The new hottest place on Earth: Death Valley, California

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:18 PM GMT on September 13, 2012

Share this Blog
49
+

As any weather aficionado can avow, Earth's most iconic weather record has long been the legendary all-time hottest temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) measured 90 years ago today at El Azizia, Libya on September 13, 1922. One hundred thirty six degrees! It's difficult to comprehend that heat like that could exist on our planet. For 90 years, no place on Earth has come close to beating the unbelievable 136 degree reading from Al Azizia, and for good reason--the record is simply not believable. But Earth's mightiest weather record has been officially cast down. Today, the official arbiter of Earth's weather records, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), announced that the all-time heat record held for exactly 90 years by El Azizia in Libya "is invalid because of an error in recording the temperature." The WMO committee found five major problems with the measurement. Most seriously, the temperature was measured in a paved courtyard over a black, asphalt-like material by a new and inexperienced observer, not trained in the use of an unsuitable replacement instrument that could be easily misread. The observer improperly recorded the observation, which was consequently in error by about 7°C (12.6°F.) The new official highest hottest place on the planet is now Death Valley, California. A remarkable high temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured there on 10 July 1913, at Greenland Ranch.


Figure 1. The trading post at Al Azizia, Libya in 1923. The photo was taken from the Italian military fort located on a small hill just south of the trading post. It was at this fort that the temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was observed on Sept. 13, 1922 (used with permission from the family of Gen. Enrico Pezzi).

The story behind the overturning of Earth's most hallowed weather record
Today's announcement is the culmination of a 3-year research effort begun by wunderground weather historian, Christopher C. Burt. His blog post today, World Heat Record Overturned--A Personal Account, provides a fascinating detective story on how the record came to be cast down--and how the Libyan revolution of 2012 almost prevented this from happening.


Figure 2. The new official hottest place on the planet: Death Valley, California. Wide open spaces, infinite views, intensely salty water, mind-boggling heat. What's not to love about this place? Image credit: Wunderphotographer SonomaCountyRAF.

Dead Heat: The Video
Don't miss the 25-minute wunderground video, Dead Heat, a detective story on how the El Azizia record was overturned.

Atlantic tropical update
Tropical Storm Nadine is recurving to the northwest and north well east of the Lesser Antilles Islands, on a track that would likely keep this storm far out at sea away from any land areas. However, Nadine may eventually threaten the Azores Islands or Newfoundland; the models are divided on how the steering currents will evolve next week, and we cannot be sure which way Nadine will go during the middle of next week.

The models predict that a trough of low pressure off the U.S. East Coast may serve as the focus for development of a non-tropical low pressure system on Sunday or Monday, but this low will likely form too far to the north to become a tropical storm. The GFS model has been predicting a tropical wave coming off the coast of Africa may develop next week, but has not been consistent with the timing or location of the development.

In the Western Pacific, Super Typhoon Sanba is an impressive top-end Category 4 storm with 155 mph winds, and is headed north-northwest towards a possible landfall in Korea early next week.

Given the importance of the new world record all-time high temperature, I'll leave this post up until Saturday afternoon, when I'll post an update on the tropics.

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: 847 - 797

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 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Oh good grief, an SUV is a gas-hog cuz it ain't designed for transportation. It's designed so that wimps can pretend to be MadMax RoadWarriors.
'bout like owning a Veyron. The world highest speed limit is 140km/h (87mph). Buying a 400km/h vehicle merely proves that one can afford the consequences of being a complete&utter IDIOT.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
This is what I said a day ago and got blasted.

But you survived. :)

Personally I don't see that the world's record high temperature is all that important despite what the Doc says. The day in and day out temps are what matter. Yep, people will talk about global warming. You know why? Because it affects everyone, everywhere.

Will we do anything about it? I'm afraid not. We have to keep the economy growing. Then again, the world economy can't grow forever. Just a matter of time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's 2012, what did you expect?

Anyhow, I saw yesterday (forgot the model run)that the BOC will could get a develping system in about one week.

Is that still valid?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atl134:


I have a plan. We just rename carbon dioxide puppy breath. Then we'll no longer have a CO2 problem. We would have a puppy breath problem but that is a much more adorable problem to have.


:) Don't we need puppy breath in order to grow the food we eat? Don't we all breathe out Co2? Maybe AGW is just another form of natural selection?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MNhockeymama:


That's the truth. Did you see that the University of Texas - Austin and University of North Dakota have both been evacuated today because of bomb threats? Supposedly by terrorists.

href="http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/1954539 3/north-dakota-state-university-orders-campus-evac uated-due-to-bomb-threat" target="_blank">Link

You have mail MNhockey
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
The world is becoming a powderkeg


That's the truth. Did you see that the University of Texas - Austin and University of North Dakota have both been evacuated today because of bomb threats? Supposedly by terrorists.

href="http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/1954539 3/north-dakota-state-university-orders-campus-evac uated-due-to-bomb-threat" target="_blank">Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting rmbjoe1954:
Let's move on ...to the tropics, ok?
Don't look for that to happen right now as some are in their "mode" right now.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 15738
Let's move on ...to the tropics, ok?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Politics? Why does it always come back to politics? CO2 levels are not impacted because Congress one day made it illegal to speak of CO2 in terms of the climate.


I have a plan. We just rename carbon dioxide puppy breath. Then we'll no longer have a CO2 problem. We would have a puppy breath problem but that is a much more adorable problem to have.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
First: Thanks for the updates on the "blob" in the GOM - very appreciated!

Quoting bappit:

One way to avoid discussing how to fix the problem is to deny the science. Another way is to deride the good faith of those who want to solve the problem.


No one is deriding the "good faith" of anyone - at least, I'm not. However, the "good faith" of which you speak becomes an issue when you have governments that are using the science of AGW to make policies that trample on the freedoms of their citizens. Saving the planet is one thing; insisting that I must live in high-density housing and try to find a way to fit my four kids, two dogs, 1 large hockey bag and three swim bags into a Smart car because my SUV uses fossil fuel and has been deemed as "evil" by those with "good faith" directly infringes upon my "Pursuit of Happiness" which is a basic right through our Constitution. Furthermore, policy-makers who choose to enforce regulations put forth by an international organization (i.e. the UN)filled with people who have not been elected by the people of this country and therefore do not have any right to tell American citizens how to live their lives directly threaten the sovereignty of the USA. These policies include the proposed universal TAX that would take money from American citizens, give it to the World Bank to be distributed to citizens (or more likely, corrupt governments - that money being sent to Egypt is working out real well right now, isn't it?) of other countries - under the guise of "The USA is successful and wealthy and uses fossil fuels, therefore we must punish those American citizens so we will tax them and then send the money to poorer countries because the evil Americans are destroying the environment." Really? What about China, India and other up and coming powers? They do not follow the Kyoto Protocol and yet they're using fossil fuels and do not give a rip about the environment - why are we not doing the same to them? Because it is politically & economically driving at its core and truly more about bringing the USA and our success down to the level of the less affluent, less successful countries and not about saving the environment.

I am not deriding or dismissing he average person who truly believes in AGW and really believes that we need to do everything we can to help the environment and practices what they preach. However, please remember when you allow "good faith" policies and regulations remove the freedoms and rights of others, it won't be long until those freedoms and rights you hold dear will also be gone, taken away by the same people you applauded when they stole from the people you called "skeptics".

BTW: how's that $4+/gal gas workin' for ya? That Smart car is probably working out really well, right? Just wait til the rest of the coal-fired electrical plants are shut down - how will you charge your car during the rolling brown/black outs that will happen when the wind isn't blowing those turbines?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
ok thanks..as i said before..none of us alive today will see this..even the young ongs, but im hoping..this GW does in fact..stall or even eliminate..the coming ice age..whenever that is..but for all of us here..its future talk..we cannot deny or justify data..its all up in the air until they find out scientifically..when the next ice age comes..and yes..both sides are indeed making big bucks off of GW..why?..because they know..none of us alive today will see the long lasting effects but know we worry about it alot..so why not make a buck off of it...same with insurance policies etc..everyone is out for the mega bucks...sad times we live in today huh


I can only hope that you are correct that no one alive today will see the worse effects of AGW. I cannot be as certain as you are on this simply because the melting of the Arctic sea ice puts us into uncharted territory. Once we have obtained summers that are ice free, in the Arctic Ocean, we will learn what this truly means for present day life and impacts on our climate. Good, bad or indifferent, the evidence shows that we will soon have an ice free Arctic Ocean in the near few years and not beginning in the next century, as it was originally thought that it would be.

In response to others:

The mention of "skeptics" is noteworthy. Science REQUIRES that there be skeptics of the science. Science does not exist in a vacuum were everything is taken at face value or the results of the observations from one experiment. Science is ALWAYS tested for accuracy. Skeptics play a large role in this. Skeptics of the science is exactly why the science can be trusted at all. Skepticism that persists when the reason(s) for the skepticism has been shown to be invalid brings one into a new classification that is known as "deniers".

"Deniers", on the other hand, have the purpose of creating misinformation that would somehow weaken the evidence of what the science shows. They do so without any scientific evidence to support their stance. Yes, there is strong evidence that Earth has a history of a changing climate, but, at the same time, there is also strong evidence of what probably initiated these changes. The "deniers" will acknowledge the fact that Earth goes through climatological changes and then completely discount the scientific evidence that there were causes for the past that are not shown to exist today for to account for any present climatological chances. Absent of rising anthropogenic CO2 levels, Science has not observes any other entities that would account for the present warming. The "deniers" will deny this and without any scientific to support their stance. Once such stance, that "deniers" will use, is that CO2 is a greenhouse and they never provide ANY evidence that it is not. "Trace amounts" of CO2 gets bantered around as though a trace amount of anything has no effect. They show a complete disregard for the potency of any such trace amount.

Politics? Why does it always come back to politics? CO2 levels are not impacted because Congress one day made it illegal to speak of CO2 in terms of the climate. The Theory of Gravity did not come into existence because a group of politicians decided to write laws that determine what gravity is. The theory of black holes was not decided because people voted for politicians that would decide one way or the other on what the theory should be. Politics does not determine what the scientific evidence shows us. The scientific evidence provided comes under political scrutiny for political gains. Every politician I know of has shown themself to be a liar, if not habitual and blatant liars! Why would I leave science up to politicians and why should I believe anything they tell me?

"Money". It is always about the money, is it not? That is what Capitalism is all about, is it not? Some will get rich on both sides of the AGWT. That IS Capitalism! Those that get rich through their intentional deception is the ENEMY of Capitalism! Who has the most to gain through deception of the AGWT? Scientists or the fossil fuel industry? Follow the money.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormDrain:

Yet how do mets/climatologists determine the hottest place on Earth? By average daily temps added up and divided by the number of days in a year (365 or 366 in leap year) or what? And how often? Might it change from year to year, month to month?

Means one thing to have a record high temp thrown out and Death Valley's 1913 record reinstated, and a different thing to be the actual "hottest place on Earth."

By day in and day out temps, is Death Valley truly hottest?
Some discussion on this yesterday, check the early posts. One in Africa, another in Iran were mentioned.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This is what I said a day ago and got blasted.
Quoting washingtonian115:
Time to get ready for the Global warming/religion/political debates.Anyway thanks doc.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 15738
Quoting TomballTXPride:

How is this ice area, volume, and extent you are referring to being calculated?

I don't know who originated that number so I certainly don't know how they arrived at it, but I can look at this graph to see what is happening.



The summer sea ice extent has changed a lot more than the other seasons. You might think no problem then, but most people have no concept of how cold the arctic really is. The surface in winter will freeze generally no matter what--though there is a decrease in winter ice too unfortunately. What concerns me is that a thin layer of sea ice in winter (by arctic standards) would insulate the water below and prevent loss of heat. The dramatic decrease in summer sea ice is what matters since that is when the sun is shining and heat is absorbed which melts more ice, which causes more heat to be absorbed, which melts more ice ...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The world is becoming a powderkeg
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
832. bwi
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Media also jumped on the Next Ice Age story decades back. I'm guessing they would like to avoid a repeat since credibility is King is that business.


Ice age "story" was speculation. Global warming is real, occurring now, and even skeptics funded by the fossil fuel industry agree CO2 is the explanation.

Since the media aren't smart enough to distinguish between well-established science and mostly baseless speculation, I reassert that only a direct plea from Santa will get their attention. Or maybe from Mrs. Claus. Or Rudolf.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MNhockeymama:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog as I really enjoy the discussions and learn tons whenever I pop in here. That being said, I feel like a point needs to be made regarding many of us who are not fully sold on man-caused climate change. The issue many of us have does not always have to do with the science behind climate change (the earth's climate has been "changing" for millions of years and will continue to do so) but the politics surrounding the issue. Namely, policies such as cap and trade that, when one researches the true reasons for the policies, one realizes that it really isn't about helping the environment, but rather a money-making and wealth redistributing scheme developed by those who would benefit the most from such policies. Those who are called "skeptics" and/or "deniers" may not be completely unfounded in their skepticism because they understand the true motives of the policy-makers (and many of the scientists who are funded by those policy-makers) and are skeptical because those motives, at their basic foundation, are not really about "saving the planet" but are instead about money.

I by no means am trying to offend anyone on this blog nor am I saying that Dr. Masters is motivated in the same way as some scientists/policy makers are in his concern and reporting on climate change; I'm just trying to give those who automatically dismiss anyone who is skeptical of climate change as ignorant or foolish an understanding that skeptics are not always those things, that instead, they may have studied the politics and potential economic impacts of the policies being influenced by climate change research and feel that those policies may potentially harm more people than the actual climate change issues will.

(Please don't block me. This is all I will say about it - I don't want to get into a debate/argument with anyone.)
(I was away at lunch; hope this response isn't too late.)

No debate, no argument; just a polite response to your polite comment.

The five largest oil companies alone make about $100 billion in profit--not revenue, mind you, but profit--per year. That's $270 million profit each day. $11.4 million profit each hour. $190,000 proft each minute. Nearly $3,200 profit each second, every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year. And, again, that's just the five largest oil companies--and there are lots of oil companies. Lots of coal companies, too. And every single one of those companies has but a single reason for existing: making as much money as humanly possible, however possible. That's fine; that's free enterprise. But since their products have the unfortunate side effect of producing mass quantities of CO2 gas--40 trillion liters a day!--don't you think it's just possible that they have a vested interest in minimizing and covering up the truth about what that gas is doing to the environment? Don't you think it's just possible that the oft-heard denialist claim that climate scientists are in it for the money is just a wee bit of projection on the part of the fossil fuel industry?

When you get a chance, try this practical experiment. Take a look at Forbes magazine's 2012 list of the world's richest people. Then make a list of those names that are on the list because of their involvement with oil and/or coal (and be sure to include those with investments in those industries). Then go back down the list and write down the names of those who are on the list because of their involvement in the climate sciences. Then please let us know what you find...

Mitigating climate change is going to require political involvement on a massive scale. But climate science itself neither requires nor needs politics--nor does it want or need the input and advice of those whose only interest is in perpetuating the money-making abilities of the most massively profitable corporations in the most massively-profitable industry the world has ever known.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JasonRE:


Could this possibly turn into some sort of TS or TD. The blob in the GOM I mean......thanks!




Not at this this time
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
828. bwi
Quoting percylives:
As of 9/13/12, The Cryosphere Today web site showed a low in sea ice extent over 22% lower than the record minimum set in any previous year.



This could greatly change the temperature regime of the Arctic Ocean and increase the release of methane gases from subsea deposits. That will be another positive feedback for global warming causing greater climate instability for the future.

Is this the "story of the year" that the main stream media chooses to ignore?


The media will cease to ignore the issue of Artic sea ice melt when Santa's workshop falls into the sea. At current trends, that could be within a few years, though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
Does anyone know if ash from the fuego volcano will have any cooling effects? It is at a good latitude, but is it big enough?

My impression is: If people are still able to evacuate, it is not big enough, at least not yet. If it were big enough, a lot of those people would already be dead.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:

Nice vorticity with the AOI.But I still think it won't develop...
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 15738
The arctic has gone from a median 7 million sq km of ice as a summer low with 6 on a hot year to the upper 3's this year. For those not good with numbers, we have dropped over 40% and pushing toward 1/2 way in terms of area, to an ice free arctic summer and the ice that is left, is thinner. Is anyone questioning this? It's a new record. It is even a photograph, well several put together, but you get the point.

Does anyone know if ash from the fuego volcano will have any cooling effects? It is at a good latitude, but is it big enough?

I think the question isn't is it man made change, but can we make a change in the other direction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't believe GW is purely man made.The earth goes through warm and cool cycles before and those same "scientist" know that.If anyway wants to respond in a aggressive way go ahead as I will ignore you..
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 15738

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

That's a nice list of links about the science behind the effects of CO2 and how we know its source by checking the isotopes. Unless I'm misreading, what StormPro asked for were links on how to fix the problem.


Quoting StormPro:
I have yet to see a real, doable "cure" presented without insults or blog screaming...and they are still not actual fixes. I beg for enlightnment, respectifully, Glen


StormPro is not asking to debate the science. He wants to discuss policies for dealing with the problem! That is tantamount to admitting that the problem is real.

Exactely...+++
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
People are not evacuating as advised at Fuego, -The eruption at Fuego is a mitigation mess - only 5,000 of 33,000 have evacuated and tourists are showing up: foxnews.com/world/2012/09/…
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JasonRE:


Could this possibly turn into some sort of TS or TD. The blob in the GOM I mean......thanks!

I think that blob we're seeing now is supposed to dissipate. The models aren't picking up on it.

"A REMNANT SURFACE TROUGH IS IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA FROM THE W ATLC NEAR 23N80W ALONG 24N82W TO 24N85W GENERATING SCATTERED SHOWERS/ ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS S OF 25N E OF 84W TO OVER THE FLORIDA KEYS AND THROUGH THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA. SURFACE TROUGH IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA WILL DISSIPATE TODAY."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chicklit:
hi guys

GOM is a little complicated right now.
GULF OF MEXICO...
AN UPPER LOW IS CENTERED OVER KENTUCKY EXTENDING AN UPPER TROUGH S THROUGH A WEAK UPPER LOW IN THE N GULF NEAR 27N89W TO THE S/CENTRAL GULF NEAR 23N89W. AN UPPER RIDGE EXTENDS ACROSS MEXICO TO OVER THE W GULF WHILE UPPER RIDGE OVER THE W ATLC EXTENDS OVER THE E GULF. THIS IS GIVING MOST OF THE GULF UNSETTLED WEATHER THIS MORNING. CLUSTERS OF SCATTERED SHOWERS/ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS ARE OVER THE E GULF FROM 25N-29N BETWEEN 83W-89W. SIMILAR ACTIVITY IS OVER THE W GULF W OF 94W WITH ISOLATED SHOWERS/ THUNDERSTORMS FROM 19N-22N BETWEEN 91W-94W.
A REMNANT SURFACE TROUGH IS IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA FROM THE W ATLC NEAR 23N80W ALONG 24N82W TO 24N85W GENERATING SCATTERED SHOWERS/ ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS S OF 25N E OF 84W TO OVER THE FLORIDA KEYS AND THROUGH THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA. SURFACE TROUGH IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA WILL DISSIPATE TODAY. SURFACE RIDGE REMAINS OVER THE GULF ANCHORED BY A 1027 MB HIGH OVER VIRGINIA AND WILL REMAIN THROUGH SUN.
A SURFACE TROUGH...AND POSSIBLE LOW PRESSURE CENTER...WILL DEVELOP OVER THE W GULF SUN NIGHT AND WILL LIFT N OF THE AREA MONDAY. A COLD FRONT WILL MOVE INTO THE NW GULF OF MEXICO TUE.



Could this possibly turn into some sort of TS or TD. The blob in the GOM I mean......thanks!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
MN..It's not just the case of being well-versed in science, it's also ...

One way to avoid discussing how to fix the problem is to deny the science. Another way is to deride the good faith of those who want to solve the problem.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hi guys

GOM is a little complicated right now.
GULF OF MEXICO...
AN UPPER LOW IS CENTERED OVER KENTUCKY EXTENDING AN UPPER TROUGH S THROUGH A WEAK UPPER LOW IN THE N GULF NEAR 27N89W TO THE S/CENTRAL GULF NEAR 23N89W. AN UPPER RIDGE EXTENDS ACROSS MEXICO TO OVER THE W GULF WHILE UPPER RIDGE OVER THE W ATLC EXTENDS OVER THE E GULF. THIS IS GIVING MOST OF THE GULF UNSETTLED WEATHER THIS MORNING. CLUSTERS OF SCATTERED SHOWERS/ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS ARE OVER THE E GULF FROM 25N-29N BETWEEN 83W-89W. SIMILAR ACTIVITY IS OVER THE W GULF W OF 94W WITH ISOLATED SHOWERS/ THUNDERSTORMS FROM 19N-22N BETWEEN 91W-94W.
A REMNANT SURFACE TROUGH IS IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA FROM THE W ATLC NEAR 23N80W ALONG 24N82W TO 24N85W GENERATING SCATTERED SHOWERS/ ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS S OF 25N E OF 84W TO OVER THE FLORIDA KEYS AND THROUGH THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA. SURFACE TROUGH IN THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA WILL DISSIPATE TODAY. SURFACE RIDGE REMAINS OVER THE GULF ANCHORED BY A 1027 MB HIGH OVER VIRGINIA AND WILL REMAIN THROUGH SUN.
A SURFACE TROUGH...AND POSSIBLE LOW PRESSURE CENTER...WILL DEVELOP OVER THE W GULF SUN NIGHT AND WILL LIFT N OF THE AREA MONDAY. A COLD FRONT WILL MOVE INTO THE NW GULF OF MEXICO TUE.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MNhockeymama:


Thank you & NCStorm for your comments. :)

(Part of my lack of desire to debate is I am not as well-versed in science as I am in current events/politics, and through many arguments on FB/Twitter, I've learned that unless the discussion includes respect by all and for all parties and opinions, it is a waste of time - people who truly believe whatever they're arguing about generally don't change their minds no matter what one says. This is true of people on every side of every issue. So rather than getting into an ugly name-calling disagreement, I try to stay out of it now.)
MN..It's not just the case of being well-versed in science, it's also the case of being well-versed in using the proper words... Some have a way (knack) to express themselves better than most. (ie) there was a local radio talk host that stated things that I knew were absolutely wrong, but my skills wouldn't allow me to compete with his verbal abuse so I never called him. I would have been ridiculed. What I am saying here is that you may be right but can't express it the way you wish because someone has a better way to express it that you are wrong... Does that make any sense??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting captainktainer:


Skeptical Science
Real Climate
National Climatic Data Center
Wunderground Climate Change page

There are more, but this is an excellent start.

That's a nice list of links about the science behind the effects of CO2 and how we know its source by checking the isotopes. Unless I'm misreading, what StormPro asked for were links on how to fix the problem.

Quoting StormPro:
I have yet to see a real, doable "cure" presented without insults or blog screaming...and they are still not actual fixes. I beg for enlightnment, respectifully, Glen


StormPro is not asking to debate the science. He wants to discuss policies for dealing with the problem! That is tantamount to admitting that the problem is real.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ncstorm:


the NOGAPS does well on the genesis of storms ..we will see if it outperforms the models again..


True...But on the projected path it's way off since that massive trough over the east-central conus will garantee a northerly turn from Purto Rico!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
MNhockey.....I believe you have every right to express your opinion...This is America after all.. But I understand when you say there will be a few that scrutinize every word you say... Go for it... That is your right


Thank you & NCStorm for your comments. :)

(Part of my lack of desire to debate is I am not as well-versed in science as I am in current events/politics, and through many arguments on FB/Twitter, I've learned that unless the discussion includes respect by all and for all parties and opinions, it is a waste of time - people who truly believe whatever they're arguing about generally don't change their minds no matter what one says. This is true of people on every side of every issue. So rather than getting into an ugly name-calling disagreement, I try to stay out of it now.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Death Valley, by the blog title and photo caption, new official hottest place on the planet.

I understand Death Valley now holds the record for the hottest temp in recorded history anywhere on Earth.

Yet how do mets/climatologists determine the hottest place on Earth? By average daily temps added up and divided by the number of days in a year (365 or 366 in leap year) or what? And how often? Might it change from year to year, month to month?

Means one thing to have a record high temp thrown out and Death Valley's 1913 record reinstated, and a different thing to be the actual "hottest place on Earth."

By day in and day out temps, is Death Valley truly hottest?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with you completely, Largo, that we are between interglacial periods now. Earth's history shows that we go from cooler to warmer and back to cooler climatological changes. There has always been an initiator for each of these changes and they have happened over long periods of time, void the presence of any catastrophic events.

What we are witnessing today is an ever increasing amount of anthropogenic CO2 levels rising in our atmosphere and that this is occurring over a very short geological time period. We know that it is anthropogenic because the carbon in the atmosphere has a carbon signature that comes from the burning of fossil fuels. We also know that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. By nature, we would moving towards another ice age in probably another few centuries or millenniums. What we have done is to alter nature and we have done so in a very short period of time. The time allowed for adaptation will be very short and lead to possible catastrophic effects for nearly every life form on Earth. Buy stocks, in heavy winter clothing, if you wish. Cold weather will still be with us in high altitude and high latitude regions of our planet. Buying these stocks, because you fear another ice age is on the horizon, would be an extremely long term investment. Invest as you best see fit, but I think I would consult with a reputable financial adviser on this one before jumping into this investment.
ok thanks..as i said before..none of us alive today will see this..even the young ones, but im hoping..this GW does in fact..stall or even eliminate..the coming ice age..whenever that is..but for all of us here..its future talk..we cannot deny or justify data..its all up in the air until they find out scientifically..when the next ice age comes..and yes..both sides are indeed making big bucks off of GW..why?..because they know..none of us alive today will see the long lasting effects but know we worry about it alot..so why not make a buck off of it...same with insurance policies etc..everyone is out for the mega bucks...sad times we live in today huh
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 33491
Quoting bappit:

Links please.


Skeptical Science
Real Climate
National Climatic Data Center
Wunderground Climate Change page

There are more, but this is an excellent start.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MNhockeymama:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog ...

Won't happen. People might put you on ignore if that is all you talk about. You might also get banned for making threats of physical violence--which has happened. If you are really insulting your comments might get deleted.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MNhockeymama:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog as I really enjoy the discussions and learn tons whenever I pop in here. That being said, I feel like a point needs to be made regarding many of us who are not fully sold on man-caused climate change. The issue many of us have does not always have to do with the science behind climate change (the earth's climate has been "changing" for millions of years and will continue to do so) but the politics surrounding the issue. Namely, policies such as cap and trade that, when one researches the true reasons for the policies, one realizes that it really isn't about helping the environment, but rather a money-making and wealth redistributing scheme developed by those who would benefit the most from such policies. Those who are called "skeptics" and/or "deniers" may not be completely unfounded in their skepticism because they understand the true motives of the policy-makers (and many of the scientists who are funded by those policy-makers) and are skeptical because those motives, at their basic foundation, are not really about "saving the planet" but are instead about money.

I by no means am trying to offend anyone on this blog nor am I saying that Dr. Masters is motivated in the same way as some scientists/policy makers are in his concern and reporting on climate change; I'm just trying to give those who automatically dismiss anyone who is skeptical of climate change as ignorant or foolish an understanding that skeptics are not always those things, that instead, they may have studied the politics and potential economic impacts of the policies being influenced by climate change research and feel that those policies may potentially harm more people than the actual climate change issues will.

(Please don't block me. This is all I will say about it - I don't want to get into a debate/argument with anyone.)



I don't think you will be blocked with a respectful post like this. But... if you feel that the science is biased by politics? Go ask a lawyer for BP or Shell what they belive on the issue. That's where the money goes- not to the climate scientists or their "agenda". Politics certainly play a roll, but you have to follow the money to see why denial is so lucrative.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1189
Quoting AussieStorm:
Foam's up as surfers brave massive murky-brown waves



DIE HARD surfers dodged logs and debris to ride these waves as floodwater deluge hit the coast of New Zealand.

Hardcore surfers are known to travel far and wide in their search for the perfect wave, braving often choppy and dangerous conditions others wouldn't dream of dipping a toe into.

These waves, however, are a different matter altogether.

Three surfers jumped at the chance to ride the torrential swell in Karitane on the south island of New Zealand. Photographer Chris Garden, 30, spotted the unusual sight as he drove along the coastline



The murky-coloured waves were the result of overflowing flood-waters and kicked up a dramatic spray when they broke.

The foam stretched for 100m along the shore and was almost 30m deep in some places.

Garden, who was watching the action from a cliff, told the Daily Mail: "There was a big swell churning up the foam.
We had had a lot of flooding and so flood water had been coming out into the sea. It was all getting mixed up with the sea water and there were also logs floating out through the waves.



"The water is really cold at this time of year too, which doesn't make for very enjoyable surfing conditions. I think the surfers had fun but you wouldn't catch me out in it."

Garden, from nearby Dunedin, added: "In 10 years photographing surfers I have never seen anything like it before. I was driving along looking for some good waves when I came across it."

The surfers rode the waves for about 20 minutes before heading back to shore. He said some were nearly 3m high and the force of the waves washed all the foam onto the shore.

Garden said: “The waves were washing all the foam on to the shore.

"Once there, it all gradually disintegrated. This scene wasn't there very long and I was lucky to catch it."
OH MAN THATS GROSS LOL
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 33491
Quoting MNhockeymama:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog as I really enjoy the discussions and learn tons whenever I pop in here. That being said, I feel like a point needs to be made regarding many of us who are not fully sold on man-caused climate change. The issue many of us have does not always have to do with the science behind climate change (the earth's climate has been "changing" for millions of years and will continue to do so) but the politics surrounding the issue. Namely, policies such as cap and trade that, when one researches the true reasons for the policies, one realizes that it really isn't about helping the environment, but rather a money-making and wealth redistributing scheme developed by those who would benefit the most from such policies. Those who are called "skeptics" and/or "deniers" may not be completely unfounded in their skepticism because they understand the true motives of the policy-makers (and many of the scientists who are funded by those policy-makers) and are skeptical because those motives, at their basic foundation, are not really about "saving the planet" but are instead about money.

I by no means am trying to offend anyone on this blog nor am I saying that Dr. Masters is motivated in the same way as some scientists/policy makers are in his concern and reporting on climate change; I'm just trying to give those who automatically dismiss anyone who is skeptical of climate change as ignorant or foolish an understanding that skeptics are not always those things, that instead, they may have studied the politics and potential economic impacts of the policies being influenced by climate change research and feel that those policies may potentially harm more people than the actual climate change issues will.

(Please don't block me. This is all I will say about it - I don't want to get into a debate/argument with anyone.)
MNhockey.....I believe you have every right to express your opinion...This is America after all.. But I understand when you say there will be a few that scrutinize every word you say... Go for it... That is your right
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
Foam's up as surfers brave massive murky-brown waves


That is some FUGLY water! :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CaribBoy:
The catl wave could do like this



oh hell not another Marilyn came right over me here in st.thomas one night ill never forget
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
802. 7544
looks like a little spin in the cent atl wave at this hour
Member Since: May 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6618
Quoting MNhockeymama:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog as I really enjoy the discussions and learn tons whenever I pop in here. That being said, I feel like a point needs to be made regarding many of us who are not fully sold on man-caused climate change. The issue many of us have does not always have to do with the science behind climate change (the earth's climate has been "changing" for millions of years and will continue to do so) but the politics surrounding the issue. Namely, policies such as cap and trade that, when one researches the true reasons for the policies, one realizes that it really isn't about helping the environment, but rather a money-making and wealth redistributing scheme developed by those who would benefit the most from such policies. Those who are called "skeptics" and/or "deniers" may not be completely unfounded in their skepticism because they understand the true motives of the policy-makers (and many of the scientists who are funded by those policy-makers) and are skeptical because those motives, at their basic foundation, are not really about "saving the planet" but are instead about money.

I by no means am trying to offend anyone on this blog nor am I saying that Dr. Masters is motivated in the same way as some scientists/policy makers are in his concern and reporting on climate change; I'm just trying to give those who automatically dismiss anyone who is skeptical of climate change as ignorant or foolish an understanding that skeptics are not always those things, that instead, they may have studied the politics and potential economic impacts of the policies being influenced by climate change research and feel that those policies may potentially harm more people than the actual climate change issues will.

(Please don't block me. This is all I will say about it - I don't want to get into a debate/argument with anyone.)


Great post..I stated the same thing once a time ago and got ATE up on this blog..good luck on the responses
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
There are dozens of science-based sites that discuss climate change in great detail, and where many solutions to the problem are discussed. Dr. Masters has frequently linked to many of them, as have others. If you haven't yet read of ways we can mitigate the damage we've already done and the even worse damage that awaits us, you may wish to spend some time poking around those sites.

Links please.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I will preface this with this point: I don't want to be labeled a "denier" and blocked from this blog as I really enjoy the discussions and learn tons whenever I pop in here. That being said, I feel like a point needs to be made regarding many of us who are not fully sold on man-caused climate change. The issue many of us have does not always have to do with the science behind climate change (the earth's climate has been "changing" for millions of years and will continue to do so) but the politics surrounding the issue. Namely, policies such as cap and trade that, when one researches the true reasons for the policies, one realizes that it really isn't about helping the environment, but rather a money-making and wealth redistributing scheme developed by those who would benefit the most from such policies. Those who are called "skeptics" and/or "deniers" may not be completely unfounded in their skepticism because they understand the true motives of the policy-makers (and many of the scientists who are funded by those policy-makers) and are skeptical because those motives, at their basic foundation, are not really about "saving the planet" but are instead about money.

I by no means am trying to offend anyone on this blog nor am I saying that Dr. Masters is motivated in the same way as some scientists/policy makers are in his concern and reporting on climate change; I'm just trying to give those who automatically dismiss anyone who is skeptical of climate change as ignorant or foolish an understanding that skeptics are not always those things, that instead, they may have studied the politics and potential economic impacts of the policies being influenced by climate change research and feel that those policies may potentially harm more people than the actual climate change issues will.

(Please don't block me. This is all I will say about it - I don't want to get into a debate/argument with anyone.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, you mean "respectfully" as in "Wizard of AGW and flying monkeys"? Certainly no insults there; nothing but the pure enlightenment for which you beg... ;-)

There are dozens of science-based sites that discuss climate change in great detail, and where many solutions to the problem are discussed. Dr. Masters has frequently linked to many of them, as have others. If you haven't yet read of ways we can mitigate the damage we've already done and the even worse damage that awaits us, you may wish to spend some time poking around those sites.
Hello Nea..The pendulum is swinging over in regards to the belief that global warming is real, albeit slowly. The thing that gets me the most is that there are people that still believe that it is some fantasy invented by the left to control governmental issues...What more then what is already happening does it take to convince these idiots that the Earth is not only warming, but doing so at an alarming rate. My conclusion is that they will put there interests first regardless of the scientifically proven facts until they can get everything they want for as long as possible, then say o.k. your right. By then they will have profited as much as they could under the circumstances knowing they lied to satisfy there agenda.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LesBonsTemps:


The differences between precipitation in Jupiter and Hobe Sound - 12 miles - continue to be impressive. We have had no appreciable rain (North Hobe Sound) since last Thursday - although it is beginning to sprinkle lightly - and our yearly totals are about average.

Almost every morning when I go out on my bike there are puddles from rains in Tequesta and Jupiter, but never anything north of Hobe Sound.
I think my fingers got ahead of myself, I am not in western Palm Beach county... I am near the Intracoastal. My posts are according to people I work with telling me about the water and the mosquitos
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 847 - 797

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 | 30 | 31Blog 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.