wrong, the bigger of a stumbling block it will be on the future of science. I have seen some scientists state is if they absolutely know for sure their knowledge gathered on an issue is without a doubt absolute fact, only to see it be disproved not much later.

That being said, I'm not saying we should say all evidence gathered needs be considered as faulty. No if there is a scientific consensus, it should be treated as what we know to be true, but in science there should always be an openness that what is currently thought to be true about an issue might later be found to either not be true, or more will be built further upon that issue later on that changes the way science views things completely.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7271
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


I noticed Nea's 10,000 for this and I'm not surprised.

How idealistic you guys must be! In the real world, greed, for lack of a better word, is the driving force behind most of the advancements mankind has made. People are driven to excel by the desire to better their position in this world. Success in this world equals money. Money equals freedom. Freedom from want for yourself and your loved ones. Freedom to travel. Freedom to practice philanthropy. Turns out that non-successful people make lousy philanthopists.

From a realistic Western point of view, I have to agree with you 100%

With an infinite amount of everything there will never be a need or want for anything.

I agree with you 100%, I am a highly successful entrepreneur in Western society.
In reality people want things that I provide. It is I supose intriguing that if I didn't provide the quests of their desires, they would seek satisfaction for their material needs else where?
As a supplier of the fruits of desires, I ask myself? Am I am a provider or a parasite?
Always been an interesting concept?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SPLbeater:


if im correct(which i am) beer isnt a child approved drink. therefore isnt a child approved topic. and, therefore, violating community standards;)


Well, I'm guessing you don't know much about Europe. :P

It's standard tradition for kids (or was, not sure now) in Europe to have alcoholic beverages. And besides by that rule they don't mean beer, they mean...other stuff...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxmod:
You guys who think it's cute to talk about beer here...tumwater's gonna be runnin dry. Sit in the new desert and dream. Stagnant pond water will be your beer.


if im correct(which i am) beer isnt a child approved drink. therefore isnt a child approved topic. and, therefore, violating community standards;)

aint pointing fingers, heck no...but gotta complete what i start lol
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
oh man laughter is such a good medicine xD


on the tropical note, here is visible of the Indian:

SW Pacific

NW Pacific
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
490. wxmod
You guys who think it's cute to talk about beer here...tumwater's gonna be runnin dry. Sit in the new desert and dream. Stagnant pond water will be your beer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 540 - 490

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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
71 °F
Overcast