Bitter cold -65°F temperatures hit Alaska

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:13 PM GMT on January 30, 2012

Share this Blog
26
+

If you're wondering who's getting all the cold air the lower 48 states is missing during this non-winter of 2012, the answer during the past week has been Alaska. Our 49th state is used to intense winter cold, but not like what they've experienced during the past week. Friday night and Saturday night, temperatures plummeted to -50°F and -51°F in Fairbanks, marking the first time since 1999 the city had seen back-to-back minus fifty nights. The low temperature so far today at the Fairbanks International Airport has been -44°F, giving the city sixteen days of -40°F temperatures so far this month. Since 1906, there have only been three years (1906, 1934, and 1971) with more 40 below days during the month of January. At forty below zero, the air is so cold that the water vapor condenses out into ice crystals, which float in the air creating a low-visibility fog. A large area of Alaska experienced bitter cold temperatures of -50 to -65°F Sunday morning:

FORT YUKON CO-OP..............65 BELOW
KANDIK RIVER CO-OP............64 BELOW
FORT YUKON AIRPORT..........62 BELOW*
BETTLES.................................60 BELOW**
HUSLIA.....................................60 BELOW
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS............60 BELOW
NORTH POLE/WOODSMOKE....60 BELOW
CHICKEN CO-OP.....................59 BELOW
GALENA AIRPORT....................58 BELOW
TANANA...................................58 BELOW
CIRCLE HOT SPRINGS..........58 BELOW
DELTA 20 SE CO-OP...............58 BELOW
COLDFOOT................................57 BELOW
EAGLE CO-OP.........................57 BELOW
KALTAG...................................56 BELOW
GOLDSTREAM CREEK..........55 BELOW
ARCTIC VILLAGE..................54 BELOW
NENANA..................................54 BELOW
SALCHA..................................54 BELOW
FAIRBANKS AIRPORT..............51 BELOW
DELTA JUNCTION/FT GREELY......50 BELOW
LAKE MINCHUMINA.................50 BELOW
MCGRATH.................................50 BELOW

*TIED DAILY RECORD LOW OF 62 BELOW SET IN 1909
**EXCEEDS DAILY RECORD LOW OF 58 BELOW SET IN 1989

The cold snap is expected to continue through mid-week, with more -65°F temperatures possible in the interior valleys north of Fairbanks. Warmer air is expected to arrive state-wide by Thursday.


Figure 1. It's a tradition! Photo taken Sunday, January 29, 2012, by one of our more adventurous wunderphotographers. Image credit: wunderphotographer TerezkaSunshine.

All-time U.S. low temperature record threatened?
The coldest temperature ever recorded in the U.S. was a -80°F (-62.2°C) reading from Prospect Creek, AK (about 180 miles north of Fairbanks) on January 23, 1971. A weather station just a few miles from Prospect Creek, the Jim River DOT site, appears to have recorded a low temperature between -78°F and -79°F Saturday morning (January 28, 2012), shortly before the weather station lost power. Keeping the power going at -70 is very tough, and it is not a surprise to see that the station lost power during this extraordinary cold snap. Power just returned this morning to the site, where the temperature was -66°F at 7 am AKST. Wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt is corresponding with Alaska's state climatologist to get more information on whether the data during the power outage will be recoverable, and how reliable these near-record low temperatures might be.

Jeff Masters

54°F Below (alaskajuliens)
This capture was shot just outside of North Pole , Alaska. It was a very cold and slow night for aurora hunting. One of these days I will learn to leave earlier in the evening.
54°F Below
SunDog (katy99780)
Looking due south down a side road, not too long after noon. Chilly night last night, down to -51.
SunDog
Dangerous Temps (alaskajuliens)
This was shot at 0345 on 29, Jan. It was painfully cold.
Dangerous Temps

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: 131 - 81

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog Index

Quoting StormGoddess:



After all of the ice melts, and the heat is still there, then all of the permafrost would be next. Complete permafrost meltdown would cause an enormous methane release into the atmosphere. Humans and all mammals on Earth would then truly be in a heap of trouble if we let it go that far. We would then enter into a cycle of becoming hotter and hotter, with air quality dropping more and more. On the heels of this, would come uninhabitable living conditions. Earth would become more like Venus than anyone would ever want to deal with. Permafrost has now begun melting in Siberia. This video shows what it looks like there as it is melting.



The permafrost is also melting in Alaska and Canada. We're loosing roads and buildings as they slide into the great goop of melted soil.

It used to be that one could count on the soil remaining frozen as hard as rock. Those days are over....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
Noooooo I meant to press the plus button but my mouse was act'in all crazy and pressed the minus.Damn.Iggy looks Icky.LOl.


i did that once before. meant to hit minus...but hit plus.


watch language plz:D

D--- is bettr
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Ok guys, I'm here now, let's get this blog back on track. :D



bout time somebody clears the place of politicians...

lol
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Ok guys, I'm here now, let's get this blog back on track. :D

Noooooo I meant to press the plus button but my mouse was act'in all crazy and pressed the minus.Damn.Iggy looks Icky.LOl.
Quoting bappit:
I'm seeing some pretty wild speculation on the blog. You'd think a tropical cyclone was having a burst of convection just south of Hispaniola (just at the same time wind shear sets in and blows the thing apart). Can you name the 2011 storm?

Edit: Hey 115, I see scientific speculation, no political discussion at the moment--though some of the political/religion posts were interesting.
I don't like politics and weather together.That's one of the reason's the Katrina aftermath esculated the way it did.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Currently Active Tropical Cyclones

Southern Hemisphere

SH092012 - Tropical Cyclone (<64 kt) IGGY
SH912012 - INVEST
SH922012 - INVEST
SH932012 - INVEST
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Woah, settle down there cowboy. There's no danger of Venus like conditions on Earth. Our atmosphere is simply not thick enough.

Methane hangs around in the atmosphere on average for around 12 years, at which point it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. The long term effects would result in a net heating, after the spike caused by the methane itself.

Several groups have run simulations using "methane bombs" that used a range of estimates for permafrost and clathrate methane concentrations. While they would definitely make the Earth more toasty, there is no danger of a runaway greenhouse effect.

To put in another way, in order for a runaway effect to occur, you'd need to displace a significant portion of our current atmospheric composition with greenhouse gases. If that were to occur, you'd be dead long before you'd feel the heating effects.


Wouldn't 80 billion tons of methane release as a greenhouse gas do the trick? If not, then that is good as the runaway greenhouse effect is what I am worried about and this has been the concern of many for a long time. Thanks for answering my question Xyrus I enjoy reading you on here. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well, something getting together here.




Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting TomTaylor:
oh god

Woah, you put an image of yourself up.

Are you Californian?
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31430
Quoting NativeSun:
How is the icecap in Antarctica doing, probably making up the difference with the ice loss in the Arctic. Wait till we get a cold PDO,AMO and solar minimun. These are the real drivers to gobal temps one way or another.


Saying that Antarctic ice is somehow balancing out Arctic ice is like saying you can balance out AIDS by giving yourself Leukemia.

You've clearly read little on the subject of climate. There are plenty of resources online to educate yourself with.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I nearly did that during spring break one year. :)
oh god
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357


Iceberg Images - Most Recent


Latest Ronne Ice Shelf Images



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok guys, I'm here now, let's get this blog back on track. :D

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31430
Quoting wxmod:
With present trends continuing in a straight line, how long do statistics show until life on earth as we know it will be impossible? PH, oxygen, temp, etc. Anyone calculated that. (not belief, just data)

There are still too many unknowns to answer that question.
We know about the CO2 rise and the apparent Temp rise but the problems that will be caused by permafrost melt and possible increased natural events such as volcanic activity are not yet well enough cataloged.
The possibility of the Earth becoming too hostile for life is probably remote but certain areas of will almost inevitably become very hostile.
Sorry to be a bit vague!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm seeing some pretty wild speculation on the blog. You'd think a tropical cyclone was having a burst of convection just south of Hispaniola (just at the same time wind shear sets in and blows the thing apart). Can you name the 2011 storm?

Edit: Hey 115, I see scientific speculation, no political discussion at the moment--though some of the political/religion posts were interesting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
This blog is sad right now.It's turned into a stupid political blog.I'm out.


probably the best option right now....seems some forget this aint MSNBC er ABC n all that.

This is Dr. Jeff Masters Weather Blog.
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
115. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
At 8:00 AM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category One (984 hPa) located at 21.8S 109.4E or 490 km west of Exmouth and 555 km northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 45 knots with gusts of 65 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south southwest at 8 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T3.0/3.0/S0.0/24 HRS

Gale Force Winds
--------------------
90 NM from the center

Forecast and Intensity
======================

12 HRS: 23.4S 108.5E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 25.6S 107.7E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 28.2S 109.5E - 30 knots (TROPICAL LOW)
72 HRS: 27.3S 110.2E - 25 knots (TROPICAL LOW)

Additional Information
=======================

Deep convection has reduced over night and this morning's visible imagery shows limited deep convection near the center despite low shear. Organization is good but the convective signature relatively weak.

Position determined from microwave, animated IR and latest VIS imagery. Excellent microwave fix at 2257Z gives high confidence in position.Curved band wrap of 0.6 to 0.7 consistently obtained over IR imagery 1730-2230Z. MET is 2.0 based on a weakening trend and PAT = 2.5. FT is set at 3.0 and as FT has been lower than CI for over 6 hours CI is now dropped to 3.0. ADT is running at around 2.6-2.8. Latest [17Z] SATCON is 51 knots 1-min mean, with AMSU dominating that estimate at 58 knots 1-min mean. FOV for AMSU was 28 [poor] and a bias correction was applied.

Final intensity estimate set to 45 knots 10-min mean.

Good agreement between the models on the track with majority of models taking the remnant system toward the west coast from Wednesday. Minority of models have the system weakening sufficiently to be steered off to the west. With a passing mid-latitude trough to the south on Wednesday the steering is toward the east at all levels except 850hPa. There is some discrepancy in the SST analyses available from different sources but by Wednesday the sea surface temperatures should also be forcing a strong weakening trend.

The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 6:30 AM UTC..
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 50 Comments: 44715
Quoting NativeSun:
How is the icecap in Antarctica doing, probably making up the difference with the ice loss in the Arctic. Wait till we get a cold PDO,AMO and solar minimun. These are the real drivers to gobal temps one way or another.
There's really no such thing as "making up the difference" where the subject of polar ice is concerned, of course; that's a little like saying having your left leg accidentally amputated makes up the difference for your right leg suddenly sprouting a 20-pound tumor. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormGoddess:



After all of the ice melts, and the heat is still there, then all of the permafrost would be next. Complete permafrost meltdown would cause an enormous methane release into the atmosphere. Humans and all mammals on Earth would then truly be in a heap of trouble if we let it go that far. We would then enter into a cycle of becoming hotter and hotter, with air quality dropping more and more. On the heels of this, would come uninhabitable living conditions. Earth would become more like Venus than anyone would ever want to deal with. Permafrost has now begun melting in Siberia. This video shows what it looks like there as it is melting.



Woah, settle down there cowboy. There's no danger of Venus like conditions on Earth. Our atmosphere is simply not thick enough.

Methane hangs around in the atmosphere on average for around 12 years, at which point it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. The long term effects would result in a net heating, after the spike caused by the methane itself.

Several groups have run simulations using "methane bombs" that used a range of estimates for permafrost and clathrate methane concentrations. While they would definitely make the Earth more toasty, there is no danger of a runaway greenhouse effect.

To put in another way, in order for a runaway effect to occur, you'd need to displace a significant portion of our current atmospheric composition with greenhouse gases. If that were to occur, you'd be dead long before you'd feel the heating effects.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Ice Concentration Analysis Composites

ICA Composite (L)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
111. wxmod
With present trends continuing in a straight line, how long do statistics show until life on earth as we know it will be impossible? PH, oxygen, temp, etc. Anyone calculated that. (not belief, just data)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
The reason why I asked is I was reading about the Thermohaline circulation or the Oceanic Conveyor Belt. It said that a fresh water blockage could cause a rapid change in the currents direction, altering the Gulf streams path, and cause a rather rapid change with the Earths climate. I also noticed that if The Greenland Ice Sheet melts significantly, the high pressure area that blocks the jet and causes the storm track to dive south into the U.S. may not be nearly as strong as it was.

Some very interesting comments on here tonight!
I think that if the Polar ice cap effectively completely melts then there is also a good possibility that the Thermohaline will then move further north before it cools and descends.
This will significantly warm the Northern Atlantic and Greenland. The whole thing could turn into a roller coaster of heat heading up towards the North Pole.Added to this the unknown events of Polar storms over open water.
Just because there is a lot of ice on Greenland doesn't mean its stable there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How is the icecap in Antarctica doing, probably making up the difference with the ice loss in the Arctic. Wait till we get a cold PDO,AMO and solar minimun. These are the real drivers to gobal temps one way or another.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:



BINGO! We have a winner.

Only a few years back Arctic scientists were predicting that we would see the Arctic seas ice free in about 100 years. If we have more 'business as usual', as long as some unforeseen force doesn't come into play we could see ice free months in the next five years.

What will that mean for the major topic on this blog - tropical weather/storms? If the ice is largely gone by late summer where is all that extra heat going to go? Will it greatly increase ocean/Gulf temperatures and greatly strengthen our hurricanes?

Will the ocean current patterns change bringing more strong storms onto land or carry them out to sea and off to Europe?

What happens when a hurricane hits a possibly much hotter and much dryer Texas/Florida? Will it burn itself out within a few miles of the coast or will it carry much further inland?

Will we see an increase in the number and strength of tornadoes, along with a lengthening season or will changes in the jet stream be a tornado killer? Will tornado alley move north to Minnesota and Canada?

We're in the process of melting away a large amount of accumulated ice that we've laid down over many years. When that is gone what strange and wondrous things will be in store for us?



After all of the ice melts, and the heat is still there, then all of the permafrost would be next. Complete permafrost meltdown would cause an enormous methane release into the atmosphere. Humans and all mammals on Earth would then truly be in a heap of trouble if we let it go that far. We would then enter into a cycle of becoming hotter and hotter, with air quality dropping more and more. On the heels of this, would come uninhabitable living conditions. Earth would become more like Venus than anyone would ever want to deal with. Permafrost has now begun melting in Siberia. This video shows what it looks like there as it is melting.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Fathead:
Can someone post a picture of the Arctic cap? I'd be curious to see it now. The ice was impressive in December. I bet most of it is frozen now. Polar bears were due for a good year. Glad they got it.


The extent is about 250,000km below the previous record for this time of year.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Fathead:
Can someone post a picture of the Arctic cap? I'd be curious to see it now. The ice was impressive in December. I bet most of it is frozen now. Polar bears were due for a good year. Glad they got it.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Can someone post a picture of the Arctic cap? I'd be curious to see it now. The ice was impressive in December. I bet most of it is frozen now. Polar bears were due for a good year. Glad they got it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Genex:
I am surprised to read about the -50 F temps in Alaska. I am aware of the reduction in Artic sea ice and this looks like it can help against that downward trend.
The extreme cold has been mostly confined to portions of land that are deeply landlocked--central Alaska, central Canada, and, of course, central Siberia--and Arctic Sea ice has been responding about as expected.

In fact, at a time of the year that ice is usually still gaining in area (although more slowly than previous), it's actually been going against the norm. Over the past three weeks, just 225,000 km2 of ice area has been added. By comparison, last year during that same span, 852,000 km2 was added, and 2007--the year of the previous record--saw 829,300 km2. It's always possible for a large spike in growth to make up for the difference, though some areas that usually grow at this time of year--outside the Bering Strait and hear Baffin Bay--have already frozen solid, while some other areas--the Barents and Kara seas--still have extant warm water, and strong winds from the Atlantic will keep them that way for at least another week.

At any rate, the maxiumum will be reached anywhere from the last week in February to the second week in March. Then the race is on to see how far much ice will disappear by the second or so week of September.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxmod:
RTSplayer: "I don't expect any globally significant changes in ocean currents in my lifetime, because the scale of the motion is planetary and actually requires a significant change in angular momentum, or rather some balancing change to cancel it out."

The mid level winds are already slowing down where it is most polluted ei India. It is possible that arctic ice melt has already left a bubble of warmer water that will surge south in your lifetime. The weight of melted icecaps have to have a stabilizing effect on the ocean currents that will soon be removed. Earthquakes will probably increase as ocean levels rise and coastal ground becomes saturated. The lubricant value of the extra water pressure will probably cause continental plates to move faster. We are in uncharted territory and absolutely anything is possible.


We're also shifting the way the planet is 'loaded'. We're decreasing the load on Greenland and the high mountains where lots of glaciers used to live. We're increasing the load on the ocean floor as sea levels rise.

Almost certainly we're going to see more rapid plate movement which means more earthquakes/tsunamis. Could even cause more volcanic activity as we move stuff around on a grand scale.

We just don't have a good idea what we're bringing to ourselves. Take a look at the article I linked above on the Little Ice Age and its likely cause - a relatively small number of equatorial volcanoes.

We could stimulate the Ring of Fire and global warming could plunge us back into an mini-ice age.

We're poking a sleeping tiger with a stick. There is no need to keep on doing what we're doing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We are in uncharted territory and absolutely anything is possible.


Indeed, the Trojan Horse ruse begin's today, as predicted.

UFO Found In Baltic Sea? (VIDEO)CNN


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Genex:
I am surprised to read about the -50 F temps in Alaska. I am aware of the reduction in Artic sea ice and this looks like it can help against that downward trend.

The mild winters in the lower 48 I can only guess can positively impact our economy with less energy spent on heating and snow removal. I don't know where this is going,but for now seems like a nice break.


There's not a lot of time left in the ice-forming season. The Sun has already returned to the most southern parts of the region.

At this point it's still possible that we set a new "low maximum". It's extremely unlikely that there will be any significant gain in ice over the normal amount added during the last three or so months of the freeze season. As of a few days ago we had record low freezing levels so we're already in the 'basement'....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RTSplayer: "I don't expect any globally significant changes in ocean currents in my lifetime, because the scale of the motion is planetary and actually requires a significant change in angular momentum, or rather some balancing change to cancel it out."

The mid level winds are already slowing down where it is most polluted ei India. It is possible that arctic ice melt has already left a bubble of warmer water that will surge south in your lifetime. The weight of melted icecaps have to have a stabilizing effect on the ocean currents that will soon be removed. Earthquakes will probably increase as ocean levels rise and coastal ground becomes saturated. The lubricant value of the extra water pressure will probably cause continental plates to move faster. We are in uncharted territory and absolutely anything is possible.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looking forward to the July Sneaux as to keep my Cooling bill down as well.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am surprised to read about the -50 F temps in Alaska. I am aware of the reduction in Artic sea ice and this looks like it can help against that downward trend.

The mild winters in the lower 48 I can only guess can positively impact our economy with less energy spent on heating and snow removal. I don't know where this is going,but for now seems like a nice break.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here's my view as far as the atlantic goes for Tropical Cyclones in 2100.

Meteorologist use the analogy of the "Nature has fixed dice now due to global warming".

I'll use that analogy.

Let's say "Nature" normally rolls 2d6 in any given location, without AGW effects.

Right now, the Gulf and Carribean are "Fixed" and seem to be rolling 3d6, keeping the best 2d6, and adding 1 to the total.

The atlantic coast (carolinas to new england, etc,) is maybe rolling 3d6 and keeping the best 2d6.

That would simulate the higher frequency of storms, and the perhaps above average number of strong storms.

In 2100, the Gulf would be 3d6, keep the best 2d6, and add 2. Not that big a difference, but statistically significant.

But the atlantic coast will feel future warming more than the Gulf and Caribbean. In 2100, the Atlantic coast might be akin to rolling 4d6, keep the best 2d6, and add 2 to the total.

We're talking just flat out rigged.


to see how this works, just pick a satellite map during "Typical" hurricane season, and show the SST lines. Don't use the worst ones, because that's a-typical.

Now find the 22C line and change it to 26C.

find the 26C line and change it to maybe 29C

find the 30C line and change it to maybe 31C or 32C.

find any stray 31C or 32C lines and add 1C.


Now compare that to 2004, 2005, and 2008.


That scenario is realistic within the IPCC parameters.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From a report I just read - about the "Little Ice Age"...



The team used the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model to test the effects of volcanic cooling on Arctic sea ice extent and mass. The model, which simulated various sea ice conditions from about A.D. 1150-1700, showed several large, closely spaced eruptions could have cooled the Northern Hemisphere enough to trigger Arctic sea ice growth.

The models showed sustained cooling from volcanoes would have sent some of the expanding Arctic sea ice down along the eastern coast of Greenland until it eventually melted in the North Atlantic. Since sea ice contains almost no salt, when it melted the surface water became less dense, preventing it from mixing with deeper North Atlantic water. This weakened heat transport back to the Arctic and creating a self-sustaining feedback system on the sea ice long after the effects of the volcanic aerosols subsided, he said.

"Our simulations showed that the volcanic eruptions may have had a profound cooling effect,%u201D says NCAR scientist Bette Otto-Bliesner, a co-author of the study. %u201CThe eruptions could have triggered a chain reaction, affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries."



http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/01/30/ new-cu-led-study-may-answer-long-standing-question s-about-enigmatic-little

I don't know if it's safe to extrapolate from that paper, but look at the 'melted sea ice slowing down heat transport' part. We're melting both the sea and land ice in the Arctic at the moment. And the rate of melting seems to be accelerating.

Might this mean that Western Europe is going to suffer from colder temperatures? Might it mean that since the flow could slow that tropical waters are going to get hotter faster?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
celsium reported in calif dome radiation over eastern australia fuchsima disaster is not getting better?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
The reason why I asked is I was reading about the Thermohaline circulation or the Oceanic Conveyor Belt. It said that a fresh water blockage could cause a rapid change in the currents direction, altering the Gulf streams path, and cause a rather rapid change with the Earths climate. I also noticed that if The Greenland Ice Sheet melts significantly, the high pressure area that blocks the jet and causes the storm track to dive south into the U.S. may not be nearly as strong as it was.


a.k.a Younger Dryas.
Link


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This blog is sad right now.It's turned into a stupid political blog.I'm out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


There's clearly reasonable limits on what an ocean current can and cannot do, simply because of the shape of the basins.

I don't expect any globally significant changes in ocean currents in my lifetime, because the scale of the motion is planetary and actually requires a significant change in angular momentum, or rather some balancing change to cancel it out.

Even melting an ice cap probably would not make some huge "everything going the wrong way" change in ocean currents, because the ice caps are only like a percent of the hydrosphere.
The reason why I asked is I was reading about the Thermohaline circulation or the Oceanic Conveyor Belt. It said that a fresh water blockage could cause a rapid change in the currents direction, altering the Gulf streams path, and cause a rather rapid change with the Earths climate. I also noticed that if The Greenland Ice Sheet melts significantly, the high pressure area that blocks the jet and causes the storm track to dive south into the U.S. may not be nearly as strong as it was.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20489
The GFS keeps flip flopping with the next system..
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20489
Quoting hydrus:
Very cool post ( no pun ). I was wondering tho, if the ocean currents change ( which they are at a seemingly increasing rate, the Gulf Stream is on massive crack ) how will the warming that you speak of and the current shifts interact, and what effect will it have on tropical cyclones and mid-latitude storms..are we all gonna die.?


There's clearly reasonable limits on what an ocean current can and cannot do, simply because of the shape of the basins.

I don't expect any globally significant changes in ocean currents in my lifetime, because the scale of the motion is planetary and actually requires a significant change in angular momentum, or rather some balancing change to cancel it out.

Even melting an ice cap probably would not make some huge "everything going the wrong way" change in ocean currents, because the ice caps are only like a percent of the hydrosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


But what happens if the far north warms significantly more/faster in the summer months and reduces the air mass temperature differences between the (only somewhat warmer) equatorial areas and the now much warmer northern air mass? This could cut storm strength.

No predictions on my part, I don't have the climatic background to make any. But I do fear that we are entering an unknown phase in the history of the Earth. It's hard to say what will happen, just look at how fast Arctic sea ice is disappearing and how essentially no one saw that coming.


Hey, I didn't claim to be a climatologist, just personal theory, like I said.

There are several issues which are definitly going to have at least a slight change on steering behavior for sure.

Since Greenland is an assymetric ice cap, as it melts, conservation of angular momentum will require the Earth's spin to slow down, and it's axis to tilt by a very, very small amount as well(measured in centimeters to maybe a meter, I think.)

The maximum range of motion from high tide to low tide may change drastically in some locations.

Then there's your jet streams, high pressure, and low pressure systems and figuring out how they will even be moving.


Who knows?

Maybe in the worst case, the whole steering system goes chaotic and produces vertical or retrograde storm tracks like we've never seen, or rarely seen? i.e. forms in the northeast and moves southwest and such...


I think conservation laws will require boundaries to move around quite a bit, but it shouldn't become completely unpredictable.

Like it might be different than what we have now, but people will eventually figure out how to model it anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
77:

I have a few theories about that.

Mid lattitudes should experience more warming than low lattitudes, so for example the region between 40N and 55N should warm much faster than say 25N to 35N.

the results of this, I believe, is the hurricanes will be able to form much farther north, and category 1 and 2 storms will also be able to hit Europe moving in from the west across the northern edge of the Atlantic, around the high pressure systems there.

The area between 30N and 30S represents half the globe, but should have the least gain in temperature.

The Gulf of Mexico might be 1C or 2C warmer by 2100, since it is a heat trap anyway, it might be more than that on the warmest years.

The 40N to 55N regions of the oceans might be as much as 5C or 6C warmer, and grade that down to +1C or +2C at 30N, and maybe +0.5C at the equator. This will allow for very strong, very long-lived hurricanes in places never seen. The east coast of the U.S. would see stronger hurricanes more often. Europe might also get hit by a few category 1 or 2 storms per year, etc.

In terms of TCHP, if you heat the average temperature of a collumn of water by 1C to a depth of 100M, you increase TCHP by 42kj/cm^2. That's a LOT.

This means very strong, very long-lived storms, over a wider area in the basin, and over a longer time period during the year.
Very cool post ( no pun ). I was wondering tho, if the ocean currents change ( which they are at a seemingly increasing rate, the Gulf Stream is on massive crack ) how will the warming that you speak of and the current shifts interact, and what effect will it have on tropical cyclones and mid-latitude storms..are we all gonna die.?
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20489
Im in, and...

wow. thought somebody would be talkin about how much Iggy is struggling...but there seems to be too much politic talk going on.

...and im out.

Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4481
Quoting RTSplayer:
77:

I have a few theories about that.

Mid lattitudes should experience more warming than low lattitudes, so for example the region between 40N and 55N should warm much faster than say 25N to 35N.

the results of this, I believe, is the hurricanes will be able to form much farther north, and category 1 and 2 storms will also be able to hit Europe moving in from the west across the northern edge of the Atlantic, around the high pressure systems there.

The area between 30N and 30S represents half the globe, but should have the least gain in temperature.

The Gulf of Mexico might be 1C or 2C warmer by 2100, since it is a heat trap anyway, it might be more than that on the warmest years.

The 40N to 55N regions of the oceans might be as much as 5C or 6C warmer, and grade that down to +1C or +2C at 30N, and maybe +0.5C at the equator. This will allow for very strong, very long-lived hurricanes in places never seen. The east coast of the U.S. would see stronger hurricanes more often. Europe might also get hit by a few category 1 or 2 storms per year, etc.

In terms of TCHP, if you heat the average temperature of a collumn of water by 1C to a depth of 100M, you increase TCHP by 42kj/cm^2. That's a LOT.

This means very strong, very long-lived storms, over a wider area in the basin, and over a longer time period during the year.


But what happens if the far north warms significantly more/faster in the summer months and reduces the air mass temperature differences between the (only somewhat warmer) equatorial areas and the now much warmer northern air mass? This could cut storm strength.

No predictions on my part, I don't have the climatic background to make any. But I do fear that we are entering an unknown phase in the history of the Earth. It's hard to say what will happen, just look at how fast Arctic sea ice is disappearing and how essentially no one saw that coming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Examples of true fascists are:

The Catholic Popes, especially during the middle ages and inquisition.

Kim Jong Il

Typically stay in power by promoting your own relatives to military ranking officers, or placing them over key infrastructure, making any organized rebellion very difficult.

Any Islamic leader, especially those who believe in Shariah law.

Most Israeli priests, kings, and prophets in the Bible. Fact is, if these people were alive today, we'd arrest the majority of them and prosecute them for war crimes and other crimes against humanity, especially David, Josiah, Moses, Samuel, and Joshua.

I don't know, try to pick some more that people don't ordinarily think about.



I think you confuse Shariah law with the enforcement of Shariah law by some overly authoritarian leaders. Shariah law is the same as Christian law, Judaic law or any other legal system based on religious beliefs.

And just like other religious law systems there are lots of variations. When I was growing up the minister at the church across the street from ours told his congregations that all of us on my side of the street were going to Hell because we sprinkled rather than dunked.


Living under a benevolent Shariah law government would certainly be more enjoyable than living under a despotic Christian law government. Reflect on your European history - especially the years of the Inquisition. Or more recently our own years of church led witch hunts....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For those that were mislead by the Daily Mail opinion piece, the UK Met Office has posted on their official blog about it. It seems as if their information was misquoted and twisted, as suggested by earlier posts on the previous thread.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met -office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Once again, it's worth a reminder that your best chance of being accurate is in discriminating trustworthy sources, being skeptical of "ground-breaking" claims, and inquiring with the original source when possible.

Unfortunately, by now the misinformation in the opinion piece has traveled around the world and back via the echo chamber before reality even got its shoes on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


I didn't realize if you weren't pro AGW then you aren't a scientist.


I seriously doubt many are "pro anthropogenic climate change." Even those that deliberately try to cloud the science and mislead the public probably not not "pro AGW," as you put it.

Quoting WxGeekVA:
I know recently I have been posting in doubt of AGW, but after doing some research of my own and looking at the possible hypothesises, it is the most logical explanation for the recent extreme weather and obvious climate changes in the Arctic. It also explains the fact of recent record high temperatures outnumbering record lows by almost 20-1 this winter. There does need to be more observations and research to confirm it, but I do think that something is going on here, and it is being caused indirectly or directly by mankind.

Like, I literally spent all morning and afternoon reading scientific literature to make a conclusion of my own.


It's going to take more than a morning to catch up... it's a hefty topic requiring experts from multiple disciplines. That's why we have the IPCC assessment reports to summarize the data, physical basis, uncertainties, and future projections. But even then, the reports are so long that they create a summary of the summary, essentially.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
77:

I have a few theories about that.

Mid lattitudes should experience more warming than low lattitudes, so for example the region between 40N and 55N should warm much faster than say 25N to 35N.

the results of this, I believe, is the hurricanes will be able to form much farther north, and category 1 and 2 storms will also be able to hit Europe moving in from the west across the northern edge of the Atlantic, around the high pressure systems there.

The area between 30N and 30S represents half the globe, but should have the least gain in temperature.

The Gulf of Mexico might be 1C or 2C warmer by 2100, since it is a heat trap anyway, it might be more than that on the warmest years.

The 40N to 55N regions of the oceans might be as much as 5C or 6C warmer, and grade that down to +1C or +2C at 30N, and maybe +0.5C at the equator. This will allow for very strong, very long-lived hurricanes in places never seen. The east coast of the U.S. would see stronger hurricanes more often. Europe might also get hit by a few category 1 or 2 storms per year, etc.

In terms of TCHP, if you heat the average temperature of a collumn of water by 1C to a depth of 100M, you increase TCHP by 42kj/cm^2. That's a LOT.

This means very strong, very long-lived storms, over a wider area in the basin, and over a longer time period during the year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 131 - 81

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7Blog 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
73 °F
Overcast