Extreme events of 2011: climate change a major factor in some, but not all

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:54 PM GMT on July 11, 2012

Share this Blog
50
+

The science of quantifying how climate change changes the odds of extreme weather events like droughts and floods took a major step forward Tuesday with the publication of NOAA's annual summary of the past year's weather. The 2011 State of the Climate report contains a separate peer-reviewed article published in the July issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 From a Climate Perspective. In the paper, a group of scientists led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Centre in the United Kingdom looked at how climate change may have changed the odds of occurrence of some of 2011's notable weather extremes. These kinds of attribution studies require huge amounts of computer time and take many months to do, but the scientists plan to start making this a regular part of the annual NOAA State of the Climate report. Some of their findings for 2011:

- Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. While scientists cannot trace specific events to climate change with absolute certainty, new and continued research help scientists understand how the probability of extreme events change in response to global warming.

- La Niña-related heat waves, like that experienced in Texas in 2011, are now 20 times more likely to occur during La Niña years today than La Niña years fifty years ago.

- The UK experienced a very warm November 2011 and a very cold December 2010. In analyzing these two very different events, UK scientists uncovered interesting changes in the odds. Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.

- The devastating 2011 floods in Thailand caused an estimated $45 billion in damage, making it the world's most expensive river flooding disaster in history. The study found, however, that the amount of rain that fell in the catchment area was not very unusual, and that other factors such as human-caused changes to the flood plain and the movement of more people into flood-prone areas were more important in causing the disaster. "Climate change cannot be shown to have played any role in this event," the study concluded, but warned that climate models predict an increase in the probability of extreme precipitation events in the future in the region.

- The deadly drought in East Africa, which killed tens of thousands of people in 2011, was made more likely by warming waters in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. While the scientists did not specifically tie the warming of these waters to human-caused global warming, they noted that climate models predict continued warming of these waters in the coming decades, and this will likely "contribute to more frequent East African droughts during the spring and summer."


Figure 1. An SH-60F Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 14, flies around the Bangkok area with members of the humanitarian assessment survey team and the Royal Thai Armed Forces to assess the damage caused by the 2011 floods. Image credit: Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Villalovos.

Weather on steroids
One interesting aspect of the paper was the scientists' use of the baseball player-steroids analogy to help explain how climate change can increase the odds of extreme weather: "One analogy of the effects of climate change on extreme weather is with a baseball player (or to choose another sport, a cricketer) who starts taking steroids and afterwards hits on average 20% more home runs (or sixes) in a season than he did before (Meehl 2012). For any one of his home runs (sixes) during the years the player was taking steroids, you would not know for sure whether it was caused by steroids or not. But you might be able to attribute his increased number to the steroids. And given that steroids have resulted in a 20% increased chance that any particular swing of the player’s bat results in a home run (or a six), you would be able to make an attribution statement that, all other things being equal, steroid use had increased the probability of that particular occurrence by 20%. The job of the attribution assessment is to distinguish the effects of anthropogenic climate change or some other external factor (steroids in the sporting analogy) from natural variability (e.g., in the baseball analogy, the player’s natural ability to hit home runs or the configuration of a particular stadium)."



Video 1. National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist Dr. Jerry Meehl explains how climate change's impact on extreme weather is like how steroids affect a baseball player.

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: 781 - 731

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Quoting wxchaser97:
Thats a lot of convection over the center, should be a TD soon.

Or as some say" Why do you get so excited over blobs?"..........lollol
Member Since: September 18, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5223
June co2 is in.

Surprised?


395.77ppm


Atmospheric CO2 for June 2012


co2now.org

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Temperatures will moderate into the mid to upper 80s as we head toward the Weekend, with a good chance of showers and thunderstorms Friday Night into Saturday.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
Agree with Jedkins01. Who wants to go round and round like a hamster about climate change when you have the beautiful Emilia prancing around? Nice post Wxchaser97!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jedkins01:
Seriously guys, let it go for a while, how much can you possible repeat the same stuff over and over?
They can go at it much longer than this. When someone is passionate about something they can go on till the day they die.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
775. CJ5
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Bovine Excrement.

The entire climate science budget for NASA?NOAA/etc. was $2 billion dollars a couple of years ago, and most of that went to building satellites to replace our aging and dying ones currently in orbit.

Exxon makes 16 times that in a single quarter. And that's just one company.

So unless you got some numbers to back up your outrageous claim, this is nothing more than an outright lie.


Wait. You are saying Exxon makes 16 times more than Nasa's climate budjet so that makes my info wrong? Ok. How has Exxon spent on anti-GW? 2 billion? Jeez, you guys are so quick to defend you don't make any sense.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
Ahhhh, the Silencer attempt.

Noble but like throwing sand at a Tornado.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I just came to the conclusion that some people here really need to get away from the computer and get in real life. It seems that there is no end to the climate change bickering, because certain individuals are so lame the post the same junk everyday, like a broken record, the refers to both those backing climate change and those who aren't. Seriously guys, let it go for a while, how much can you possible repeat the same stuff over and over?
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7446
Quoting Tribucanes:
Weather98, I would respond, but I hate wasting breath.


all you have to do is type, no breath wasted
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493
770. CJ5
Quoting Neapolitan:
Those corporations definitely have the right to pursue a profit--so long as they do so honestly, fairly, according to the rules, and as good citizens and stewards of the planet. But, notwithstanding the ridiculous and highly damaging Citizens United decision, they absolutely do not have the right to lie, manipulate, bribe, obfuscate, and cheat to get at that profit, nor do they have the right to destroy the environment we all share to do so. Some--mainly members of one political party--may think that's the way the Founding Fathers intended the game to be played, but rest assured that it is not.

There are many grey areas in politics, as there are in life. But some things are just flat out wrong, and no amount of spin or mewling about protecting the "job creators" will ever make it otherwise.


That is some rich soil you just layed on the table. I wish I could discuss with you but I have a 20th Anniversay dinner with my wife and if I am late gloabal warming will be the least of my problems.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
Ostriches don't vote nor Blog.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you havent see it
I wrote a new blog
Emilia, daniel, 98e and the AOI over florida

Please any feedback is appreciated!

Link

Thank you all who readit!
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493
Quoting CJ5:


I think we can agree that not all corporations intentions are always altruistic in nature, however, to rant and rave about the money they may spend is a red herring. Two points, one, bad legislation is bad regardless of the good goals it may intend to serve and in many instances I support what some of these corporations fight against, and secondly, the amount of money spend by corporation denialists is a drop in the bucket to what GW alarmists spend so there really should be much of an issue. A final point, many of the claims about corporate spending on anti-gw propaganda is false and inaccurate.


Bovine Excrement.

The entire climate science budget for NASA?NOAA/etc. was $2 billion dollars a couple of years ago, and most of that went to building satellites to replace our aging and dying ones currently in orbit.

Exxon makes 16 times that in a single quarter. And that's just one company.

So unless you got some numbers to back up your outrageous claim, this is nothing more than an outright lie.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
766. CJ5
Quoting Tribucanes:
I really have no respect for the lies your trying to spread CJ5. Jeff, or someone else honest will correct the misinformation very soon. MrMixon has shown how small and partisan your cost comparison was. This ain't sheep your trying to feed, trolls like you generally get eaten by the Lions Of Truth here.


Well, you asked for some shred of evidience. I gave it to you. You don't like the source but It was the same source used by the pro-side a few days ago. I am not spreading any lies. I am giving you facts as I know them to be. If you or Dr. Masters wants to dive into the question and produce something tells a different story I will gladly accept it.

You are still missing the point completely, which, proves my point to begin with. The rabid pro crowd and rabid con crowd needs to get out of the discussion or we as a planet are never going to have any meaningful discussions or meaningful change before it will be to late.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
Weather98, I would respond, but I hate wasting breath.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
Quoting CJ5:


I know exactly what the word means. My point, which you fail to understand, is that companies and citizens are going to spend money to support thier interests. That is normal, you do and I do it. Most money spent by groups like Koch and Exxon Mobile are spend in the defense of legislation that is harmful to thier business. They have that right and though you may think the don't and you may think they don't use good science or good judgement that have that right. Exxon Mobile, Koch and even Bain Capital spend much more on alternative companies, research and development that you care to even acknowledge you only want to call those companies evil and the reason the planet is where it is. That is why the pro-side has so much trouble.
Those corporations definitely have the right to pursue a profit--so long as they do so honestly, fairly, according to the rules, and as good citizens and stewards of the planet. But, notwithstanding the ridiculous and highly damaging Citizens United decision, they absolutely do not have the right to lie, manipulate, bribe, obfuscate, and cheat to get at that profit, nor do they have the right to destroy the environment we all share to do so. Some--mainly members of one political party--may think that's the way the Founding Fathers intended the game to be played, but rest assured that it is not.

There are many grey areas in politics, as there are in life. But some things are just flat out wrong, and no amount of spin or mewling about protecting the "job creators" will ever make it otherwise.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
Quoting HurricaneHunterJoe:


She looking very healthy!
She is a good looking major. Wonder what the next advisory holds in store.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
Quoting Tribucanes:
So someone who is intentionally lying is not a troll? CJ5 is a troll in my opinion. If you think differently weather98 that's your free will, but I would beg to differ.


He may or may not be a troll but as im seeing it, yall are disagreeing therefore you thinkhes a troll.

I disagree with you, I am not a troll.

Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493
Quoting GTcooliebai:
latest HWRF showing development in the Gulf

That's the WRF, not the HWRF.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32068
So someone who is intentionally lying is not a troll? CJ5 is a troll in my opinion. If you think differently weather98 that's your free will, but I would beg to differ.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
759. CJ5
Quoting Neapolitan:
Listen, to be fair if you're going to count money the U.S. government spends researching alternative fuels as "pro-AGW money", you're going to have to count the hundred billion dollars of annual profit the fossil fuel industry makes as "anti-AGW money".

Facts FTW...


Jeez. If you guys think that the anti crowd spends more money than the pro crowd and if you think that funding (from any source) for the anti crowd outweights that of the pro crowd than I don't know what to tell you. You have your head in the sand.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
Don't stop believing or strengthening Emilia!
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
Quoting Tribucanes:
I really have no respect for the lies your trying to spread CJ5. Jeff, or someone else honest will correct the misinformation very soon. MrMixon has shown how small and partisan your cost comparison was. This ain't sheep your trying to feed, trolls like you generally get eaten by the Lions Of Truth here.


generally neapolitins definiton of troll

A troll is A) someone who disagrees about your analysis that a tropical wave will hit your locoation as a category five or B) a person who spams the blog and will undoubtedly become the topic of the blog for the next 100 comments
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493
Thats a lot of convection over the center, should be a TD soon.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
755. CJ5
Quoting Neapolitan:
A "red herring"? Not at all. The money those corporations--Koch Industries, for one--spend to confuse the public on climate change is responsible for the inaction we've seen on the matter. Directly responsible. Powerful, fossil fuel-friendly lawmakers such as James Inhofe and Joe Barton in turn rake in many thousands of dollars in campaign cash from those heavy-polluting industries, and, thus beholden, do what they can to further confuse the populace and stall even the smallest mitigation efforts.

"Red herring", huh? I do not think that word means what you think it means...


I know exactly what the word means. My point, which you fail to understand, is that companies and citizens are going to spend money to support thier interests. That is normal, you do and I do it. Most money spent by groups like Koch and Exxon Mobile are spend in the defense of legislation that is harmful to thier business. They have that right and though you may think the don't and you may think they don't use good science or good judgement that have that right. Exxon Mobile, Koch and even Bain Capital spend much more on alternative companies, research and development that you care to even acknowledge you only want to call those companies evil and the reason the planet is where it is. That is why the pro-side has so much trouble.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
Quoting wxchaser97:
CI# /Pressure/ Vmax
6.4 / 940.6mb/124.6kt


Final T# Adj T# Raw T#
6.1 6.1 6.1

Estimated radius of max. wind based on IR : 24 km

Center Temp : -4.8C Cloud Region Temp : -68.4C

Scene Type : EYE

Positioning Method : RING/SPIRAL COMBINATION


Looks stronger than 115mph imo.


She looking very healthy!
Member Since: September 18, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5223
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Jose? That you?

Its jose back from the dead.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
Quoting yoboi:


i am just teaching ya basic debating skills, if you really desire change to your way of thinking and i am not saying you are right or wrong, you need to understand the other side of view so you can use that to your advantage and with a clean debate you might get them to agree with your way of thinking. the tactic of drawing a line in the sand and picking what side is what will not lead to change.


Your assuming though, that both sides are using logic and facts to establish their point of view, which is not the case with global warming. One side (the scientists) have tons of data and research including physical observations to back up their case. The other side (deniers), have nothing but mindless faith and willful ignorance.

And when your opponet use mindless faith and willful ignorance to support their point of view, it is useless to continue the "debate" as no amount of facts, data, etc. will convince them that they are wrong.

The same thing has happened multiple times in the past whenever some scientific discovery threatened monied interests.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
751. HurricaneHunterJoe
10:26 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting stormchaser19:


Hurricane Iniki in 1992
The mother nature is is amazing

Wow... i never see a hurricane move nearly 90 degrees.... and reach cat.4 hurricane, incredible path




Quoting stormchaser19:


Hurricane Iniki in 1992
The mother nature is is amazing

Wow... i never see a hurricane move nearly 90 degrees.... and reach cat.4 hurricane, incredible path




Thats what ya call a right turn!
Member Since: September 18, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 5223
750. GTcooliebai
10:26 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
latest HWRF showing development in the Gulf
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
749. Tribucanes
10:25 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
I really have no respect for the lies your trying to spread CJ5. Jeff, or someone else honest will correct the misinformation very soon. MrMixon has shown how small and partisan your cost comparison was. This ain't sheep your trying to feed, trolls like you generally get eaten by the Lions Of Truth here.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
748. Neapolitan
10:23 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting CJ5:


It would not be hard to figure out. You will find pro-global warming expenditures and funding far exceeds anti. Last I checked the US government alone has spend about 78 billion. I don't think the anti's can even touch that number.
Listen, to be fair if you're going to count money the U.S. government spends researching alternative fuels as "pro-AGW money", you're going to have to count the hundred billion dollars of annual profit the fossil fuel industry makes as "anti-AGW money".

Facts FTW...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
747. sonofagunn
10:21 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting CJ5:


Which claims? That good legislation can be be bad despite the potential upside? No evidence needed.

That corps/orgs on the rabid anti-side spend and lot less than corps/org on the rabid pro side? Sure. He is one I dug up pretty quick for you.

Consider that about one-quarter of their total $4.4 million 2011 budget that Heartland devoted to climate research dissemination activities is barely a rounding error in what other opposing-view non-profits spend. For example, compare this with Al Gore%u2019s Alliance for Climate Protection which reportedly netted more than $88 million in 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council, which reportedly took in more than $95 million in 2011 operating revenues, and the World Wildlife Fund that raised more than $238 million last year.Then there%u2019s also many other international philanthropic organizations that copiously support climate-frenzy causes. Consider, for example, the European Climate Foundation (ECF) which %u201Caims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe%u2019s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change.%u201D ECF partners include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which awarded a $460,800,000 donation to another partner, the ClimateWorks Foundation in 2008%u2026plus $100 million more to them this year. ClimateWorks presents itself as %u201Ca global family of affiliated organizations that support public policies that prevent climate change and catalyze sustainable global prosperity.%u201D Also, lest we forget, there%u2019s a whole lot of other money available for those who will carry water for climate crisis and renewable energy promotion. The IPCC costs Western taxpayers about $6.5 million annually, and that%u2019s but a drop in the bucket compared with the $2.6 billion the White House plans to spend on research into %u201Cthe global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.%u201D Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion in climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn%u2019t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for %u201Cgreen energy%u201D.
Oops. Source. Forbes Magazine 3/6/12


Anyone who reads that and makes a conclusion already has their mind made up. The fallacies are ridiculous. It takes a SINGLE institutes EXPENDITURES on a specific item and then compares it to the TOTAL REVENUES of as many institutes as it can possibly find.
Member Since: June 12, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 167
746. CJ5
10:19 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting Tribucanes:
I hope Jeff or one of you great posters will do the true comparison of what is spent on GW and what is spent to suppress the known, good science. I'll do it if it's not done soon, because that would be very interesting to see what the numbers come out to.


It would not be hard to figure out. You will find pro-global warming expenditures and funding far exceeds anti. Last I checked the US government alone has spend about 78 billion. I don't think the anti's can even touch that number.
Member Since: July 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1755
745. MrMixon
10:18 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting CJ5:


He is one I dug up pretty quick for you....


Ah Forbes, the go-to source for unbiased reporting on climate science... I love that their motto is "The Capitalist Tool" (for real, look it up).

There are so many things wrong with those numbers it's hard to know where to begin... but for starters: quoting the entire annual budget for the WWF is disengenuous since the WWF does much, much more with that budget than push climate change policy. Ditto for the NRDC. Moreover, the only number they quote for the anti-AGW side is the Heartland Institute's budget. This completely ignores the millions spent by energy companies on lobbying and marketing. It completely ignores money spent by other groups such as the George Marshall Institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Frontiers of Freedom, the Frasier Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Energy Research, the National Center for Public Policy Research, etc. etc. etc. (I could go on...).

So try again - show me an article that makes an HONEST effort to tabulate ALL expenditures on education, lobbying, and marketing for both sides of the AGW debate.
Member Since: March 26, 2006 Posts: 44 Comments: 1520
744. Astrometeor
10:18 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Nothing down here even compares to the severe thunderstorms you get in North-Central Texas (DFW area) in the Spring-time.

The tornado sirens went off so many times we went outside first to watch it. We never actually saw a tornado while living down there, although one passed a block in front of our house around 10 pm at night the first day we moved there.


Drove through Kansas and caught up to a t-storm that had some wicked outflow. Pulled over onto the side of the road, and then felt better when cars with Kansas license plates pulled over, too. Blinding sheets of rain on top of the wind.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 100 Comments: 10280
743. OrchidGrower
10:18 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I'm not questioning the value of trees. I pointing out that they aren't going to do much good to solve a global problem.

The largest carbon sink in the world is the ocean. You could cover every square inch of land (including non-arable land) with trees and you wouldn't even come close to what the ocean does.

In order to even counteract a fraction of our carbon output, you would need to plant millions to billions of trees every year. And that doesn't even address the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.

In order to solve this issue, it's going to take world-wide cooperation and multiple approaches. The largest bang for the buck is not going to come from trees however. It's going to come from reduced fossil fuels usage, as that makes up the bulk of our emissions. Planting trees can be a part of that plan but unless we plan on reforesting a significant fraction of the planet it won't make nearly the dent that reducing fossil fuel consumption alone will make.


Now we're finding a shred of common ground, Xyrus.... To your last paragraph, I think all of mankind outside the tundra/polar zones should be working on reforesting a significant portion of this planet. We lose several football stadiums of forest per minute on this planet. Denying the impact of the loss of so many trees is the same in my book as denying that human-released carbon can have any impact -- because it's like putting arsenic in someone's drink and speculating whether or not they will be harmed. And I totally disagree that major reforestation would not have a serious positive impact on global issues, carbon being just one of them.

That said, I totally DO agree with you that we need to be attacking big problems on multiple levels: Getting off of fossil fuels, lightening the albedos of our rooftops and pavement, increasing reforestation, recycling wastewater, controlling food waste, and on and on and on. Getting off of fossil fuels would also effectively end traders' speculation in that industry, which wrenches money out of our pockets in addition to polluting our globe.
Member Since: September 24, 2002 Posts: 0 Comments: 391
742. Xyrus2000
10:17 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting lahcuts:
A few comments on the discussion of climate change:

Consensus in science does not prove anything. Only hard, accurate data counts. The fact that some percentage of the scientists agree (or disagree) is not an argument for or against anything. It is even less of an argument relative to the general population. On what scientific basis does the public make a scientific conclusion? Consensus of a jury has lead to hundreds of wrongful convictions for capital murder. Then there is Galileo.

The climate may be changing but who has seen the data to show man, via carbon dioxide release, is singularly responsible. Circumstantial evidence, piecemeal, on a relatively local basis may or may not point to anything. One does not get to pick and choose the data which supports their view. How is the original data statistically treated to form a database that is used in analyses? After a multitude of correction factors are applied, what does the corrected data mean?

Have all alternate explanations been shown to not be responsible in part or in total? Are all alternate explanations even known? Changing ocean currents seem to be in vogue lately. Why are they changing, fundamentally, root cause?

Laboratory simulation experiments and their results, pro and con, seem to be absent from discussions.

Just a few thoughts.



What? O_o

There are petabytes of information in regards to climate science, from modern day simulations to the first papers on greenhouse theory back in the 1800's. In fact, climate science draws on numerous other branches of established science. You can even download and run some of the GCM's that are in use today if you want to, and a lot of data sets are available for free as well.

Once again, if you want a good layman's overview on what has been, how it's been done, and what the results are I suggest reading the IPCC reports. They answer every single one of your questions and then some.

Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1480
741. Neapolitan
10:16 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting CJ5:


I think we can agree that not all corporations intentions are always altruistic in nature, however, to rant and rave about the money they may spend is a red herring.
A "red herring"? Not at all. The money those corporations--Koch Industries, for one--spend to confuse the public on climate change is responsible for the inaction we've seen on the matter. Directly responsible. Powerful, fossil fuel-friendly lawmakers such as James Inhofe and Joe Barton in turn rake in many thousands of dollars in campaign cash from those heavy-polluting industries, and, thus beholden, do what they can to further confuse the populace and stall even the smallest mitigation efforts.

"Red herring", huh? I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13537
740. weatherh98
10:16 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Stop being such a baby Harrison.



cyber bully
:P
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493
739. Tropicsweatherpr
10:15 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
A new low around 10N-40W has been added to the 18z TAFB Surface Analysis.

Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14267
738. schwankmoe
10:14 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting CJ5:Consider that about one-quarter of their total $4.4 million 2011 budget that Heartland devoted to climate research dissemination activities is barely a rounding error in what other opposing-view non-profits spend.


wow, when you compare the budget of one single organization to the budgets of a bunch of other ones it really looks like an unfair fight! also, i forgot that the ECF and the white house fall under 'rabid pro-AGW' side of things.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 678
737. TropicalAnalystwx13
10:12 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting weatherh98:


ur joking right? thats in my blog. stop im gonna go cry.

Stop being such a baby Harrison.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32068
736. TropicalAnalystwx13
10:11 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RALEIGH NC

610 PM EDT WED JUL 11 2012



NCC165-112230-

/O.CON.KRAH.TO.W.0005.000000T0000Z-120711T2230Z/

SCOTLAND NC-

610 PM EDT WED JUL 11 2012



...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 630 PM EDT FOR EAST

CENTRAL SCOTLAND COUNTY...



AT 606 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR CONTINUED TO

INDICATE A TORNADO. THIS TORNADO WAS LOCATED NEAR WAGRAM...OR ABOUT

5 MILES EAST OF LAURINBURG...MOVING SOUTHEAST AT 20 MPH.



HAZARDS IN THE WARNING INCLUDE...

A TORNADO.

OTHER DAMAGING WINDS NEAR 58 MPH.



THE STORM HAD SHOWN SIGNS OF WEAKENING IN TERMS OF ITS ROTATION

BETWEEN 605 PM AND 608 PM. IF THIS TREND CONTINUES...THE WARNING

WOULD BE CANCELLED EARLY. STILL...THOSE IN FAR EASTERN SCOTLAND

COUNTY SHOULD REMAIN INDOORS AND STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS UNTIL THE

THUNDERSTORMS HAVE PASSED.



WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO...PLEASE CALL IN YOUR REPORTS OF PENNY OR

LARGER SIZED HAIL...AS WELL AS WIND DAMAGE...INCLUDING TREES OR LARGE

LIMBS DOWNED BY CALLING THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TOLL FREE AT...

1...8 7 7...6 3 3...6 7 7 2.



LAT...LON 3485 7949 3494 7942 3492 7937 3486 7934

3485 7934 3484 7935 3483 7934 3482 7935

3477 7933 3472 7938

TIME...MOT...LOC 2208Z 322DEG 16KT 3484 7937



$$
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32068
735. Tribucanes
10:11 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
I hope Jeff or one of you great posters will do the true comparison of what is spent on GW and what is spent to suppress the known, good science. I'll do it if it's not done soon, because that would be very interesting to see what the numbers come out to. Wonder if anyone really knows how much corporations have really spent against science? An estimate is 46 trillion has been raked in by the top one percent over the last ten years worldwide. We know the most powerful and wealthy have taken the US and World's wealth and caused Western countries to become debt based and close to failure. It's set up for the collapse of world markets and NWO, one world government set up. The rug's about to get pulled out from under the world if the light of truth isn't brought to our populace.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
734. Astrometeor
10:10 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Hope you don't get any damage TropicalAnalystwx13.
I've only had one real close bolt to my house-went straight over and hit the backyard, missed all the trees.

Then I broke all the rules at scout camp, standing under canvas with metal poles, trees and a lake 20 feet away. Lightning was real close there...

Still hoping for more rain, NWS is calling for 3-5 inches which would be great. Middle TN is under severe drought and we are 6 inches in the hole for the year.

Tropics wise I hope we shall see Fabio in 12 hours or less if the disturbance can organize itself together.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 100 Comments: 10280
733. GTcooliebai
10:10 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting Jedkins01:


Yeah I would get off if I were you, if it's anything like the insanity we had around here last hour, you'll want to turn it off sure. I wouldn't have even attempted to use the computer earlier. It seemed like half the lightning was positive stroke CG earlier. It felt like my house was going to rattle off it's foundation, and people say Florida doesn't get earthquakes, well when you get lightning this bad we pretty much do get earthquakes :)
LOL glad you're ok, got to stay far away from those high voltage cables and anything such as steel that can conduct electricity during stormy weather, especially when there is cloud-to-ground lightning. I didn't get quite the action you got. Closer to the beach the line weakened, but we still got heavy rain, flashes of lightning, and rumbles of thunder. It seemed the excitement was over by you a lot today.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
732. TropicalAnalystwx13
10:09 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


windows rattling?
normal tstorm...

small hail?
wimpy...

no worries son, stay on

Nothing down here even compares to the severe thunderstorms you get in North-Central Texas (DFW area) in the Spring-time.

The tornado sirens went off so many times we went outside first to watch it. We never actually saw a tornado while living down there, although one passed a block in front of our house around 10 pm at night the first day we moved there.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32068
731. weatherh98
10:09 PM GMT on July 11, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Jose? That you?



ur joking right? thats in my blog. stop im gonna go cry.
Member Since: June 17, 2011 Posts: 11 Comments: 6493

Viewing: 781 - 731

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog 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

Mostly Cloudy
79 °F
Mostly Cloudy