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: 647 - 597

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

647. tornadodude
3:58 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
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
646. Levi32
3:56 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:
Exactly- truth is always relative to the situation. Truth can change upon further observation.


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.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26661
645. PedleyCA
3:56 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
101
days
0
hours
4
minutes
21
seconds
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5962
644. CaicosRetiredSailor
3:56 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Aquatic predators affect carbon-storing plant life

Species at top of freshwater food web can indirectly limit buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
       
By Janet Raloff
Web edition: February 17, 2013

In ecosystems around the world, big guys eat littler guys, who in turn eat plants and other organisms at the base of the food web. A study now finds that removing top predators in freshwater environments allows their prey to flourish — and overgraze on plants and algae. The result of the missing plant matter: a 90 percent reduction in uptake and storage of carbon dioxide.

Several research teams have explored the importance of predators in protecting organisms that store carbon, notes ecologist James Estes of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the new research. The new study is particularly strong, he says, because it demonstrates predators’ influence across a broad range of ecosystems. It therefore suggests “that the phenomenon may be fairly general.”

When pesticide runoff, overfishing or other human activities impact ecosystems, the first species to disappear are usually the bigger, top predators, notes freshwater ecologist John Richardson of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and coauthor of the study, published online February 17 in Nature Geoscience. The new work shows that predator losses have effects beyond the loss of biodiversity: “We can see climate effects as well,” he says. “We start seeing a higher flux of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”...
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6051
643. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:55 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting tornadodude:
Is it Hurricane Season yet?
nope but in 8 days looking like spring

Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
642. washingtonian115
3:55 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Who let the nuts out?.Well I'm out.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17161
641. goosegirl1
3:50 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
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.


Exactly- truth is always relative to the situation. Truth can change upon further observation.

But fact is different altogether. An example is a specific object that has a mass of x at a specific moment. It is measurable, repeatable, and can be observed by everyone.

Theories would be examples of truths. The facts you discover can change what was once perceived as true.

Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1232
640. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:49 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

I don't like a highly-amplified pattern; at least, not right now. With it being February, instability is hard to come by as it is, much less with storm after storm moving across the country not allowing for decent return flow. I'll be happy when things calm down and Spring arrives.
27 days to go
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
639. Astrometeor
3:49 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:


I thought Mozambique was in trouble.. well good they are not


Who knows, maybe it'll change course again.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
638. trHUrrIXC5MMX
3:48 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
Looks like southern Madagascar will experience some impacts from Haruna, pretty good agreement on that:



The JTWC's intensity forecast from earlier today was alarmingly bad. They forecast a peak intensity of 50kts, one minute sustained. It's probably past that already. The one from post 583 is probably much more accurate.


I thought Mozambique was in trouble.. well good they are not
Member Since: April 23, 2011 Posts: 104 Comments: 14873
637. tornadodude
3:45 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

I don't like a highly-amplified pattern; at least, not right now. With it being February, instability is hard to come by as it is, much less with storm after storm moving across the country not allowing for decent return flow. I'll be happy when things calm down and Spring arrives.


I'm happy for it since it has been helping to ease the drought out here.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
636. TropicalAnalystwx13
3:43 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting tornadodude:


Thankfully. I absolutely respect people's opinions on Climate Change, and I know the blog entry is about it, I just personally don't care to come here to talk about it.

Thankfully the weather pattern is pretty active, should keep things interesting!

I don't like a highly-amplified pattern; at least, not right now. With it being February, instability is hard to come by as it is, much less with storm after storm moving across the country not allowing for decent return flow. I'll be happy when things calm down and Spring arrives.
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32354
635. tornadodude
3:42 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting wxchaser97:

About 100 days until then, but we have tornado season.


Thankfully. I absolutely respect people's opinions on Climate Change, and I know the blog entry is about it, I just personally don't care to come here to talk about it.

Thankfully the weather pattern is pretty active, should keep things interesting!
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
634. wxchaser97
3:39 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting tornadodude:
Is it Hurricane Season yet?

About 100 days until then, but we have tornado season.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7952
633. tornadodude
3:34 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Is it Hurricane Season yet?
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
632. goosegirl1
3:32 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Astrometeor:


It is okay to post any link to back up your argument if you want, I won't get insulted and I most definitely won't result to a frustration in language usage.

I understand what the scientific method is. If I did not, my parents would kill me.

However, you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is I cannot build off an idea or find a solution to a problem if I do not believe that the problem exists in the first place. I am looking upon this from an engineer's POV. If I see no problem, and you do not offer a rational, layman style explanation with scientific thought behind it, how can I BELIEVE in it? How? I can't.

tl;dr What I am attempting to articulate to you is that I cannot take something as fact without believing it first, this has nothing per se to do with the scientific process, although you are right that the process is essential to science.

(Me thinking to myself: I cannot seem to explain to anyone outside of my clique my ideas. *sigh*)



I suppose I am objecting to the word "believe" when speaking of fact and science. What you mean is that you are curious, so you observe situations around you until you spot a question and then seek a factual answer. And that is obvious Alice being obvious :)
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1232
631. Levi32
3:28 AM GMT on February 20, 2013


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.

Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26661
630. Xulonn
3:22 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
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: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1474
629. Jedkins01
3:08 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Astrometeor:


It is okay to post any link to back up your argument if you want, I won't get insulted and I most definitely won't result to a frustration in language usage.

I understand what the scientific method is. If I did not, my parents would kill me.

However, you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is I cannot build off an idea or find a solution to a problem if I do not believe that the problem exists in the first place. I am looking upon this from an engineer's POV. If I see no problem, and you do not offer a rational, layman style explanation with scientific thought behind it, how can I BELIEVE in it? How? I can't.

tl;dr What I am attempting to articulate to you is that I cannot take something as fact without believing it first, this has nothing per se to do with the scientific process, although you are right that the process is essential to science.

(Me thinking to myself: I cannot seem to explain to anyone outside of my clique my ideas. *sigh*)




You basically just explained what I was saying, although a bit better, lol.

I think we all agree here, just some misunderstanding. It may also be that thinking type people tend to sometimes restate the obvious repetitively, so it can cause confusion and misunderstanding. I know my dad is like that, very bright. Sometimes he makes me feel like I don't know the obvious because he restates it, however it's not intentional, just part of his nature, lol.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7687
628. tornadodude
3:08 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Decent snow storm as well!

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
627. tornadodude
3:06 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
I took a look at the 12z High Res Nam, as I think the 00z run may be a fluke run, showing that much rain in the warm sector

Here's what stands out





These are the 21z (3pm) and 00z (6pm) simulated radar.

The areas I circled in red show convection out ahead of the main line in a highly sheared environment.

These cells could easily become tornadic, and, with enough CAPE, there could be a strong tornado or two.

As you may have noticed, most of the tornadic cells down here do not get very tall, leading to the weaker radar returns.

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
626. ncstorm
3:06 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting tornadodude:
lol you people get so rude sometimes when it comes to these topics.

Honestly, how many people are actually going to change their point of view based on a comment on a blog? Probably very few, if any.

Anyway, there is a decent Winter Storm brewing as well as potential severe weather tomorrow night and Thursday.


Whats that you say? Weather is happening?

Can't sleep so I'm back until hubby knocks off....

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 15750
625. Jedkins01
3:05 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:


Of course we all have beliefs, but beliefs, truth, and facts are all different animals altogether.

Beliefs are what we feel to be true. Truth is always relative to a particular situation- for example, you may feel something is true, until evidence to the contrary is presented.

Facts are not relative and not bound by any belief. They simply are facts, not to be proven or disproven.

The scientific method is used to search for facts, not truths or beliefs. That's all I was trying to say.



I gotcha :)
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7687
624. Jedkins01
3:04 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
From Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal:

Mankind%u2019s Greatest Invention. Do you know what it is??

Posted by Dan Satterfield



This is a hint.

It%u2019s the most imprtant thing that anyone should understand about science. It%u2019s in nearly every science text book from grade school to high school (usually at the front but often skipped or downplayed). It made the computer you are reading this on possible and in fact it made all of modern technology possible!

No, it%u2019s not science%u2026It%u2019s SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Do you know what it is, what it means? Do you have a solid understanding of it? Most do not, but it is the single greatest invention made by man. It%u2019s so important that the nation with the greatest number of people who DO undersand it, will always rise to be the leader of the world. ALWAYS.

If you have some vague recollection that I am talking about hypothesis testing, then you%u2019re missing the boat here. It%u2019s MUCH deeper than that, because when you understand scientific method, you will understand completely what Neil de Grasse Tyson is really saying.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS:

At it%u2019s core, it%u2019s a simple set of rules that allows us to separate myth and superstition from reality, and allows us to build knowledge on a foundation of tried and tested fact. In short, scientific knowledge is the sum total of what we can see and test in the universe around us.

Rule One. Any observation or experiment we make must be repeatable. Others must be able to make the same observation or experiment, and get the SAME results. Not just someone you choose, but anyone and everyone should get the same result or make the same observation.

Violate rule one and it is NOT science.

Rule Two. Theories must make verifiable predictions. Any idea on how things work, or what is (or is not) true must be testable and falsifiable. You must be able to do an experiment that COULD possibly prove the idea wrong.

If you cannot do an experiment that could test the idea, and possibly prove it WRONG, then it is NOT Science.

Rule Three.

If an experiment shows a theory is wrong, then it%u2019s wrong. As Richard Feynman said (I paraphrase) "It does not matter how smart your are or how famous you are, if your theory does not fit with experiment, then it%u2019s wrong!" (..and therefore it is NOT science).

Don%u2019t just take my word for it

What is so fantastic about this method of discovering new things, is that it immediately excludes myth, superstition, and everything that does not work. Your relatives may argue at every holiday gathering whether or not trickle down economics works, but in science if your theory fails experimentally then it%u2019s wrong. Subject closed. (I%u2019ll leave to others the subject of whether or not economics is a science!)

The knowledge and theories that have been tested, and shown to be reliable countless times, are what makes up the science books in schools. After so much knowledge on a subject has been gained, to prove the foundation of a theory wrong becomes an almost insurmountable task. One would have to show that all those experiments that came before were wrong. One simple observation or experiment could do it, but the only ones who expect it to happen are those who for one reason or another cannot accept the foundation in the first place.

I gave a talk about weather and climate change to a group a few years ago and someone came up afterwards and pointedly said "I have a theory and you cannot prove it wrong!" I replied, "you just did". This is why "The good thing about science is that it%u2019s true whether or not you believe it".

It took me several paragraphs to explain this, while Neil de Grasse Tyson did it in one sentence. That%u2019s why I forecast the weather on TV, and he runs the Hayden Planetarium!




The one thing that gets tricky is when you begin involving the metaphysical, such as consciousness, and other things that cannot be empirically tested.
I think it's logical to say that one can make logical conclusions about the metaphysical based on science, that is testing of the empirical. However, I don't think it is wise to say nothing can be known or concluded regarding the metaphysical simply because it is not directly involved with the physical universe. After all, that is what makes humans superior to computers, we have actual intelligence. If we can only make logical arguments of things subjected to physics, then we are just outputting in essence only "raw calculation", which computers are way more efficient and faster at anyway.


However, I think it should be approached similarly to that of the separation between church and state, that is scientists have every right, and should be able to conclude things rationally of the metaphysical based on what he/she knows empirically. However, the metaphysical conclusions shouldn't be brought into the scientific job/process because such can't actually be tested physically.

Just as a politician can conclude based on government certain religious aspects or lack there of in his/hers life, but those religious and moral stances shouldn't be made law in government, even though they may or should effect his/her position.


For instance, if hypothetically I conclude the human soul exists eternally regardless of the human body and I base it on empirical conclusions, I should be careful not to make scientific conclusions or decisions based on my metaphysical ones. An example would be that a scientist shouldn't conclude in his work that it was God or some other being affected the weather even if he or she personally believes so, cause obviously that can't be tested :)
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7687
623. Astrometeor
3:02 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:


Please see #608. I didn't want to be insulting by posting a link to the scientific method, but it never hurts to review.


It is okay to post any link to back up your argument if you want, I won't get insulted and I most definitely won't result to a frustration in language usage.

I understand what the scientific method is. If I did not, my parents would kill me.

However, you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is I cannot build off an idea or find a solution to a problem if I do not believe that the problem exists in the first place. I am looking upon this from an engineer's POV. If I see no problem, and you do not offer a rational, layman style explanation with scientific thought behind it, how can I BELIEVE in it? How? I can't.

tl;dr What I am attempting to articulate to you is that I cannot take something as fact without believing it first, this has nothing per se to do with the scientific process, although you are right that the process is essential to science.

(Me thinking to myself: I cannot seem to explain to anyone outside of my clique my ideas. *sigh*)

Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
622. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:02 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 60 final
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
621. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:58 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 57
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
620. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:57 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 54
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
619. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:57 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 51
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
618. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:56 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 48
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
617. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:55 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 42
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
616. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:51 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
nam-hires namer
20130220 00 UTC
sim_reflectivity
hr 39
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
615. tornadodude
2:51 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
00z NAM data is in.

Looks like there very possible could be a couple strong tornadoes Thursday in Louisiana.

Cape is meager, however, the amount of shear as well as deep moisture should be sufficient for rogue cells ahead of the frontal line. Fairly similar setup to what we have seen recently in this area.





note: the sounding is somewhat saturated, as precip (likely a low top storm) is ongoing
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
614. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:45 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 174 Comments: 54639
613. goosegirl1
2:43 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Jedkins01:



When I say believe, I'm referring to a conclusion of truth based on evidence. If a scientist has spent his life researching on Climate Change and concludes it is enough evidence, he/she believes it is true.

Belief is something that is part of the process of thinking, therefore to exclude the concept of belief doesn't even make sense. I think you just misunderstood me. If belief proceeds evidence, then we have a bias. However if belief does not exist at all in the process, then the mind does not exist.

It's part of the human mind. Every human being has a belief if he/she has a mind or thinks.


Of course we all have beliefs, but beliefs, truth, and facts are all different animals altogether.

Beliefs are what we feel to be true. Truth is always relative to a particular situation- for example, you may feel something is true, until evidence to the contrary is presented.

Facts are not relative and not bound by any belief. They simply are facts, not to be proven or disproven.

The scientific method is used to search for facts, not truths or beliefs. That's all I was trying to say.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1232
612. Jedkins01
2:39 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
There's nothing wrong with that. But, as a general rule (for which I've seen no recent exceptions), true climate change skeptics--that is, skeptics as defined by science--simply don't exist. There are a number of people who claim they're skeptivs, that they're open-minded, that they read all the science, but after talking to them you realize all their study was done at WattsUpWithThat or Foxnews.com or Steve Goddard's site, etc. That's not skepticism; that's confirmation bias at work.

And that is, of course, denial.Refusing to acknowledge scientific reality because one's feeling got hurt by people who do acknowledge seems to me a particularly pathetic reason to do so, don't you think? Whatever happened to courage?



Fair enough, what I brought up about people's feelings being hurt though is simply because many people are that way. Should they be? No, however, I believe in showing grace to people and being a good example, even though some people insist on causing trouble. That was my point in that end to my statement.

Certainly though, I can understand why some here including you get frustrated because many seem to be stubborn on the issue no matter how much odds are against them. I think some people get a thrill out of just being a rebel for the sake of being a rebel, and sadly there is no proof you could give them to change that. One has to change the way they think from inside before they can accept any evidence as a basis.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7687
611. goosegirl1
2:35 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Astrometeor:


Then there is no such thing as the scientific method if there is no belief involved. Belief is separate from religious views (which must be separate from science) however, how is one to advance civilization if you do not BELIEVE in what you are seeing?

If someone told me that there was a scientific article on unicorns and how they are real, I then have to decide whether or not I believe it. If I accept it as truth, but don't believe in it, then my way of thinking must be thrown away since it doesn't exist.

Yes, that above paragraph was hyperbolic, but sometimes a satirical example is needed to prove a point.


Please see #608. I didn't want to be insulting by posting a link to the scientific method, but it never hurts to review.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1232
610. Jedkins01
2:33 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:
Quoting Jedkins: **If one is skeptical because they want to dig deep into the evidence for themselves before the believe it, is there something wrong with that?**

Well, yes. If you want to be a scientist, you have to employ the scientific method. There is no room for a belief system. I don't mean to be insulting, but you just can't apply what you believe to a scientific conclusion or you will introduce bias.

There is no room left for "believe" or "don't believe" in regards to climate change. You could say "I don't accept what climate scientists are publishing in peer-reviewed journals." Not that it would make much sense, but at least it would be closer to correct.



When I say believe, I'm referring to a conclusion of truth based on evidence. If a scientist has spent his life researching on Climate Change and concludes it is enough evidence, he/she believes it is true.

Belief is something that is part of the process of thinking, therefore to exclude the concept of belief doesn't even make sense. I think you just misunderstood me. If belief proceeds evidence, then we have a bias. However if belief does not exist at all in the process, then the mind does not exist.

It's part of the human mind. Every human being has a belief if he/she has a mind or thinks.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7687
609. tornadodude
2:33 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
lol you people get so rude sometimes when it comes to these topics.

Honestly, how many people are actually going to change their point of view based on a comment on a blog? Probably very few, if any.

Anyway, there is a decent Winter Storm brewing as well as potential severe weather tomorrow night and Thursday.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 25 Comments: 8360
608. Xandra
2:26 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
From Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal:

Mankind’s Greatest Invention. Do you know what it is??

Posted by Dan Satterfield



This is a hint.

It’s the most imprtant thing that anyone should understand about science. It’s in nearly every science text book from grade school to high school (usually at the front but often skipped or downplayed). It made the computer you are reading this on possible and in fact it made all of modern technology possible!

No, it’s not science…It’s SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Do you know what it is, what it means? Do you have a solid understanding of it? Most do not, but it is the single greatest invention made by man. It’s so important that the nation with the greatest number of people who DO undersand it, will always rise to be the leader of the world. ALWAYS.

If you have some vague recollection that I am talking about hypothesis testing, then you’re missing the boat here. It’s MUCH deeper than that, because when you understand scientific method, you will understand completely what Neil de Grasse Tyson is really saying.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS:

At it’s core, it’s a simple set of rules that allows us to separate myth and superstition from reality, and allows us to build knowledge on a foundation of tried and tested fact. In short, scientific knowledge is the sum total of what we can see and test in the universe around us.

Rule One. Any observation or experiment we make must be repeatable. Others must be able to make the same observation or experiment, and get the SAME results. Not just someone you choose, but anyone and everyone should get the same result or make the same observation.

Violate rule one and it is NOT science.

Rule Two. Theories must make verifiable predictions. Any idea on how things work, or what is (or is not) true must be testable and falsifiable. You must be able to do an experiment that COULD possibly prove the idea wrong.

If you cannot do an experiment that could test the idea, and possibly prove it WRONG, then it is NOT Science.

Rule Three.

If an experiment shows a theory is wrong, then it’s wrong. As Richard Feynman said (I paraphrase) "It does not matter how smart your are or how famous you are, if your theory does not fit with experiment, then it’s wrong!" (..and therefore it is NOT science).

Don’t just take my word for it

What is so fantastic about this method of discovering new things, is that it immediately excludes myth, superstition, and everything that does not work. Your relatives may argue at every holiday gathering whether or not trickle down economics works, but in science if your theory fails experimentally then it’s wrong. Subject closed. (I’ll leave to others the subject of whether or not economics is a science!)

The knowledge and theories that have been tested, and shown to be reliable countless times, are what makes up the science books in schools. After so much knowledge on a subject has been gained, to prove the foundation of a theory wrong becomes an almost insurmountable task. One would have to show that all those experiments that came before were wrong. One simple observation or experiment could do it, but the only ones who expect it to happen are those who for one reason or another cannot accept the foundation in the first place.

I gave a talk about weather and climate change to a group a few years ago and someone came up afterwards and pointedly said "I have a theory and you cannot prove it wrong!" I replied, "you just did". This is why "The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it".

It took me several paragraphs to explain this, while Neil de Grasse Tyson did it in one sentence. That’s why I forecast the weather on TV, and he runs the Hayden Planetarium!
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
607. Neapolitan
2:23 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Jedkins01:



Actually, one has every ability to be a skeptic without being a "denier".

If one is skeptical because they want to dig deep into the evidence for themselves before they believe it, is there something wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with that. But, as a general rule (for which I've seen no recent exceptions), true climate change skeptics--that is, skeptics as defined by science--simply don't exist. There are a number of people who claim they're skeptivs, that they're open-minded, that they read all the science, but after talking to them you realize all their study was done at WattsUpWithThat or Foxnews.com or Steve Goddard's site, etc. That's not skepticism; that's confirmation bias at work.

And that is, of course, denial.
Quoting Jedkins01:
I am quite certain that not everyone who is skeptical of AGW is just a "denier". Maybe they have become that way because they see people calling people deniers as if there is no possibility on challenging the material, and therefore, naturally, it produces even more skepticism.
Refusing to acknowledge scientific reality because one's feeling got hurt by people who do acknowledge seems to me a particularly pathetic reason to do so, don't you think? Whatever happened to courage?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13580
606. Astrometeor
2:23 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting goosegirl1:
Quoting Jedkins: **If one is skeptical because they want to dig deep into the evidence for themselves before the believe it, is there something wrong with that?**

Well, yes. If you want to be a scientist, you have to employ the scientific method. There is no room for a belief system. I don't mean to be insulting, but you just can't apply what you believe to a scientific conclusion or you will introduce bias.

There is no room left for "believe" or "don't believe" in regards to climate change. You could say "I don't accept what climate scientists are publishing in peer-reviewed journals." Not that it would make much sense, but at least it would be closer to correct.


Then there is no such thing as the scientific method if there is no belief involved. Belief is separate from religious views (which must be separate from science) however, how is one to advance civilization if you do not BELIEVE in what you are seeing?

If someone told me that there was a scientific article on unicorns and how they are real, I then have to decide whether or not I believe it. If I accept it as truth, but don't believe in it, then my way of thinking must be thrown away since it doesn't exist.

Yes, that above paragraph was hyperbolic, but sometimes a satirical example is needed to prove a point.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10364
605. goosegirl1
2:11 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting Jedkins: **If one is skeptical because they want to dig deep into the evidence for themselves before the believe it, is there something wrong with that?**

Well, yes. If you want to be a scientist, you have to employ the scientific method. There is no room for a belief system. I don't mean to be insulting, but you just can't apply what you believe to a scientific conclusion or you will introduce bias.

There is no room left for "believe" or "don't believe" in regards to climate change. You could say "I don't accept what climate scientists are publishing in peer-reviewed journals." Not that it would make much sense, but at least it would be closer to correct.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1232
604. Stormchaser121
2:09 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Member Since: September 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1148
603. ScottLincoln
2:04 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
To help people put this change in the Arctic sea ice further into perspective, we can do some quick calculations to estimate just how much heat energy it would take to melt this much ice. Ice takes more energy to change state and to warm than air does, but how much energy?

There are two ways to approach this problem... by mass or by volume. First, some assumptions. Because it is not appropriate to pick individual years or extremes as indicators of climate, I will instead use rough annual averages from about 1980 and about 2012. I will assume that sea ice volume averaged 24,000,000km^3 in 1980 and 14,000,000km^3 in 2012. 10,000,000km^3 of ice volume has a mass of roughly 9.2*10^15 kg. Using the latent heat of fusion for water, this equates to about 3.1*10^21 Joules of energy.
How does this compare to something more people understand... perhaps the average temperature of the entire troposphere?

Energy required for Arctic melt... by mass
The troposphere accounts for roughly 80% of the mass of the atmosphere, or 4.0*10^18 kg. 3.1*10^21 J of energy would warm that mass of air roughly 0.76C.

Energy required for Arctic melt... by volume
The troposphere averages roughly 15km in height, multiplied by the earth's surface area that yields a troposphere volume of 7.7*10^9 km^3. Using the standard volumetric heat capacity of air, we find that 3.1*10^21 J of energy would warm that volume of air roughly 0.31C.

Important caveats: These numbers differ because of the assumptions necessary for the calculation. Please note that this back-of-the-envelope calculation is meant for estimation and cannot replace more thorough studies or published information in peer-reviewed journal articles. A more thorough analysis may find that I have made a mistake or improper assumption. It should also be noted that the troposphere does not warm/cool evenly - neither horizontally or vertically. Sea ice is also very dependent on ocean currents and climate variability over short time scales.

Take away message: The amount of heat energy needed to cause the observed ice melt is not trivial. Claims that "warming has stopped" or "slowed" - even if true - could be mostly explained just by the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic alone that is occurring faster than most models and forecasts. The planet continues to accumulate heat due to the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by human activities, and, as expected, the consequences are most pronounced in the Arctic.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3216
602. PedleyCA
2:00 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
Quoting CaicosRetiredSailor:
Can we call them Whackos?


No we have to play nice, damn....
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5962
601. Tropicsweatherpr
1:59 AM GMT on February 20, 2013
(CNN) -- At least 19 people were injured when a gas line in Kansas City, Missouri, exploded and ignited a three-alarm fire, officials said Tuesday night.

"There was significant damage, and there are initial reports of injuries," said James Garrett, a spokesman for the Kansas City Fire Department. He said there were no fatalities at the scene.

Officials at three hospitals indicated at least 19 people were hospitalized, including seven in critical condition and two in serious condition.

The cause of the explosion had yet to be determined, a spokeswoman for Kansas City police said.

Link
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14412
.

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

Well, that's not 100% accurate. There has been some very light evidence presented that over the last several decades, a few other planets in our solar system may have warmed (continue reading for qualifiers!)

Yeah, that's why I emphasized *well-documented*. One thirty year old reading from one probe on Mars is useless for establishing any climate change on Mars. The evidence for warming on other planets can't be called well-document. The most that can be said is that it's possible some planets are warming. Given the number of planets and large satellites, it's completely unsurprising if a few are warming (or cooling).

Quoting ScottLincoln:
That's not necessarily true, either. Other climate forcings on each of those planets could overwhelm changes in the sun's output and cause a planetary temperature change contrary to changes in solar output. Oddly enough, that is just what is happening on earth - solar activity is mostly stable if not slowly declining, and earth continues to accumulate heat. Yet another example of it not being just the sun... it's the net forcing that matters!

Yes, I did overstate the case. Sorry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Can we call them Whackos?
Member Since: July 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6051
597. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #1
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 02
9:00 AM JST February 20 2013
======================================

SUBJECT: Tropical Depression In Sulu Sea

At 0:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression (1004 hPa) located at 7.3N 121.1E 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 119.2E - 35 knots (CAT1/Tropical Storm) Sulu Sea

Additional Information
======================
Tropical Depression will move westward at the same speed for the next 24 hours

Tropical Depression will be upgraded to a tropical storm within 24 hours

Tropical Depression will develop because cyclone will stay in high sea surface temperature area

Final Dvorak number will be 2.0 after 24 hours
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 647 - 597

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.