Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:40 PM GMT on April 02, 2012

Share this Blog
39
+

Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled "Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall", was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. "The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice in September 2007 reached its lowest extent on record, approximately 40% lower than when satellite records began in 1979. Sea ice loss in 2011 was virtually tied with the ice loss in 2007, despite weather conditions that were not as unusual in the Arctic. Image credit: University of Illinois Cryosphere Today.


Figure 2. The extent of Arctic sea ice loss in the summer July - August - September period in 2007 was about 1.4 million square miles (3.6 million square kilometers) greater than in 1980, according to the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. For comparison, the lost ice coverage (orange colors) was equal to an area about 44% of the size of the contiguous U.S., or 71% of the non-Russian portion of Europe.

Summertime Arctic sea ice loss: 40% since 1980
The Arctic has seen a stunning amount of sea ice loss in recent years, due to melting and unfavorable winds that have pushed large amounts of ice out of the region. Forty percent of the sea ice was missing in September 2007, compared to September of 1980. This is an area equivalent to about 44% of the contiguous U.S., or 71% of the non-Russian portion of Europe. Such a large area of open water is bound to cause significant impacts on weather patterns, due to the huge amount of heat and moisture that escapes from the exposed ocean into the atmosphere over a multi-month period following the summer melt. The Georgia Tech study found that Arctic sea ice loss had caused a 20 - 60% weakening of the west-to-east belt of winds circling the pole in recent years, producing broader meanders in the jet stream that allowed it to get "stuck" in place 20 - 60% more often. When the jet stream gets stuck in place for a long period of time, we say a "blocking pattern" has set up. Since the jet stream marks the boundary between cold, Arctic air to the north, and warmer subtropical air to the south, areas on both sides of the jet are subjected to extended periods of unusually warm or cold weather during a blocking episode. Such a blocking pattern began on January 26, 2012 and lasted until February 11, bringing and exceptionally cold and snowy conditions to much of Europe, which lay on the cold side of an elongated loop of the jet stream that got stuck in place. Conversely, most of North America and northern Siberia saw unusually warm temperatures during this period, since they were on the warm side of the jet stream. Lead author Jiping Liu, a senior research scientist in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, added, "We think the recent snowy winters could be caused by the retreating Arctic ice altering atmospheric circulation patterns by weakening westerly winds, increasing the amplitude of the jet stream and increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere. These pattern changes enhance blocking patterns that favor more frequent movement of cold air masses to middle and lower latitudes, leading to increased heavy snowfall in Europe and the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States." The paper concludes: "if Arctic sea ice continues as anticipated by climate modeling results, we speculate that episodes of the aforementioned circulation change will become more frequent, along with more persistent snowstorms over northern continents during winter."


Figure 3. Waiting for the warm-up after a rare snowfall in Italy during the February, 2012 European cold blast. Image credit: wunderphotographer cathykiro.

Two other studies link Arctic sea ice loss to atmospheric circulation changes
"The question is not whether sea ice loss is affecting the large-scale atmospheric circulation...it's how can it not?" That was the take-home message from Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, in her talk "Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-latitudes, presented at December's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Dr. Francis presented new research that has just been published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, which shows that Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions. Dr. Francis describes her work in a March 5, 2012 post on the Yale environment360 web site.

"Even if the current weather situation may seem to speak against it, the probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer." That was the opening sentence of a January 26, 2012 press release by a group of European scientists, led by Ralf Jaiser of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. The words proved prescient, because that day marked the beginning of a brutal two-week cold air outbreak over Central and Eastern Europe that killed 823 people and did over $660 million in damage, according to preliminary estimates by insurance broker Aon Benfield. Dr. Jaiser's team, using modeling studies, showed that Arctic sea ice loss weakens upper-level winds over the Arctic in winter, allowing an increased chance of cold air surges over Europe.


Figure 4. Digging out in Maryland after "Snowmageddon" on February 4, 2010. Image credit: wunderphotographer chills.

Why was the winter of 2011 - 2012 so warm in the U.S.?
The winter of 2011 - 2012 in North America was unusually warm--the fourth warmest on record. The cold air spilling out of the Arctic during the winter was confined to Europe, unlike that previous two winters, which were unusually cold and snowy in the Eastern U.S. Obviously, loss of Arctic sea ice is not having the same impact each winter; such factors as El Niño/La Niña, the phase of the 11-year sunspot cycle, and the amount of snow cover in Siberia also have strong influences on the winter weather pattern that sets up. Cold air is less likely to spill out of the Arctic during a solar maximum, as we are now headed towards, so this factor may tend to reduce the odds of getting big cold blasts in the U.S. during the coming two winters. However, cold air may be more likely to spill out of the Arctic in winter due to the decades-long pattern of warming and cooling of Atlantic Ocean waters known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). A 2012 study by NASA scientists found that the warm phase of the AMO (like we have been in since 1995) causes more instances of atmospheric blocking, where the jet stream gets "stuck" in place, leading to long periods of extreme weather. It will be interesting to see how all these factors play out in the coming years. If these three newly-published studies are correct, the U.S. should see more winters like 2010 - 2011 and 2009 - 2010 in coming decades, as Arctic sea ice continues to melt and affect global atmospheric circulation patterns more strongly.

References
Francis, J.A., and S.J. Vavrus (2012), "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes," Geophysical Research Letters, 21 February, 2012.

Jaiser, R., K. Dethloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, J. Cohen (2012), Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation, Tellus A 2012, 64, 11595, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595

Liu et al. (2012), "Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall", Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Published online before print February 27, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114910109

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: 428 - 378

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

428. weatherh98
12:30 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:
So, I suppose anyone in the Louisiana area has heard of the latest government rape of the people?

In Walker, they will now be mandating people buy flood insurance, which according to the News yesterday, the price is going to start anywhere from 1100 to 4000 per year.

Now this is just how our government works.

Correct thing to have done 30 years ago:

Ban all new construction in flood zones 30 years ago.

or

Simply pass a "build at your own risk law".

What they did:

Nothing.


Now this created a problem in that FEMA and other government disaster relief programs are constantly out of money.

So now, instead of solving the problem, what they have done is pass an insurance law which is essentially a "poor tax".

Wealthy people can easily afford to move someplace else, where they won't have to pay the flood insurance, and ultimately save money over the long term. Poor and average people cannot, because of initial costs of land values, etc, so they get screwed and will have to pay what looks to be about 10% of their income just in flood insurance.



So lets' recap what the government did.

1, Create a problem:

Allow people to build houses and apartments in a flood zone.

2, Wait many years, then point out the problem THEY created:

"Well, the government can't pay for disaster relief all the time..."

3, Create a "Solution" to the problem they created, which is no better than the original problem:

i.e. "Tax" all the people who moved into the flood zones, which the government allowed to happen.

BTW, if this is legal under the U.S. and state constitutions, then there's no good reason "Obama care" wouldn't be legal.

Force you to buy flood insurance, force you to buy public medical insurance, what's the difference?


Even as high a price as 1000 to 4000 per year is for premiums, it will not solve the FEMA crisis because it would take 25 to 100 years for those premiums to pay for the house or apartment, and in all likelihood, a 30 to 50 year flood in some of these locations is all that will be needed to cause at least some significant damage, of which we are now over-due...
that's unconstitutional, you know, this is pretty low because I'm not sure how much walker floods, I know it's on my way to baton rouge. I don't like tht one bit, personally, the still uninhabited parts of Louisiana near the river need to have yearly in put of river water, basically, try to recreate what we have stopped.

I find it interesting that in 03 the opened a part of the levee in plaquemines parish and it never made more land until last years major spring flooding, they had a HUGE area of new land, this is a pretty effective way to do it and I think that's another way to build more marsh.
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
427. StormTracker2K
12:29 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:
So, I suppose anyone in the Louisiana area has heard of the latest government rape of the people?

In Walker, they will now be mandating people buy flood insurance, which according to the News yesterday, the price is going to start anywhere from 1100 to 4000 per year.

Now this is just how our government works.

Correct thing to have done 30 years ago:

Ban all new construction in flood zones 30 years ago.

or

Simply pass a "build at your own risk law".

What they did:

Nothing.


Now this created a problem in that FEMA and other government disaster relief programs are constantly out of money.

So now, instead of solving the problem, what they have done is pass an insurance law which is essentially a "poor tax".

Wealthy people can easily afford to move someplace else, where they won't have to pay the flood insurance, and ultimately save money over the long term. Poor and average people cannot, because of initial costs of land values, etc, so they get screwed and will have to pay what looks to be about 10% of their income just in flood insurance.



So lets' recap what the government did.

1, Create a problem:

Allow people to build houses and apartments in a flood zone.

2, Wait many years, then point out the problem THEY created:

"Well, the government can't pay for disaster relief all the time..."

3, Create a "Solution" to the problem they created, which is no better than the original problem:

i.e. "Tax" all the people who moved into the flood zones, which the government allowed to happen.

BTW, if this is legal under the U.S. and state constitutions, then there's no good reason "Obama care" wouldn't be legal.

Force you to buy flood insurance, force you to buy public medical insurance, what's the difference?


Even as high a price as 1000 to 4000 per year is for premiums, it will not solve the FEMA crisis because it would take 25 to 100 years for those premiums to pay for the house or apartment, and in all likelihood, a 30 to 50 year flood in some of these locations is all that will be needed to cause at least some significant damage, of which we are now over-due...


If Obama Care goes into effect the Retired Military personal are not going to be happy as Tri Care is about the best insurance out there. Force me to abandon my Tri Care for S*** insurance I don't think so buddy! Madating insurance at an overrated price is just another way for the government to make money so that we can pay for all of these bail outs to all of these large companys that Obama gave money to that went under.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
426. RTSplayer
12:29 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
And then of course, someone will say something smart remark like, "owning a home is a priviledge".

Oh really?

Perhaps legally, but it's clear from the Declaration of Independence that everyone has a right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".

Now how can one have liberty or pursuit of happiness in a civilization where more and more people can't even afford to own their own home? They are always a wage slave to someone else: the government, the bank, the landlord, somebody.


The 14th amendment forbids involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime (I.e. making prisoners do grounds keeping, etc, is legal.)

How much of a lower or middle class person's income must be consumed by mandatory taxes, fees, insurances, permits, etc, before they are considered an "Involuntary Servant"?

to a family that makes 100k or more, then 1 to 4k of a mandatory insurance cost probably doesn't matter much.

to a family that makes near or below mean income, which is a huge portion of people in the area being affected by this, because mean income in Louisiana is in most sectors 5k to 10k below the national mean, then its devastating. It's a 10% to maybe 15% wage garnishment for mean income earners.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
425. Xyrus2000
12:24 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting CanesfanatUT:


That is the only Arctic sea ice data I have bookmarked. Do you have a link to a sea ice volume graph?

I look at this about every other week, so would certainly like to expand my database.


Link
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
424. ncstorm
12:22 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Dr. Forbes increased some of his numbers slightly and increased areas for potential trouble today

(Torcon Index)

Tuesday April 3
IL south - 2
KS south-central - 3
KY west - 2
OK central - 3
TN west, middle - 2
TX central - 3
Other areas - less than 2

Wednesday April 4
AL northwest - 3
AL southwest - 2
AR east - 4
LA north - 3
LA south - 3
MS northwest - 4
MS central, northeast - 3
MS south - 2
NC east - 2
SC east - 2
TN west - 4
Other areas - less than 2
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14602
423. RTSplayer
12:21 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
So, I suppose anyone in the Louisiana area has heard of the latest government rape of the people?

In Walker, they will now be mandating people buy flood insurance, which according to the News yesterday, the price is going to start anywhere from 1100 to 4000 per year.

Now this is just how our government works.

Correct thing to have done 30 years ago:

Ban all new construction in flood zones 30 years ago.

or

Simply pass a "build at your own risk law".

What they did:

Nothing.


Now this created a problem in that FEMA and other government disaster relief programs are constantly out of money.

So now, instead of solving the problem, what they have done is pass an insurance law which is essentially a "poor tax".

Wealthy people can easily afford to move someplace else, where they won't have to pay the flood insurance, and ultimately save money over the long term. Poor and average people cannot, because of initial costs of land values, etc, so they get screwed and will have to pay what looks to be about 10% of their income just in flood insurance.



So lets' recap what the government did.

1, Create a problem:

Allow people to build houses and apartments in a flood zone.

2, Wait many years, then point out the problem THEY created:

"Well, the government can't pay for disaster relief all the time..."

3, Create a "Solution" to the problem they created, which is no better than the original problem:

i.e. "Tax" all the people who moved into the flood zones, which the government allowed to happen.

BTW, if this is legal under the U.S. and state constitutions, then there's no good reason "Obama care" wouldn't be legal.

Force you to buy flood insurance, force you to buy public medical insurance, what's the difference?


Even as high a price as 1000 to 4000 per year is for premiums, it will not solve the FEMA crisis because it would take 25 to 100 years for those premiums to pay for the house or apartment, and in all likelihood, a 30 to 50 year flood in some of these locations is all that will be needed to cause at least some significant damage, of which we are now over-due...
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
422. weatherh98
12:20 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting StormTracker2K:


LOL! I know the headaches have been insane this year.


And the throats have been burned red like they ate a really spicy taco hahaha
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
421. StormTracker2K
12:19 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:


Same in Louisiana, the pollen almost killed me this year,.. They all bloomed at one time!!!


LOL! I know the headaches have been insane this year.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
420. weatherh98
12:16 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting StormTracker2K:


All the trees here in C FL leafed out 2 to 3 weeks early this year.


Same in Louisiana, the pollen almost killed me this year,.. They all bloomed at one time!!!
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
419. StormTracker2K
12:14 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:
Another thing to be noticed is that the trees and flowers bloomed so early because of the heat waves


All the trees here in C FL leafed out 2 to 3 weeks early this year.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
418. weatherh98
12:12 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Another thing to be noticed is that the trees and flowers bloomed so early because of the heat waves
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
417. StormTracker2K
12:10 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Tampa & St. Pete broke their all-time March records by .5 degrees which is huge as there isn't that big of a temperature variation as their is up north in regards to records vs normal highs & lows.

Here is the PDF from the NWS of Tampa.
Link
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
416. weatherh98
12:07 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

.SHORT TERM...
(Today through Thursday) We expect to see a gradual breakdown in the
upper level ridge as we transition from record warm, fair weather to
not-quite-as-hot and a better chance of rain. There will be a
couple of possible triggers for deep moist convection today. The
aforementioned backdoor cold front will be trigger number one as
it moves into south central GA this afternoon. Trigger number two
could be the combination of the aforementioned vort lobe and any
associated mesoscale boundaries from previous MCS`s, which would
most likely affect our western zones and the Panhandle coastal
waters. The main limiting factor for more widespread deep moist
convection will be the strong mixing this afternoon, which we
expect to dry out the boundary layer enough to prevent a more
vigorous convective chain reaction. Our reasoning is similar for
Wednesday, except that the backdoor front will be all but gone,
and the main forcing will come from a weak upper level
disturbance breaking through the weakening ridge.
What is a vort lobe? Ear lobe of a vortex lol? And what is mcs?
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6461
415. StormTracker2K
12:04 PM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
Atlanta set a new record for warmest average march temperature with an average temperature of 64.5F, 2.7F above the previous record of 61.8F set in 1945. This was 11.3F above the normal average temperature of 53.2F.

The current rankings now stand at:

2012 64.5
1945 61.8
1907 61.5
1921 61.1
1910 60.6


I know many places here in FL have had their all-time March records smashed this year! There's been a lot of talk about the heat across the north but hardly any mention of the records that were smashed across the SE US. Some of the records that were broken around here went back to 1907.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
414. GeorgiaStormz
11:52 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Atlanta set a new record for warmest average march temperature with an average temperature of 64.5F, 2.7F above the previous record of 61.8F set in 1945. This was 11.3F above the normal average temperature of 53.2F.

The current rankings now stand at:

2012 64.5
1945 61.8
1907 61.5
1921 61.1
1910 60.6
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9721
413. TropicalAnalystwx13
11:40 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting StormTracker2K:
This is going to drive forecasters fits across C & N FL today. looks very stormy later today especially when this moves into the Big Bend of FL around peak heating later today.


.SHORT TERM...
(Today through Thursday) We expect to see a gradual breakdown in the
upper level ridge as we transition from record warm, fair weather to
not-quite-as-hot and a better chance of rain. There will be a
couple of possible triggers for deep moist convection today. The
aforementioned backdoor cold front will be trigger number one as
it moves into south central GA this afternoon. Trigger number two
could be the combination of the aforementioned vort lobe and any
associated mesoscale boundaries from previous MCS`s, which would
most likely affect our western zones and the Panhandle coastal
waters. The main limiting factor for more widespread deep moist
convection will be the strong mixing this afternoon, which we
expect to dry out the boundary layer enough to prevent a more
vigorous convective chain reaction. Our reasoning is similar for
Wednesday, except that the backdoor front will be all but gone,
and the main forcing will come from a weak upper level
disturbance breaking through the weakening ridge.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31537
412. StormTracker2K
11:39 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Could be a day with lots of hail and wind reports across the northern half of FL with 850 milibar temps of -14 C and a lift index of -8 to -9. It will be very unstable later today as temps rise into the low to maybe mid 90's.
Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
411. StormTracker2K
11:37 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
This is going to drive forecasters fits across C & N FL today. looks very stormy later today especially when this moves into the Big Bend of FL around peak heating later today.

Member Since: October 26, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2651
410. MAweatherboy1
10:45 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting OracleDeAtlantis:
Interesting possible correlation between an outflow boundary in Oklahoma, and a moderate sized earthquake there this A.M.

The quake, which is depicted here in copy time, actually took place 2012 April 03 07:33:59 UTC.

If you'll notice, the outflow boundary appears to cross the area where the quake occurred, and approximately the same time.




It's an interesting theory, but it is more likely the quake was at least in part caused by fracking.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 82 Comments: 7636
409. MahFL
10:26 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Well, if you think about it, your question pretty much answers itself. Hail doesn't typically occur deep in the tropics because typically there is warm air aloft, whereas hail formation requires cold air aloft.


I've seen hail 2 times in 10 years living in NE Florida. It's just too hot at the surface for the hail to remain frozen.
Member Since: June 9, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 3338
408. Bergeron
10:21 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting entrelac:
My very first question upon watching this is "where is his funding coming from?". A quick search using my Google-fu turns up ExxonMobil.


GW = the sky is falling!
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 101
407. MahFL
10:20 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting SteveDa1:


In my opinion, solar power is the only way to go. Nuclear is a gamble... it's clean until something catastrophic happens and I don't like the odds. Why take the chance? Solar power is 100% clean and virtually abundant.


Making the panels is NOT 100 % clean, and maintaining them also is not. Also you need massive amounts of land to power a city. Who is going to give you the land, or indeed allow the solar power station to be built in their backyard ?
Member Since: June 9, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 3338
406. MahFL
10:18 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:


1) when it's hot I'm turning the ac on.
2) if what I believe I learned about nuclear power plants is correct they are clean if you keep the radioactivity inside. The water that is used I think is either recondensed or put into the atmosphere, etheir way it is clean and efficient because if you reuse it you don't need any more than when you start, or if it's pumped out, it rises and condenses and then rains.
3) the amount of groundwater, If we were to bring everything to the surface, would add to the oceans and COVER the peak of MT. EVEREST. And yes a lot of it is fresh.
4) technology will advance at a rate to where we WILL NOT be reliant on fossil fuels nearly as much by 2050, and if you are wondering a report has been published that if we has to, the united states could live at least 100 years on anything we have under our feet.


You should read up on all the water leaks they had from Winscale going into the Irish Sea and the lies they put out, and eventual acknoeledgement that a bunch of radiation did get dumped into the Irish Sea, but all will be ok in the long run...honest.....
Member Since: June 9, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 3338
405. Slamguitar
10:17 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
I woke to a thunder show outside this morning as thunderstorms sweeps through SW Michigan. Had to look at the radar before heading back to sleep.
Member Since: July 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1183
404. LargoFl
9:53 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOUNT HOLLY NJ
358 PM EDT MON APR 2 2012

NJZ009-010-031200-
/O.UPG.KPHI.FR.Y.0001.120403T0400Z-120403T1200Z/
/O.EXA.KPHI.FZ.W.0004.120403T0400Z-120403T1200Z/
HUNTERDON-SOMERSET-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...FLEMINGTON...SOMERVILLE
358 PM EDT MON APR 2 2012

...FREEZE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 8 AM EDT
TUESDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MOUNT HOLLY HAS ISSUED A FREEZE
WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO 8 AM EDT
TUESDAY. THE FROST ADVISORY IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

* TEMPERATURES...LOWS AROUND 30.

* TIMING...TONIGHT AND TUESDAY MORNING.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A FREEZE WARNING MEANS SUB-FREEZING TEMPERATURES ARE IMMINENT OR
HIGHLY LIKELY. THESE CONDITIONS WILL KILL CROPS AND OTHER
SENSITIVE VEGETATION.

&&

$$
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 37044
403. OracleDeAtlantis
8:30 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Interesting possible correlation between an outflow boundary in Oklahoma, and a moderate sized earthquake there this A.M.

The quake, which is depicted here in copy time, actually took place 2012 April 03 07:33:59 UTC.

If you'll notice, the outflow boundary appears to cross the area where the quake occurred, and approximately the same time.



Member Since: August 27, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 502
402. spbloom
6:55 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Quoting owenowen:
Wow, yet another "global warming" attempted tie in? Doesn't it get old? Not any more believable than the "ice age" they tried to get me to swallow when I was younger. Time magazine cover: How do we warm the planet", lol. Thirty years later, and the people that kept telling me I couldn't look at a short period of time to make a decision have now done it twice. The girl that cried wolf, except in this case no one gets eaten. Instead we get insulted by people with a monetary agenda.


Drivel.

I have no monetary agenda, BTW.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 427
401. owenowen
6:05 AM GMT on April 03, 2012
Wow, yet another "global warming" attempted tie in? Doesn't it get old? Not any more believable than the "ice age" they tried to get me to swallow when I was younger. Time magazine cover: How do we warm the planet", lol. Thirty years later, and the people that kept telling me I couldn't look at a short period of time to make a decision have now done it twice. The girl that cried wolf, except in this case no one gets eaten. Instead we get insulted by people with a monetary agenda.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 46
Quoting BobWallace:


Doug - wind generated electricity is roughly $0.05/kWh.

Wind is making electricity cheaper in Texas and Spain.

That is reality.

Solar on large (commercial) rooftops in the US sunbelt is now $0.15/kW. That's cheaper than electricity from new coal, new nuclear or natural gas peaker plants.

Solar is making electricity cheaper in Germany.

That is reality.

Coal has fallen from about 56% of our electricity supply to under 40%. (37.9% in January 2012.) Coal will continue to fall as we have scheduled over 100 coal plants for early closure.

That is reality.

The Nissan Leaf uses about 0.35kWh/mile. Charging with $0.10/kWh electricity it costs $0.035/mile to drive.

A 50MPG gasmobile burning $4/gallon gasoline costs $0.08/mile. Over twice the cost of driving an EV.

That is reality.

If you lived just about anywhere in the lower 48 (except along the foggy PNW coast) you could put 2.5kW of solar panels on your roof and generate enough electricity to drive an EV 12,000 miles a year. Those panels would give you "free gas" for 30, 50, we don't know how many years. Panels put into use 30 years ago are still going strong and showing little loss of performance.

If we got serious about it we could get 100% of all our energy - electricity, transportation and heating - from renewable sources and get there in 20 years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id= a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

More reality.

Reality is, we're a lot further down the road than folks have led you to believe.








Austin Energy (in Austin, Texas where I live) charges a higher rate to purchase green energy from them. If it is cheaper to produce, it is not being passed along to the customer
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stalled outflow boundary on the Louisiana coast is generating some rather strong wind gusts in my town (I'd assume 25 to 30 mph). With a relatively dry middle troposphere, any thunderstorms that do develop will have the potential to produce damaging wind gusts. About time something decent happens when I'm not working. Bring it on!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



You're right. Consumers are driving it. That is how it's supposed to be. Not Washington picking the winners and losers! Turns out that they are not very good at it. Solindra for example. Solar and wind both may have a future, but they are not ready for prime time yet no matter what you think about the oil companies. Some of the posters here display a lack of real world savvy. Simple truth is that for now there is no cheaper way to power this planet than fossil fuels, even at four bucks a gallon. The government can't force it to be, only the consumers can. Welcome to capitalism, the system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other. No it's not perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Utopia is a pipe dream.


Can't agree more where consumer led change is concerned. Now, invest the green energy industry with a fraction of the lobbying power and associated subsidies of its black energy predecessor, and let's see how that sways the perception of what's "ready for prime time". Utopia WAS a pipe dream; time to abandon that pipe, and the likes of oil-industry-executives-turned-politicians are pretty unlikely candidates to lead in THAT direction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxmod:


Satellite of Jakarta area 4-2-12:
Link

Those islands are usually pretty clean, for now.


Thank you very much. Compared with the pictures you posted, not bad at all :D

Though I suspect the satellite shots would be drastically different as we approach the dry season, that's when the fires starts.
El nino is just going to make it worse
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 5.4
Date-Time

Tuesday, April 03, 2012 at 03:08:09 UTC
Monday, April 02, 2012 at 10:08:09 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 5.206°S, 80.597°W
Depth 74.5 km (46.3 miles)
Region NEAR THE COAST OF NORTHERN PERU
Distances 3 km (1 miles) ESE of Piura, Peru
182 km (113 miles) S of Tumbes, Peru
192 km (119 miles) NNW of Chiclayo, Peru
853 km (530 miles) NNW of LIMA, Peru
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 21.4 km (13.3 miles); depth +/- 7.5 km (4.7 miles)
Parameters NST=414, Nph=426, Dmin=647.9 km, Rmss=0.77 sec, Gp= 65°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source

Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc0008uvr
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Doug - wind generated electricity is roughly $0.05/kWh.

Wind is making electricity cheaper in Texas and Spain.

That is reality.

Solar on large (commercial) rooftops in the US sunbelt is now $0.15/kW. That's cheaper than electricity from new coal, new nuclear or natural gas peaker plants.

Solar is making electricity cheaper in Germany.

That is reality.

Coal has fallen from about 56% of our electricity supply to under 40%. (37.9% in January 2012.) Coal will continue to fall as we have scheduled over 100 coal plants for early closure.

That is reality.

The Nissan Leaf uses about 0.35kWh/mile. Charging with $0.10/kWh electricity it costs $0.035/mile to drive.

A 50MPG gasmobile burning $4/gallon gasoline costs $0.08/mile. Over twice the cost of driving an EV.

That is reality.

If you lived just about anywhere in the lower 48 (except along the foggy PNW coast) you could put 2.5kW of solar panels on your roof and generate enough electricity to drive an EV 12,000 miles a year. Those panels would give you "free gas" for 30, 50, we don't know how many years. Panels put into use 30 years ago are still going strong and showing little loss of performance.

If we got serious about it we could get 100% of all our energy - electricity, transportation and heating - from renewable sources and get there in 20 years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id= a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

More reality.

Reality is, we're a lot further down the road than folks have led you to believe.









When it's economically feasible, it'll happen. Wishing it so or mandating it won't work. That is reality. When some evil company can make a profit on it, it'll happen. Not a tough concept. I gotta work in the a.m. Nite.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
394. wxmod
Quoting JustSouthofEquator:


Hello Wmod, would it be possible for you to post the satelite picture of Jakarta, Indonesia?, I would love to know how my city fare smog-wise compared with the other cities you have posted. Thank you


Satellite of Jakarta area 4-2-12:
Link

Those islands are usually pretty clean, for now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Evening all.

As a consumer, I can't WAIT to be able to buy and drive an electronic car in Nassau. I think a lot of American consumers would love to do the same. However, IMO a lot of BIG business owners who have big investments in fossil fuels would love to keep people thinking solar / electric etc. is just not possible or feasible.

Eventually [hopefully sooner, not later] demand is going to outstrip naysayers' ability to shout down the public. And I'm sure SOMEbody has figured out that renewable energy is the next path to millions. To use a historical example.... anybody see lots of horses being used by average consumers? 100 years ago, cars were rarities and horses were the cost-effective means of transport. Is that still true today? It seems a horse does less, costs more, and has to be put down if it breaks a leg. I also haven't seen too many horse insurance policies floating around out there [though I'm sure they exist] for when that horse has an accident.

I only hope it doesn't take us as long to get from gas to electric as it did to go from horse to cars....



Warren Buffet has invested $6 billion in wind in the last three years and $2 billion in solar this last year.

General Electric invested $1.4 billion in solar in 2011.

Investments in solar last year totaled $93 billion.

Very major money is moving into renewables.

--

The Model T came out in 1908. If you look at urban street scene pictures from the 1930s you'll have a hard time finding a horse, except in parades.

We switched from slide rules to pocket calculators in roughly two years.

We switched from typewriters and adding machines to computers in less than ten years.

We switched from film to digital in less than ten years.

It will likely take a bit longer to switch from gasmobiles to EVs because cars are so expensive. What is likely to happen is that people who drive more than ~10,000 miles a year will switch to EVs and sell their used gasmobiles to people who do a lot less driving. Second car, short commute stuff.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
sorry about that I was watching movies

here is hot and well cloudy earlier but now p/cloudy looking like it will get cloudier in the morn any way I'm out till morning
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
391. wxmod
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




I said my piece. You seem to me to be an idealist. I'm a realist. I'm all for alternative energy sources. But it's gonna be a while before we are able extract the amount of energy we need from alternative sources at a price that can compete with fossil fuels. What is going to power your electric car? Coal most likely.


From what I see from a satellite, I don't think we need to power electric cars or anything else. Did you notice how much China and Venus have in common? It's spreading. It's a disease. No matter how you think or what you do, you can't escape from it. Even if you think in a way that is helpful, there are so many people who are not thinking that they will win. As Dante said "No Hope".

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




I said my piece. You seem to me to be an idealist. I'm a realist. I'm all for alternative energy sources. But it's gonna be a while before we are able extract the amount of energy we need from alternative sources at a price that can compete with fossil fuels. What is going to power your electric car? Coal most likely.


Doug - wind generated electricity is roughly $0.05/kWh.

Wind is making electricity cheaper in Texas and Spain.

That is reality.

Solar on large (commercial) rooftops in the US sunbelt is now $0.15/kW. That's cheaper than electricity from new coal, new nuclear or natural gas peaker plants.

Solar is making electricity cheaper in Germany.

That is reality.

Coal has fallen from about 56% of our electricity supply to under 40%. (37.9% in January 2012.) Coal will continue to fall as we have scheduled over 100 coal plants for early closure.

That is reality.

The Nissan Leaf uses about 0.35kWh/mile. Charging with $0.10/kWh electricity it costs $0.035/mile to drive.

A 50MPG gasmobile burning $4/gallon gasoline costs $0.08/mile. Over twice the cost of driving an EV.

That is reality.

If you lived just about anywhere in the lower 48 (except along the foggy PNW coast) you could put 2.5kW of solar panels on your roof and generate enough electricity to drive an EV 12,000 miles a year. Those panels would give you "free gas" for 30, 50, we don't know how many years. Panels put into use 30 years ago are still going strong and showing little loss of performance.

If we got serious about it we could get 100% of all our energy - electricity, transportation and heating - from renewable sources and get there in 20 years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id= a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

More reality.

Reality is, we're a lot further down the road than folks have led you to believe.





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good night all!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Evening all.

As a consumer, I can't WAIT to be able to buy and drive an electronic car in Nassau. I think a lot of American consumers would love to do the same. However, IMO a lot of BIG business owners who have big investments in fossil fuels would love to keep people thinking solar / electric etc. is just not possible or feasible.

Eventually [hopefully sooner, not later] demand is going to outstrip naysayers' ability to shout down the public. And I'm sure SOMEbody has figured out that renewable energy is the next path to millions. To use a historical example.... anybody see lots of horses being used by average consumers? 100 years ago, cars were rarities and horses were the cost-effective means of transport. Is that still true today? It seems a horse does less, costs more, and has to be put down if it breaks a leg. I also haven't seen too many horse insurance policies floating around out there [though I'm sure they exist] for when that horse has an accident.

I only hope it doesn't take us as long to get from gas to electric as it did to go from horse to cars....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxmod:
Oh, and I almost forgot. Here's a MODIS photo of the smog of Chongqing.



Hello Wmod, would it be possible for you to post the satelite picture of Jakarta, Indonesia?, I would love to know how my city fare smog-wise compared with the other cities you have posted. Thank you
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
'Ghost ship' off Canada heralds arrival of tsunami debris

Link to Reuter's Article

I don't brake for trolls!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SteveDa1:


Also, I wonder if electric cars are going to need much less maintenance? There isn't any reason why they wouldn't last for at least 500,000km!


Here's what we know. Because EVs use regenerative braking they will go 2x longer or more between brake rebuilds.

Of course there are no oil/filter changes, no air filters, no radiator flushes, no spark plugs, none of that gas engine maintenance stuff. The only thing I've heard about is a change of gear box oil once a year or so.

Depending on the quality of motors used we could easily see 300,000 miles/500,000km out of an electrical motor.

Batteries, we don't know. I've seen reports of Prius hybrid batteries lasting for 300,000 miles. Don't know if that tells us anything about EV use.

BYD has had some of their e6 EVs doing taxi service in China for over a year. They report over 100,000 miles on some of their taxis and almost no decrease in battery performance.

GM and Nissan are guaranteeing their batteries for 8 yrs/100,000 miles. At that point batteries would have 80% of their original capacity left. But that's just a guarantee - we get 30,000 mile guarantees on our gasmobiles and commonly drive them 100,000 with little problem.

The Toshiba SCiB lithium batteries Honda is using in their Fit EV are rated at 4,000 100% DoD cycles. In a 120 mile range EV that would mean 480,000 miles before they hit the 80% range.

There are batteries (at least the cathode part) in a lab at Stanford that have gone through 40,000 cycles with almost no loss in performance. Put those in a 200 mile EV and you've got 8 million mile batteries.

No guarantee that these super-batteries will make it to market, but there are a number of different technologies that are looking very good.

--

Utility companies are already looking forward to purchasing "80%" batteries for grid management. Weight isn't as important if you're not hauling it around every day. They can park these slightly used batteries in cheap warehouse space and get years of service out of them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



You're right. Consumers are driving it. That is how it's supposed to be. Not Washington picking the winners and losers! Turns out that they are not very good at it. Solindra for example. Solar and wind both may have a future, but they are not ready for prime time yet no matter what you think about the oil companies. Some of the posters here display a lack of real world savvy. Simple truth is that for now there is no cheaper way to power this planet than fossil fuels, even at four bucks a gallon. The government can't force it to be, only the consumers can. Welcome to capitalism, the system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other. No it's not perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Utopia is a pipe dream.

LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Doug, what's the criteria for being "ready for prime time"?

And can you list a few technologies which have matured on their own with no help from the government?

Finally, can you explain to me how a 50 MPG gasmobile running on $2/gallon gas is cheaper to drive than an EV that uses 0.35kWh/mile of $0.10/kWh electricity?

I've clearly got my thinking all messed up and would love to understand where I've gone wrong....




I said my piece. You seem to me to be an idealist. I'm a realist. I'm all for alternative energy sources. But it's gonna be a while before we are able extract the amount of energy we need from alternative sources at a price that can compete with fossil fuels. What is going to power your electric car? Coal most likely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
382. wxmod
Hope ya didn't already pay for the plane fare to get to those beautiful world class beaches. MODIS over Google Earth

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Doug, what's the criteria for being "ready for prime time"?

And can you list a few technologies which have matured on their own with no help from the government?

Finally, can you explain to me how a 50 MPG gasmobile running on $2/gallon gas is cheaper to drive than an EV that uses 0.35kWh/mile of $0.10/kWh electricity?

I've clearly got my thinking all messed up and would love to understand where I've gone wrong....


What will be used to generate the electricity for these cars? Solar cells?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
379. wxmod
Ha Noi and the beautiful green jungle. MODIS today.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



You're right. Consumers are driving it. That is how it's supposed to be. Not Washington picking the winners and losers! Turns out that they are not very good at it. Solindra for example. Solar and wind both may have a future, but they are not ready for prime time yet no matter what you think about the oil companies. Some of the posters here display a lack of real world savvy. Simple truth is that for now there is no cheaper to power this planet than fossil fuels, even at four bucks a gallon. The government can't force it o be, only the consumers can. Welcome to capitalism, the system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other. No it's not perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Utopia is a pipe dream.


Doug, what's the criteria for being "ready for prime time"?

And can you list a few technologies which have matured on their own with no help from the government?

Finally, can you explain to me how a 50 MPG gasmobile running on $2/gallon gas is cheaper to drive than an EV that uses 0.35kWh/mile of $0.10/kWh electricity?

I've clearly got my thinking all messed up and would love to understand where I've gone wrong....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 428 - 378

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

Top of Page

About

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