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: 340 - 290

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

Quoting AtHomeInTX:
ST2K, I hope you're right. It got real ugly this morning...


Over 50 taken to hospital in huge pileup


At 9:30 a.m. officials tell 12NewsNow.Com the westbound lanes of Highway 73 are open and they hope to open the eastbound lanes soon following a chain-reaction accident involving dozens of cars and trucks.

The first call came into emergency dispatchers at 5:45 a.m.

Officials say the accident was caused by low visibility due to fog and smoke from a marsh fire. The accident happened on Highway 73 just west of the Veolia plant.

Marc Shepherd with the Texas Department of Transportation tells 12NewsNow.Com 41 vehicles were involved in the accident.

Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Rod Carroll says 53 People have been taken to area hospitals as of 9 a.m. The hospitals include St. Marry Hospital, Winnie Community Hospital, Bayside Community Hospital in Anahuac, Baptist Hospital and Christus Hospital St. Elizabeth.

There are no fatalities reported.

Resources to work the accident came from across the region. 1 medical helicopter responded out of Lufkin and 2 out of Houston. Department of Public Safety Trooper Stephanie Davis says 4 of the people hurt in the accident were taken to area hospitals by medical helicopter. She said those people were listed in critical condition.

Port Arthur Fire, DPS, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Labelle-Fannett Volunteer Fire Department and other agencies are working the accident.

Chief Charles Sonnier with the Labelle-Fannett Fire Department says 2 cars were on fire when he arrived at the accident site. One tanker truck was turned over on its side He says at least 4 people had to be removed from their car using a jaws of life.



Yikes. Are these marsh fires common in Texas? Last winter I recall a forest grass fire in Oklahoma that hit just before they got 10 inches of snowfall from that Groundhog Day blizzard!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
“Chaos is what we've lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control.”


― Terence McKenna
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
Thank you for responding Bap. I am still waiting to hear from Nea. The truth is, I do believe that mankind is impacting the Earth in many ways, including the climate, but when I read posts on here, most of the time it is said that the human race is speeding up the process without posting some very important and or relevant information on the subject. On the other hand, I have seen graphs posted here that practically prove that man is in fact responsible for a large percentage of it. The core samples were by far the most impressive evidence I have seen yet. I believe when they finally prove what man has done to increase the Green house Effect, it will be these very core samples that cant be discredited, debunked or explained away. Here is an excerpt and a link..The link is extremely well written........................................... Username: *
Password: *

Create new account
Request new password

Popular Articles

The facts about Global Warming
The Water Car Hoax
Why do CO2 Concentrations Lag Behind Temperature?
Radiative forcing and CO2 emissions
EPICA Ice Core Data and temperature/CO2 relationships

Popular Discussions

The facts about Global Warming (discussion)
Storing Solar Energy
to guidoLaMoto
Storing Wind Energy in Water Resevoirs
Typhoon season in South-East Asia

Home » Academic » Global Warming Articles
EPICA Ice Core Data and temperature/CO2 relationships
March 1, 2010 by jason

0digg

jason's picture

One of the central battlefields of the global warming debate today, is the history of CO2 concentrations and their relationships to temperature. In my previous article on the climate change debate I illustrated that there are strong theoretical as well as empirical (ie. historical) indications that CO2 is in fact one of the drivers of past temperature cycles. In this article I want to draw you a timeline, and show you how these relationships have acted in the past.

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) is a multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica, with the aim of obtaining detailed information of past climate conditions, specifically atmospheric composition and temperature. For more detailed information on the project, and how the data was obtained, refer to my article on the EPICA Project.

Why it might seem like CO2 is just a bystander

Central to the typical argument of someone who denies global warming, is usually the idea that CO2 has lagged temperature in the past. This is true to some degree, but as I explained in my global warming article, there are other factors at work, and (not so) recent science suggests that although CO2 was not the initiating force behind some of history's temperature spikes, it was one of the main reasons the spikes (called interglacials) were so long and intense. This is well established science and echoed by many respected and recent studies (Siegenthaler et. al (2005), Hönisch et. al 2009, and Mudelsee (2001) to name a few).

To deny this theory, some argue that there is no evidence that CO2 was the driver for any of the major temperature increases in the past, or at least not for any of those in the past million years. To support this argument, we often see this graph:

sceptics representation of global temperature history from EPICA Dome C
This is a commonly cited graph, representing a small extract of data obtained directly from the EPICA Dome C antarctic survey (source: myff.org)

The arrows indicate clearly that, based on the data shown in this graph, concentration maxima occured consistently after temperature maxima. Global warming deniers will often state that because CO2 spikes and gradient changes always followed temperature changes, it could not have been the source of feedback (ie. it could not even have helped to increase the temperature).

The truth is basically that there is no proof that CO2 has a significant impact on temperature, there is just an overwhelming and growing collection of good science that points at CO2 as being the single biggest factor affecting our climate today. Reading this article won't make you a guru on all things CO2, but it will help you to understand what really happened in the last 400,000 years (at least in terms of temperature and CO2).

The Chronology of the early EPICA CO2 history

The period of cycling glaciation which we see in the EPICA Ice Core records are the later section of what is called the Pleistocene, a period ranging from 1.8 million years ago to about 10,000BC. A very detailed study on the EPICA Ice Core records, as well as an explanation for the events that took place, is provided by Siegenthaler et al. (2005), to which I will reference to in outlining the chronology of the EPICA Ice Core records. First, let's take a look at the EPICA Ice Core record data:

CO2 Temperature records and temperature proxies
Source: Siegenthaler et al. (2005)

The above graph can basically be considered a relatively accurate representation of CO2 concentrations as well as temperature levels throughout the given time period, at least for the accuracies we will be needing for this discussion. The data was obtained by simply analyzing porous ice components drilled from the EPICA site to obtain the gas components. Based on the gas components the temperature and CO2 concentrations can be identified, with the depth indicating the age of the sample. Based on data by Petit et al. (1999) and Fischer et al. (1999), the lowest values for each glaciation cycle are 182 ± 4 ppmv, and the highest values during the deglaciation periods are 296 ± 7 ppmv. This is incredibly stable, given the complexity of the earth's climatic system, and is what lead scientists to suspect that some controlling feedback mechanisms are acting on the global temperature system to regulate the peaks and troughs (see Falkowski et al. (2000)).

CO2 Temperature records and temperature proxies
Temperature and CO2 proxies for the periods 650,000 years BP to 400,000 years BP. Glacial terminations are given in roman numerals (V,VI and VII), and marine isotope stages (MIS) are given in arabic numerals as reference (Source: Siegenthaler et al. (2005))

The oldest atmospheric data obtained from EPICA Ice Core Records, at 650,000 years BP, also represents the period of lowest CO2 concentration levels (182ppmv at 644,000 years BP). At MIS 630,000 years BP, CO2 concentrations are at about 190 ppmv just prior to glacial termination VII. The increase in temperature and CO2 concentrations at this glacial termination occurred very quickly (within 3000 years).

In regards to the upward trend of CO2, it can be divided into 2 main regions. The first is the rapid increase in CO2, to about 235 ppmv within a period of less than 2000 years. The second period is more prolonged, increasing in CO2 by about 20 ppmv over approximately 5000 years. This second CO2 peak is very similar to the magnitude and time-scale of the Holocene deglaciation. This is important because it shows that the holocene warming is not unprecedented or unusual, as Ruddiman (2003), among others, suggested. What is more likely is that the increases in CO2 are a response of the carbon cycle to massive changes in global biomass levels (Joos (2004)). The deglaciation maximum for this first period is reached at 620,000 years BP, where CO2 levels reach their peak at 260 ppmv.

The deglaciation is then interrupted, and sinks to almost 200 ppmv, remaining very turbulent between 610,000 and 590,000 years BP, although the conditions are near glacial. This raises the question of whether the period between 620,000 and 560,000 years BP was a single interglacial or in fact several. The increases of CO2 concentrations leading out of this possible glacial period (leading up to 580,000 years BP) take about 5000 years each. One unexpected feature of this period is the long and stable warm period between 580,000 and 560,000 years BP, strongly contrasting other records suggesting increases in global ice coverage for this same period (see Lisiecki (2005)). It should be noted that this region of stability is not limited to CO2 and temperature data, but also CH4 and aerosol levels. This period thus represents the most stable carbon cycle of our known history, extending for a total of 28,000 years. This stable warm time period is therefore the subject of much research to better understand orbital pattern influence on global climate. It cannot however, be stated as yet what the causes of this stable period were.

The decline in temperature observed at the end of this long warm period begins at about 555,000 years BP, and is interrupted by 2 short and pronounced spikes in temperature. this turbulence is followed by a deglaciation event at 510,000 years BP, which has a magnitude among the lowest of all the deglaciation periods of the past 650,000 years. As with the termination VII, termination VI can be divided into 2 regions, with a small semi-glaciation period (this time at 490,000 years BP) breaking up the deglaciation phase. The minimum CO2 concentration occurs at 481,000 years, lagging the temperature minimum by about 10,000 years.

The glaciation following this event is again broken up by 2 temperature and CO2 level peaks. These peaks are comparable both in duration and magnitude to the CO2 spikes that can be observed during the past antarctic warming events in the last glacial, indicating again that recent events were not at all out of the ordinary (see Wagner (1999)). A more detailed analysis of this data by Siegenthaler et al. (2005) further showed that the CO2 concentrations at the latest interglacial observed here (at 400,000 years BP) were very similar to those of the last holocene.

The CO2 lag and its complexities

Many people will tell you that the CO2 lag is simply a response of CO2 concentrations to temperature, but even historically it isn't that simple. Aside from the fact that CO2 causes radiative forcing and thus logically contributes at least to some global warming, we can observe changes in the response of CO2 to temperature from the EPICA Ice Core Records, indicating that the relationship is more complex than a simple response to temperature.

For example, taking the glacial terminations V, VI and VII (those used in this article), yields lags of CO2 levels against temperature of 800, 1600 and 2800 years, respectively. It is interesting to note that there appears to be a decreasing trend here (ie. the lag is getting lower). Fischer et al. (1999) concluded that the average lag of CO2 to global temperature during the past 3 glacial terminations (I, II and III) were between 200 and 1000 years. An interesting observation is also the apparent lead of CO2 over temperature between 535,000 and 548,000 years BP (by 1500 to 2500 years).


Why it's not the milankovich cycle...

It might also be relevant to include here a graph of the affect of changes in irradiation levels caused by the milankovich cycle. I described the nature of the milankovich cycle in more detail in an earlier article on why CO2 lags temperature. The milankovich cycle represents changes in radiation forcing on the earth through variations in the earth's orbital pattern. I don't want to dwell on this too long, but just to show that the milankovich cycle is unlikely to be a significant driver for the magnitudes and time periods of glacials and interglacials that we are seeing in the EPICA Ice Core records, here is a map of the milankovich cycle patterns against global temperatures:

Milankovich cycle against global temperature records
Milankovich cycle forcing patterns against global temperature levels from the Vostock Ice Core Records (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

It is plainly evident that the Milankovich cycle alone could not be the major driver behind these sudden and exponential increases in global temperature, and the best explanation for a controlled, cycled and exponential increase in global temperature is, at present, CO2. I have already illustrated why it is not reasonable to suggest that cosmic rays are the cause for global warming, so I will not go over this again.

What does it all mean?

If you take anything from this article, let it be this: We don't know everything. Scientists are doing their best to uncover the truth, but until then all we have is information, interpolation and speculation. What we do see is an incredibly strong bond between global temperature levels and CO2 concentrations, one that appears almost inseparable. There is no known historic example of a time when CO2 was known to lead temperature. This does not mean that CO2 does not influence temperature, in fact the ranges of temperature increases that we see in the terminations are simply too rapid and powerful to be explained by anything other than a feedback loop with CO2. The fact that CO2 levels were never higher than 300 ppmv during the past 650,000 years, and are now at an alarming 380 ppmv, should be of great concern.

It seems evident that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in increasing temperatures, but to what degree, and how soon, we simply don't know.


Here's my hypothesis. The ice age CO2 fluctuations DO come after the temperature changes, and amplify the existing perturbations caused by the Milankovic cycles (and no, I'm unable to find the images). While this may suggest that human-manufactured carbon is not causing current climate change, the opposite conclusion also holds validity.

The CO2-feedback mechanism is not negative evidence for humancaused climate change. In fact, it is only a small sample of evidence indicating that carbon dioxide can be released given higher temperatures (ocean --> worse carbon sink), and absorbed given lower temperatures (ocean --> better carbon sink). What this means is that if current emissions are contributing to climate change (there is NO evidence to indicate otherwise, unless you count the existence of other mechanisms such as cosmic rays or chaotic complexity, a way of explaining away evidence, rather than compile, which is what science is apparently meant to do, to be negative evidence to the contrary of the 18th century greenhouse hypothesis), then there is a real possibility of GHG-amplification via ocean CO2, ocean methane, land methane, land CO2, and yet-undiscovered mechanisms.

Of course, the water vapour negative feedback may prove to be very significant in minimizing effects of manmade emissions, or it may prove temporary - time will tell.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:


I'll give you one reason why,,,, Oil. Until we come less oil dependent, then nothing will change.

Back in the 90's GM made electric cars and sold about 5-10k of them, then an oil company bought the rights and did a force recall and destroyed them all. Oil companies have so much might they can buy out patents and rights and shelve them.


Just history repeating itself. Look into the American streetcar scandal.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some choppy conditions in Rincon today... 2X overhead ... Cold front on the way...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
ST2K, I hope you're right. It got real ugly this morning...


Over 50 taken to hospital in huge pileup


At 9:30 a.m. officials tell 12NewsNow.Com the westbound lanes of Highway 73 are open and they hope to open the eastbound lanes soon following a chain-reaction accident involving dozens of cars and trucks.

The first call came into emergency dispatchers at 5:45 a.m.

Officials say the accident was caused by low visibility due to fog and smoke from a marsh fire. The accident happened on Highway 73 just west of the Veolia plant.

Marc Shepherd with the Texas Department of Transportation tells 12NewsNow.Com 41 vehicles were involved in the accident.

Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Rod Carroll says 53 People have been taken to area hospitals as of 9 a.m. The hospitals include St. Marry Hospital, Winnie Community Hospital, Bayside Community Hospital in Anahuac, Baptist Hospital and Christus Hospital St. Elizabeth.

There are no fatalities reported.

Resources to work the accident came from across the region. 1 medical helicopter responded out of Lufkin and 2 out of Houston. Department of Public Safety Trooper Stephanie Davis says 4 of the people hurt in the accident were taken to area hospitals by medical helicopter. She said those people were listed in critical condition.

Port Arthur Fire, DPS, Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Labelle-Fannett Volunteer Fire Department and other agencies are working the accident.

Chief Charles Sonnier with the Labelle-Fannett Fire Department says 2 cars were on fire when he arrived at the accident site. One tanker truck was turned over on its side He says at least 4 people had to be removed from their car using a jaws of life.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
#317

A bit too quick to make this statement:

"But energy isn't free; turning that windmill and its attendant generator will induce drag on the vehicle, and thus require it to use more horsepower to maintain a given speed. And that extra horsepower will have to come from burning more fossil fuels, so--given normal losses in efficiency--the energy supplied by the windmill will be less than the energy that went into creating it."

If the energy is currently being wasted, you could do something like this.

Oh, I don't think it was too quick at all. TampaSpin wasn't talking about using "wasted" energy, such as that recaptured by regenerative braking systems that would otherwise be dissipated as heat; he spoke of attaching a windmill to a vehicle where it could catch the slipstream and turn an electrical generator. But that would carry a penalty in the form of drag--a penalty that would be so steep as to create a net loss of power. Besides, if such an idea worked, I've little doubt the Prius and other such cars would be absolutely bristling with small windmills... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Do Climate Models Underestimate Extinctions?
JANUARY 5, 2012


BY JOSHUA S. HILL

We have really sophisticated meteorological models for predicting climate change, says ecologist Mark Urban, the lead author of a study that looks at whether the current climate models properly understand species competition and movement and therefore the impact the future climate will have on animals.
But in real life, animals move around, they compete, they parasitize each other, and they eat each other. The majority of our predictions don't include these important interactions.

read more:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I guess I should go as no one is talking.... goodnight
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15961
RENO, Nev. -- The forecast around here doesn't call for snow any time soon.

Find your local weather with The Weather Channel zip-code lookup:

By Tim Dunn, Reno Gazette-Journal


This view from Squaw Valley's cable car shows where the resort's runs with manmade snow are. There currently is no skiing at the top of the mountains as California resorts wait for mother nature to take over.

www.Whitsyms.com
And if that happens, it will be the first time in 128 years -- since 1883 -- that no precipitation will have fallen in December here, according to the National Weather Service and Desert Research Institute.

"It's probably going to be dry until New Year's and possibly dry into the first week of January, too," said Jim Wallmann of the National Weather Service.

The situation couldn't be more different from this time last year, when the Lake Tahoe Basin's snowpack was at more than twice the normal levels. On Tuesday, Tahoe's snowpack was 10 percent of average.

The situation not only affects the ski slopes but also the water supply. Dry western states' primary source of water all year is snow melt.

"I don't see very much on the horizon except a continuation of what you're seeing right now," said Kelly Redmond of the Desert Research Institute's Western Regional Climate Center. A stubborn ridge of high pressure is stationary in the Pacific, shouldering off storm systems to the north.

For Sierra ski resorts, which rely heavily on the Christmas holidays for business, it's up to their snow-making machines to come to the rescue.

Luckily, it's been cold enough to run them.

At Boreal Mountain Resort, they've been making so much snow that they ran out of water to make more during a couple of days late last week. Boreal's snow guns are now firing again, with more than 33 million gallons -- a record for the resort -- used for snow-making so far.

Boreal's operators emphasize the positive -- the snow they have on the resort's slopes is top-quality, and the roads will be clear for skiers and snowboarders to get there over the holidays.

"Our product for the holidays is perfect for what we're looking for," resort spokesman Jon Slaughter said. "I don't think it's going to hold people back. They're still going to come skiing."

Pat McGoff of Reno enjoyed his first turns of the day Tuesday at Mount Rose Ski Tahoe.

"It's sad we're not getting snow, but last year we had a fantastic year," McGoff said. "I think Mother Nature is getting even."

Sierra resorts are "knocking it out" with snow-making as the holidays approach and should do fine dealing with a situation that's not really all that uncommon, said Bob Roberts, executive director of the California Ski Industry Association.

Resorts likely will offer tempting deals to attract customers during the important period, he said.

"I can remember other years when there were pretty sketchy conditions into January," Roberts said. "We've been down this road before."

The area's reservoirs are in healthy shape after last year's impressive winter. Still, a dry December doesn't help things, Redmond said.

"If we lose December, it's going to be really hard to make up the water year," Redmond said.

Jeff DeLong also reports for the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
Quoting TampaSpin:


Actually the Models are NOT indicating as cold as the last event now......need to watch and see!


This one doesn't show it very well, but I've seen a previous run indicate a strong Chinook in Alberta feed a warm seclusion type pocket into that cut-off low Nor'easter of Mid-January, helping it strengthen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
5.3 RD, shaked W PR..... Anyone in RD?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We could be talking about a summer with no water for the big cities in California. Also the threat for crippling wildfires if California doesn't see appreciable rain soon. This may need to be Doc's next post as this situation is extremely serious!

Link
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
I don't know if anybody's aware the Sierra Mtns in California have no snow on them. Infact California is trending toward the driest winter ever recorded. Not good at all! If California doesn't get some rain & snow soon then that state could be heading for on of the worst diasters in that state history in 2012.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
..and now, something completely different

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I mention in passing that my post was not intended to be that long. It will not let me remove unwanted segments.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
#317

A bit too quick to make this statement:

"But energy isn't free; turning that windmill and its attendant generator will induce drag on the vehicle, and thus require it to use more horsepower to maintain a given speed. And that extra horsepower will have to come from burning more fossil fuels, so--given normal losses in efficiency--the energy supplied by the windmill will be less than the energy that went into creating it."

If the energy is currently being wasted, you could do something like this.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6089
KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK...... is this thing on?????
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15961
Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
hydrus addressed his question to Nea, but I'll take a swing.

First: logical fallacy, Will Robinson ... danger, danger! There does not have to be a most important piece of evidence. You want a smoking gun, i.e., an especially simple answer. You can't get that, not exactly, nor do you need it.

Second: What you can get it is that by applying the theories and observations of physical chemistry developed over 100 years ago, it must be that CO2 in the air keeps the surface air warmer than it would otherwise be. Extract all the CO2 from the air and the earth would cool. The more CO2, the warmer it has to be.

Third: Atmospheric CO2 has been observed to be increasing. There is no other known source of extra CO2 other than what man is creating. The ocean does absorb a lot of the CO2, but it cannot be absorbing all of it. In fact, the CO2 man puts into the air has an isotopic signature. We observe that isotopic signature in CO2 found in the oceans and the atmosphere.

Four: Apply these observations to the known physical properties of CO2 and you get: the air at the surface is expected to get warmer. Warming is in fact ongoing. The prediction is confirmed.

Still, I would say that is pretty darn simple.
Thank you for responding Bap. I am still waiting to hear from Nea. The truth is, I do believe that mankind is impacting the Earth in many ways, including the climate, but when I read posts on here, most of the time it is said that the human race is speeding up the process without posting some very important and or relevant information on the subject. On the other hand, I have seen graphs posted here that practically prove that man is in fact responsible for a large percentage of it. The core samples were by far the most impressive evidence I have seen yet. I believe when they finally prove what man has done to increase the Green house Effect, it will be these very core samples that cant be discredited, debunked or explained away. Here is an excerpt and a link..The link is extremely well written........................................... Username: *
Password: *

Create new account
Request new password

Popular Articles

The facts about Global Warming
The Water Car Hoax
Why do CO2 Concentrations Lag Behind Temperature?
Radiative forcing and CO2 emissions
EPICA Ice Core Data and temperature/CO2 relationships

Popular Discussions

The facts about Global Warming (discussion)
Storing Solar Energy
to guidoLaMoto
Storing Wind Energy in Water Resevoirs
Typhoon season in South-East Asia

Home » Academic » Global Warming Articles
EPICA Ice Core Data and temperature/CO2 relationships
March 1, 2010 by jason

0digg

jason's picture

One of the central battlefields of the global warming debate today, is the history of CO2 concentrations and their relationships to temperature. In my previous article on the climate change debate I illustrated that there are strong theoretical as well as empirical (ie. historical) indications that CO2 is in fact one of the drivers of past temperature cycles. In this article I want to draw you a timeline, and show you how these relationships have acted in the past.

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) is a multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica, with the aim of obtaining detailed information of past climate conditions, specifically atmospheric composition and temperature. For more detailed information on the project, and how the data was obtained, refer to my article on the EPICA Project.

Why it might seem like CO2 is just a bystander

Central to the typical argument of someone who denies global warming, is usually the idea that CO2 has lagged temperature in the past. This is true to some degree, but as I explained in my global warming article, there are other factors at work, and (not so) recent science suggests that although CO2 was not the initiating force behind some of history's temperature spikes, it was one of the main reasons the spikes (called interglacials) were so long and intense. This is well established science and echoed by many respected and recent studies (Siegenthaler et. al (2005), Hönisch et. al 2009, and Mudelsee (2001) to name a few).

To deny this theory, some argue that there is no evidence that CO2 was the driver for any of the major temperature increases in the past, or at least not for any of those in the past million years. To support this argument, we often see this graph:

sceptics representation of global temperature history from EPICA Dome C
This is a commonly cited graph, representing a small extract of data obtained directly from the EPICA Dome C antarctic survey (source: myff.org)

The arrows indicate clearly that, based on the data shown in this graph, concentration maxima occured consistently after temperature maxima. Global warming deniers will often state that because CO2 spikes and gradient changes always followed temperature changes, it could not have been the source of feedback (ie. it could not even have helped to increase the temperature).

The truth is basically that there is no proof that CO2 has a significant impact on temperature, there is just an overwhelming and growing collection of good science that points at CO2 as being the single biggest factor affecting our climate today. Reading this article won't make you a guru on all things CO2, but it will help you to understand what really happened in the last 400,000 years (at least in terms of temperature and CO2).

The Chronology of the early EPICA CO2 history

The period of cycling glaciation which we see in the EPICA Ice Core records are the later section of what is called the Pleistocene, a period ranging from 1.8 million years ago to about 10,000BC. A very detailed study on the EPICA Ice Core records, as well as an explanation for the events that took place, is provided by Siegenthaler et al. (2005), to which I will reference to in outlining the chronology of the EPICA Ice Core records. First, let's take a look at the EPICA Ice Core record data:

CO2 Temperature records and temperature proxies
Source: Siegenthaler et al. (2005)

The above graph can basically be considered a relatively accurate representation of CO2 concentrations as well as temperature levels throughout the given time period, at least for the accuracies we will be needing for this discussion. The data was obtained by simply analyzing porous ice components drilled from the EPICA site to obtain the gas components. Based on the gas components the temperature and CO2 concentrations can be identified, with the depth indicating the age of the sample. Based on data by Petit et al. (1999) and Fischer et al. (1999), the lowest values for each glaciation cycle are 182 ± 4 ppmv, and the highest values during the deglaciation periods are 296 ± 7 ppmv. This is incredibly stable, given the complexity of the earth's climatic system, and is what lead scientists to suspect that some controlling feedback mechanisms are acting on the global temperature system to regulate the peaks and troughs (see Falkowski et al. (2000)).

CO2 Temperature records and temperature proxies
Temperature and CO2 proxies for the periods 650,000 years BP to 400,000 years BP. Glacial terminations are given in roman numerals (V,VI and VII), and marine isotope stages (MIS) are given in arabic numerals as reference (Source: Siegenthaler et al. (2005))

The oldest atmospheric data obtained from EPICA Ice Core Records, at 650,000 years BP, also represents the period of lowest CO2 concentration levels (182ppmv at 644,000 years BP). At MIS 630,000 years BP, CO2 concentrations are at about 190 ppmv just prior to glacial termination VII. The increase in temperature and CO2 concentrations at this glacial termination occurred very quickly (within 3000 years).

In regards to the upward trend of CO2, it can be divided into 2 main regions. The first is the rapid increase in CO2, to about 235 ppmv within a period of less than 2000 years. The second period is more prolonged, increasing in CO2 by about 20 ppmv over approximately 5000 years. This second CO2 peak is very similar to the magnitude and time-scale of the Holocene deglaciation. This is important because it shows that the holocene warming is not unprecedented or unusual, as Ruddiman (2003), among others, suggested. What is more likely is that the increases in CO2 are a response of the carbon cycle to massive changes in global biomass levels (Joos (2004)). The deglaciation maximum for this first period is reached at 620,000 years BP, where CO2 levels reach their peak at 260 ppmv.

The deglaciation is then interrupted, and sinks to almost 200 ppmv, remaining very turbulent between 610,000 and 590,000 years BP, although the conditions are near glacial. This raises the question of whether the period between 620,000 and 560,000 years BP was a single interglacial or in fact several. The increases of CO2 concentrations leading out of this possible glacial period (leading up to 580,000 years BP) take about 5000 years each. One unexpected feature of this period is the long and stable warm period between 580,000 and 560,000 years BP, strongly contrasting other records suggesting increases in global ice coverage for this same period (see Lisiecki (2005)). It should be noted that this region of stability is not limited to CO2 and temperature data, but also CH4 and aerosol levels. This period thus represents the most stable carbon cycle of our known history, extending for a total of 28,000 years. This stable warm time period is therefore the subject of much research to better understand orbital pattern influence on global climate. It cannot however, be stated as yet what the causes of this stable period were.

The decline in temperature observed at the end of this long warm period begins at about 555,000 years BP, and is interrupted by 2 short and pronounced spikes in temperature. this turbulence is followed by a deglaciation event at 510,000 years BP, which has a magnitude among the lowest of all the deglaciation periods of the past 650,000 years. As with the termination VII, termination VI can be divided into 2 regions, with a small semi-glaciation period (this time at 490,000 years BP) breaking up the deglaciation phase. The minimum CO2 concentration occurs at 481,000 years, lagging the temperature minimum by about 10,000 years.

The glaciation following this event is again broken up by 2 temperature and CO2 level peaks. These peaks are comparable both in duration and magnitude to the CO2 spikes that can be observed during the past antarctic warming events in the last glacial, indicating again that recent events were not at all out of the ordinary (see Wagner (1999)). A more detailed analysis of this data by Siegenthaler et al. (2005) further showed that the CO2 concentrations at the latest interglacial observed here (at 400,000 years BP) were very similar to those of the last holocene.

The CO2 lag and its complexities

Many people will tell you that the CO2 lag is simply a response of CO2 concentrations to temperature, but even historically it isn't that simple. Aside from the fact that CO2 causes radiative forcing and thus logically contributes at least to some global warming, we can observe changes in the response of CO2 to temperature from the EPICA Ice Core Records, indicating that the relationship is more complex than a simple response to temperature.

For example, taking the glacial terminations V, VI and VII (those used in this article), yields lags of CO2 levels against temperature of 800, 1600 and 2800 years, respectively. It is interesting to note that there appears to be a decreasing trend here (ie. the lag is getting lower). Fischer et al. (1999) concluded that the average lag of CO2 to global temperature during the past 3 glacial terminations (I, II and III) were between 200 and 1000 years. An interesting observation is also the apparent lead of CO2 over temperature between 535,000 and 548,000 years BP (by 1500 to 2500 years).

Why it's not the milankovich cycle...

It might also be relevant to include here a graph of the affect of changes in irradiation levels caused by the milankovich cycle. I described the nature of the milankovich cycle in more detail in an earlier article on why CO2 lags temperature. The milankovich cycle represents changes in radiation forcing on the earth through variations in the earth's orbital pattern. I don't want to dwell on this too long, but just to show that the milankovich cycle is unlikely to be a significant driver for the magnitudes and time periods of glacials and interglacials that we are seeing in the EPICA Ice Core records, here is a map of the milankovich cycle patterns against global temperatures:

Milankovich cycle against global temperature records
Milankovich cycle forcing patterns against global temperature levels from the Vostock Ice Core Records (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

It is plainly evident that the Milankovich cycle alone could not be the major driver behind these sudden and exponential increases in global temperature, and the best explanation for a controlled, cycled and exponential increase in global temperature is, at present, CO2. I have already illustrated why it is not reasonable to suggest that cosmic rays are the cause for global warming, so I will not go over this again.

What does it all mean?

If you take anything from this article, let it be this: We don't know everything. Scientists are doing their best to uncover the truth, but until then all we have is information, interpolation and speculation. What we do see is an incredibly strong bond between global temperature levels and CO2 concentrations, one that appears almost inseparable. There is no known historic example of a time when CO2 was known to lead temperature. This does not mean that CO2 does not influence temperature, in fact the ranges of temperature increases that we see in the terminations are simply too rapid and powerful to be explained by anything other than a feedback loop with CO2. The fact that CO2 levels were never higher than 300 ppmv during the past 650,000 years, and are now at an alarming 380 ppmv, should be of great concern.

It seems evident that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in increasing temperatures, but to what degree, and how soon, we simply don't know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There are 350 Days until the Winter Solstice.

Enjoy your Thursday.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
But energy isn't free; turning that windmill and its attendant generator will induce drag on the vehicle, and thus require it to use more horsepower to maintain a given speed. And that extra horsepower will have to come from burning more fossil fuels, so--given normal losses in efficiency--the energy supplied by the windmill will be less than the energy that went into creating it.
I may have miscommunicated my point, as you seem to have missed it, so please allow me to rephrase it:

Until people can understand that the current warming is mostly mandmade, and so long as there are big-moneyed oil and coal interests shouting that it's not, there'll be no real motivation to move toward alternate and cleaner sources of energy. If people overall believe the planet isn't warming and/or man isn't making the problem worse and/or it's not such a bad thing anyway, they'll feel free to continue poking holes and scratching pits in the surface to burn up what they find. No, invention at such great levels is driven by concrete need, not by some abstract, touchy-feely sense of do-goodiness; those "real-world solutions" of which you wrote won't happen in earnest until people accept the scientific truth, then demand that their elected policymakers do something about it.

One thing to keep clear is that this isn't debate club; people who support the theory of AGW aren't trying to win some argument simply so they can thump their chests and declare victory as a way of satisfying their egos. Rather, the future of humanity is very much at stake. That's not in any way saying that mankind will vanish, or that we're all going to die. It's just a statement that says the world we'll live in a few decades from now--and thus the quality of life we'll enjoy then--will be dictated in a monumental way by what we do about our fossil fuel addiction now. And the longer we wait for action--which is what we've been doing--the less that decision will be in our hands.


Only if you wanna go very fast and why do we need all the horsepower for an energy efficient vehicle.....I am not talking race cars.
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
Quoting TampaSpin:


That has been going on for years......Heck one design that i was thinking of is a spindle windmill affect on the inside grill that would spin as you drive to keep the battery recharged. As long as your moving the car is charging!
But energy isn't free; turning that windmill and its attendant generator will induce drag on the vehicle, and thus require it to use more horsepower to maintain a given speed. And that extra horsepower will have to come from burning more fossil fuels, so--given normal losses in efficiency--the energy supplied by the windmill will be less than the energy that went into creating it.
Quoting ncgnto25:
A large part of the reason there's been so little progress on curbing CO2 emissions is because of the four-pronged ideologically-based argument that a) the globe isn't warming; b) if it is, it's not our fault; c) even if it is our fault, it's not such a bad thing; and d) even if it's going to be bad, the costs of doing anything about it are just too astronomical. Until we get over that massive hump of denial, then, I believe it's critically important that people spend time explaining the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (and its evil cousin CAGW). Far from being disappointing, it's practically a moral imperative that we do so.

You just proved my point--you are so worried about 'proving' or 'disproving' the theory that you can't get back to real world solutions. 1. The American appetite for power is not going away. There is nothing short of a crisis that will change that. 2. We therefore need to address those needs right now, If we don't, something like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 could cripple us again. Neapolitan-you have no other answer that is viable right now. When there is no other alternative, why can't you move toward what is needed now, but work on a way to implement your long term goals in sight and work toward them in a compromise in a real world environment?? You know we cannot just 'turn off' the need for oil at the present. In a perfect world, yes, of course we should. But you know it will never happen that way. You are one of the 'passionate extremes' that exist on both sides of the issue and impede any progress toward a workable solution. And, you prove that my 'theory' on Congressional motives are working splendidly. Hobson's Choice.

I may have miscommunicated my point, as you seem to have missed it, so please allow me to rephrase it:

Until people can understand that the current warming is mostly mandmade, and so long as there are big-moneyed oil and coal interests shouting that it's not, there'll be no real motivation to move toward alternate and cleaner sources of energy. If people overall believe the planet isn't warming and/or man isn't making the problem worse and/or it's not such a bad thing anyway, they'll feel free to continue poking holes and scratching pits in the surface to burn up what they find. No, invention at such great levels is driven by concrete need, not by some abstract, touchy-feely sense of do-goodiness; those "real-world solutions" of which you wrote won't happen in earnest until people accept the scientific truth, then demand that their elected policymakers do something about it.

One thing to keep clear is that this isn't debate club; people who support the theory of AGW aren't trying to win some argument simply so they can thump their chests and declare victory as a way of satisfying their egos. Rather, the future of humanity is very much at stake. That's not in any way saying that mankind will vanish, or that we're all going to die. It's just a statement that says the world we'll live in a few decades from now--and thus the quality of life we'll enjoy then--will be dictated in a monumental way by what we do about our fossil fuel addiction now. And the longer we wait for action--which is what we've been doing--the less that decision will be in our hands.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
**something like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 could cripple us again**

If sabers keep rattling in the Straits of Hormuz, you may see this happen sooner than expected. It's not that I don't have faith in our military to keep the oil flowing, but that the oil companies may decide to push up oil prices to decrease demand, just in case supply slows down a bit. Add to that the belief of many that the Arab countries don't really have the reserves they say they do, and we may see problems with supply in the near term.

I do agree it will take a crisis to change the appetite for oil and develope alternative energy. There is too much money to be made in fossil fuels for the energy giants to give up until there is nothing left to sell. The energy will go were the money goes- if someone could make "green" energy profitable, we may have a fighting chance to reduce carbon emmisions. I have lived in a state where energy is big money for most of my life. Try to tell a WV coal miner he should stop digging up carbon for the electric companies to service the DC area. One only has to read the history of the mining wars and the birth of labor unions to figure what may happen next.

As to SPLBeater, if you are truly a Christian, how can you presume to know the mind of God? Sounds like human arrogance to me. You believe God gave you this beautiful world to live in, and not that She may mind if you destroy her handiwork? Where do you plan on living, should you be wrong?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1234
Quoting AussieStorm:


I'll give you one reason why,,,, Oil. Until we come less oil dependent, then nothing will change.

Back in the 90's GM made electric cars and sold about 5-10k of them, then an oil company bought the rights and did a force recall and destroyed them all. Oil companies have so much might they can buy out patents and rights and shelve them.


That has been going on for years......Heck one design that i was thinking of is a spindle windmill affect on the inside grill that would spin as you drive to keep the battery recharged. As long as your moving the car is charging!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448



Lucky again last year for the most part.
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
Quoting ncgnto25:
A large part of the reason there's been so little progress on curbing CO2 emissions is because of the four-pronged ideologically-based argument that a) the globe isn't warming; b) if it is, it's not our fault; c) even if it is our fault, it's not such a bad thing; and d) even if it's going to be bad, the costs of doing anything about it are just too astronomical. Until we get over that massive hump of denial, then, I believe it's critically important that people spend time explaining the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (and its evil cousin CAGW). Far from being disappointing, it's practically a moral imperative that we do so.

You just proved my point--you are so worried about 'proving' or 'disproving' the theory that you can't get back to real world solutions. 1. The American appetite for power is not going away. There is nothing short of a crisis that will change that. 2. We therefore need to address those needs right now, If we don't, something like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 could cripple us again. Neapolitan-you have no other answer that is viable right now. When there is no other alternative, why can't you move toward what is needed now, but work on a way to implement your long term goals in sight and work toward them in a compromise in a real world environment?? You know we cannot just 'turn off' the need for oil at the present. In a perfect world, yes, of course we should. But you know it will never happen that way. You are one of the 'passionate extremes' that exist on both sides of the issue and impede any progress toward a workable solution. And, you prove that my 'theory' on Congressional motives are working splendidly. Hobson's Choice.


I'll give you one reason why,,,, Oil. Until we come less oil dependent, then nothing will change.

Back in the 90's GM made electric cars and sold about 5-10k of them, then an oil company bought the rights and did a force recall and destroyed them all. Oil companies have so much might they can buy out patents and rights and shelve them.
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15961
Quoting ncgnto25:
A large part of the reason there's been so little progress on curbing CO2 emissions is because of the four-pronged ideologically-based argument that a) the globe isn't warming; b) if it is, it's not our fault; c) even if it is our fault, it's not such a bad thing; and d) even if it's going to be bad, the costs of doing anything about it are just too astronomical. Until we get over that massive hump of denial, then, I believe it's critically important that people spend time explaining the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (and its evil cousin CAGW). Far from being disappointing, it's practically a moral imperative that we do so.

You just proved my point--you are so worried about 'proving' or 'disproving' the theory that you can't get back to real world solutions. 1. The American appetite for power is not going away. There is nothing short of a crisis that will change that. 2. We therefore need to address those needs right now, If we don't, something like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 could cripple us again. Neapolitan-you have no other answer that is viable right now. When there is no other alternative, why can't you move toward what is needed now, but work on a way to implement your long term goals in sight and work toward them in a compromise in a real world environment?? You know we cannot just 'turn off' the need for oil at the present. In a perfect world, yes, of course we should. But you know it will never happen that way. You are one of the 'passionate extremes' that exist on both sides of the issue and impede any progress toward a workable solution. And, you prove that my 'theory' on Congressional motives are working splendidly. Hobson's Choice.


You don't seem to be getting what he's saying.

In order to accomplish anything on a country-wide level, you have to overcome ignorance AND inertia. You have to convince the population that there is a problem and then you need to convince them that something needs to be done about it.

Right now, billions of dollars in PR and campaign contributions are focused on keeping the population ignorant and complacent (or at the very least apathetic). That neither aids in the recognition that there is problem and certainly doesn't encourage any actions.

Until the population realizes that there is a problem and becomes WILLING to do something about it, expect the status quo to continue.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1552



There is another just behind.....
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448


Actually the Models are NOT indicating as cold as the last event now......need to watch and see!
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
Our next storm system is right here in the Gulf of Alaska.

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX
752 AM CST THU JAN 5 2012

DISCUSSION...
RISING PRESSURES...LOWERING DEW POINTS AND A WEAK NORTHERLY COMPONENT
TO THE SURFACE WIND (AT BOTH KBYY AND KLBX) HAS THE WEAK SURFACE
BOUNDARY/COOL FRONT DRAPED OVER THE COASTAL COUNTIES...BECOMING
NEAR-STATIONARY. SURFACE HIGH PRESSURE MOVING EAST OVER THE REGION
THROUGH THE DAY...WITH TODAY`S LIGHT VARIABLE BREEZES TURNING
ONSHORE BY FRIDAY MORNING...WILL MAINTAIN WARM/MILD WEATHER THROUGH
THE WEEKEND. ALONG THE STATIONARY BOUNDARY...PATCHY FOG WILL FORM
AND PERSIST THROUGH MID-MORNING. TODAY WILL BE WARM ONCE AGAIN...WITH
AVERAGE UPPER 60 AFTERNOON READINGS.

THE GFS/ECMWF/NAM/UKMET/CANADIAN SUITE ARE ALL IN DECENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE SYNOPTIC PATTERN THROUGH DAY 4. THIS BEING OF TAKING THE
BROAD UPPER LEVEL NORTHERN MEXICO DISTURBANCE EAST ACROSS THE GULF
AS AN OPEN WAVE TROUGH FRIDAY...WESTERN GULF INVERTED SURFACE
TROUGH/WEAK LOW DISSOLVING THUS DIMINISHING ONGOING 20-30 OFFSHORE
POPS FOR -SHRA. THE ENSEMBLE DIVERGES WITH TIMING GOING INTO SUNDAY
..OR HAVING A MORE DIFFICULT TIME STICKING TO A CONSISTENT MESSAGE
OF THE EASTERN PROGRESSION OF THE NEXT LATE WEEKEND UPPER LOW DEVELOPING
OVER THE DESERT SW. THIS SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY FORECAST TO INTRODUCE
A GOOD CHANCE FOR 2012`S FIRST WIDESPREAD RAINFALL COMMENCING SOMETIME
LATE SUNDAY AND POSSIBLY LASTING THROUGH EARLY-MID TUESDAY (DEPENDENT
UPON LOW`S EASTWARD MARCH).

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
Quoting StormTracker2K:
I saw that too TampaSpin. It looks as if another FREEZE maybe on tap for FL later next week.


Yep....this one possibly could be even colder....
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
304. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
RSMC Reunion
Tropical Cyclone Outlook
15:00 RET January 5 2012
============================

The area of convection located since yesterday over the northern channel is better defined this afternoon. Satellite imagery along with microwave imagery from TRMM at 0829 AM UTC show that a low may be located near 15.2S 42.7E about 200 km north of Juan de Nova and 350 km south southwest of the Comoros archipelago. surface low pressure is estimated at 1008 hPa. Surprisingly, 24 hrs pressure trends in nearby stations show some slow rise at present time. Within a mainly favorable environment (SST in the 28-29C, low shear under the upper level ridge, good divergence aloft with 2 potential outflow channel to the north and south and good monsoon low level inflow) and only a lack of tradewinds inflow as a negative factor, this low is expected to significantly deepen within the next three days. It should move little within the next 24 to 48 hours and then move towards the western or southwestern coast of Madagascar. Consequently, unhabitants of this area should closely follow the progress of this system.

Heavy rains risk is still present for the next 24 hours for large part of the northern channel, included
the Mozambique coasts (between 10S and 15S), the Comoros archipelago and the northwestern coast
of Madagascar.

For the next 24 hours, the potential for the development of a tropical depression is poor. Beyond, risk becomes fair to good during the week end in the Mozambique Channel.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
I saw that too TampaSpin. It looks as if another FREEZE maybe on tap for FL later next week.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
301. TampaSpin
2:13 PM GMT on January 05, 2012


Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
300. StormTracker2K
2:13 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Texas is in for a major rain event!



This Big Rain event help big time.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
299. Xyrus2000
2:12 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Quoting BahaHurican:
Thing is, at the same time as we're adding the carbon oxide type molecules to the atmosphere, we're also cutting down the trees that would scrub them out and replacing them with buildings and pavement.


It's more than that. We're digging up carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years and re-introducing that to the environment.

The ocean is the biggest carbon sink (dwarfing all others by several orders of magnitude), which is managing to absorb about 1/4 to 1/3 of the excess we're producing. Between land use changes, ocean saturation, and carbon's atmospheric half-life (150 years or so), there aren't nearly enough carbon sinks on the planet to take up the slack.

Then there are the positive feedbacks. Warming temperatures are melting permafrost and clathrates (which have remained frozen for thousands of years if not longer), which release more carbon into the atmosphere.

Hence, carbon in the atmosphere continues to climb very quickly. Within the next couple of years we will break 400 ppm. At current growth rates, will easily break 500 ppm by mid century and exceed 600 ppm by the end of the century. Those are levels that haven't been seen in millions of years.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1552
298. Neapolitan
2:06 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Quoting TampaSpin:
I posted earlier......LAST YEAR all the snow was blamed on GW.....is this years lack of snow blamed on GW also.....LOL

As several others have responded, nobody blamed "all the snow" last year on GW. If you have proof that someone did, can you please send me their contact information? I'd like to have a friendly talk with them... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
297. TampaSpin
1:58 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
I posted earlier......LAST YEAR all the snow was blamed on GW.....is this years lack of snow blamed on GW also.....LOL
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
296. ncgnto25
1:48 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
A large part of the reason there's been so little progress on curbing CO2 emissions is because of the four-pronged ideologically-based argument that a) the globe isn't warming; b) if it is, it's not our fault; c) even if it is our fault, it's not such a bad thing; and d) even if it's going to be bad, the costs of doing anything about it are just too astronomical. Until we get over that massive hump of denial, then, I believe it's critically important that people spend time explaining the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (and its evil cousin CAGW). Far from being disappointing, it's practically a moral imperative that we do so.

You just proved my point--you are so worried about 'proving' or 'disproving' the theory that you can't get back to real world solutions. 1. The American appetite for power is not going away. There is nothing short of a crisis that will change that. 2. We therefore need to address those needs right now, If we don't, something like the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 could cripple us again. Neapolitan-you have no other answer that is viable right now. When there is no other alternative, why can't you move toward what is needed now, but work on a way to implement your long term goals in sight and work toward them in a compromise in a real world environment?? You know we cannot just 'turn off' the need for oil at the present. In a perfect world, yes, of course we should. But you know it will never happen that way. You are one of the 'passionate extremes' that exist on both sides of the issue and impede any progress toward a workable solution. And, you prove that my 'theory' on Congressional motives are working splendidly. Hobson's Choice.
Member Since: October 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 50
295. SPLbeater
1:37 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Quoting percylives:


Yes, some of it is used by plants but the biological world has its own cycle of carbon use that has been overwhelmed by the gigantic amount of fossilized carbon we humans have extracted from the Earth and pumped into the atmosphere. And, of course, as BahaHurican has pointed out, we are removing long-term carbon storage units, trees, from the biosphere to make room for crops and farm animals. Think about this though. Even the trees store carbon for only a couple of thousand years at best (longest living things) before dying and releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere through respiration of some wood using organism. The carbon we are mining has been stored by Mother Earth for over 100 million years.

We can be thankful that about half of what we put in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean. However, that is causing ocean acidification, a life threatening problem for crustaceans and molluscs. You like shrimp and oysters?

As Xyrus2000 points out, it is very difficult to argue with the long-term changes already being observed. There is no guarantee these changes won't continue to occur until Earth is a very difficult place for humans to even live much less have the highly technological civilization we enjoy now.

Our best solution is leave this carbon in the ground and not put it in the atmosphere in the first place. Many people around the world are reaching this conclusion. I, personally, hope this idea comes humanity's conclusion soon and we all act on it.


i aint worried about the next thousand years. because if i follow the bible, and connect whats happening in the world now with the propheses told by Jesus bout 2,012 years ago then i will know that we most likely wont be here, have eternal life of perish:D

git ur point tho. im no envoirnment person at all, but i am against mass deforestation, cuz i like hiking!
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
294. SPLbeater
1:33 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Quoting BahaHurican:
Thing is, at the same time as we're adding the carbon oxide type molecules to the atmosphere, we're also cutting down the trees that would scrub them out and replacing them with buildings and pavement.


hmm...well as long as i dont notice anything, dont bother me
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
293. GeoffreyWPB
1:17 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Miami NWS Discussion

AFTER THE MONDAY TIME PERIOD...MODELS CONTINUE TO FLIP BACK AND
FORTH WITH THEIR SOLUTIONS. LEANED MORE TOWARDS THE ECMWF WITH THIS
UPDATE AS IT HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY MORE CONSISTENT. THE GFS OPERATIONAL
RUN IS ALSO NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GFS ENSEMBLE MEAN.
THEREFORE...THE MID WEEK PERIOD IS HIGHLY UNCERTAIN. IT APPEARS THAT
A COLD FRONT WILL MAKE ITS WAY TOWARD THE REGION DURING THIS
TIME FRAME...WITH AN INCREASE IN MOISTURE AND AT LEAST SLIGHTLY
HIGHER RAIN CHANCES. HOWEVER...IT IS TOO EARLY TO PINPOINT THE
TIMING OF ANY FRONT OR RAIN CHANCES THROUGH THE MID WEEK PERIOD. DID
INCREASE POPS TO 20 PERCENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCREASING MOISTURE.
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 11397
292. Cotillion
1:11 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
"Strong winds have been causing damage and disruption across the country, with overnight gusts of up to 111mph in the Pennines.

Thousands of homes and businesses are without power in England and Scotland." Link

So, still further damage and disruption. A few people in the last few days unfortunately lost their lives to the storms. Looks like things'll calm a bit for the rest of the week and weekend, at last.

Been surprisingly stormy this year.
Member Since: August 23, 2008 Posts: 7 Comments: 5300
291. presslord
1:09 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
A large part of the reason there's been so little progress on curbing CO2 emissions is because of the four-pronged ideologically-based argument that a) the globe isn't warming; b) if it is, it's not our fault; c) even if it is our fault, it's not such a bad thing; and d) even if it's going to be bad, the costs of doing anything about it are just too astronomical. Until we get over that massive hump of denial, then, I believe it's critically important that people spend time explaining the overwhelming evidence supporting AGW (and its evil cousin CAGW). Far from being disappointing, it's practically a moral imperative that we do so.I dunno. This sounds too much like a "Drill here, drill now" suggestion, and that's simply insane in my book. Here's an analogy that fits: when a man discovers he has cancer from smoking three packs of cigarettes a day for his entire life, he can respond in one of two ways. He can either say, "Well, then, I better increase that to four packs a day to help fulfill my enormous appetite for tobacco before I die". Or he can say, "Gee, I should cut back and/or try to quit smoking now so I can have a fighting chance to extend my life".

The latter route makes a bit more sense, if you ask me.


Scientists are often lousy communicators. And, I think, a truly lousy job has been done of explaining all this in a way that resonates. Somehow, they have to find a way to make it personal. People just can't connect with an abstraction.

A prediction of "storms later today in the Lowcountry" is mildly interesting to me. But if you tell me my house is in the path of a tornado, I'm likely to get pretty engaged.
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
290. StormTracker2K
1:01 PM GMT on January 05, 2012
Man West Virginia smoked Clemson last night!

On another note folks this is one mean squall line being depicted by the GFS pressing toward the FL Penisula Tuesday evening. You can be with this type wx pattern setting up that a significant severe wx event is likely for the SE US. Get Ready!!


Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651

Viewing: 340 - 290

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
47 °F
Overcast