Hurricane Sandy's huge size: freak of nature or climate change?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:10 PM GMT on November 13, 2012

Share this Blog
58
+

Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds, and no hurricanes has. Sandy's area of ocean with twelve-foot seas peaked at 1.4 million square miles--nearly one-half the area of the contiguous United States, or 1% of Earth's total ocean area. Most incredibly, ten hours before landfall (9:30 am EDT October 30), the total energy of Sandy's winds of tropical storm-force and higher peaked at 329 terajoules--the highest value for any Atlantic hurricane since at least 1969. This is 2.7 times higher than Katrina's peak energy, and is equivalent to five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. At landfall, Sandy's tropical storm-force winds spanned 943 miles of the the U.S. coast. No hurricane on record has been wider; the previous record holder was Hurricane Igor of 2010, which was 863 miles in diameter. Sandy's huge size prompted high wind warnings to be posted from Chicago to Eastern Maine, and from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Florida's Lake Okeechobee--an area home to 120 million people. Sandy's winds simultaneously caused damage to buildings on the shores of Lake Michigan at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!

Largest Atlantic tropical cyclones for area covered by tropical storm-force winds:

Olga, 2001: 780,000 square miles
Sandy, 2012: 560,000 square miles
Lili, 1996: 550,000 square miles
Igor, 2010: 550,000 square miles
Karl, 2004: 430,000 square miles



Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy’s winds (top), on October 28, 2012, when Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane with top winds of 75 mph (this ocean surface wind data is from a radar scatterometer on the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2.) Hurricane Katrina’s winds (bottom) on August 28, 2005, when Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane with top winds of 175 mph (data taken by a radar scatterometer on NASA’s defunct QuickSCAT satellite.) In both maps, wind speeds above 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour are yellow; above 80 kph (50 mph) are orange; and above 95 kph (60 mph) are dark red. The most noticeable difference is the extent of the strong wind fields. For Katrina, winds over 65 kilometers per hour stretched about 500 kilometers (300 miles) from edge to edge. For Sandy, winds of that intensity spanned an region of ocean three times as great--1,500 kilometers (900 miles). Katrina was able to generate a record-height storm surge over a small area of the Mississippi coast. Sandy generated a lower but highly destructive storm surge over a much larger area, due to the storm's weaker winds but much larger size. Image credit: NASA.

How did Sandy get so big?
We understand fairly well what controls the peak strength of a hurricane's winds, but have a poor understanding of why some hurricanes get large and others stay small. A number of factors probably worked together to create a "prefect storm" situation that allowed Sandy to grow so large, and we also must acknowledge that climate change could have played a role. Here are some possible reasons why Sandy grew so large:

1) Initial size of the disturbance that became Sandy was large
Sandy formed from an African tropical wave that interacted with a large area of low pressure that covered most of the Central Caribbean. Rotunno and Emanuel (1987) found that hurricanes that form from large initial tropical disturbances like Sandy did tend to end up large in size.


Figure 2. The initial disturbance that spawned Sandy, seen here on October 20, 2012, was quite large.

2) High relative humidity in Sandy's genesis region
The amount of moisture in the atmosphere may play an important role in how large a hurricane gets (Hill and Lackmann, 2009.) Sandy was spawned in the Caribbean in a region where the relative humidity was near 70%. This is the highest humidity we saw during 2012 during the formation of any Atlantic hurricane.

3) Passage over Cuba
Sandy struck Cuba as an intensifying Category 2 hurricane with 110 mph winds. While the core of the storm was over Cuba, it was cut off from the warm ocean waters surrounding Cuba. Most of Sandy's large circulation was still over the ocean, though, and the energy the storm was able to extract from the ocean went into intensifying the spiral bands over water. When Sandy's core re-emerged over water, the hurricane now had spiral bands with heavier thunderstorm activity as a result of the extra energy pumped into the outer portion of the storm during the eye's passage over land. This extra energy in the outer portions of Sandy may have enabled it to expand in size later.

4) Interaction with a trough of low pressure over the Bahamas
As Sandy passed through the Bahamas on October 25, the storm encountered strong upper-level winds associated with a trough of low pressure to the west. These winds created high wind shear that helped weaken Sandy and destroy the eyewall. However, Sandy compensated by spreading out its tropical storm-force winds over a much wider area. Between 15 and 21 UTC on October 25, Sandy's area of tropical storm-force winds increased by more than a factor of two.

5) Leveraging of the Earth's spin
As storms move towards Earth's poles, they acquire more spin, since Earth's rotation works to put more vertical spin into the atmosphere the closer one gets to the pole. This extra spin helps storms grow larger, and we commonly see hurricanes grow in size as they move northwards.

6) Interaction with a trough of low pressure at landfall
As Sandy approached landfall in New Jersey, it encountered an extratropical low pressure system to its west. This extratropical storm began pumping cold air aloft into the hurricane, which converted Sandy into an extratropical low pressure system, or "Nor'easter". The nature of extratropical storms is to have a much larger area with strong winds than a hurricane does, since extratropical storms derive their energy from the atmosphere along a frontal boundary that is typically many hundreds of miles long. Thus, as Sandy made landfall, the hurricane's strongest winds spread out over a larger area, causing damage from Indiana to Nova Scotia.

Are we likely to see more such storms in the future?
Global warming theory (Emanuel, 2005) predicts that a 2°C (3.6°F) increase in ocean temperatures should cause an increase in the peak winds of the strongest hurricanes of about about 10%. Furthermore, warmer ocean temperatures are expected to cause hurricanes to dump 20% more rain in their cores by the year 2100, according to computer modeling studies (Knutson et al., 2010). However, there has been no published work describing how hurricane size may change with warmer oceans in a future climate. We've seen an unusual number of Atlantic hurricanes with large size in recent years, but we currently have no theoretical or computer modeling simulations that can explain why this is so, or if we might see more storms like this in the future. However, we've seen significant and unprecedented changes to our atmosphere in recent decades, due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The laws of physics demand that the atmosphere must respond. Atmospheric circulation patterns that control extreme weather events must change, and we should expect extreme storms to change in character, frequency, and intensity as a result--and not always in the ways our computer models may predict. We have pushed our climate system to a fundamentally new, higher-energy state where more heat and moisture is available to power stronger storms, and we should be concerned about the possibility that Hurricane Sandy's freak size and power were partially due to human-caused climate change.

References
Emanuel, K. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436(7051), 686-688.

Hill, Kevin A., and Gary M. Lackmann (2009), "Influence of environmental humidity on tropical cyclone size," Monthly Weather Review 137.10 (2009): 3294-3315.

Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., ... & Sugi, M. (2010). Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), 157-163.

Rotunno, R., & Emanuel, K. A. (1987). An air–sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part II: Evolutionary study using a nonhydrostatic axisymmetric numerical model. J. Atmos. Sci, 44(3), 542-561.

The Atlantic is quiet, but a Nor'easter expected next week
The Atlantic is quiet, with no threat areas to discuss. An area of low pressure is predicted to develop just north of Bermuda on Wednesday, and the GFS model predicts that this low could become a subtropical cyclone as moves north-northeastwards out to sea late in the week.

The long-range models are in increasing agreement that a Nor'easter will develop near the North Carolina coast on Sunday, then move north to northeastwards early next week. High winds, heavy rain, and coastal flooding could affect the mid-Atlantic coast and New England coasts next Monday and Tuesday due to this storm, but it appears likely that the Nor'easter will stay farther out to sea than the last Nor'easter and have less of an impact on the region devastated by Sandy. Ocean temperatures off the coast of North Carolina were cooled by about 4°F (2.2°C) due to the churning action of Hurricane Sandy's winds, but are still warm enough at 22 - 24°C to potentially allow the Nor'easter to acquire some subtropical characteristics. I doubt the storm would be able to become a named subtropical storm, but it could have an unusual amount of heavy rain if it does become partially tropical. The Nor'easter is still a long ways in the future, and there is still a lot of uncertainty on where the storm might go.

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: 261 - 211

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog Index

Quoting goosegirl1:


I don't work in areas in which snow geese are endemic, although I have seen the odd one migrating through the mid-atlantic. Are you talking about the population explosion of Canada geese, which is related to an adaptable species taking advantage of increased habitat and resources? Not all species of animal are decreasing, of course.
I agree, a few million extra Snow Geese do not cancel out endemic species being lost in rain forests or other habitats. Although I do wish someone could do something about all the nasty Canadian geese around here. That is one species I would not mind seeing go through a marked population decline.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Aussie for the corona image. Awesome coverage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
Funny, I can find writings that contradict the claims that this is cherry-picked.

you are correct, you can. let us start with your writing and work our way backwards the groups and sources mentioned by the other bloggers.. you've also been provided linked access to the raw data sources used across the board by AGW claimants and deniers alike. i will not use the word 'proponent' as it is an absurd linguistic moniker. no one is a proponent of AGW, they are claimants, and their counter part are deniers. denial is the term for it refutes explanation of empirical and instrumental observations; such as your graph we are discussing. the observations of raw data, environmental feedback, and atmospheric behaviors are all presentations of global warming. another observation is CO2 level in the atmosphere. the "theory" is thermodynamics, the refutation is massaged data.
again, no one is a proponent of continuing the historic runaway pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. let's save argument for difficult policy crossroads... -How can CO2 output be decreased in a profitable way for all business alike? everyone has different needs, plenty to argue about there! what many AGW claimants struggle to comprehend is how a shared goal of reducing CO2 output continually falters. in America, we are constantly being pulled backwards in argument over science that is at least 10-15yrs old. this is happening.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hmm, let's see. Timbering and clearing for agricultural land are the biggies. Residential/commercial development a ways behind those. Mining behind that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



i have a question maybe you can answer is the over crowding population of snow geese still eating up the tundra???


I don't work in areas in which snow geese are endemic, although I have seen the odd one migrating through the mid-atlantic. Are you talking about the population explosion of Canada geese, which is related to an adaptable species taking advantage of increased habitat and resources? Not all species of animal are decreasing, of course.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"Please explain how habitat is being lost."

Largely through development and extraction, the Brazilian rain forest being the prime example among many.


OK, now explain the reasons behind the development and extraction. Give just a few details.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:
I see Nea didn't answer the question I asked him way back at comment #13 so I'll ask him again.

Question for Neapolitan, Why are you not pushing your local/state/federal govt to do something about changing from gas to something more environmentally friendly. Starting a local community interest group. You seem to know what your talking about. Instead of just talking about it here, why not kick it up a notch and get pushing. The more people that push for change, the harder it is for local/state/federal govt not to listen.

Maybe Nea has me on his ignore list cause I was "rude" to Dr Masters.
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
Quoting yoboi:



i have a question maybe you can answer is the over crowding population of snow geese still eating up the tundra???


I heard the polar bears came ashore and ate um up.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2518
253. yoboi
Quoting goosegirl1:



Now you pricked my balloon, too. Please explain how habitat is being lost. Hint- It's my area of knowledge, I already know. I'm just seeing how you can dodge a changing climate for this one.



i have a question maybe you can answer is the over crowding population of snow geese still eating up the tundra???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Please explain how habitat is being lost."

Largely through development and extraction, the Brazilian rain forest being the prime example among many.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Interesting on this blog to see just how much heat energy is out there waiting to be harnessed and dropped on the land.

Large amounts of central Italy are underwater, floods and roads cut all over the place.
Some areas got half a years rainfall in a day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20318043

I got 10 inches in my rain gauge last week, probably more than fell all last year as I only measured about 3 occasions of around 2 inches.
We got a total of about 14 inches over a 2 week period but yesterday near Valencia about 400 miles north of us, they had about 9 inches in a day.
Massive storm system over a lot of the Western Mediterranean, more very heavy rains tomorrow for the Majorca island area.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see Nea didn't answer the question I asked him way back at comment #13 so I'll ask him again.

Question for Neapolitan, Why are you not pushing your local/state/federal govt to do something about changing from gas to something more environmentally friendly. Starting a local community interest group. You seem to know what your talking about. Instead of just talking about it here, why not kick it up a notch and get pushing. The more people that push for change, the harder it is for local/state/federal govt not to listen.
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"It is a crime against humanity to spread lies that are designed to cause people to die. (Never mind that we are living in the greatest extinction event since the Permian.)" Wow, talk about over-the-top hyperbole. BTW, the extiction event is triggered mostly by habitat loss, not warming.



Now you pricked my balloon, too. Please explain how habitat is being lost. Hint- It's my area of knowledge, I already know. I'm just seeing how you can dodge a changing climate for this one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:


Thanks for posting that again.

I just spoke to my brother who lives in Townsville just outside of the totality area, my niece went outside to look and asked "why was it dark when the sun is in the sky".

This is what Cairns got. Cool ain't it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
"This will change the way the atmosphere holds heat energy. "

And the entire point of the debate is, "How Much?" All attempts at extrapolation from that point of the logical arguments boil down to that.


*sigh*

Look, I don't have time to give the physics lesson required. The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gasses, will hold significantly more heat energy near the earth's surface is really not a debatable point. This is going into molecular interactions with various wavelengths of light that have been largely known since, like, the late 19th century.

Nobody seriously debates this.

If you want some simple answer, you're going to have to go do your own hunting for why that's actually kind of a complicated question. It depends on the layer of the atmosphere you're talking about, it depends on the nearby molecules that the emitted infrared from the greenhouse gas can pass energy to, so on.

One of the things I note frequently in these discussions is that it feels like a number of folks take "ah ha! You don't have a quick yes/no or a number to give me!" as "winning" some point. The reality is that the question you're asking doesn't make much sense, and even explaining why that is would take basically teaching a course on gaseous molecular interactions with radiation.

It's not a game I'm playing today. I'm down with discussion, I'm not down with getting stuck in the infinite "gotcha" loop. Did plenty of that in a recent relationship, I'm quite aware that it never goes anywhere helpful to anybody.

Good luck to you all.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting LargoFl:
sure cooled off big time in Alabama huh...........

Sure has, Largo. It only got down to 40 last night but, with the breeze, the wind chill got down to 35. Our high was only 56, and it's still breezy. We have a frost advisory for tomorrow morning, although it seems unlikely we'll reach freezng in central Alabama, since the winds are predicted to stay up overnight.

Surprisingly, considering Nov/Dec is our secondary severe weather period, we've not even had a thunderstorm, and it looks calm on the horizon. Last year, we were already getting severe thunderstorms.

I realize none of this has anything to do with AGW, but I thought I'd throw some weather stuff in here anyway. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
that is not data, that is the most cherry picked "graph" i've ever seen on climate. wow, you just don't get data do you?
Funny, I can find writings that contradict the claims that this is cherry-picked. And also evidence that AGW propopents keep moving the goal posts on how long a global warming plateau has to be before it presents a problem for the models.

That's the problem with this debate. Both sides have become intransigent and entrenched. Lots of insults (mostly from the AGW side, if this thread is any example). And a complete disrespect of natural skepticism.


I have seen evidence presented on this blog, by Dr. Masters, from the paleoclimatic record, that gives AGW theories some credence.


And I also see a lot of lines of reasoning that leap past the question of "How much warming will this cause?" And thereby rely on underlying faith that more CO2 equals catastrophic warming.


And I see claim after claim that this is settled science. So supposedly was Clovis First.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:
Winds Drive Record Antarctic Sea Ice

Very interesting that while the arctic ice cap shrinks the Antarctic grows by 6,600 square miles a year according to NASA


Thanks for posting that again.

I just spoke to my brother who lives in Townsville just outside of the totality area, my niece went outside to look and asked "why was it dark when the sun is in the sky".

This is what Cairns got. Cool ain't it.
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15932
243. yoboi
Quoting Naga5000:


I'm talking about facts not predictions. That graph is cherry picked or to use your term, selectively edited. Post #220 has a detailed explanation.


i am confused is the graph using real data???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
awww..someone is trying to lure me by baiting me..I feel special now..

thanks though, but I'm not interested
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
I presented a graph showing the increase in average global temp is the same now as it was 16 years ago - using East Anglia's own data. If you use shorter ranges within that span, you can show increases or decreases, depending upon the point you are trying to make. But the larger point stands - average global temp is the same as it was 16 years ago. Something that contradicts the models.


I'm talking about facts not predictions. That graph is cherry picked or to use your term, selectively edited. Post #220 has a detailed explanation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This was a really good read. Sandy was some kind of storm. Incredibly interesting to follow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
239. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
When you can't effectively argue your side of a debate based on the facts alone, it's always a great idea to sidetrack the conversation by attacking your opponent's method instead of those facts he presents.

Let me know how that works for you... ;-)


i agree with you...seen plenty of that during the president race.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


huh?


During a slow period recently, I posted a link that indicated that the North Carolina Senate had passed legislation making it illegal to take measurements that might indicate that the sea level is rising. Another poster here, NCStorm, took high exception to my doing so, ostensibly defending his senate. I figure... might as well roll with the times and respect other peoples' choosing ignorance as a coping strategy.
Member Since: May 21, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 437
Quoting Neapolitan:
When you can't effectively argue your side of a debate based on the facts alone, it's always a great idea to sidetrack the conversation by attacking your opponent's method instead of those facts he presents.

Let me know how that works for you... ;-)



Exactely what you are doing...glad you finally admitted it :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
236. yoboi
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


Gotcha again. I don't know that we can call it "cyclical," exactly -- there are a lot of factors. The sun has gone through cycles, and that does effect earth's climate over long spans of time (though right now, that should be a _cooling_ effect, historically.) And all sorts of orbit stuff can mean cyclical shifts. But there have also been other factors at play -- greater volcanic activity in the far past, say, or the anomalous events like meteor strikes, that aren't really regular or aren't working in the same ways still.

Over 4 Billion years, the planet has definitely seen a very wide range of atmospheric conditions and climate conditions, some based on cycles and some less so. The first photosynthetic organisms also totally changed earth's atmosphere, for the record, adding all this oxygen, which drove some serious mass extinction at the time.

Thing is, in all of that, nature doesn't really care whether species (including us) get wiped out or struggle or whatever, there's been a lot of change and there have also been a lot of huge extinction events.

But we do care, or at least we should. And we can't control everything, for sure, but we'd probably be well advised to make some solid attempts to do what we _can_. I mean, I can't prevent a meteor from smacking my house tomorrow, but I still would rather avoid stepping in front of a bus today.


i understand your point...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In Remembrance Of the Blog

November 13, 2012-November 13, 2012

The server requests that you please send weather comments in lieu of C02 gases, fossil fuels, Pollution, Ocean Heat Temperatures, Drought, Government, Graphs, and Insults





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Winds Drive Record Antarctic Sea Ice

Very interesting that while the arctic ice cap shrinks the Antarctic grows by 6,600 square miles a year according to NASA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Why are you so arrogant?

You yell at, insult, and pick fights with everyone who doesnt agree with you on AGW.
When you can't effectively argue your side of a debate based on the facts alone, it's always a great idea to sidetrack the conversation by attacking your opponent's method instead of those facts he presents.

Let me know how that works for you... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13456
Quoting Grothar:


The good think about being neutral is you can hate both sides at the same time.
Which these days seems like the right thing to do.....Even tho I believe hate is bad...Greetings ancient one. Hows the Geritol treatin ya...:)
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20493
This eclipse is soooo cool looking!!!!!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"Read the insulting" Seems the bulk of the insults are coming from your side.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
thats it for me i give up trying to keep it weather in here..
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
"It is a crime against humanity to spread lies that are designed to cause people to die. (Never mind that we are living in the greatest extinction event since the Permian.)" Wow, talk about over-the-top hyperbole. BTW, the extiction event is triggered mostly by habitat loss, not warming.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


what i am trying to figure out does climate go in cycles...


Gotcha again. I don't know that we can call it "cyclical," exactly -- there are a lot of factors. The sun has gone through cycles, and that does effect earth's climate over long spans of time (though right now, that should be a _cooling_ effect, historically.) And all sorts of orbit stuff can mean cyclical shifts. But there have also been other factors at play -- greater volcanic activity in the far past, say, or the anomalous events like meteor strikes, that aren't really regular or aren't working in the same ways still.

Over 4 Billion years, the planet has definitely seen a very wide range of atmospheric conditions and climate conditions, some based on cycles and some less so. The first photosynthetic organisms also totally changed earth's atmosphere, for the record, adding all this oxygen, which drove some serious mass extinction at the time.

Thing is, in all of that, nature doesn't really care whether species (including us) get wiped out or struggle or whatever, there's been a lot of change and there have also been a lot of huge extinction events.

But we do care, or at least we should. And we can't control everything, for sure, but we'd probably be well advised to make some solid attempts to do what we _can_. I mean, I can't prevent a meteor from smacking my house tomorrow, but I still would rather avoid stepping in front of a bus today.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
GFS at 276 hours.................
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
"CO2 a heat-trapping gas. NO DEBATE"

How much heat will the additional CO2 trap? The entire point of the debate. Yet the world is being asked to make fundamental economic changes on science that is anything but settled, despite the claims of AGW proponents to the contrary.

OK, go ahead and call me a denier. It used to be skepticism was part of the scientific process. Now it is shouted down.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like we will be cooling down here again next week...
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
Link for # 220

http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2012/10/ murdering-the-w-1.html
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5996
JMA Model



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
Re: chart in #194

An analysis of the Daily Mail/Mail Online article/chart.

Summary: The chart in the Daily Mail/Mail Online article appears to be a fabrication in that it doesn’t represent real observations. The article is a series of misrepresentations that has been refuted by the UK’s Met Office. In short, the article is another LIE created by Global Warming Deniers. Global Warming Deniers are gullible, scientifically ignorant fools who will believe any LIE as long as it promotes their agenda; and they have swallowed this LIE whole - hook, line, and sinker.

1) A comparison can be made between the real HadCRUT4 data (Fig 7 at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagra ms.html ) vs. the Daily Mail/Mail Online chart. The real HadCRUT4 data shows a sharp drop in temperature from the brief 1998 El Nino Peak to much lower La Nina temperatures in 1999/2000. This was followed by a rebound in 2001. In the real HAdCRUT4 data, temperatures never subsequently approached the 1999/2000 lows. The Daily Mail/Mail Online chart shows a peak in 1997 instead of 1998 and several subsequent lows near the 1999/2000 lows. The real HadCRUT4 data has a peak temperature in 2010 that ties the high in 2005. The Daily Mail/Mail Online graph does not show 2010 levels anywhere near this earlier peak. Conclusion: The Daily Mail/Mail Online chart does not use the HadCRUT4 data even though the article claims it does.

2) The Daily Mail/Mail Online chart attributes the chart to “Ben Weller”. Google searches using
“Ben Weller” climate
“Ben Weller” meteorology
“Ben Weller” temperature
return links to various blogs/forums/websites that discuss the article, but not to any source that would indicate that “Ben Weller” works for any scientific organization. Conclusion: The “Ben Weller” name on the chart does not refer to a scientific organization. There is a Ben Weller freelance photographer who has contributed work to the Daily Mail/Mail Online. The suspicion arises that Ben Weller has widened his repertoire to include “Graphic Arts”.

3) Google lets you run image searches. If you run an image search using any of the posted pictures of the graph, Google returns a bunch of links to various Global Warming Denier web pages that display the graph. What the Google search doesn’t show is the original article that was “issued quietly on the internet”. Google is pretty good at finding just about anything on the Internet – if and only if it actually exists on the Internet.

The Daily Mail/Mail Online article doesn’t give an Internet link such that the validity of the source data can be checked. What is the source of the data used for the chart?

4) The UK’s Met Office has issued a statement pointing out the misrepresentations in David Rose’s Daily Mail/Mail Online article. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/climate-res earch-unit/ This Met Office statement is very similar to the UK Met Office statement about the misrepresentations in a previous David Rose Daily Mail/Mail Online article. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met- office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ It would appear that David Rose has a bad habit of “inventing facts”.

As stated earlier, Global Warming Deniers are gullible, scientifically ignorant fools who will believe any LIE. The follow-up to the Daily Mail/Mail Online article is simply an example of: “The more things change, the more the stay the same”.
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 5996
"This will change the way the atmosphere holds heat energy. "

And the entire point of the debate is, "How Much?" All attempts at extrapolation from that point of the logical arguments boil down to that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:


If you can throw in a few fighting words along with your weather images I think you'll be good...


The good think about being neutral is you can hate both sides at the same time.
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 69 Comments: 25345
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
Quoting FatPenguin:
Let's simplify again what we're talking about.

CO2 a heat-trapping gas. NO DEBATE

More heat in a system increases entropy, aka chaos. NO DEBATE

For 200 years the burning of fossil fuels has increased the levels of CO2. NO DEBATE

Oceans are rising. NO DEBATE

A warming climate raises oceans levels. NO DEBATE

Extreme weather has increased over the last 10 years. NO DEBATE

2001-2010 was hottest decade worldwide since records have been kept. NO DEBATE

The Arctic Ocean is rapidly losing its summer ice, and will likely be mostly ice free in the summer in the next decade. NO DEBATE

An ice-free Arctic Ocean absorbs and retains more heat, thus accelerating the heating of the Northern Hemisphere, and eventually entire globe. NO DEBATE

Now, remind me again why we are debating that Sandy is NOT a warning shot fired across the bow?

Anyone with logic and foresight looks at Sandy and says, "We can either invest in measures to prevent this, which will be expensive now, but save money over the long run. Or, do little to nothing and let future generations pay the tab for future Sandys. A cost that over time will far exceed in costs what we spend now, not to mention the lost lives."

And as we focus on Sandy now, look back at the US Midwest and what they (and Canada) went through last Spring. Go back and read the comments from the climate scientists and meteorologists. Their language about that warming was stark and foreboding.

At this point of the AGW/Climate Change discussion, anyone that is debating whether or not this is happening is either trolling or lacks the capacity for critical thinking.

The only thing to debate now is how bad it will get and how much we spend now to save lives and reduce future costs. This is not just my point of view. The insurance industry, the Pentagon and almost every major scientific organization have agreed with this for nearly 5 years now.


Correct! There has been no legitimate debate about the existence of AGW since the early 1970's. People have been paid to lie, people have lied because they thought it would help their bottom line, but the scientific debate ended decades ago. Catch a clue the earth is warming!!

And their are consequences.
People are dying because of AGW.

It is a crime against humanity to spread lies that are designed to cause people to die. (Never mind that we are living in the greatest extinction event since the Permian.) When one group of people kill off large numbers of others, what is that called genocide? or just mass murder?

MEANWHILE:

WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist propaganda on the web, and is therefore reinforcing the myth of an AGW debate.

That is a serious charge, lets parse out the sentence:
biggest? Yup. WUG gets more clicks than any other weather site.

clearinghouse? Yup. If you want to find out what the latest lie coming out of the denial industry is, do you check wattsup etc.? No! All you have to do is come to WUG and the lies will be here.

denialist propaganda? Read the insulting, inaccurate, nonsensical things the denialists have posted just today!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
sure cooled off big time in Alabama huh...........
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856
Quoting Naga5000:


Are you seriously calling "selective editing" and then showing data over a 15 year period to try and use a three year sample to prove that the earth is not warming anymore? Because that's what it looks like.
I presented a graph showing the increase in average global temp is the same now as it was 16 years ago - using East Anglia's own data. If you use shorter ranges within that span, you can show increases or decreases, depending upon the point you are trying to make. But the larger point stands - average global temp is the same as it was 16 years ago. Something that contradicts the models.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
212. yoboi
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


Gotcha. Yeah, it did. The earlier biggish quake in Chile did a little bit, too, but this one more dramatically. It's a weird thing to think about, cool and a little bit of a strange "huh, this really is just a big spinny ball of stuff" reminder.

The days shortened by 1.8 microseconds. Had to look it up to make sure I was remembering: link

So now, we can tell all kids born after that we had to make it through longer days, uphill both ways in the snow...


thanks for the link....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
folks we need to get back to weather in here.............FREEZE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 2 AM TO 8 AM CST
WEDNESDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN BIRMINGHAM HAS ISSUED A FREEZE
WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 2 AM TO 8 AM CST WEDNESDAY.

* TEMPERATURES...SHOULD DROP INTO THE LOW 30S ACROSS THE NORTHERN
SECTIONS OF CENTRAL ALABAMA...OR GENERALLY ALONG AND NORTH OF A
REFORM...TO ALABASTER...TO HEFLIN LINE.

* IMPACTS...FREEZING TEMPERATURES MAY DAMAGE OR KILL SENSITIVE
PLANTS OR SHRUBS. ANIMALS WILL ALSO NEED EXTRA PROTECTION FROM
THE COLD.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

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

&&

$$
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36856

Viewing: 261 - 211

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20Blog 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.