Arctic sea ice volume now one-fifth its 1979 level

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:52 AM GMT on February 19, 2013

Share this Blog
59
+

The stunning loss of Arctic sea ice extent in recent years is undeniable--satellite measurements have conclusively shown that half of the Arctic sea ice went missing in September 2012, compared to the average September during 1979 - 2000. But the extent of ice cover is not the best measure of how the fire raging in Earth's attic is affecting sea ice--the total volume of the ice is more important. But up until 2010, we didn't have the measurements needed to say how the total volume of ice in the Arctic might be changing. Scientists relied on the University of Washington PIOMAS model, which suggested that the loss of Arctic sea ice volume during September might be approaching 75% - 80%. The model results were widely criticized by climate change skeptics as being unrealistic. However, in April 2010, a new satellite called Cryostat-2 was launched, which can measure ice volume by beaming pulses of microwave energy off of the ice. With two years of data to Cryosat-2 data to analyze, the results of the PIOMAS model have now been confirmed by a study published on-line in February 2013 in Geophysical Research Letters. In a University of Washington news release, co-author Axel Schweiger said, "people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive. What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid." The U.K.'s Natural Environmental Research Council reported that the team of scientists found that from 2003 to 2012, the volume of Arctic sea ice declined 36% in the autumn and 9% in the winter. The measure of sea ice volume is a good indicator of how the Arctic's most stable, "multi-year" ice is fairing. As the multi-year ice declines, sea ice extent, the total area covered by sea ice, in an "Arctic death spiral". The new study shows that thick, multi-year ice has disappeared in areas north of Greenland, around the Canadian Archipelago, and to the northeast of Svalbard, Norway.


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice volume in thousands of cubic kilometers during the September minimum in 1979 compared to 2012, as estimated by the University of Washington PIOMAS model. Arctic seas ice volume has declined by more than a factor of five. Image credit; Andy Lee Robinson.


Figure 2. The Polar-5 aircraft, carrying the EM instrument that was used to validate Cryosat-2 sea ice thickness measurements, flying over the validation site. Image credit: R. Willatt.

Why care about Arctic sea ice loss?
If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the contiguous U.S. from the ocean, like occurred in September 2012, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. The record sea ice loss in 2012 also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Sea ice loss will also continue to crank up the thermostat over Arctic permafrost regions. This will potentially release a significant fraction of the vast amounts of carbon currently locked in the permafrost, further accelerating global warming.

Related Posts
Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low (September 2012)
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page
Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed by Joe Romm at climateprogress.org.

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 697 - 647

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25Blog Index

This is such a wonderful sight.

Glad to see drought relief.

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
It's best to keep one's sense of humor imo.
And also to not forget that we are human beings, struggling to make sense of a universe in which the vast majority if not totality exist as emotional, partially-sensible creatures.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Astrometeor:


If CAPE pulls through again, we may see several significant tornadoes out ahead of a main mostly rain line with a few embedded storms.

But I am not an expert of deciphering these things, like our colleague above said, the SPC will issue an update in about an hour.


I agree, shouldn't be much of a line, although could see embedded vortices.

The real threat is the isolated cells that come off the Gulf. Deep moisture and great shear. We'll see.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting Chicklit:

well...what do the forecasters (aka scientists) say?


If CAPE pulls through again, we may see several significant tornadoes out ahead of a main mostly rain line with a few embedded storms.

But I am not an expert of deciphering these things, like our colleague above said, the SPC will issue an update in about an hour.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting gulfbreeze:
Sorry who is Dr. Roods?


Dr. Ricky Rood's blog
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Monsanto and BASF,(new world order), I like my veggies dna not to be messed with. just saying
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sorry who is Dr. Roods?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I expect SPC to keep a pretty similar outlook for Thursday when they issue the new one in about an hour.

Here is what I imagine it will look like, not much change.

Yellow would be slight risk, red would be the enhanced slight risk, due to the possibility of strong tornadoes.

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Been snowing relatively moderately for the past couple of hours... I can see about 3 inches of new snow on the ground.

The sun is starting to get much stronger now, won't be long until all of the snow melts... It can be between 15 and 20 F but some snow will still melt around noon (when it's sunny, of course).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Astrometeor:


*DEEP BREATH*

Ok, here goes nothing.

So, who expects a weather outbreak Thursday?

well...what do the forecasters (aka scientists) say?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Response to Scott Lincoln:
I think you are reading too much into the counterattacks against pure, classic and concerted AGW/CC denialism by some of the regulars here and at Dr. Rood's blog. I follow your weather-related posts, and in my opinion, you are in the top cohort of posters on severe weather and meteorology in general here at WU. You may be the only one here who does original, thoughtfully written posts that are longer than mine. (Except, of course for the compulsive cut and paste commenters.) I am a mostly a reader/lurker here at Dr. Masters' blog with a moderate level of interest in severe weather - and many other natural phenomena.

Although I don't have a graduate degree, and am not a scientist, I have a broad university education in undergraduate science courses. I have worked with scientists is various ways for many years of my working life. It was my growing concern about pollution and physical and biological limits in the late 1960s that lead me to go back to college, and finally finish with a degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from U.S. Berkeley in 1976 at the age of 35. Many of the fears we had at the time were mitigated or delayed by good regulation and advances in science, technology and agriculture. I didn't really think I'd live long enough to see the kind of civilization-threatening problems we face now, including peak oil with it's dampening effect on the unsustainable concept of infinite economic growth, and AGW/CC with it's weather, climate and sea-level threats.

I am aware of the concerted effort by the fossil fuel companies and other transnational corporations to plant fake skeptisicm and foster AGW/CC denial. This heavily-funded effort to fuel "skepticism" and doubt regarding AGW/CC is channeled through so-called think tanks and propaganda arms including Fox News Corporation. They fund denialist websites as well as denialist bloggers and forum commenters. They repeat thoroughly debunked myths, misleading information and even false and pseudoscience. This can generate skepticism among laypersons, and even turn some of them into hard-core denialists.

As a regular commenter at the WU/CC blog, I am motivated by mostly altruismtic emotions and more specifically, a great fear for the future of my grandchildren. I do not get paid for my efforts, and have no incentive other than a love of science and a passion for truth and honesty.

The biggest dilemma that many of my fellow concerned "warmist" posters at Dr. Roods WU/CC blog face is "qualifying" newbies who come and post anti-AGW/CC comments.

Some true denialists have demonstrated over and over that they have no intention of reading or discussing core AGW/CC science, whether via original peer-reviewed papers, or reputable, high integrity reporting on the research. I'm convinced that they won't even read the CC section here at WU, or go to skepticalscience and realclimate to do some homework. They simply post the same disproven, false, or misleading malarky over and over and over, and drive the rational and logical science-aware regulars crazy. The are master provocateurs, and are sometimes able to goad people into losing their cool in responding.

We know that there are paid shills for the denialist "industry" out there, but they are virtually impossible to positively identify, and are trained to protest loudly and set themselves up as victims if anyone dares to accuse them. Some individuals appear to be lousy at - or completely uninterested in - studying or understanding science, but masterful at repeating, or copying and pasting denialist false information on their own. These hard-core independent AGW/CC trolls sometimes spam the comment sections of Dr. Rood's blog with so much cut-and-paste trash, that they prevent any coherent discussion of science.

And Tom, please believe that I join Neapolitan, Daisyworld, OldLeatherneck, Naga5000, Birthmark, Xandra, schwankmoe, rookie, goosegirl and others in being polite to newbies who come to the blog with questions and doubts about AGW/CC - true skeptics. No one is tagged as a "denialist" at first post unless they arrive with all guns blazing in a torrent of known denialist lies, myths and dis-proven information. In that case, if they barge in looking for a fight, they will probably meet some vigorous resistance. We will defend science, reason and logic when attacked, but we do not attack first.

2/19@11:30PMET: Edited to remove names of some hard-core denialists I had mentioned. You can watch me and other defenders of science, logic and reason do battle with them one-on-one by the tried and true WU technique of quoting them and then rebutting their malarkey, usually at Dr. Rood's Blog and sometimes here at Dr. Masters' blog. Sorry if I bent the rules.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting tornadodude:


Could be a decent tornado event Thursday, won't really know for sure until tomorrow night. A lot depends on instability. But it's plausible to see a couple strong tors.


TA was unsure what was going to happen, since the models have been flip-flopping and the CAPE is something to watch. There might be more CAPE than there was present for the Hattiesburg tornado, and we all know how that turned out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goosegirl1:


Here it is again- relative and absolute truth :)

Hey, if you (or anyone else for that matter) run across any of the latter drop me a WUmail. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
I think Dr. Masters is closest to the truth than most of us are. This is from reading his blogs over several years and finding both the science and common sense in them. So I'm going with The Doc. He's the most reliable source I know on these matters.
And this matters a lot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Astrometeor:


*DEEP BREATH*

Ok, here goes nothing.

So, who expects a weather outbreak Thursday?


Could be a decent tornado event Thursday, won't really know for sure until tomorrow night. A lot depends on instability. But it's plausible to see a couple strong tors.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting RTLSNK:
Now might be a good time to remember what Rule Number
One is on Dr. Master's Rules of the Road for this blog.

1.Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming, and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil and short.

Might be time for everyone to take a short break from
their keyboards, take some deep breaths, and talk
about the weather.


+1
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting RTLSNK:
Now might be a good time to remember what Rule Number
One is on Dr. Master's Rules of the Road for this blog.

1.Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming, and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil and short.

Might be time for everyone to take a short break from
their keyboards, take some deep breaths, and talk
about the weather.


*DEEP BREATH*

Ok, here goes nothing.

So, who expects a weather outbreak Thursday?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Now might be a good time to remember what Rule Number
One is on Dr. Master's Rules of the Road for this blog.

1.Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming, and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil and short.

Might be time for everyone to take a short break from
their keyboards, take some deep breaths, and talk
about the weather.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Bielle:

Perhaps the point has been missed. Science is true. Science is false. Either statement may apply to science or any part thereof, from time to time. However, whether science is true or it is false has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one believes it to be true (or false).


Here it is again- relative and absolute truth :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Astrometeor:


Truth is Fact. Fact is truth by definition. To say otherwise is to redefine words that have been used interchangeably for thousands of years.

The same word, amazing




Fact is science is something altogether different. A scientific fact can change upon the acquisition of knowledge requiring a change in that fact or a repudiation of that fact. That is the great strength of science.

Truth is interpretational.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Astrometeor:


Truth is Fact. Fact is truth by definition. To say otherwise is to redefine words that have been used interchangeably for thousands of years.

The same word, amazing





Facts change depending upon perspective.
Einstein was looking for truth but never found it.
Or so he thought.
All he found was the theory of perspective or relativity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


You misunderstood me. The truth is the truth, period. It is static. Facts are nothing more than elements of the truth.

Our understanding (what we believe may be the truth) of the universe hopefully progresses towards the truth, but as long as new discoveries are made, that truth has not yet been fully realized.


I am using "truth" to represent relative truth, and "fact" to represent absolute truth, and being just as clear as mud while I do it. Theories are relative truths, they are not always true to all people at all times. But the observable, measurable, repeatable facts are absolute truths. Science progresses from relative to absolute truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ah @ncstorm: (Reference #630)I read the statement yet again and now it has a final paragraph explaining that names have been deleted. No longer puzzled.

(Added post number to keep confusion under control.)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I don't like the term "truth" applied to science, either. Science is about finding and using facts.

Truth is a different beast altogether.



Truth is Fact. Fact is truth by definition. To say otherwise is to redefine words that have been used interchangeably for thousands of years.

The same word, amazing



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Science is description.
Truth is perception.
Sorry, Plato.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
To go around saying science is true always is to define truth as relative to current knowledge, which is B.S.


I don't like the term "truth" applied to science, either. Science is about finding and using facts.

Truth is a different beast altogether.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
As severe weather season starts to vamp up, I will be out in the field chasing more often.

You can catch my live stream on my website StormIntercept.Com


I often chase solo, but I also partner with TVN and will stream and chase with them on occasion.

Feel free to give me some feedback on my site, I'm always open to ideas.

Thanks!

Feel free to follow me on Twitter as well @TheMattPhelps

Here is a video from last March

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting ncstorm:


Nothing close to home here..LOL, my feelings NEVER get hurt on this blog because I know NONE of yall and well it is the internet but I am sympathetic to anyone who is mistreated...that is one thing I cant tolerate..you guys call it the "truth" in your rheotorics but I call it plain on bullying..

My point is I have disagreements with people on this blog but I never resort to name calling..

I wont tie up the blog with it..Keep said it was nothing and and I will leave it at that..



I have re-read his post three times. He has named bloggers he supports, but none he does not. You say four bloggers are named? I am genuinely puzzled.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There is a difference between believing and understanding.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ncstorm:


Nothing close to home here..LOL, my feelings NEVER get hurt on this blog because I know NONE of yall and well it is the internet but I am sympathetic to anyone who is mistreated...that is one thing I cant tolerate..you guys call it the "truth" in your rheotorics but I call it plain on bullying..

My point is I have disagreements with people on this blog but I never resort to name calling..

I wont tie up the blog with it..Keep said it was nothing and and I will leave it at that..

was it post 630 thats what i read or another post that you would like for me to look at
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54398
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting gulfbreeze:
Please bring on Hurricane season can not take this G/W BS!!
it can get heated at times thats for sure
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54398
Quoting Levi32:


No, science is our current best possible understanding of how the universe works. That understanding may be the truth, or it may be a slightly misguided view to be refined later by additional discoveries, or it may be entirely false.

Based on empirical evidence, the geocentric model of the universe was accepted until Copernicus postulated the heliocentric theory. Light was believed to behave only as a wave until the experiments and theories of Planck and Compton. Time was believed to flow at a constant rate relative to any object until Einstein's theory of relativity. Classical physics taught that the laws of Newton held universally for matter and energy until quantum effects were discovered.

Clearly, major theories of science have been fully or partially untrue for the majority of its history, and our current understanding of the universe may get turned on its head many more times before we finally discover the whole "truth."

To go around saying science is true always is to define truth as relative to current knowledge, which is B.S.


Perhaps the point has been missed. Science is true. Science is false. Either statement may apply to science or any part thereof, from time to time. However, whether science is true or it is false has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one believes it to be true (or false).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tribucanes:
Calling people out? With what, the truth? Wow, I read his above post and it was not rude or anything of the sort. Why do you fight so hard against science, truth, and those who articulate science and truth? ncstorm, his commentary is accurate, pithy, and for some; hits a little close to home. This is in response to 651.


Nothing close to home here..LOL, my feelings NEVER get hurt on this blog because I know NONE of yall and well it is the internet but I am sympathetic to anyone who is mistreated...that is one thing I cant tolerate..you guys call it the "truth" in your rheotorics but I call it plain on bullying..

My point is I have disagreements with people on this blog but I never resort to name calling..

I wont tie up the blog with it..Keep said it was nothing and and I will leave it at that..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


No, science is our current best possible understanding of how the universe works. That understanding may be the truth, or it may be a slightly misguided view to be refined later by additional discoveries, or it may be entirely false.

Based on empirical evidence, the geocentric model of the universe was accepted until Copernicus postulated the heliocentric theory. Light was believed to behave only as a wave until the experiments and theories of Planck and Compton. Time was believed to flow at a constant rate relative to any object until Einstein's theory of relativity. Classical physics taught that the laws of Newton held universally for matter and energy until quantum effects were discovered.

Clearly, major theories of science have been fully or partially untrue for the majority of its history, and our current understanding of the universe may get turned on its head many more times before we finally discover the whole "truth."

To go around saying science is true always is to define truth as relative to current knowledge, which is B.S.




I completely understand what you're saying here, Levi, but I think Neil Tyson was saying essentially the same thing - believing in something hard enough won't make it true.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Another map on the upcoming winter storm and severe weather outbreak. I'll have a new, updated, more complete map in the tomorrow and hopefully a blog entry. Sig. severe = enhanced risk of severe weather with strong tornadoes possible. Heavy snow = 6"+ with strong winds.

Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Please bring on Hurricane season can not take this G/W BS!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
winter don't last forever and if it does something has gone really wrong



Thank God winter doesn't last forever! I'm a Floridian and I'm already over the cold by mid to late February, and we didn't even have a cold winter lol.


Although 60's for highs and 40's for lows has a nice cool refreshing feel to it, so I like cool air, just not cold.

We had a couple mornings in the 20'a here this weekend, I would not want to spend my life where those are the highs man days during the winter. You live in a place where 20's for highs in the winter is no big deal. While I'm sure you're adjusted to it by now, it probably still isn't very nice.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7594
Calling people out? With what, the truth? Wow, I read his above post and it was not rude or anything of the sort. Okay Mod, your right on, ncstorm has always been a good member of the blog. Deep breaths really do help. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
seems to be a response too another blogger lacking any name calling or threatening stance or otherwise suggestive commentary


he called 4 bloggers trolls..no name calling?

but thanks for your help..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ncstorm:


Moderator..How does Xulon post stay up? Calling out people? Isnt that against blog rules?
seems to be a response too another blogger lacking any name calling or threatening stance or otherwise suggestive commentary
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54398
Quoting Levi32:


No, science is our current best possible understanding of how the universe works. That understanding may be the truth, or it may be a slightly misguided view to be refined later by additional discoveries, or it may be entirely false.

Based on empirical evidence, the geocentric model of the universe was accepted until Copernicus postulated the heliocentric theory. Light was believed to behave only as a wave until the experiments and theories of Planck and Compton. Time was believed to flow at a constant rate relative to any object until Einstein's theory of relativity. Classical physics taught that the laws of Newton held universally for matter and energy until quantum effects were discovered.

Clearly, major theories of science have been fully or partially untrue for the majority of its history, and our current understanding of the universe may get turned on its head many more times before we finally discover the whole "truth."

To go around saying science is true always is to define truth as relative to current knowledge, which is B.S.




Thank you, I've attempted to present this many times, as I think it's crucial and isn't always appreciated. However my speaking skills(well really writing in this case) aren't the greatest. Well said though.


Hence the reason I said earlier that it's crucial that we uphold humility and a humble approach to science. Because if we find ourselves thinking that we already know all there is to know about something in science, that is not a good sign...
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7594
655. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #2
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02
12:00 PM JST February 20 2013
======================================

SUBJECT: Tropical Depression In Sulu Sea

At 3:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression (1004 hPa) located at 7.3N 120.9E has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots. The depression is reported as moving west slowly.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.0

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
24 HRS: 7.3N 119.0E - 35 knots (CAT1/Tropical Storm) Sulu Sea

(JMA advisory on "CRISING"; "02W")
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 51 Comments: 45620
Interesting article in the Financial Times (free membership required to view)...Makes me wonder if technology can outpace the negative effects of a warming climate.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b86833c2-7a26-11e2 -9dad-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2LPM8DHoZ

Here is an excerpt:

Drought tolerance would be the most significant new biotech trait introduced in the near future, Mr James said, “because drought is, by far, the single most important constraint to biotech to increased productivity for crops worldwide”. Monsanto will launch the first drought tolerant GM maize in the US this year.

Monsanto and BASF had donated the same technology to a private-public partnership that aimed to develop drought tolerant maize suited to conditions in Africa where the need for drought resistance was greatest, said Mr James. This could be available as soon as 2017.
Mr James is a fervent believer in the ability of biotechnology to help alleviate agricultural poverty and increase the productivity of poor rural farmers without causing more environmental damage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm Off till the Brightness returns. Stay Safe All - Sleep Well - Extra blanket for West Coast. Calif, not Florida.....
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5924
652. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Philippines Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services and Administration
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin #8
TROPICAL DEPRESSION CRISING
11:00 AM PhST February 20 2013
==============================

Tropical Depression "CRISING" has slowed down as it traverses Sulu Sea

At 10:00 AM PhST, Tropical Depression Crising (1004 hPa) located at 7.8°N 120.8°E or 220 km northwest of Zamboanga City has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots. The depression is reported as moving west northwest at 10 knots.

Signal Warnings
=================

Signal Warnings #1
------------------

Luzon Region
=============
1. southern Palawan

Mindanao Region
================
1. Zamboanga del Norte

Additional Information
======================
Public Storm Warning Signal elsewhere is now lowered.

Residents living in low lying and mountainous areas under public storm warning signal #1 are alerted against possible flash floods and landslides.

Estimated rainfall amount is from 5-15 mm per hour (moderate to heavy) within the 300 km diameter of the tropical depression.

Fishing boats and other small seacrafts are advised not to venture out into the northern, eastern and southern seaboards of Luzon, the central and eastern seaboards of Visayas and Eastern seaboard of Mindanao.

The Low Pressure Area northwest of Puerto Princesa City has dissipated. The public and the disaster coordinating councils concerned are advised to take appropriate actions and watch for the next bulletin to be issued at 5 PM today.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 51 Comments: 45620
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
winter don't last forever and if it does something has gone really wrong


Moderator..How does Xulon post stay up? Calling out people? Isnt that against blog rules?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
winter don't last forever and if it does something has gone really wrong


True story, bring on the warmth!
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
Quoting tornadodude:


lol yeah, in some parts of the country
winter don't last forever and if it does something has gone really wrong
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54398
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
nope but in 8 days looking like spring



lol yeah, in some parts of the country
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360

Viewing: 697 - 647

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25Blog 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
65 °F
Overcast