Nineteen Atlantic tropical storms 3 consecutive years: a very rare event

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:13 PM GMT on November 28, 2012

Share this Blog
46
+

The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season closes this Friday with another top-five tally for named storms--nineteen. This is the third consecutive year with nineteen named storms in the Atlantic, which is a remarkable level of activity for a three-year period. The closest comparable three-year period of activity occurred during 2003 - 2004 - 2005, when each season had fifteen-plus named storms. Since 1851, only two seasons--2005 (28 named storms) and 1933 (20 named storms)--have been busier than 2010, 2011, and 2012.


Figure 1. Preliminary tracks of the nineteen named storms from 2012. Image credit: National Hurricane Center.

How rare are 3 consecutive top-five hurricane seasons for named storms?
It is tremendously rare to get three consecutive top-five years in a database with a 162-year record. This would occur randomly just once every 34,000 years--assuming the database were unbiased, the climate were not changing, and a multi-year climate pattern favorable for active seasons were not present. However the database IS biased, the climate IS changing, and we have been in an active hurricane period that began in 1995. So, which of these factors may be responsible for recording three consecutive years with nineteen named storms? It is well-known that prior to the arrival of geostationary satellites in December 1966 and aircraft hurricane reconnaissance in 1945 that tropical storms in the Atlantic were under-counted. Landsea et al. (2004) theorized that we missed up to six named storms per year between 1851 - 1885, and up to four between 1886 - 1910. Landsea (2007) estimated the under-count to be 3.2 named storms per year between 1900 - 1965, and 1.0 per year between 1966 - 2002. Other studies have argued for lower under-counts. So, if we assume the highest under-counts estimated by Landsea et al. (2004) and Landsea (2007), here would be the top ten busiest Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1851:

2005: 28
1887: 25
1933: 23
1995: 20
2012, 2011, 2010, 1969, 1936: 19

So, 2012, 2011, and 2010 would still rank as top-five busiest seasons since 1851, but the odds of having three consecutive seasons with nineteen named storms would drop from a 1-in-34,000 year event to "only" a 1-in-5800 year event. More recently, Landsea et al. (2010) showed that the increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storm frequency over the past 140 years was largely due to the increasing trend in short‐lived storms (storms lasting 2 days or less, called “shorties”), after the 1940s (Figure 2, top). They did not detect a significant increasing trend in medium‐ to long‐lived storms lasting more than 2 days. They wrote that “while it is possible that the recorded increase in short‐duration TCs [tropical cyclones] represents a real climate signal, we consider it is more plausible that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of the observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques.” Villarini et al. (2011), in a paper titled, "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", agreed. They attempted to correlate increases in tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures in recent decades to the increase in short-lived Atlantic tropical storms, and were unable to do so. They wrote: using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century‐scale record of short‐lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal. Therefore, we interpret the long‐term secular increase in short‐duration North Atlantic tropical storms as likely to be substantially inflated by observing system changes over time. These results strongly suggest that studies examining the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms over the historical era (between the 19th century and present) should focus on storms of duration greater than about 2 days. So, let's do that. If we look during the past three hurricane seasons at how many "shorties" were observed, we see that a large number that stayed at tropical storm strength for two days or less: six storms in 2010, six in 2011, and seven in 2012. This leaves the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 with twelve to thirteen tropical storms that lasted more than two days. This doesn't stand out that much when looking at trends since 1878 (Figure 2, bottom); there are now 25 years in the 135-year record with twelve or more long-lived tropical cyclones. However, there are no previous occurrences of three consecutive years with at least twelve long-lived tropical storms, so 2010, 2011, and 2012 still represent an unprecedented level of tropical storm activity in the historical record, and we would expect such an event to occur randomly about once every 157 years. That's a pretty rare event, and it is possible that climate change, combined with the fact we are in an active hurricane period that began in 1995, contributed to this rare event.


Figure 2. Atlantic tropical cyclones between 1878 - 2012 that spent two days or less at tropical storm strength (top) and more than two days at tropical storm strength or hurricane strength (bottom.) Figure updated from Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493.

References
Landsea, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez‐Partagas, P. Hungerford, C. Neumann, and M. Zimmer (2004), "The Atlantic hurricane database re‐analysis project: Documentation for 1851–1910 alterations and additions to the HURDAT database," in Hurricanes and Typhoons ‐ Past, Present, and Future, edited by R. J. Murnane and K. B. Liu, pp. 178–221, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

Landsea, C. W., (2007), "Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900," Eos, 88(18), 197-202.

Villarini, G., G. A. Vecchi, T. R. Knutson, and J. A. Smith (2011), "Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?", J. Geophys. Res., 116, D10114, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493

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: 475 - 425

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

Quoting TomballTXPride:


Ahhh. So are you saying anyone that isn't a climatologist has no merit when weighing in on climate science? Hope Jeff Master's isn't reading the comments right now....
Ahhh. So are you saying that a third-rate hack writing denialist tripe for a second-rate periodical is comparable in any way at all to a widely-respected, credible, experienced, and highly-educated person like Dr. Masters? Hope anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking ability isn't reading your comments right now....
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Ahhh. So are you saying anyone that isn't a climatologist has no merit when weighing in on climate science?


No, he (Neapolitan) didn't, and you know he didn't say that.
Member Since: September 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 616
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
0z GFS has the Philippines being saved from future Typhoon Bopha by a monster trough digging into eastern Russia, which would stall the storm and eventually bring it northeast around the equatorial ridge.


If you're going to quote Levi, don't do it over a day later. Things have changed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The fear of the new lightbulbs is irrational, I've broken at least 5, (2 deliberately) and didn't go through all the safety precaustions etc...didn't have time.
And by the way I throw them out....in the trash.
Now that part might not be the best idea....

If they were really that dangerous they wouldn't be sold because the companies would have been sued out of business by now or the government wouldn't allow it.

The future is LEDs though.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
And just to keep this social... water goes everywhere!
Member Since: November 13, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 488
467. txjac
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Even if the research bears out as correct and accurate, the new article makes one major flaw... it is assuming that if Greendland ice loss isn't accelerating now, it wont in the future.

Of course there are many other forms of evidence still suggesting that the ice loss is accelerating, some of which is direct evidence from glaciologists studying Greendland's glaciers.

This also might be at odds with other research that has attempted to add up all of the places that are accumulating heat to try and get it to match with the energy imbalance we've calculated with satellites. From that, we have a good idea of how much heat energy the planet should have accumulated already, which can go toward temperature increases in air/ocean/ice as well as melting of ice. I seem to recall that even with higher estimates of Greenland/Antarctic melting, they were having trouble finding places where the heat could have gone. If Greenland isn't melting as fast as presumed a few years ago, then we'd have even more missing heat that is going somewhere.



Thanks much for more clarification ...learning here.

And I can tell you where the extra heat is ...it's in TEXAS!

Once again, thanks for clarification in words that I can understand
Member Since: April 24, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 2538
Quoting TomballTXPride:
444. Neapolitan 8:03 PM GMT on November 29, 2012

Can't remember. Is Lewis Page a climatologist or not. Been a long time since I looked at his work and credentials??.....
Clearly not; if he were, he'd probably have at least some inkling of how climate science works.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Relax. Breathe. It called a "JOKE"

:)


I'm relaxed and breathing normally (smiling even). If my post suggested otherwise it's because of how poorly tone of voice comes through in typed text.

I just wondered if you mentioned my name because of a specific post (I edited a post of mine recently because I felt like it was breaking the blog... so maybe you were referring back to that).
Member Since: March 26, 2006 Posts: 44 Comments: 1520
It's been up to 78 thus far in Lubbock. The record high for today's date was 76.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
463. yoboi
Quoting JustPlantIt:

OK... Merc from allllllll of these 'so called' efficient bulbs. How many bulbs in every Americans homes? And do they know that they contain Mercury, I doubt it. Just like a cigarette pack, (small print). I do not see commercials with these warnings! Or those bulbs with a "WARNING" attached. I guess that we are all too consumed with environment to think that an 'Energy Efficient' Bulb is GREAT without the facts, and not that anyone would want you to know! That crap will not be in this home. Poison your water, fish, amphibians, and wonder why you have a child with three legs!



go to a landfill and you will see a bull dozer running over thousands of them....most people just throw it in the trash when they go out
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
Quoting txjac:
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but I found it to be interesting (not trying to cause trouble as I preach save the planet) but this comes from a Princeton university study. Is this a believable study?

Courtesy of "The Register"
Link

The study concerns the polar ice and Greenland ice

Even if the research bears out as correct and accurate, the new article makes one major flaw... it is assuming that if Greendland ice loss isn't accelerating now, it wont in the future.

Of course there are many other forms of evidence still suggesting that the ice loss is accelerating, some of which is direct evidence from glaciologists studying Greendland's glaciers.

This also might be at odds with other research that has attempted to add up all of the places that are accumulating heat to try and get it to match with the energy imbalance we've calculated with satellites. From that, we have a good idea of how much heat energy the planet should have accumulated already, which can go toward temperature increases in air/ocean/ice as well as melting of ice. I seem to recall that even with higher estimates of Greenland/Antarctic melting, they were having trouble finding places where the heat could have gone. If Greenland isn't melting as fast as presumed a few years ago, then we'd have even more missing heat that is going somewhere.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Mr. Mixon. Are you breaking the blog for all of us?

J/K

LMAO


Huh? I don't think so. Are you referring to a specific post of mine? It's been known to happen...
Member Since: March 26, 2006 Posts: 44 Comments: 1520
Quoting ScottLincoln:


...and the legislators that are trying to increase regulations on this small amount of mercury contained in LEDs are many times the same legislators trying to decrease the regulations on the larger amounts of mercury released from power plants.
OK... Merc from allllllll of these 'so called' efficient bulbs. How many bulbs in every Americans homes? And do they know that they contain Mercury, I doubt it. Just like a cigarette pack, (small print). I do not see commercials with these warnings! Or those bulbs with a "WARNING" attached. I guess that we are all too consumed with environment to think that an 'Energy Efficient' Bulb is GREAT without the facts, and not that anyone would want you to know! That crap will not be in this home. Poison your water, fish, amphibians, and wonder why you have a child with three legs!  PS: This is not 'Acid Rain', pure mercury.
Member Since: November 13, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 488
0z GFS has the Philippines being saved from future Typhoon Bopha by a monster trough digging into eastern Russia, which would stall the storm and eventually bring it northeast around the equatorial ridge.

Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9731
456. SLU
CSU's season review
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
On my screen there is a Pause button to the right under Community Activity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
453. auburn (Mod)
Quoting yoboi:


how do ya make it stop my page is going crazy


Click Pause
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
452. yoboi
Quoting indianrivguy:
Clock "hide" it goes away until you refresh, then click hide again.


how do ya make it stop my page is going crazy
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2348
451. nymore
8:12 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Lewis Page--the author of that opinion piece--is a pretty rabid denialist, cranking out piece after illogical piece with titles like "Global warming still stalled since 1998", "Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950", "An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us", and "Low sunspot activity linked to rivers freezing: Mini Ice Age on way?". In other words, he can be easily dismissed as the low-knowledge, anti-science crank that he is.

Now, one need only read a few snippets of Page's newest piece to realize how seriously off the mark he is. The PNAS article looked at Greenland ice mass change over a 9-year period, and noted that the mass loss trend had remained linear. It also noted that the SE and NW coasts of Greenland were losing ice the quickest, while the center of Greenland had been slowing gaining ice. How Lewis jumped from there to the assumption that a) maximum global sea level rise by 2100 will be 30cm, b) it will probably be less than that, c) there'll thus be "hardly any" difference between sea level now and then, and d) there's no reason to worry.

I rarely read such silliness--and for very good reason.
The no increase in droughts seems to be right the study in the journal Nature indicates there has been little change in drought in the last 60 years. The study was published Nov. 14
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
450. MrMixon
8:12 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting txjac:
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but I found it to be interesting (not trying to cause trouble as I preach save the planet) but this comes from a Princeton university study. Is this a believable study?

Courtesy of "The Register"
Link

The study concerns the polar ice and Greenland ice

The original study (abstract here - full article paywalled, unfortunately) is probably sound. But that Register article makes several conceptual leaps which are far beyond what is said in the abstract.

For instance:

"If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them."

I'm not sure how the editors let that statement go through. First - Greenland is, indeed, still losing ice at a rapid clip (~200 gigatons per year according to the article). Moreover, the losses ARE still accelerating... just perhaps hot as quickly as the initial measurements suggested.

Besides, to say that 200Gt/yr of ice loss is not a concern because it isn't accelerating is like saying you shouldn't be concerned if your car is barreling towards a brick wall so long as the car maintains its current speed.
Member Since: March 26, 2006 Posts: 44 Comments: 1520
448. indianrivguy
8:09 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Click "hide" it goes away until you refresh, then click hide again. I also "paused the real time updater that appeared from nowhere on my right.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2565
447. percylives
8:08 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
And for those who continue to say "It can't be done."

The next step is flying around the world on solar power.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
446. txjac
8:05 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Lewis Page--the author of that opinion piece--is a pretty rabid denialist, cranking out piece after illogical piece with titles like "Global warming still stalled since 1998", "Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950", "An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us", and "Low sunspot activity linked to rivers freezing: Mini Ice Age on way?". In other words, he can be easily dismissed as the low-knowledge, anti-science crank that he is.

Now, one need only read a few snippets of Page's newest piece to realize how seriously off the mark he is. The PNAS article looked at Greenland ice mass change over a 9-year period, and noted that the mass loss trend had remained linear. It also noted that the SE and NW coasts of Greenland were losing ice the quickest, while the center of Greenland had been slowing gaining ice. How Lewis jumped from there to the assumption that a) maximum global sea level rise by 2100 will be 30cm, b) it will probably be less than that, c) there'll thus be "hardly any" difference between sea level now and then, and d) there's no reason to worry.

I rarely read such silliness--and for very good reason.


Thanks for the response Nea.
Member Since: April 24, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 2538
444. Neapolitan
8:03 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting txjac:
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but I found it to be interesting (not trying to cause trouble as I preach save the planet) but this comes from a Princeton university study. Is this a believable study?

Courtesy of "The Register"
Link

The study concerns the polar ice and Greenland ice
Lewis Page--the author of that opinion piece--is a pretty rabid denialist, cranking out piece after illogical piece with titles like "Global warming still stalled since 1998", "Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950", "An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us", and "Low sunspot activity linked to rivers freezing: Mini Ice Age on way?". In other words, he can be easily dismissed as the low-knowledge, anti-science crank that he is.

Now, one need only read a few snippets of Page's newest piece to realize how seriously off the mark he is. The PNAS article looked at Greenland ice mass change over a 9-year period, and noted that the mass loss trend had remained linear. It also noted that the SE and NW coasts of Greenland were losing ice the quickest, while the center of Greenland had been slowing gaining ice. How Lewis jumped from there to the assumption that a) maximum global sea level rise by 2100 will be 30cm, b) it will probably be less than that, c) there'll thus be "hardly any" difference between sea level now and then, and d) there's no reason to worry.

I rarely read such silliness--and for very good reason.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13568
443. Bielle
8:02 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting indianrivguy:


Thanks... I just spent 30 minutes reading all about Eco flo, and found it interesting. Bookmarked it so I can go look at the pdf's when I have more time. Very cool solution.


If you have any questions, let me know.
Member Since: September 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 616
441. Xandra
8:01 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting yonzabam:

'Britain Prepares For Coldest Winter in 100 Years'

We've had the wettest summer for 100 years. Anyone would think the climate is a changin'.

Link

From Met Office News Blog:

Responding to more ‘winter weather’ headlines

We wrote only last week that it seems that it is the time of year again for colourful headlines about an impending big freeze.

We had them at this time last year, which prompted our Chief Executive to write an opinion piece in The Times. Now we have very similar stories again, with the front page of the Daily Express declaring last week ‘Coldest winter freeze on way’ and warning that temperatures are set to plunge as low as -15C and again a week on we have another front page from the Daily Express which declares ‘Coldest winter for 100 years on way‘. with the UK expected to grind to a halt within weeks.

These longer range forecasts for December and January have not come from the Met Office and a look at our current 30 day forecast provides perhaps a more measured assessment of our weather prospects to the middle of December:

As is usual, there are uncertainties in the forecast for this period. Whilst changeable conditions are considered more likely initially, some signs are beginning to emerge for more settled conditions to develop over parts of Europe. The signal is that these conditions may extend towards the UK during the first part of December. So, although there are no strong indications of any particular weather type predominating, on balance, colder and drier-than-average conditions are favoured over the recent mild and damp weather many areas have experienced.

What is clear from the forecast is that although there are some signs that after a rather unsettled period, the weather may become colder and drier than we have seen recently there is still a lot of uncertainty in the forecast which again the article has failed to pick up on and report to its readers.

The science does not exist to make detailed forecasts for temperature and snowfall for the end of this month, let alone for December or even the winter as a whole with these types of forecasts only able to provide an indication of how our weather might change, or be different from normal, (i.e. warmer, colder, wetter, drier) across the whole UK or even Europe

Ultimately, we’re heading into winter and it is perfectly possible that we will see the whole range of weather that we get in winter at some point over the coming months, including snow and freezing temperatures, but also heavy rain, windy weather and mild conditions too.

Our five day forecasts and warnings will provide you with the best possible guidance on any periods of cold weather, frost or the likelihood of snow, giving detailed local information across the UK to help you make the most of the weather over the coming months.

Source
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
440. indianrivguy
8:01 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting Bielle:


We have neither and are unlikely ever to have that change. For sewage, we use a moss-based filtering system (Eco flo)that requires no leaching field and no pump outs even from the settling tanks (or not in the 8 years we have been running the system). The moss filters get replaced every 7 to 10 years. Ours have not yet needed replacement.


Thanks... I just spent 30 minutes reading all about Eco flo, and found it interesting. Bookmarked it so I can go look at the pdf's when I have more time. Very cool solution.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2565
438. Bielle
7:59 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting Bielle:


I have this new banner at the top of the page, too, and I haven't been to my nonexistent "blog" almost since I joined. The banner says: "This blog has new comments." and then gives you an option to re-load or hide. Unfortunately, reload takes you to the top of the current Comments page and not to where you left off reading, which is what F5 does. So, I will not be using it.

The banner also hides my personal choices, usually at the top right. I can't see my Mail notifier, for example.


Interesting. Now, when I make a comment, I get taken back to the place where the comment appears in the blog when I save, and not to the top of the page. So, one aspect has improved and the other not.

Actually, no, I don't. It is only when I modify a comment that I get taken back to where the comment was first made.
Member Since: September 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 616
437. Bielle
7:56 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Nevermind. I initially thought you were someone else. Disregard the ignore part of my comment.

But that's why you are seeing those changes. Now I understand you didn't actually create a new blog, but just by hitting that button enabled an entirely new configuration for the website - why you're seeing the changes.


I have this new banner at the top of the page, too, and I haven't been to my nonexistent "blog" almost since I joined. The banner says: "This blog has new comments." and then gives you an option to re-load or hide. Unfortunately, reload takes you to the top of the current Comments page and not to where you left off reading, which is what F5 does. So, I will not be using it.

The banner also hides my personal choices, usually at the top right. I can't see my Mail notifier, for example.
Member Since: September 18, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 616
436. yonzabam
7:56 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting plutorising:
something's just changed. realtime updating has just started when i've never had it before, and several posters are hidden (and i'd had it set to see all posts). can someone remind me how to do that again? and can anyone say what the changes are all about, and what other changes there might be to the blog?

thanks.


Several people have said there having problems with the Wunderground site. I've encountered a few minor problems.

Recently, I sometimes I get a problem trying to access the site. It doesn't happen often, but when I switch from IE to Chrome, it resolves. Well, I think it does - I've only tried it onc and it worked.

However, a few bloggers posted embedded videos of the Italian tornado. When I clicked on it on IE, there was no show. I switched to Chrome, and was able to view the videos okay.

So, there might be a browser problem.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
435. Luisport
7:55 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
NWSBayArea‏@NWSBayArea

High surf advisory for the coastline. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=39336583073 8779&set=a.128008810607817.30966.121579457917419&t ype=1&theater #bayarearain #highsurf #surfadvisory #sfweather
Member Since: October 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2026
434. plutorising
7:52 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:


Nevermind. I initially thought you were someone else. Disregard the ignore part of my comment.

But that's why you are seeing those changes. Now I understand you didn't actually create a new blog, but just by hitting that button enabled an entirely new configuration for the website - why you're seeing the changes.


ah, right, thank you.
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 80
432. ScottLincoln
7:50 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Yes, they do. Perhaps better stated, they have "contained" mercury. This is easily collected and recycled. Mercury from the use of coal goes straight out into the environment and is not contained. .... Which do you prefer?


...and the legislators that are trying to increase regulations on this small amount of mercury contained in LEDs are many times the same legislators trying to decrease the regulations on the larger amounts of mercury released from power plants.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3210
431. plutorising
7:49 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:



You personal changes like why some comments are hidden are due to your filter adjustments, which happens along with your comment count resetting among other things. You have to redo your filter settings, then open a new window or tab and there you go.

The other change is a new app added by our lovely moderators.

Although you probably have me on ignore right now so you probably won't see this.

Thought I'd try.


why do you say that?
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 80
429. JustPlantIt
7:48 PM GMT on November 29, 2012

Quoting plutorising:
something's just changed. realtime updating has just started when i've never had it before, and several posters are hidden (and i'd had it set to see all posts). can someone remind me how to do that again? and can anyone say what the changes are all about, and what other changes there might be to the blog?

thanks.
Welcome to when the Ice Melts.)
Member Since: November 13, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 488
428. plutorising
7:46 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
something's just changed. realtime updating has just started when i've never had it before, and several posters are hidden (and i'd had it set to see all posts). can someone remind me how to do that again? and can anyone say what the changes are all about, and what other changes there might be to the blog?

thanks.

okay, i found the filter. but really, has there been an update to the system? can this be linked to the recent server outages?
Member Since: August 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 80
427. yonzabam
7:45 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Quoting FunnelVortex:


Well, of course. That was the ice age.


No, the Ice Age ended about 10,500 years ago. This was followed by the 'Holocene Climatic Optimum', between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago.

From Wikipedia:

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2931
426. Barefootontherocks
7:42 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Well, this is fun...

A new wu toy

Thanks, Aaron et al.
:)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 154 Comments: 18769
425. txjac
7:42 PM GMT on November 29, 2012
Just sitting around at lunch time today ...taking link to link from the pages ...and stumbled across this one ...who would have thought evil Walmart would have a page like this - concerning recyling and what it is doing to conserve water ...pleased to see this

Link
Member Since: April 24, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 2538

Viewing: 475 - 425

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