Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday. The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%--despite the fact that this year's weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year's minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 - 2000. This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year--and fifth time in recorded history--ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.) "We are now in uncharted territory," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.


Figure 2. Year-averaged and 3-month averaged Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Chapman and Walsh (2001), as updated by the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. I've updated their graph to include 2011 plus the first 9 months of 2012.


Figure 3. Late summer Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al.'s 2011 paper, Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. The solid pink line is a smoothed 40-year average, and the light pink areas shows a 95% confidence interval.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, though the extent is not as low as the current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing. More commentary on this graph is available at skepticalscience.com.

When will the Arctic be ice-free in summer?
So, when will Santa's Workshop need to be retrofitted with pontoons to avoid sinking to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in summer? It's hard to say, since there is a large amount of natural variability in Arctic weather patterns. Day et al. (2012) found that 5 to 31% of the changes in Arctic sea ice could be due to natural causes. However, the sea ice at the summer minimum has been declining at a rate of 12% per decade, far in excess of the worst-case scenario predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20 - 30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week, Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within four years. A study by Stroeve et al. (2012), using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility." Of the 21 models considered, 2022 was the earliest date that complete Arctic sea ice occurred in September.


Video 1. A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds. According to NSIDC, the storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Video credit: NASA.

But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.


Figure 4. Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (top), and sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). Image credit: (Zhang 2007).

Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.

References
Funder, S. and K.H. Kjaer, 2007, "A sea-ice free Arctic Ocean?", Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9 (2007), p. 07815.

Kinnard et al., 2011, "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years".

Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448.

Related info
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

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: 1509 - 1459

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

1509. cacciato66
10:59 PM GMT on October 05, 2012
Thanks for your courage in addressing the skeptics. While I was only peripherally associated with climate as a scientist, I did have direct contact with tree ring research. (I published a couple of dendrochronology/dendrochemistry papers in the early '90's).
It is amazing to me that critics seem to think climatologists who began predicting the effects on climate of increased CO2 somehow think they were betting on advancing their career by calling attention to the issue. The 'accuracy' of the predictions of behavior of complex systems which show dramatic time series fluctuation overlaying the trend seems incredible.
Again thanks for your courage in replying to the mostly insulting ad hominem attacks with great patience. And providing so much good science for the rest of us in the public sphere
Member Since: August 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
1508. ScottLincoln
1:54 PM GMT on September 23, 2012
Quoting StopThePropoganda:
Is any one else disgusted by the misleading nature of this?

Yes, it is disgusting how misleading and incorrect you were with your post. Also intriguing.... only a member since Sept 2012? Long time lurker, first time poster, but only to try and make your nonsense post the last in the thread, of course.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
1507. StopThePropoganda
2:29 AM GMT on September 23, 2012
Is any one else disgusted by the misleading nature of this? Sadly, that's a common theme in climate change discussions.

We need to STOP acting like it's a fact that humans are responsible for climate change. We need to STOP acting like humans are the most likely cause of climate change. The facts do not support this. There is NO evidence that humans are the primary cause of climate change. Why do alarmists continue to ignore this fact?

And we need to STOP using buzzwords like "record." "Record heat" or "record warming" or "record" melting. We are talking about a planet that's been around for billions of years and our records reliably go back about 50 years. It's like watching the temperature for the last two hours on December 31st and declaring the lowest temperature in that time as a record low for the year.

Yes, the Arctic Ocean is melting. It opened during the summer. Read the article closely. We are only reasonably confident that the last time the Arctic was completely ice free was as far back as 6,000 years ago - during a time when the Arctic was COMPLETELY ice free EVERY YEAR for a THOUSAND YEARS!!! What happened this summer was nothing new. It was not uncommon. It was just a change from the very, very recent history of the Earth. In fact, what happened this year was NORMAL. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of the history of the Earth, no ice was the norm. It is extremely unusual for the Earth to have year round ice, in the grand scheme of things. To act like what's happening now is unprecedented, and therefor must be the fault of humans, is disgusting.

Please, PLEASE stop doing this! There are a lot of people making an honest effort to protect the planet, and lies like this only set them back.
Member Since: September 21, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
1506. ScottLincoln
11:39 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Objectivist:
They also point out that there are concrete benefits of increased CO2, which are never mentioned by the alarmists. There are quite a few prominent scientists in this group.

No. On both counts. Scientists have discussed changes due to CO2 other than temperature/climate. Some types of plants are CO2-limited, meaning that increases in CO2 will allow them to be more productive. This is not true for most ecosystems, and for those that will benefit, the benefits are expected to be temporary as changing climate regimes take over with time.
Quoting Objectivist:
Third, there are the realists, who think that regardless of what the ground truth is, the correct response is something other than a low-intensity "green" future in which the United States in particular is crippled relative to other countries.

The "realists?" The realists are scientists... those who have understood the properties of greenhouse gases for decades and decades. Those that have studied tirelessly to understand consequences of radically altering the composition of said gases in the atmosphere due to accelerating a natural cycle orders of magnitude beyond it's natural speed. Those who have continued to publish, study, and fight back against varying degrees of ignorance, dishonest, and outright vindictive manipulation. There are ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without "crippling" the United States. This isn't a secret, it isn't something decades down the road.
Quoting Objectivist:
The concrete predictions of "climate science" have been all over the map and mostly wrong.

Which ones?
Quoting Objectivist:
As another poster pointed out, the US has reduced its carbon emissions considerably.

Which is not as clear cut as it sounds... massive world recessions have consequences. Massive reductions in automobile/airline transit have consequences. Many are temporary, and should be realized as such... perhaps even used as an opportunity to come back with higher efficiency standards and cleaner sources when the demand returns.
Quoting Objectivist:
If you're intellectually honest, you should also admit that the AGW crowd should wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power.

Of course each source of energy needs to be evaluated by its pros, cons, and cost benefit. It's not some instant amazing solution to everything as you suggest. Costs have increased dramatically due to many factors, a large one being the increasing requirements for safety and plans for storage of dangerous waste. And of course this is a completely separate than the science of global warming.
Quoting Objectivist:
One hopeful point is that we likely have a lot longer to mitigate the problem than the breathless "the ice cap is melting!" crowd would have us believe. That's because the Sun is in the beginning stages of a Grand Minimum. The Dalton and Maunder minima were both associated with sharp downturns in temperature.

1) No evidence suggests that solar energy has been reduced - or is about to be reduced - to levels estimated during these minima.
2) The radiative forcing of accumulating greenhouse gases would completely mitigate this reduced solar forcing within a decade at most.
Quoting Objectivist:

The Grand Minimum will likely last 25-50 years, and possibly longer.

According to what source?
Quoting Objectivist:
There is also the issue of the various climactic ocean oscillations, and how they've related to this current Arctic melt.

Ocean oscillations are manifestations of how heat in the climate system is moved around and evened out. Ocean oscillations cannot create nor destroy heat.
Quoting Objectivist:
However, a scientific theory that can't make specific predictions beforehand simply doesn't pass muster.

Which applies to climate science how? Climate scientists have made predictions, most of which have come true, and those that have not are almost always in the worse-than-predicted direction. Each decade has been warmer than the last. Arctic ice volume continues to set records. Land ice melt continues to accelerate. Oceans are becoming more acidic while trying to absorb the CO2.

Thanks for the gish gallop.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
1505. CaribBoy
6:52 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
OH MY GOD FINALLY... HOPEFULLY THE GFS WON'T DROM MY HOPES lol

BY THE NEXT WEEKEND...MODELS INDICATED THAT A SURFACE LOW PRESSURE
CENTER WILL DEVELOP SOUTH OF THE REGION...INDUCING A VERY DEEP MOIST
AND UNSTABLE SOUTHEAST WIND FLOW AND GENERAL INCREASE IN MOISTURE
ACROSS THE FA. STAY TUNED.
Member Since: October 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6170
1504. Progster
4:50 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Objectivist:


As an additional data point, here's a direct account...


How is it possible to generalize about the extent/volume of Arctic ocean ice from a few spot measurements? The Arctic Ocean is just that - an ocean, with all the fluid dynamics that entails. Sure there's going to be variable ice thickness and polynyas year-round. So what? You haven't made any point except that you're familiar with at least one type of sea-life: red herrings.
Member Since: September 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 490
1503. indianrivguy
4:48 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting sheople:
Link

The Documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox

in regards to fracking


Thanks!
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2541
1502. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:46 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
1501. PalmBeachWeather
4:46 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:
Anybody know off hand what time fall equinox occurs today?
As Roy Orbison said....It's Over
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5864
1500. RTSplayer
4:46 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
As another poster pointed out, the US has reduced its carbon emissions considerably. Your point about China is moot, since we have no way whatsoever of influencing China's emissions policies. If you're intellectually honest, you should also admit that the AGW crowd should wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power. That would be a win/win in that nuclear produces no greenhouse gasses, yet can easily meet increasing energy needs going forward - without littering vast swaths of natural landscape with windmills and solar panels. Nuclear is also a strategic technology in terms of civilization in general, and space travel in particular. I hope the nuclear powered Curiosity probe is a harbinger of a more pro-nuclear future. The risks associated with nuclear are small, and should be considered versus the over 200,000 annual deaths associated with fossil fuel power production. If AGW is a real threat, nuclear is a no-brainer. Choose. (Perhaps LENR will prove more palatable if it works out - but it will lead to the same high-intensity desirable outcome.)



Nobody would use "vast arrays of solar panels," because solar boilers, of both the parabolic trough type and the tower type, are thrice as efficient and cost less (for larger operations).

The fact you think a large scale operation would use panels just shows you don't have up-to-date information on the techniques employed in the field.

Panels are good for rooftop installations because they are light and don't take up much space, etc.

They are not good for large scale commerical or industrial applications because they have much lower efficiency than the boilers, and they cost at least as much or more. Since you also need to buy land to put a power plant on, maximum spacial efficiency and maximum thermodynamic efficiency are desired, and the boilers have that hands down.

In order for panels to compete, they really would need to be roughly 3 times as efficient as they are now, although they may win out in some locations where the sunlight isn't powerful enough or consistent enough to run the concentrated boilers, but that isn't the case in much of the western U.S.


Wind and solar are cheaper, safer, cleaner, and easier to maintain than nuclear power, and obviously don't have any significantly harmful waste products. Additionally, they require nowhere near as much concrete per unit energy, because a nuke plant needs enormous amounts of shielding, structural integrity, and contingency facilities.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
1499. SFLWeatherman
4:45 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
12Z GFS 384HR that a big one
Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4528
1497. SFLWeatherman
4:43 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Chance of precipitation is 100% today lol!:) they got it this time!!
Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4528
1496. TropicalAnalystwx13
4:36 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Jose! You're back!



Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
1495. mati
4:35 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Objectivist:

My opinion, and more than a few quite incontrovertible facts. ;-)

Citation, please? It's common knowledge that subs surfaced at the geographic North Pole. Here's a link to an article in that noted right-wing publication, the L.A. Times. Here's a hint - the subs can't surface through thick, healthy ice.

It's more than sufficient.
I'm curious about your opinion of nuclear versus wind/solar, please share. (BTW, I like solar as an endpoint technology, as in solar shingles on homes and buildings. Just not for large-scale central power generation where it's very area intensive. Wind, on the other hand, is simply a bad idea all around.)
(Sorry about the formatting, I wasn't able to get it to work right.)


Pictures of the Skate at the north pole : NOTE THE ICE
Link

Unfort your use of those two pictures seemed to imply they were take AT the north pole. This is a common misconception. Nuclear Subs can surface through at least 3 feet of ice.
Link

I expect Thorium reactors will be in place world wide in the next 30 years.
Link
Member Since: September 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 63
1494. RTSplayer
4:35 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting ScottLincoln:


No. The "fact that [the] curve is off" does not prove that climate models just estimate Arctic sea ice loss as a linear function of extent and ignoring total volume. It barely even suggests that, let alone proves anything.

There are numerous reasons why the observations could be so much lower than the models. Warming of the Arctic region could be occuring at a faster rate than predicted in the last IPCC summary. The Arctic Ocean could be warming at a faster rate. Positive feedbacks could have been under-estimated. Positive feedbacks could have been missed. Formation of ice during the cold season could have been overestimated.
There are many of mechanisms by which forecasts of Arctic sea ice loss could be off compared to observations. None of them jump out and say "they must be using a linear trend" or "they must be ignoring volume for extent." Cryosphere scientists know that ice has volume and that thickness is shrinking. It's not ground-breaking.



I recognized the correct function over 2 years ago on my own doing it by a combination of trial and error by hand, and simple visualization.


It ticks me off that the updated version of Eureka actually can't find as good a fit as the old version did, and the old version wont run because it detects an update on the internet, but it turned out that a power function with a coefficient very close to the 5th root of 2, (2^(1/5)), was the same as the fit the old version of Eureka came up with as the best fit.

This term makes sense, because it's the same as the decay rate derived for a self-reinforcing albedo feedback in the absence of increasing CO2, and assuming roughly uniform thickness.

Now the real world value, and the real curve, are adjusted by linear terms as well in order to account for the increase in CO2, and for the fact that the ice is not quite uniform in thickness.

But the point is, the most important term in the best solutions is usually given as some form of "a*e^u," or some form of "a*n^u," where u is some function of x, and a and n are constants (usually close to 2, such that "n^u" is usually close to 2^(1/5).


this is a very predictable curve, and because the power term or exponential term is so rapidly growing, minor errors in the linear components are not large enough to make a difference of more than 1 or 2 years in predicting a particular meltdown benchmark.



The reason I liked the solution above in my previous post is because it contained both a linear value and an exponential value, both negative, and both of which should be correlated to the "increase in total greenhouse effect". The linear value should represent the fact that existing forcing never goes away, even if CO2 stopped increasing, this linear value would stick around forever until CO2 decreased or until negative albedo feedbacks kick in from increased convection or some other process..

The exponential value should represent the fact that the net forcing increases due to a combination of the CO2 and Methane curves increasing and increased positive albedo feedback, at least for the range and domain for which it is defined and not ridiculous. However values that would suggest "net negative sea ice" could still be interpreted, to some extent, as excess heat budget which will end up in the deep ocean, melting Greenland ice caps, or increased convection, etc.


Anyway, proving that the area should be decreasing exponentially (or by a power rule which is about the same thing anyway,) is literally a high school difficulty problem, which can be demonstrated visually.



I actually discovered the curve by attempting a thought experiment when I was still a skeptic, in order to attempt to DISPROVE a permanent reduction of ice.

After I did this thought experiment and came up with a close approximation of what I thought the curve "should be," I double checked it against the data and it fit very well.

Additionally, I found that studies of loss of volume in Greenland suggested that the 5 year running average melt rate was doubling about every 5 to 10 years, and had actually quadrupled in the 10 years prior (at the time the studies were done). This too agreed closely with the curve I found by thought experiment.

So by attempting to disprove the trend was permanent, I actually proved the trend existed, predicted what the trend should be if AGW was real, and proved it was in fact permanent.


That is to say, even if we cut net CO2 and Methane emissions to zero, the portion of the exponential term which comes from positive albedo feedback will still stick around for many years until the SST becomes hot enough to drive up convection to offset the albedo loss, and this assumes clouds have a net negative feedback, which is apparently up for debate. A certain fraction of the linear term will also stick around permanently, until convection drives the albedo high enough to stop it from increasing, OR until the Earth's temperature becomes so hot that the rate of re-radiation overcomes the greenhouse effect again, but the deep oceans and the ice around the planet can and will absorb tremendous amounts of heat before that happens.


This could go on for thousands of years, maybe even tens of thousands, even if net CO2 and Methane were stopped and held constant for the duration.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
1493. Skyepony (Mod)
4:29 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Thanks y'all..
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 164 Comments: 37854
1492. LargoFl
4:25 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 38532
1491. LargoFl
4:24 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE FL
1139 AM EDT SAT SEP 22 2012

AMZ550-552-555-570-572-575-FLZ041-044>047-053-054 -058-059-064-141-
144-147-230345-
COASTAL WATERS FROM FLAGLER BEACH TO VOLUSIA BREVARD COUNTY LINE
OUT 20 NM-
COASTAL WATERS FROM VOLUSIA BREVARD COUNTY LINE TO SEBASTIAN
INLET OUT 20 NM-
COASTAL WATERS FROM SEBASTIAN INLET TO JUPITER INLET OUT 20 NM-
WATERS FROM FLAGLER BEACH TO VOLUSIA BREVARD COUNTY LINE 20 TO
60 NM OFFSHORE-
WATERS FROM VOLUSIA BREVARD COUNTY LINE TO SEBASTIAN INLET 20 TO
60 NM OFFSHORE-
WATERS FROM SEBASTIAN INLET TO JUPITER INLET 20 TO 60 NM OFFSHORE-
INLAND VOLUSIA-NORTHERN LAKE-ORANGE-SEMINOLE-SOUTHERN BREVARD-
OSCEOLA-INDIAN RIVER-OKEECHOBEE-ST. LUCIE-MARTIN-COASTAL VOLUSIA-
SOUTHERN LAKE-NORTHERN BREVARD-
1139 AM EDT SAT SEP 22 2012

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA.

.DAY ONE...THIS AFTERNOON AND TONIGHT.

.THUNDERSTORM IMPACT...
DEEP MOISTURE ASSOCIATED WITH A DISSIPATING FRONTAL BOUNDARY WILL
COMBINE WITH DAYTIME HEATING AND STRONG JET STREAM WINDS ALOFT TO
PRODUCE WIDESPREAD CLOUDINESS WITH SCATTERED TO NUMEROUS SHOWERS
AND LIGHTNING STORMS...WITH THE BEST CHANCES SOUTH AND EAST OF
INTERSTATE 4.

THE MAIN HAZARDS WILL BE CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING STRIKES AND
TORRENTIAL RAINFALL...WITH LOCALIZED AMOUNTS UP TO THREE INCHES
WHICH COULD CAUSE PONDING OF WATER ON ROADS AND IN AREAS WITH POOR
DRAINAGE. THE BEST CHANCES FOR LOCALLY HEAVY RAIN WITH URBAN AND
SMALL STREAM IMPACTS WILL BE ALONG THE COAST FROM COCOA BEACH
SOUTHWARD...AND ESPECIALLY FROM FORT PIERCE SOUTHWARD TO JUPITER.

BRIEF GUSTY WINDS TO AROUND 35 OR 40 MPH WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE STRONGER STORMS...WITH ISOLATED GUSTS NEAR 50 MPH. STORM
MOTIONS WILL BE CHAOTIC IN DIRECTION WITH A GENERAL DRIFT OF 5 TO
10 MPH IN FORWARD SPEED. HOWEVER...STORMS ALONG THE TREASURE COAST
WILL MOVE NORTH AT 10 TO 15 MPH.

.FLOOD IMPACT...
GIVEN THE ABUNDANT LINGERING MOISTURE...THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR
ONE TO THREE INCHES OF RAIN TO ACCUMULATE IN SPOTS. SOME ISOLATED
LOCATIONS COULD REALIZE FOUR INCHES. AGAIN...THE BEST CHANCES FOR
LOCALLY HEAVY RAIN WITH URBAN PONDING AND SMALL STREAM FLOODING WILL
BE ALONG THE COAST FROM COCOA BEACH SOUTHWARD...AND ESPECIALLY
FROM FORT PIERCE SOUTHWARD TO JUPITER.

.RIP CURRENT IMPACT...
PERSISTENT LONG PERIOD SWELLS WILL GENERATE A MODERATE RISK FOR
RIP CURRENTS AT AREA BEACHES THIS AFTERNOON. THE TIME OF HIGHEST
THREAT WILL BE AFTER 500 PM DUE TO TIDAL EFFECTS. CHECK WITH
LOCAL BEACH PATROL FOR THE LATEST SURF CONDITIONS AND ALWAYS SWIM
NEAR A LIFEGUARD.

.MARINE THUNDERSTORM GUST IMPACT...
ISOLATED STRONGER STORMS WILL BE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WIND GUSTS
UP TO 35 KNOTS ON LARGER INLAND LAKES AS WELL AS THE INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY AND NEARSHORE ATLANTIC WATERS...ESPECIALLY FROM
SEBASTIAN INLET TO JUPITER INLET...AND IN VICINITY OF LAKE
OKEECHOBEE.

.WATERSPOUT IMPACT...
THERE IS A SMALL BUT DISCERNIBLE THREAT FOR SHORT-LIVED WATERSPOUTS
SOUTH OF SEBASTIAN INLET IN VICINITY OF ANY RAPIDLY DEVELOPING
MARITIME SHOWERS AND STORMS.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...SUNDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
SCATTERED SHOWERS AND STORMS ARE FORECAST AGAIN ON SUNDAY WITH THE
HIGHEST COVERAGE TOWARD LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND JUPITER. DRIER AIR
FILTERING INTO CENTRAL FLORIDA WILL LEAD TO MINIMAL COVERAGE OF
RAINFALL ON MONDAY....WITH RAINFALL CHANCES RETURNING TO NORMAL
FROM MID TO LATE NEXT WEEK.

.SPOTTER INFORMATION STATEMENT...
SPOTTERS ARE REQUESTED TO MONITOR THE WEATHER AND SELF ACTIVATE
IF NEEDED...MAINLY IN BREVARD...INDIAN RIVER...SAINT LUCIE...AND
MARTIN COUNTIES. ELSEWHERE...SPOTTER ACTIVATION IS NOT NEEDED.

$$

AC/DS
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 38532
1490. Objectivist
4:22 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting mati:To throw these two pictures out here yet again shows that FUD is better than facts. These pictures were not taken *AT* the north pole, but at the edge of the pack ice to commemorate the *NORTH POLE* expedition by the subs.


As an additional data point, here's a direct account. Note the mention of ice less than two feet thick during the winter. It's worth noting that we have very little solid data from the pre-satellite era.

For example, one crew member aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said:


“The Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”


- Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000
Member Since: November 22, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 34
1489. caneswatch
4:21 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:
Anybody know off hand what time fall equinox occurs today?


It already passed, I believe it was 10:42 am ET.
Member Since: October 8, 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4553
1488. Tropicsweatherpr
4:15 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN JUAN PR
1018 AM AST SAT SEP 22 2012

.SYNOPSIS...TUTT TROUGH EXTENDING FROM AROUND 30N60W WITH LOW
COUPLETS THE FIRST AND DEEPER LOW NEAR 30N/60W THE SECOND LOW OVER
THE SOUTHERN LEEWARD ISLANDS. TUTT TROUGH AND ASSOCIATED LOWS WILL
CONTINUE TO FILL AND RETROGRADE WESTWARD WITH A SOUTHWEST TO
NORTHWEST AXIS OF THE TUTT ACROSS THE LOCAL AREA MONDAY THROUGH
TUESDAY.

.DISCUSSION...MIXED BAG OF FORECAST PARAMETERS TODAY...WE ARE
DRIER THAT WE HAVE BEEN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS WITH PRECIPITABLE
WATER DROPPING TO 1.6 INCHES...LESS LOW LEVEL SHEAR...WITH
HELICITY VALUES OF 1 TODAY COMPARED TO A -3 YESTERDAY. YOU WOULD
THINK THAT LOWER MOISTURE AND LESS SHEAR WOULD LEAVE A DRIER
FORECAST...I GUESS AREA WISE THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. THE ONLY FLY
IN THE OINTMENT IS THAT I BELIEVE WE ARE STARTING TO SEE THE
INTRUSION OF SOME COOLER AIR ALOFT. FREEZING LEVEL HAS DROPPED
ABOUT 600 FEET SINCE YESTERDAY AT THIS TIME...ADD TO THAT AN SMALL
INCREASE IN VERTICAL VELOCITIES...MORE CAPE TO PLAY WITH (3924
J/KG) AND A NICE LIFTING INDEX OF -7.0. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE LESS MOISTURE...THE SHOWER/THUNDERSTORM THAT DO
DEVELOP WILL HAVE A BIT MORE LIFT AND ENERGY SO WHERE THEY OCCUR
LOOK FOR SOME VERY HEAVY DOWNPOURS...AND MAYBE A VERY SLIGHT
CHANCE OF A VERY ISOLATED BOOMER PRODUCING SMALL HAIL...MOSTLY
LIKELY SOMEWHERE ACROSS THE NORTHWEST COURNER OF MAINLAND PUERTO
RICO. OTHERWISE...SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS WILL LIMIT TO
STREAMERS THAT DEVELOP ON THE LESS SIDE OF THE U.S.V.I.
CULEBRA...VIEQUES AND EL YUNQUE.

&&

.AVIATION...VFR CONDITIONS WILL CONTINUE AT ALL TAF SITES WITH ISOLATED
PASSING SHOWERS POSSIBLE IN AND AROUND TIST/TISX...TNCM/TKPK AND TJSJ
THROUGH THE MORNING HOURS. AFTER 22/17Z...SHRA/TSRA EXPECTED TO
DEVELOP...AFFECTING MAINLY TJBQ AND THE VICINITY OF TJMZ AND
TJSJ. AS A RESULT...BRIEF MVFR CONDITIONS AND MOUNTAIN
OBSCURATIONS WILL OCCUR. WINDS FROM SURFACE TO 15KFT WILL BE
MAINLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST BETWEEN 5-10 KTS.

&&

.MARINE...SEAS 1-3 FT THROUGH TODAY BUILDING TO 5 FT SUN IN NE
SWELLS ASSOCIATED WITH POST-TROPICAL CYCLONE NADINE.

&&

.PRELIMINARY POINT TEMPS/POPS...
SJU 90 79 91 79 / 20 10 10 10
STT 90 80 91 80 / 20 10 10 10
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14275
1487. Objectivist
4:14 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting mati:

Well your opinion is pretty clear here.

My opinion, and more than a few quite incontrovertible facts. ;-)
The facts are however played with very loosely. To throw these two pictures out here yet again shows that FUD is better than facts. These pictures were not taken *AT* the north pole, but at the edge of the pack ice to commemorate the *NORTH POLE* expedition by the subs.

Citation, please? It's common knowledge that subs surfaced at the geographic North Pole. Here's a link to an article in that noted right-wing publication, the L.A. Times. Here's a hint - the subs can't surface through thick, healthy ice.
As a follower of Ayn Rand I would expect you to do your research better.

It's more than sufficient.
I'm curious about your opinion of nuclear versus wind/solar, please share. (BTW, I like solar as an endpoint technology, as in solar shingles on homes and buildings. Just not for large-scale central power generation where it's very area intensive. Wind, on the other hand, is simply a bad idea all around.)
(Sorry about the formatting, I wasn't able to get it to work right.)
Member Since: November 22, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 34
1486. indianrivguy
4:13 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:


Here's more info on fracking ruining the fresh water supply water.


Thanks Skye!
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2541
1485. sheople
4:05 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Link

The Documentary "Gasland" by Josh Fox

in regards to fracking
Member Since: September 12, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 35
1484. airmet3
4:04 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:
Anybody know off hand what time fall equinox occurs today?


I believe it was 949am CDT.
Member Since: August 4, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 170
1483. TropicalAnalystwx13
4:02 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
SAB came back with T4.0/65 knots for Jelawat. It is likely a typhoon at the current time.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32074
1482. Skyepony (Mod)
4:02 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Anybody know off hand what time fall equinox occurs today?
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 164 Comments: 37854
1481. wxchaser97
3:56 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting sunlinepr:
JELAWAT? Taiwan Again??


Jelawat will have a lot of energy when it gets near Taiwan, hopefully they do not get a hit,
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
1480. MAweatherboy1
3:56 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
12z GFS 84 hours. Nadine looks tropical here, much more so than at initialization:

Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 83 Comments: 7788
1479. Skyepony (Mod)
3:55 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting indianrivguy:


could you elaborate a little, please.


Here's more info on fracking ruining the fresh water supply water.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 164 Comments: 37854
1478. mati
3:54 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Objectivist:

There are generally three classes of those who contest various aspects of the AGW agitprop (to which the parent article certainly contributes!).

First, there are the deniers, who claim that AGW simply isn't happening. In other words, CO2 has no effect on temperatures.

Second there are skeptics, who admit the basic physics of greenhouse gasses, but contest the specific predictions made by the climate alarmists, in particular the rate of warming, and the related consequences. They also point out that there are concrete benefits of increased CO2, which are never mentioned by the alarmists. There are quite a few prominent scientists in this group.

Third, there are the realists, who think that regardless of what the ground truth is, the correct response is something other than a low-intensity "green" future in which the United States in particular is crippled relative to other countries.

I'm a mix of two and three. The concrete predictions of "climate science" have been all over the map and mostly wrong. Scientifically, that's indicative of lack of knowledge. In my view (and also Romney's for that matter) that means the primary activity right now should be better understanding the problem, and making better predictions.

As another poster pointed out, the US has reduced its carbon emissions considerably. Your point about China is moot, since we have no way whatsoever of influencing China's emissions policies. If you're intellectually honest, you should also admit that the AGW crowd should wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power. That would be a win/win in that nuclear produces no greenhouse gasses, yet can easily meet increasing energy needs going forward (and without taking up vast swaths of natural landscape with windmills and solar panels). Nuclear is also a strategic technology in terms of civilization in general, and space travel in particular. I hope the nuclear powered Curiosity probe is a harbinger of a more pro-nuclear future. The risks associated with nuclear are small, and should be considered versus the 200,000+ annual deaths associated with fossil fuel power production. If AGW is a real threat, nuclear is a no-brainer. Choose. (Perhaps LENR will prove more palatable if it works out - but it will lead to the same high-intensity desirable outcome.)

One hopeful point is that we likely have a lot longer to mitigate the problem than the breathless "the ice cap is melting!" crowd would have us believe. That's because the Sun is in the beginning stages of a Grand Minimum. The Dalton and Maunder minima were both associated with sharp downturns in temperature. So, for my fellow empiricists here, we will be treated to a real-world demonstration of how the Sun's influence relates to AGW. The Grand Minimum will likely last 25-50 years, and possibly longer.

There is also the issue of the various climactic ocean oscillations, and how they've related to this current Arctic melt. This article by Joe Bastardi covers it pretty well:

Finally, it's not at all clear that the historic ice extents follow the trends exhibited in the graph that's been posted here (much like Mann's tree ring temperature reconstructions;). Consider these photos from 1959 and 1987 respectively - both taken at the North Pole:





So, take heart...it's as likely as not that the Arctic ice cap will strongly rebound over the next few decades. I'm sure the AGW true believers will absorb that into their predictions, though, just as they have several previous "inconvenient truths" after the fact. ;-)

However, a scientific theory that can't make specific predictions beforehand simply doesn't pass muster.


Well your opinion is pretty clear here. The facts are however played with very loosely. To throw these two pictures out here yet again shows that FUD is better than facts. These pictures were not taken *AT* the north pole, but at the edge of the pack ice to commemorate the *NORTH POLE* expedition by the subs.

As a follower of Ayn Rand I would expect you to do your research better.
Member Since: September 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 63
1477. GTcooliebai
3:53 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting washingtonian115:
The one approaching now.
Oh ok maybe some rain for the southern islands. :)
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
1476. CaicosRetiredSailor
3:50 PM GMT on September 22, 2012


Murdoch acknowledged in 2007 the reality of anthropogenic climate change and pledged that his company's operations would become carbon-neutral - a goal achieved in 2011. Still, as the UCS data indicate, many of News Corp.'s most influential and powerful employees continue to perpetuate climate denialism.


...could this be "the man behind the curtain" reffered to earlier?
Making money with a product he knows to be untruthful.

Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6037
1475. wxchaser97
3:49 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Current TCHP in the Caribbean is much higher, and covers a much higher area, than any single day in any of the recent past seasons. It's borderline ridiculous.




It is pretty much rediculous, I am saying that if a storm gets over there then it could really strengthen.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7942
1474. sunlinepr
3:48 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting sheople:
Fracking may give us plenty of natural gas for cleaner burning fuel, but it is destroying our fresh water supply. Along with bio-fuels such as ethanol. So much fresh water wasted.


Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fraccing or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.[a][1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.

Link
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
1473. Objectivist
3:46 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
No, that's not why anyone doubts it. They doubt it because they're the unwitting victims of a decades-long scheme by Big Energy to make sure that they doubt it. Or they doubt it because to admit it's happening and that something drastic needs to be done to prevent a certain catastrophe would run counter to their ideological preconceptions (as belied in statements such as "the sky is falling so give me your money"). Or they doubt it because they fear it, and willful ignorance is just plain more pleasant at times. Or they doubt it because they've fallen prey to confirmation bias by reading only those items that--and listening to only those people who--support what they already believe.

And so on.

There are generally three classes of those who contest various aspects of the AGW agitprop (to which the parent article certainly contributes!).

First, there are the deniers, who claim that AGW simply isn't happening. In other words, CO2 has no effect on temperatures.

Second there are skeptics, who admit the basic physics of greenhouse gasses, but contest the specific predictions made by the climate alarmists, in particular the rate of warming, and the related consequences. They also point out that there are concrete benefits of increased CO2, which are never mentioned by the alarmists. There are quite a few prominent scientists in this group.

Third, there are the realists, who think that regardless of what the ground truth is, the correct response is something other than a low-intensity "green" future in which the United States in particular is crippled relative to other countries.

I'm a mix of two and three. The concrete predictions of "climate science" have been all over the map and mostly wrong. Scientifically, that's indicative of lack of knowledge. In my view (and also in Romney's for that matter) that means the primary activity right now should be better understanding the problem, and making better predictions.

As another poster pointed out, the US has reduced its carbon emissions considerably. Your point about China is moot, since we have no way whatsoever of influencing China's emissions policies. If you're intellectually honest, you should also admit that the AGW crowd should wholeheartedly embrace nuclear power. That would be a win/win in that nuclear produces no greenhouse gasses, yet can easily meet increasing energy needs going forward - without littering vast swaths of natural landscape with windmills and solar panels. Nuclear is also a strategic technology in terms of civilization in general, and space travel in particular. I hope the nuclear powered Curiosity probe is a harbinger of a more pro-nuclear future. The risks associated with nuclear are small, and should be considered versus the over 200,000 annual deaths associated with fossil fuel power production. If AGW is a real threat, nuclear is a no-brainer. Choose. (Perhaps LENR will prove more palatable if it works out - but it will lead to the same high-intensity desirable outcome.)

One hopeful point is that we likely have a lot longer to mitigate the problem than the breathless "the ice cap is melting!" crowd would have us believe. That's because the Sun is in the beginning stages of a Grand Minimum. The Dalton and Maunder minima were both associated with sharp downturns in temperature. So, for my fellow empiricists here, we will be treated to a real-world demonstration of how the Sun's influence relates to AGW. The Grand Minimum will likely last 25-50 years, and possibly longer.

There is also the issue of the various climactic ocean oscillations, and how they've related to this current Arctic melt. This article by Joe Bastardi covers it pretty well.

Finally, it's not at all clear that the historic ice extents follow the trends exhibited in the graph that's been posted here (much like Mann's tree ring temperature reconstructions;). Consider these photos from 1959 and 1987 respectively - both taken at the North Pole:





So, take heart...it's as likely as not that the Arctic ice cap will strongly rebound over the next few decades. I'm sure the AGW true believers will absorb that into their predictions, though, just as they have several previous "inconvenient truths" after the fact. ;-)

However, a scientific theory that can't make specific predictions beforehand simply doesn't pass muster.
Member Since: November 22, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 34
1472. AussieStorm
3:44 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting sheople:
Fracking may give us plenty of natural gas for cleaner burning fuel, but it is destroying our fresh water supply. Along with bio-fuels such as ethanol. So much fresh water wasted.

We have that fracking going on here. They just passed a law here that anywhere in my state can have test bore drilled. It sucks, we have the great artesian basin which many many farmers relay upon. if this get's damaged or an intrusion of chemicals it will render the whole basin useless.

The Great Artesian Basin

Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15935
1471. sunlinepr
3:41 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
1470. indianrivguy
3:36 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting sheople:
Fracking may give us plenty of natural gas for cleaner burning fuel, but it is destroying our fresh water supply. Along with bio-fuels such as ethanol. So much fresh water wasted.


could you elaborate a little, please.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2541
1469. washingtonian115
3:35 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting GTcooliebai:
I don't know if you're talking about 92L or the wave that is approaching now, but the Canadian and GFS were showing a weak surface reflection; however, the building ridge in the Atlantic pushes it into South America, so no worries there.
The one approaching now.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16979
1468. SFLWeatherman
3:30 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
EX 92L??
Quoting E46Pilot:
It's been raining all morning here in south florida. Tropical wave?
Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4528
1467. GTcooliebai
3:30 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting washingtonian115:
Look guys I know we're desperate for a storm to form in the Atlantic so e can track it.But The wave near the Leeward islands?.Really?.
I don't know if you're talking about 92L or the wave that is approaching now, but the Canadian and GFS were showing a weak surface reflection; however, the building ridge in the Atlantic pushes it into South America, so no worries there.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
1466. sunlinepr
3:30 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
JELAWAT? Taiwan Again??

Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
1465. ScottLincoln
3:28 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


The fact that their curve is off by that much pretty well proves it.

All they did was extrapolate the "apparently linear" per-decade trend..


No. The "fact that [the] curve is off" does not prove that climate models just estimate Arctic sea ice loss as a linear function of extent and ignoring total volume. It barely even suggests that, let alone proves anything.

There are numerous reasons why the observations could be so much lower than the models. Warming of the Arctic region could be occuring at a faster rate than predicted in the last IPCC summary. The Arctic Ocean could be warming at a faster rate. Positive feedbacks could have been under-estimated. Positive feedbacks could have been missed. Formation of ice during the cold season could have been overestimated.
There are many of mechanisms by which forecasts of Arctic sea ice loss could be off compared to observations. None of them jump out and say "they must be using a linear trend" or "they must be ignoring volume for extent." Cryosphere scientists know that ice has volume and that thickness is shrinking. It's not ground-breaking.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3193
1464. sheople
3:26 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Fracking may give us plenty of natural gas for cleaner burning fuel, but it is destroying our fresh water supply. Along with bio-fuels such as ethanol. So much fresh water wasted.
Member Since: September 12, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 35
1463. sunlinepr
3:26 PM GMT on September 22, 2012



Flooding, landslides bring misery to parts of Alaska

Posted on September 22, 2012

September 22, 2012 ANCHORAGE, Alaska Flooding continues to cause problems throughout Southcentral Alaska. Jeremy Zidek, spokesman for the state Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, says in a release that there have been reports of flooding, landslides and road closures throughout the area. But there has been no report of major injuries. Residents in East Talkeetna are being told to evacuate because of flooding. The Red Cross has established three shelters in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and helped with another in Seward. Weather problems are not confined to Southcentral Alaska. Zidek says a landslide has blocked access from the village of Chenega to its airport, and state transportation officials are working to restore access. And an assessment team is in Tanacross to evaluate damage from Sundays wind storm. SAC Bee

Link

Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
1462. E46Pilot
3:26 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
It's been raining all morning here in south florida. Tropical wave?
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 289
1461. sunlinepr
3:22 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
1459. washingtonian115
3:20 PM GMT on September 22, 2012
Look guys I know we're desperate for a storm to form in the Atlantic so e can track it.But The wave near the Leeward islands?.Really?.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16979

Viewing: 1509 - 1459

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.

Local Weather

Light Rain
78 °F
Light Rain