The bizarrely active hurricane season of 2012 draws to a close

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:50 PM GMT on November 30, 2012

Share this Blog
45
+

The long and highly destructive hurricane season of 2012 has finally drawn to a close. The hurricane season of 2012 will long be remembered for spawning Hurricane Sandy--a freakish storm that was the largest, most powerful, and second most destructive Atlantic hurricane on record. But this year's hurricane season had a number of unique attributes, making it one of the most bizarre seasons I've witnessed. Despite featuring a remarkable nineteen named storms--tied for the third highest total since record keeping began in 1851--this year's hurricane season had just one major hurricane. That storm was Hurricane Michael, which stayed at Category 3 strength for a scant six hours. This is the least number of major hurricanes in a season since the El Niño year of 1997, which had only Category 3 Hurricane Erika. There were no Category 4 or 5 hurricanes in 2012, for just the 3rd time since the active hurricane period we are in began in 1995. The only two other years since 1995 without a Category 4 or stronger hurricane were the El Niño years of 2006 and 1997. Both of those seasons had around half the number of named storms of 2012--nine in 2006, and eight in 1997. The relative lack of strong storms in 2012 helped keep the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) down to 128, about 30% above average.


Figure 1. Hurricane Sandy at 10:10 am EDT October 28, 2012. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

A near-average year for number of tropical cyclones hitting the U.S.
Since the active hurricane period we've been in began in 1995, the U.S. has averaged getting hit by 4 named storms per year, with an average of 1.7 of these being hurricanes, and 0.6 being major Category 3 and stronger hurricanes. This year, we were hit by 3 named storms (Beryl, Debby, and Isaac). One of these was a hurricane (Isaac). Sandy didn't count as a hurricane strike on the U.S., since it transitioned to an extratropical cyclone a few hours before landfall. No major hurricanes hit the U.S., making 2012 the 7th consecutive year without a major hurricane strike. The only other time we've had a streak that long occurred between 1861 - 1868, during the decade of the Civil War.


Figure 2. Vertical instability over the tropical Atlantic in 2004 - 2012 (blue line) compared to average (black line.) The instability is plotted in °C, as a difference in temperature from near the surface to the upper atmosphere (note that the same scale is not used in all the plots, making the black climatological line appear different, when it is really the same for each plot.) Thunderstorms grow much more readily when vertical instability is high. Instability was near average during the August - October peak of hurricane season in 2004 - 2009, but was much lower than average during the hurricane seasons of 2010 - 2012. There was an unusual amount of dry, sinking air in the tropical Atlantic during 2010 - 2012, and the resulting low atmospheric instability reduced the proportion of tropical storms that have intensified into hurricanes. Vertical instability from 2004 - 2011 is taken from NOAA/RAMMB and for 2012 from NOAA/SSD.

Unusually stable air over the Tropical Atlantic in 2012
For the third consecutive hurricane season, 2012 featured an unusual amount of dry, sinking air over the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Due to warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures and an active African Monsoon that generated plenty of African waves, a remarkably high number of tropical storms managed to form, but the unusually stable air in the hurricane genesis regions made it difficult for the storms to become strong. When we did see storms undergo significant intensification, it tended to occur outside of the tropics, north of 25°N, where there was not as much dry, sinking air (Sandy's intensification as it approached landfall in Cuba was an exception to this rule.) If we look at the last nine hurricane seasons (Figure 2), we can see that the hurricane seasons of 2010, 2011, and 2012 all featured similar levels of highly stable air over the tropical Atlantic. This is in marked contrast to what occurred the previous six years. The past three seasons all featured a near-record number of named storms (nineteen each year), but an unusually low ratio of strong hurricanes. Steering patterns the past three years also acted to keep most of the storms out to sea. Is this strange pattern something we'll see more of, due to climate change? Or is it mostly due to natural cycles in hurricane activity? I don't have any answers at this point, but the past three hurricane seasons have definitely been highly unusual in a historical context. I expect the steering currents to shift and bring more landfalling hurricanes to the U.S. at some point this decade, though.


Figure 3. Sea water floods the Ground Zero construction site at the World Trade Center, Monday, Oct. 29, 2012, in New York City. Image credit: AP.

Most notable events of the Hurricane Season of 2012
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 Lake Shore, and toppled power lines in Nova Scotia, Canada--locations 1200 miles apart!


Figure 4. Hurricane Isaac lit up by moonlight as it spins towards the city of New Orleans, LA, on August 26, 2012. The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) satellite captured these images with its Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The "day-night band" of VIIRS detects light in a range of wavelengths from green to near-infrared and uses light intensification to enable the detection of dim signals. Image Credit: NASA/NOAA, Earth Observatory.

Hurricane Isaac hit Louisiana as a Category 1 hurricane with 80 mph winds on August 28, but the storm's massive wind field brought a storm surge characteristic of a Category 2 hurricane to the coast. A storm surge of 11.1 feet was measured at Shell Beach, LA and higher surges were reported in portions of Louisiana. Fortunately, the new $14.5 billion upgrade to the New Orleans levee system kept the city dry. Isaac killed 9 people in the U.S., and 29 in the Caribbean.

Hurricane Ernesto hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula as a Category 1 hurricane with 85 mph winds on August 7. The storm killed 12 and did at least $250 million in damage.

Tropical Storm Debby formed on June 23, the earliest formation date on record for the season's 4th storm. The previous record was Dennis, on July 5, 2005. Debby killed seven and did over $300 million in damage, but helped relieve drought conditions over Northern Florida and Southern Georgia.

Tropical Storm Beryl, which made landfall on May 28 near Jacksonville Beach, FL with 70 mph winds, was the strongest tropical storm to make landfall in the U.S. prior to June 1. Beryl killed two but did minimal damage.

Nadine lasted for 21.75 days as a named storm, the 5th longest-lasting tropical storm in the Atlantic basin.

It was the 3rd year in a row with 19 named storms.

No named storms existed during the month of July and November, but we still managed big numbers.

Only 7 seasons have had more hurricanes than 2012.

The season had two named storm before the official June 1 start of hurricane season, only the 3rd time that has occurred.

Eight named storms formed in August, which tied 2004 for the most to form in that month.

Typhoon Bopha a threat to the Philippines
In the Western Pacific, where typhoon season commonly brings several storms in December, we have impressive Typhoon Bopha. Bopha is expected to head west-northwest and intensify over the weekend, potentially arriving in the Philippines on Tuesday as a powerful Category 3 typhoon. Bopha formed at an unusually low latitude for a tropical cyclone--near 4°N. Storms forming that close to the Equator don't get much help from the Earth's spin to get spinning, and it is rare to see a tropical cyclone forming southwards of 5°N.

The Colorado State University hurricane forecast team, led by Phil Klotzbach and Bill Gray, has a more in-depth summary of the 2012 hurricane season.

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: 820 - 770

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

Quoting yoboi:




just a bunch of hype to push a carbon tax.....


I am not a fan of the carbon tax. I am much less of a fan of inaction when it comes to mitigation of the CO2 that OUR activities contribute to the warming trend of our climate. I am VERY open to hearing alternatives.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Slamguitar:


Can't see any holes in that argument.

Really? Because I can see one big hole.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory as incontrovertable.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullstuff.

3. Give the skeptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the skeptics as conservitive,anti-science, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot, and say they're "shilling" for the fossil-fuel indutry.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).

Thanks for the list FV!





Quoting pottery:


And by the way, I have never considered them "evil" you know.
"We" demand cheap energy (it's actually absolutely vital) and they provide it. There is no option.


Yes, you are absolutely correct. Life as we live it now depends on cheap oil and lots of it, and billions of us would die if it suddenly ran out tomorrow (from the wars over resources, if nothing else). When oil becomes too scarce to produce a profit from drilling, and we all know that isn't going to happen soon, then reseach grants will suddenly appear to search for alternatives to cheap oil. I don't expect much progress until then. IOW, follow the money.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




How to be a Minnemike:


1. Drink the kool-aid

That's it.

(Hope it's not too complicated for ya)
does that feel good buddy? all better??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 84 Comments: 8035
813. VR46L
Quoting beell:


I hear ya. Good point. Average daily temp is derived from adding the high and the low and dividing by two of course. Then adding and averaging all those averages for a year (in your example). That single number is for the most part inarguable for a single location.

If you and I decide that we will compare this number at a single location to the previous 30 years all summed and averaged together and it is warmer then we might call it an "anomaly" for that single year.

If we repeat the process going back in time for several 30 yr periods with each set resulting in a warmer average from oldest to newest then the straight line trend would represent a "change" by most folks.

Pretty easy to do for a single location...


Hiya Beell,
But make sure that you don't use the Islands off N-W Europe this year... LOL (ducks out of blog can't face the onslaught that will be coming my way on a peaceful Sunday evening.)
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6997
Quoting freonfreakone:


I could believe that, pottery, if not for the well-publicized fact that the liberals I speak of more than demonstrate that they do not give a flyin' damn about the oil and coal industry, or those employed by them. At the same time, projections I've heard from those same liberals make the consequences of Global Warming sound virtually like the End Of All Life On Earth, a rather dire outcome (see Permian-Triassic Extinction Event). So, it begs the question: Do they believe their own schtick or not? If not, then what is their frakin' agenda???


Not entirely sure where you are coming from or going to, here.
Living in a small Island Nation as I do, I think that I am more exposed to different ideologies/perspectives than many others, simply because what happens "outside" often affects us here and we have no recourse.

We are 'suffering' the effects of a changing climate (by whatever means) and these include coastal erosion, unusual rainfall trends, and exceedingly hot periods for weeks on end.
I cant think of any positives.

Generally speaking, people in the Third World look to the more Developed economies to lead by example and to provide information relevant to what is going on.
It is shocking to many of us that some Developed Countries seem to be making no headway at all in dealing with what appears to be good evidence of Climate Change.

In fact, the debate tends to always come down to "How much energy is he using, then?" in an attempt to dismiss the facts as froth.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
Bopha:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Meanwhile we are stuck with niggling arguments perpetuated by people who want to obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

Mary and Webster sez: niggling -- petty; also : bothersome or persistent especially in a petty or tiresome way. First used in 1599.

Synonyms: chicken, de minimis, footling, inconsequential, inconsiderable, insignificant, measly, Mickey Mouse, minute, negligible, no-account, nominal, paltry, peanut, petty, picayune, piddling, piddly, piffling, pimping, slight, trifling, trivial
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

Good point.

But it seems natural to 'fear' change.
Any change disturbs the majority of people.
So it seems that we are content to allow change to overtake us, claiming Fate or any number of 'reasons' for what we then claim are "unexpected events".

It's easier that way, because then we can say "Hey, it wasn't me".....

There is a clear analogy between taking action when a hurricane threatens and the problems CO2 will cause (and has started causing). No analogy is perfect of course. The outstanding difference is that dealing with CO2 is not an individual decision.

I could decide not to go out in a hurricane to rescue Joe Blow stuck on a barrier island in a hurricane, but with the pervasive impacts of CO2 we will all be out there with our collective behinds flapping in the wind.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:


any eyewall replacements based on that image... chances are there could be some

Already went through one earlier and another could happen.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7972
Quoting PensacolaDoug:




How to be a Minnemike:


1. Drink the kool-aid

That's it.


Can't see any holes in that argument.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
how to be a P-Doug...

1) ignore information provided in order to characterize all these 'AGW preachers', as opposed to providing counter information/data.

2) reduce all 'AGW preachers' to strategist plotters.

3) devise a list that can be applied to these preaching posts that proves they are just 'talking points'

4) assume self righteousness and cast aside all equivalent, equally hypocritical opposing character assassinations (such as this one) as elitism.




How to be a Minnemike:


1. Drink the kool-aid

That's it.

(Hope it's not too complicated for ya)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxchaser97:
Microwave image of Bopha taken just over an hour ago. The eye is visible on microwave imagery but not satellite.


any eyewall replacements based on that image... chances are there could be some
Member Since: April 23, 2011 Posts: 104 Comments: 14873
804. beell
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


I thought we were discussing the difference between the meaning of the word change and anomaly when discussing those graphs you posted hahaha. If not then ignore the posts :p


I hear ya. Good point. Average daily temp is derived from adding the high and the low and dividing by two of course. Then adding and averaging all those averages for a year (in your example). That single number is for the most part inarguable for a single location.

If you and I decide that we will compare this number at a single location to the previous 30 years all summed and averaged together and it is warmer then we might call it an "anomaly" for that single year.

If we repeat the process going back in time for several 30 yr periods with each set resulting in a warmer average from oldest to newest then the straight line trend would represent a "change" by most folks.

Pretty easy to do for a single location...

Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16920
Microwave image of Bopha taken just over an hour ago. The eye is visible on microwave imagery but not satellite.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7972
Aw man, I was hoping for weather conversations today.

Oh well. I guess this is some sort of entertainment...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
it was very foggy today here in my location, also in NYC, Hartford and Hew Haven, CT
Member Since: April 23, 2011 Posts: 104 Comments: 14873
Quoting PensacolaDoug: Post #782


How to be a good member of the AGW denial industry.

1. When a theory best explains the observations just say you have a better theory, but you need another 30 years to see if it will better explain the observations. Delay of action is crucial here!

2. Remain vigilant that the "evidence" you present is valid evidence no matter how many times it fails scientific scrutiny, it is not sourced or if it is only your child's art lesson from school.

3. Always insist that you are only skeptical of (fill in the blank) and never let them know that you are a serious member of the denial industry.

4. Never, EVER tell the "alarmist" that you are also a far right conservative, anti-science, creationist, radical republican that only cares about Earth until it is your time to pay the dime.

5. There is no way the denial industry can present any verifiable evidence against the AGWT. The denial industry has spent untold manhours and an untold fortune trying to do this and it simply cannot be done. However, the denial industry must remain true to its fossil fuel funding.

6. Keep accenting that there is not a 100% agreement among the actual climatologist concerning aspects of how bad or how soon AGW will be for us all. Never bring up the point that Rex Tillerson (CEO-ExxonMobil) agrees that the fossil fuel industry contributes to global warming, but it is just an engineering problem. (Also never mention the fact the fossil fuel industry is not offering any of their engineers to come up with an engineering solution. Also NEVER point out that the fossil fuel industry does not have any workable engineering solutions!

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it takes CO2 about 100 years to work its way out of the system. This time period may increase as the carbon sinks become more saturated with CO2).

By ALL means!, the denial industry must NEVER try to show:

1. How the AGWT violates any of The Laws of Physics.

2. How the AGWT violates any of The Laws of Thermodynamics.

3. How the AGWT violates any of The Laws of Chemistry.

4. What the "A" stands for in the acronym AGWT. Let the world think that it is ONLY about the CO2.

5. That anthropogenic CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas in out atmosphere.

In other words, if you cannot amaze them with facts, try to dazzle them with BS. This seems to have some impact.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bielle:


I am a Canadian, so forgive me if I am short an American political fact or fifty seven: Republicans in the current government are liberals? Did I miss something somewhere or have a misread something?


No, right now we have a democratically controlled senate, and a republican controlled house of representatives. Which essentially leads to a gridlock of nothing getting done.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting freonfreakone:


I could believe that, pottery, if not for the well-publicized fact that the liberals I speak of more than demonstrate that they do not give a flyin' damn about the oil and coal industry, or those employed by them. At the same time, projections I've heard from those same liberals make the consequences of Global Warming sound virtually like the End Of All Life On Earth, a rather dire outcome (see Permian-Triassic Extinction Event). So, it begs the question: Do they believe their own schtick or not? If not, then what is their frakin' agenda???


I am a Canadian, so forgive me if I am short an American political fact or fifty seven: Republicans in the current government are liberals? Did I miss something somewhere or have a misread something?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:


Well one argument I have heard is that the status quo (the oil industry) would be severely out-of-pocket with those ideas coming to fruition.
And they seem to have a big lobby for maintaining the status quo.


I could believe that, pottery, if not for the well-publicized fact that the liberals I speak of more than demonstrate that they do not give a flyin' damn about the oil and coal industry, or those employed by them. At the same time, projections I've heard from those same liberals make the consequences of Global Warming sound virtually like the End Of All Life On Earth, a rather dire outcome (see Permian-Triassic Extinction Event). So, it begs the question: Do they believe their own schtick or not? If not, then what is their frakin' agenda???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:



How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory as incontrovertable.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullstuff.

3. Give the skeptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the skeptics as conservitive,anti-science, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot, and say they're "shilling" for the fossil-fuel indutry.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).

Thanks for the list FV!



how to be a P-Doug...

1) ignore information provided in order to characterize all these 'AGW preachers', as opposed to providing counter information/data.

2) reduce all 'AGW preachers' to strategist plotters.

3) devise a list that can be applied to these preaching posts that proves they are just 'talking points'

4) assume self righteousness and cast aside all equivalent, equally hypocritical opposing character assassinations (such as this one) as elitism.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:


And by the way, I have never considered them "evil" you know.
"We" demand cheap energy (it's actually absolutely vital) and they provide it. There is no option.


I never meant that you said they were vil, just certain people on here do, while they drive in cars and heat their homes. Anyway, when it comes to nuclear it is completely safe when used correctly. The U.S. navy has been using nuclear energy to power their subs and aircraft carriers for years without a hitch. Its that word Nuclear that people hear and get afraid.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting freonfreakone:
First, a few givens:

Given One: I live in the United States of America. I don't know what the rest of the world is doing about Global Warming, nor do I care. I can't, and don't want to, do a damn thing about them.
Given Two: Like about 98 percent of the people who live in industrialized nations, I have little scientific training or knowledge other than certain specialized interests. Too bad for me.
Given Three: I believe in Global Warming, just not MAN-MADE Global Warming.
Given Four: I'm no idiot. Give me solid facts, and I can put two and two together via logical progression. Facts fascinate me; conjecture and guesswork presented as fact does NOT.

Now, having been up-front about those givens, I have a question for you people:

If Global Warming, or Global Climate Change, or Man-Made Global Climate Change, or whateverinhell you wanna call it, is SO dire, then WHY doesn't the United States government, currently run by meddlesome liberals (Republicrats) who purport to believe in man-made global warming, give citizens and businesses a 100% tax break on the installation and maintenance of alternative energy technologies, like solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas, technologies that would ELIMINATE, or at least greatly REDUCE, the production of greenhouse gases while at the same time putting thousands of people to work in these then up-and-coming industries??? Can you explain THAT to me?
1) Sorry to hear you don't care about what the rest of the world is doing. But I think that's a mistake. What if I were to remind you that those in "the rest of the world" live on the same planet as you, and thus whatever they do affects you and vice versa? What if I were to remind you that your kids, and your kid's kids, will be thoroughly subject to whatever the rest of the world is doing? Would that change your outlook?

2) It matters not one whit whether you (or I or anyone else) "believe" in anthropogenic global warming any more than it matters whether you believe the earth is flat or it's just a few thousand years old; established scientific fact is an absolute, and thankfully isn't dependent upon the illogical belief systems of us humans.

3) You might have missed the conversation, but a lot of people who aren't "meddlesome liberals" and who are in positions of tremendous power--such as leading once-prestigious groups like as the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology--are beholden to fossil fuel interests and party ideology, and are thus systemically incapable of accepting those scientific facts of which I wrote. Perhaps if they'd stop obstructing--and if those "meddlesome liberals" running things would send Big Energy's lobbyists packing and stop the insane billions that taxpayers shell out to line the pockets of Big Energy's fat cats--we might get somewhere on an intelligent pro-alternative energy policy. But for now, alas, we who'd like to see progress are stuck in neutral while those fat cats perch atop the shifter to keep us from moving forward.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800
Quoting beell:



Yeah, that works. Now, do you and I call it a 1° positive temp anomaly or do we call it Climate Change, lol (?)


I thought we were discussing the difference between the meaning of the word change and anomaly when discussing those graphs you posted hahaha. If not then ignore the posts :p
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Green energy will become when its economically ready to do so, no sooner no later. The same "evil" oil barons will turn into the ceo's of the green energy companies when there is money to be made.


And by the way, I have never considered them "evil" you know.
"We" demand cheap energy (it's actually absolutely vital) and they provide it. There is no option.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Green energy will become when its economically ready to do so, no sooner no later. The same "evil" oil barons will turn into the ceo's of the green energy companies when there is money to be made.

I've been saying that for years!

There is no way that Governments can legislate for such an enormous change.
Only Private Capitalism is set up (and powerful enough through their Marketing Depts) to institute change of such a magnitude.

Right now, the ONLY viable option is Nuclear.
And unless they can satisfy our concerns re. safety and waste disposal, it's not going to fly very well.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
790. beell
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to say it hahaha.
I mean like the 2011 average for a location is 11 degrees, while the 1970-2011 yearly average is 10 degrees.



Yeah, that works. Now, do you and I call it a 1° positive temp anomaly or do we call it Climate Change, lol (?)
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16920
Quoting bappit:

Why do people refuse to evacuate? We are all living on barrier islands when it comes to CO2.

Good point.

But it seems natural to 'fear' change.
Any change disturbs the majority of people.
So it seems that we are content to allow change to overtake us, claiming Fate or any number of 'reasons' for what we then claim are "unexpected events".

It's easier that way, because then we can say "Hey, it wasn't me".....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
Quoting pottery:


Well one argument I have heard is that the status quo (the oil industry) would be severely out-of-pocket with those ideas coming to fruition.
And they seem to have a big lobby for maintaining the status quo.


Green energy will become when its economically ready to do so, no sooner no later. The same "evil" oil barons will turn into the ceo's of the green energy companies when there is money to be made.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


The arithmetic is correct But I'm a little confused (not hard to do) with the phrase "long term average for a year".


Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to say it hahaha.
I mean like the 2011 average for a location is 11 degrees, while the 1970-2011 yearly average is 10 degrees.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting freonfreakone:
First, a few givens:

Given One: I live in the United States of America. I don't know what the rest of the world is doing about Global Warming, nor do I care. I can't, and don't want to, do a damn thing about them.
Given Two: Like about 98 percent of the people who live in industrialized nations, I have little scientific training or knowledge other than certain specialized interests. Too bad for me.
Given Three: I believe in Global Warming, just not MAN-MADE Global Warming.
Given Four: I'm no idiot. Give me solid facts, and I can put two and two together via logical progression. Facts fascinate me; conjecture and guesswork presented as fact does NOT.

Now, having been up-front about those givens, I have a question for you people:

If Global Warming, or Global Climate Change, or Man-Made Global Climate Change, or whateverinhell you wanna call it, is SO dire, then WHY doesn't the United States government, currently run by meddlesome liberals (Republicrats) who purport to believe in man-made global warming, give citizens and businesses a 100% tax break on the installation and maintenance of alternative energy technologies, like solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas, technologies that would ELIMINATE, or at least greatly REDUCE, the production of greenhouse gases while at the same time putting thousands of people to work in these then up-and-coming industries??? Can you explain THAT to me?


Well one argument I have heard is that the status quo (the oil industry) would be severely out-of-pocket with those ideas coming to fruition.
And they seem to have a big lobby for maintaining the status quo.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
785. beell
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


If the average temp for a single year at a location is 11 degrees, but the long term average for a year is 10 degrees. Would the Anomaly and Change in temperature not both be 1 degree?


The arithmetic is correct But I'm a little confused (not hard to do) with the phrase "long term average for a year".
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16920
Quoting DDR:
Hello pottery

Hi there.
1.75" in my gauge since Friday evening.
Looks to be clearing now though.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
First, a few givens:

Given One: I live in the United States of America. I don't know what the rest of the world is doing about Global Warming, nor do I care. I can't, and don't want to, do a damn thing about them.
Given Two: Like about 98 percent of the people who live in industrialized nations, I have little scientific training or knowledge other than certain specialized interests. Too bad for me.
Given Three: I believe in Global Warming, just not MAN-MADE Global Warming.
Given Four: I'm no idiot. Give me solid facts, and I can put two and two together via logical progression. Facts fascinate me; conjecture and guesswork presented as fact does NOT.

Now, having been up-front about those givens, I have a question for you people:

If Global Warming, or Global Climate Change, or Man-Made Global Climate Change, or whateverinhell you wanna call it, is SO dire, then WHY doesn't the United States government, currently run by meddlesome liberals (Republicrats) who purport to believe in man-made global warming, give citizens and businesses a 100% tax break on the installation and maintenance of alternative energy technologies, like solar, wind, hydrogen and natural gas, technologies that would ELIMINATE, or at least greatly REDUCE, the production of greenhouse gases while at the same time putting thousands of people to work in these then up-and-coming industries??? Can you explain THAT to me?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I must thank you for posting this. I've been looking for a quick cheat sheet of climate cranks, and now I have one.

There isn't one person on that list that has published any peer-reviewed research that contradicts the current scientific consensus. In fact, a number of them have publicly demonstrated that they don't understand basic chemistry and/or radiative transfer (Bastardi, Watts, McIntyre I'm looking at you).

I see the so-called "Science Director" of the Heartland Institute signed the letter. That alone is enough to mark this letter as joke. Might as well have the priest in a porn company sign a letter arguing against chastity.

The letter itself is full of scientific inaccuracies, which are oft repeated by denialists. Of course, repeating them doesn't make them reality but that doesn't seem to be a deterrent to them.

Instead of providing research for review to back up their claims and views, these charlatans are trying to appeal to the public using naive arguments and conspiracy theories. The simple fact that they DON'T provide their research to the scientific community (or when they do, it's so bad it gets shredded) should raise a BIG RED FLAG.

If these guys ever want to be taken seriously, they need to stop writing op-ed's and silly open letters and do some real solid research. Appealing to the court of public opinion in matters of science is, at best, dishonest.



How to be a good AGW alarmist.

1. Present your theory as incontrovertable.

2. When evidence is presented against your theory, say its been debunked. If the opponent demands to see the study, call bullstuff.

3. Give the skeptics a bad name, like "denialist"

4. Generalize the skeptics as conservitive,anti-science, creationist, radical republicans who dont care about the Earth.

5. If a person presents hard evidence against AGW, say they are "uncredible" because they dont have a PHD. Or if they do have a PHD, call them an idiot, and say they're "shilling" for the fossil-fuel indutry.

6. Push all opposing scientists aside.

7. State your opinion like its fact.

8. If all else fails, preach about how much CO2 the average person produces and ask if we should just "ignore it" or if it will just "go away" (even though it does).

Thanks for the list FV!



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


Your first question, belies a basic misunderstanding of "anomaly" and "average". Gotta get past that first.

Both require time scales longer than one day. What constitutes "average"? One week? One year. Five years? Thirty years?

Regardless of my bias or yours, this seems to be a good definition.

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

NOAA/NCDC FAQ's


If the average temp for a single year at a location is 11 degrees, but the long term average for a year is 10 degrees. Would the Anomaly and Change in temperature not both be 1 degree?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
Having said all that, it still amazes me that folks do not accept the Facts when presented.

Why do people refuse to evacuate? We are all living on barrier islands when it comes to CO2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
779. beell
Quoting Bielle:


Great graphs. Did you make them?


No, they both came from the "SkepticalScience" website.

Link

The link points to the graphs therein and are a direct response from the other side of the aisle regarding the "temps have not increased for 16 years" discussion.

Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16920
Quoting beell:


Your first question, belies a basic misunderstanding of "anomaly" and "average". Gotta get past that first.

Both require time scales longer than one day. What constitutes "average"? One week? One year. Five years? Thirty years?

Regardless of my bias or yours, this seems to be a good definition.

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

NOAA/NCDC FAQ's
ok average was a bad term to use, lets say baseline.

Anyway it is football time, just go look at the raw data and compare it to your graph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
777. beell
Quoting nymore:
so let me get this straight. lets say we have an average temp of 10 degrees. the temp outside is 11 degrees what is the anomaly and how can it be higher than the temperature.

Also the data for land temps on your graph does not jive with the raw data. The data for overall global temp on the graph I posted does jive with the raw data.

Why do you suppose they changed it? your graph is way more dire


Your first question, belies a basic misunderstanding of "anomaly" and "average". Gotta get past that first.

Both require time scales longer than one day. What constitutes "average"? One week? One year. Five years? Thirty years?

Regardless of my bias or yours, this seems to be a good definition.

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

NOAA/NCDC FAQ's
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16920
776. DDR
Hello pottery
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm sitting here reading back, and I have a question.

Why are so many people apparently terrified to accept that the climate is changing, is getting warmer, and that collectively we are a big part of the problem?

I am one of the folks that try to do my bit to reduce my energy consumption.
But I am aware that changing lightbulbs, reducing driving (a cycle is not an option for me), and so on, is such a tiny overall effort that it is really pointless in fact.

For the foreseeable future (until petroleum becomes scarce and prohibitively expensive) we are all stuck with petroleum.
Reducing carbon on National scales will help of course, but meaningful reductions are not currently possible right now.

Having said all that, it still amazes me that folks do not accept the Facts when presented.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24883
Quoting beell:
Yours and mine for comparison.

One is temp change, one is anomaly. Apples and oranges, penguins and polar bears.





Great graphs. Did you make them?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aquak9:
Apples and oranges, penguins and polar bears.

Chihuahuas and Yorkies.

You've given me an alternate opinion, beell, and I respect that. Both are highly spastic and excessively noisy breeds, and this will need further reading on my part.

It's the owner not the dog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
Here is the raw data from Hadcrut4 for 1995 to 2012



Here, I've added a helpful trendline to that plot, plus I've included all the 2012 data to-date:

HadCRUT4

Yep. Still warming...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13800


Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6915


Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6915

Viewing: 820 - 770

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

Overcast
32 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron