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: 597 - 547

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

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: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43702
Quoting Xulonn:
Please don't throw your credentials around and then make such misleading and grossly irrelevant and erroneous statements. If yours is a thinly veiled and insulting Hitler/Nazi reference, I am highly offended. (Just for the record, in my military (U.S. Navy) days, I was a neuropsychiatric technician at a hospital where the department was part of a psychiatry resident training program.)

If you had stated that "applying labels can be used to exclude and dehumanize," your statement would be more accurate, but still not appropriate to the situation of identifying AGW/CC denialists and referring to them as such. The use of the term "denialist" is simply a way to categorize and identify - to differentiate things according to their various characteristics. It is used not only in science, but in everyday life. It CAN be used "exclude and dehumanize" but that is not the purpose here! AGW/CC denialism is widespread, and referred to as such in the literature. A person who practices denialism is a denialist. No one is "excluded" from anything. But if you foolishly and repeatedly post disproven science, pseudo science, and AGW/CC myths as some folks do here, you are setting yourself up for being called an "AGW/CC denialist" and responded to rather harshly.

On the other side of the coin, I am a "scientific realist" and an "alarmist" (kind of like viewing Paul Revere as an alarmist - he was aware of a serious threat and warned people about it!). You are more than welcome to use either "alarmist" or "scientific realist" to describe me, because they are simply words or phrases that are much shorter and easier to use than a long description. Even the "label" "warmist" describes me, although my "warmism" is based on a HUGE (97-98%) consensus among climate scientists.

It is quite obvious that you are being defensive, and trying to shame me into not using accurate and appropriate descriptions of people who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus of the reality of AGW/CC. However, I plan to continue to use appropriate descriptive in an appropriate manner, and without malice, but certainly not for the purpose of exclusion or dehumanization.

The common attempts of denialists to reclassify themselves as "skeptics" won't work with the growing cohort of sicence-aware and intelligent posters here. I recognize and respond to skeptics who are obviously seeking the truth - and are willing to read the science links provided to them - in a far different manner than denialists who repeatedly make fools of themselves and provoke baseless and imaginary controversy where there is none.




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?

I challenge some of you here what science is, and what it means to be a scientist. I say this not from a contentious standpoint, rather to make a statement(sometimes I state the obvious, I'm not trying to talk down to anyone). I for quite a while was skeptical of the existence of human caused climate change because I had not personally done research on the evidence and arguments for its existence. I'm not going to just all of the sudden act like I'm an expert and get emotionally involved about AGW harming the Earth because I see people post graphs and links about it on a blog. Is that what it means to support science, and is doing otherwise make me a "denier"? I would rather get a broad perspective, and examine alternative explanations/alternative hypotheses when I am doing research before concluding.

Do I conduct my entire lift this way, of course not. I don't do it perfectly, everyone has personal biases, regardless of whether or not they have a Diploma or PHD in front of the title. Furthermore, nobody has time to do so with everything or most things.

However, I certainly don't just buy into something just because it's agreed by the majority of scientists, or because bloggers in a meteorology blog say so. In fact, that's the problem, how many science students today actually go do research on issues where they stand outside of what is required in school? Or are they just copying and pasting what they heard from their professor in class, or from what a majority of scientists say? Contrary to what some might think, if a majority of scientists agree on something, while it could mean its solid, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

We live in a society of confusion, and have lost the cultural incentive of to test for actual truth, rather than just regurgitate a well written argument/debate by a well educated scientist. We often forget that the explosion of scientific discovery/development came from bold individuals who were willing to question the current scientific authority.
Of course, not in a disrespectful, or foolish way, rather, because that person doesn't follow the crowd. The scientific community is much larger today, and as scientists, whether in hobby or professional, or student, we should ALWAYS, do extensive research on something we are passionate about, to test to see if it is really true, even if most scientists do agree. Maybe the minority of scientists are actually right, maybe they are dead wrong.


Additionally, something I'm learning, but sadly I'm still terrible at lol, is to realize it's alright to say, "Well I believe this, but I don't know enough about it to be sure where I stand on the issue".


Humility is something in short supply in our time, and if it is quenched completely, say good bye to trusting credibility regardless of expertise.


Of course at the same time, this same mentality of confusion and not testing to see if something is true is the same reason people get caught up in crazy beliefs, conspiracy theories, or saying Climate Change doesn't exist and adding CO2 is not harmful in anyway etc.


Ultimately, it would be wise not to have this "denier" label, its really not a very scientific thing to do. While there are certainly some people who post here who are rejecting scientific research only because they have already made up their minds, and have a stubborn preconceived notions/ideas, calling them deniers won't change their minds. In fact it just creates this issue of us vs. them, good guy vs. bad guy. It just doesn't work and doesn't do anything good or prove anything.

Furthermore, 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.

Additionally, I'm not pointing any fingers or naming any names, but we all know there exists an amount of people who take the extreme left, and think they are heroes of science because they support evidence based on Climate Change, which isn't associated with testing it for evidence, rather, its just about feeling like being part of a group that is superior and everyone else is wrong. People that have extreme biases always try to dodge the obvious and act as if they are not. This is true on the far right, and the far left. Do not act as if some do not attempt to use the science of climate change for political gain and fear. It does exist, and there isn't anything scientific about it.


This isn't about pointing fingers at anyone here, but it involves some points to consider.


Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 6895
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:
Here is the latest about that big fire in Kansas City.

Police: 7 or 8 people injured in Kansas City gas explosion fire, 3 people unaccounted for.

Link


Video

Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8185
Here is the latest about that big fire in Kansas City.

Police: 7 or 8 people injured in Kansas City gas explosion fire, 3 people unaccounted for.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Thrawst:
If I recall correctly, the models didn't really have a good grasp on the instability for yesterday's severe weather. They showed nearly no instability yet we still managed to get several supercells that at least threatened to produce a tornado. Ended up with 51 reports of severe weather, many of them from different individual storms.



Thursday's setup, according to the NAM is showing CAPE values of 500-750 for the target area. I would assume yesterday's setup had CAPE values between 250-600. The low bias of CAPE on these models definitely tells us Thursday is a day to watch... and it could easily produce several significant tornadoes.



The storm that produced the Hattiesburg tornado was in an environment of only 600~jkg, so, absolutely, there could be significant tornadoes on Thursday. I'm eager to see what the 00z NAM has to say.
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8185
stay safe in Texas,,good Night Folks!........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If I recall correctly, the models didn't really have a good grasp on the instability for yesterday's severe weather. They showed nearly no instability yet we still managed to get several supercells that at least threatened to produce a tornado. Ended up with 51 reports of severe weather, many of them from different individual storms.



Thursday's setup, according to the NAM is showing CAPE values of 500-750 for the target area. I would assume yesterday's setup had CAPE values between 250-600. The low bias of CAPE on these models definitely tells us Thursday is a day to watch... and it could easily produce several significant tornadoes.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:
Again...wrong. There are no "well-documented" instances of warming on other planets. None, aside from Earth.

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!). Of course the major caveat there is that the timescales, magnitudes, and causes are completely different. And the hidden claim made by people spouting the "other planets are warming" line is that it must be the sun causing warming. We know that the sun's energy has been slowly decreasing for decades and there is no evidence indicating that solar activity could be causing the majority of observed warming on earth. See http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other- planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm
The evidence suggesting the warming of other planets is several orders of magnitude weaker than evidence we have of the earth warming, yet, somehow, people are believing in other planets warming but not the earth? Sounds like gullibility rather than scientific understanding.
Quoting Birthmark:It should also be noted that unless *every* body in the solar system is warming, then the Sun can be eliminated as the source of the warming.

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!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
AGWunderground.com

Why don't they just change the name of this site?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
Big fire in Kansas City, MO



I lived and worked in the Plaza for a long while, and ate at that JJs about a million times. The restaurant almost touches an old seven- or eight-story apartment building; I hope that the force of the blast and the subsequent flames weren't enough to spread next door.

FWIW, KC is expecting its worst winter storm in two years...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Haruna is looking pretty good, just needs to fill in its eyewall some more on the southern side.

Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 123 Comments: 7890
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
UW - CIMSS
ADVANCED DVORAK TECHNIQUE
ADT-Version 8.1.3
Tropical Cyclone Intensity Algorithm

----- Current Analysis -----
Date : 20 FEB 2013 Time : 003000 UTC
Lat : 21:49:23 S Lon : 41:00:13 E


CI# /Pressure/ Vmax
3.4 / 986.8mb/ 53.0kt


Final T# Adj T# Raw T#
3.4 3.6 3.6

Center Temp : -17.7C Cloud Region Temp : -66.4C

Scene Type : CURVED BAND with 0.79 ARC in LT GRAY
Maximum CURVED BAND with 0.96 ARC in LT GRAY
at Lat: 21:37:12 S Lon: 40:24:00 E

Positioning Method : FORECAST INTERPOLATION

Ocean Basin : INDIAN
Dvorak CI > MSLP Conversion Used : PACIFIC

Tno/CI Rules : Constraint Limits : NO LIMIT
Weakening Flag : OFF
Rapid Dissipation Flag : OFF

C/K/Z MSLP Estimate Inputs :
- Average 34 knot radii : 50km
- Environmental MSLP : 1005mb

Satellite Viewing Angle : 31.3 degrees

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
584. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Thanks VR46L


Your Welcome .

And Good night!!!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
583. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #7
FORTE TEMPETE TROPICALE HARUNA (09-20122013)
4:00 AM RET February 20 2013
=======================================

At 0:00 AM UTC, Severe Tropical Storm Haruna (985 hPa) located at 21.8S 41.0E has 10 minute sustained winds of 50 knots with gusts of 70 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving south at 3 knots.

Storm Force Winds
=================
50 NM radius from the center

Gale Force Winds
===================
90 NM radius from the center, extending up to 100 NM in the southwestern quadrant, and up to 150 NM in the eastern semi-circle

Near Gale Force Winds
======================
100 NM radius from the center, extending up to 120 NM in the northwestern quadrant, up to 180 NM in the southeastern quadrant, and up to 190 NM in the northeastern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D1.0/18 HRs

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 22.4S 41.2E - 55 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
24 HRS: 22.6S 41.5E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
48 HRS: 22.9S 42.3E - 75 knots (CYCLONE Tropical)
72 HRS: 25.0S 44.8E - Depression sur Terre

Additional Information
========================
Latest infrared imagery show a building eye ragged and very elongated within a central dense overcast becoming more symmetrical currently associated with a rather large radius of maximum winds. Within the next 12 hours, the low is expected to keep on drifting slowly southward toward a weak in the subtropical belt. Beyond, numerical weather prediction models are now in agreement for a globally east to east southeastwards track under the steering influence of a broad mid level trough transiting south of 30.0S.

If that philosophy seems approved by most of the guidance, some significant differences remains in chronology and cap variation ...ECMWF ensemble system members are all globally oriented near this forecast track toward the southwestern Madagascar ... and the present forecast is in the middle of the ensemble tracks. Over high energetic potential seas (29-30C) and under the upper level ridge, system is expected to gradually strengthen until landfall.The slow track expected by RSMC should however limit the maximum intensity due to negative oceanic retro-action by cooling water surface.

Haruna presents a potential threat for the southwestern coasts of Madagascar with a potential direct hit within the next 2 to 3 days. Currently, coastal areas between Morombe and southwards to Cape Sainte-Marie is the potential landfall area. Inhabitants of that area should monitor the progress of this system and stay tuned with information provided by their national weather services.
Member Since: May 24, 2006 Posts: 48 Comments: 43702


Thanks VR46L
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Quoting VR46L:
Good Night Folks !!! My Mood Has changed...


Bit of weather in Texas


Tomorrow at this time we will be looking at Texas for severe storms to start firing up.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 123 Comments: 7890
Here's the severe weather reports for today... I'm guessing the same tornado was reported twice:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
579. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


How did you post that. All I got was the menu and legend. So I had to use WU's.


Ped just go to the NWS site, go on standard version and click loop and right click to copy url

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Big fire in Kansas City, MO



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
577. VR46L
Good Night Folks !!! My Mood Has changed...


Bit of weather in Texas

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
576. VR46L
Quoting Xulonn:
Please don't throw your credentials around and then make such misleading and grossly irrelevant and erroneous statements. If yours is a thinly veiled and insulting Hitler/Nazi reference, I am highly offended. (Just for the record, in my military (U.S. Navy) days, I was a neuropsychiatric technician at a hospital where the department was part of a psychiatry resident training program.)

If you had stated that "applying labels can be used to exclude and dehumanize," your statement would be more accurate, but still not appropriate to the situation of identifying AGW/CC denialists and referring to them as such. The use of the term "denialist" is simply a way to categorize and identify - to differentiate things according to their various characteristics. It is used not only in science, but in everyday life. It CAN be used "exclude and dehumanize" but that is not the purpose here! AGW/CC denialism is widespread, and referred to as such in the literature. A person who practices denialism is a denialist. No one is "excluded" from anything. But if you foolishly and repeatedly post disproven science, pseudo science, and AGW/CC myths as some folks do here, you are setting yourself up for being called an "AGW/CC denialist" and responded to rather harshly.

On the other side of the coin, I am a "scientific realist" and an "alarmist" (kind of like viewing Paul Revere as an alarmist - he was aware of a serious threat and warned people about it!). You are more than welcome to use either "alarmist" or "scientific realist" to describe me, because they are simply words or phrases that are much shorter and easier to use than a long description. Even the "label" "warmist" describes me, although my "warmism" is based on a HUGE (97-98%) consensus among climate scientists.

It is quite obvious that you are being defensive, and trying to shame me into not using accurate and appropriate descriptions of people who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus of the reality of AGW/CC. However, I plan to continue to use appropriate descriptive in an appropriate manner, and without malice, but certainly not for the purpose of exclusion or dehumanization.

The common attempts of denialists to reclassify themselves as "skeptics" won't work with the growing cohort of sicence-aware and intelligent posters here. I recognize and respond to skeptics who are obviously seeking the truth - and are willing to read the science links provided to them - in a far different manner than denialists who repeatedly make fools of themselves and provoke baseless and imaginary controversy where there is none.




Excuse Me I witnessed what you and others have done sticking dunces hats on people .which is to make some one appear to be less than a normal human . it is nasty and insulting It started being about denialism and ended in a Gang beating.
My Degree was in Social Policy and administration which led me into a Government job. So please dont insult me .



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Fire @JJ's
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Huge fire in Kansas City, Missouri. Hopefully everybody is okay!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MAJOR FIRE IN KANSAS CITY, MO...

JJ's Restaurant exploded due to a gas leak... People with MAJOR injuries...unfortunately



The city is under a winter storm watch..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Did we break it????
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Testing...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ok NVM, this site is being weird right now, its not posting the image for some reason, oh well...
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 6895
Quoting VR46L:


And I see you are using the labels you use in Dr Roods blog too ...

And I will say to you as some one who has read Sociology and Psychology at 3rd Level , That applying labels is an effort to social exclude and dehumanize , the person you are applying the label to. History has shown what happens to people who have labels attached ... I suggest you should think twice before applying such labels
Please don't throw your credentials around and then make such misleading and grossly irrelevant and erroneous statements. If yours is a thinly veiled and insulting Hitler/Nazi reference, I am highly offended. (Just for the record, in my military (U.S. Navy) days, I was a neuropsychiatric technician at a hospital where the department was part of a psychiatry resident training program.)

If you had stated that "applying labels can be used to exclude and dehumanize," your statement would be more accurate, but still not appropriate to the situation of identifying AGW/CC denialists and referring to them as such. The use of the term "denialist" is simply a way to categorize and identify - to differentiate things according to their various characteristics. It is used not only in science, but in everyday life. It CAN be used "exclude and dehumanize" but that is not the purpose here! AGW/CC denialism is widespread, and referred to as such in the literature. A person who practices denialism is a denialist. No one is "excluded" from anything. But if you foolishly and repeatedly post disproven science, pseudo science, and AGW/CC myths as some folks do here, you are setting yourself up for being called an "AGW/CC denialist" and responded to rather harshly.

On the other side of the coin, I am a "scientific realist" and an "alarmist" (kind of like viewing Paul Revere as an alarmist - he was aware of a serious threat and warned people about it!). You are more than welcome to use either "alarmist" or "scientific realist" to describe me, because they are simply words or phrases that are much shorter and easier to use than a long description. Even the "label" "warmist" describes me, although my "warmism" is based on a HUGE (97-98%) consensus among climate scientists.

It is quite obvious that you are being defensive, and trying to shame me into not using accurate and appropriate descriptions of people who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus of the reality of AGW/CC. However, I plan to continue to use appropriate descriptive in an appropriate manner, and without malice, and certainly not for the purpose of exclusion or dehumanization.

The common attempts of denialists to reclassify themselves as "skeptics" won't work with the growing cohort of sicence-aware and intelligent posters here. I recognize and respond to skeptics who are obviously seeking the truth - and are willing to read the science links provided to them - in a far different manner than denialists who repeatedly make fools of themselves and provoke baseless and imaginary controversy where there is none.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This tornado was spotted near Chico, California:





Notice very little precip out of the cloud, and uh, the lack of cloud, in the cloud, lol. Very dry air/moisture starved thunderstorm. Yet it still somehow produced this tornado... Interesting stuff.
Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 6895
Quoting VR46L:


Nice Tune Love it!!

Is this the area you are at Ped ?





How did you post that. All I got was the menu and legend. So I had to use WU's.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945


Farther south.....

I am waiting for what you posted to make it down here....
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Quoting PedleyCA:


Been sprinkling here a few times today. Waiting for the storm to show up.

Riders on the storm
just started sprinkling here in Santa Barbara
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52396
563. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Been sprinkling here a few times today. Waiting for the storm to show up.

Riders on the storm


Nice Tune Love it!!

Is this the area you are at Ped ?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxchaser97:

I got the same thing, but I was watching a YouTube video so I posted that one.


Oh right, yours works.......
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945


I created this hypothetical chart to illustrate how seriously we must pay attention to the declining sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean. And possibly, this is why Dr. Masters and many other knowledgeable scientists are getting increasingly concerned.

There are no dates across the timeline axis, because while we know events are occurring at a much faster pace than was predicted in the 2007 IPCC report, many knowledgeable and well-informed observers believe that we will see a September ice-free Arctic by 2016 (+/- 2 years), certainly before 2020. As the ice disappears, the Arctic Region will continue to warm, causing Greenland's ice loss to dramatically increase. When we reach a point that the Arctic Ocean is ice-free perrennially, Greenland will be losing mass 12 months a year. This will greatly accelerate sea-level rise world-wide.

We already know that enough CO2 has been released into the atmosphere to eventually cause sea-levels to rise by at least 1 meter. However, the rate of that increase is solely dependant on whether we continue to increase CO2 emissions or begin to reduce them.

The economic costs of Climate Change are already very significant and at some point will be staggering. The economic losses due to infrastructure damage are already severe and will continue to mount annually. Crop losses due to extended periods of drought will lead to increasing food prices and hunger in some parts of the world. As sea-levels rise, coastal communities will have to decide whether to build massive seawalls or abandon major metropolitan areas. Now we are talking about 10s of trillions of dollars.

We Have A Choice

We can change the slope of both curves, the upward curve towards Global Economic Collapse and downward curve towards Global Societal Collapse.

HINT: Stop burning fossil fuels!







Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


...Bit of difference in latitude Ped .. it probably felt like winter to you and almost summer to me LOL


Been sprinkling here a few times today. Waiting for the storm to show up.

Riders on the storm
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Quoting AGWcreationists:
And once again, how many very low-key, wampy storms have elevated the counts in recent years?

I'm not talking 1995 or 2005. We only had two barely-major hurricanes this past year and lots of short-lived dinkers. Yet 2012 is tied with 1995 for number of named storms.


I guess the "barely" two hurricaines mean nothing to you..
To those whose lives were changed they meant everything..
And the so called "dinkers" were counted because they met the criteria..

My numbers for this season are..16..6..4
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
Date: 7:00 PM EST Tuesday 19 February 2013
Condition: Cloudy
Pressure: 29.7 inches
Tendency: rising
Visibility: 15 miles
Air Quality Health Index: 3

Temperature: 27.0°F
Dewpoint: 19.2°F
Humidity: 72 %
Wind: WSW 24 mph
Wind Chill: 12
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52396
Quoting PedleyCA:


I tried it and got basketball...

I got the same thing, but I was watching a YouTube video so I posted that one.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 123 Comments: 7890
Quoting PedleyCA:


I tried it and got basketball...


I removed the link to the video and substituted photo gallery
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Quoting wxchaser97:

This video works.

.75" hail was reported from the CA storm earlier, but it is a regular shower now.


I tried it and got basketball...
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
554. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


54 here right now .... was 57.1


...Bit of difference in latitude Ped .. it probably felt like winter to you and almost summer to me LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:
Link

Try this instead

removed was gone

This video works.

.75" hail was reported from the CA storm earlier, but it is a regular shower now.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 123 Comments: 7890
Quoting ncstorm:


hmm..He didnt agree with TWC of naming winter storms as you pointed out in a previous post


I don't worry about what he agrees or not on, but on the fact that he's so good at explaining things even if they are complicated.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


I know that he is not held in the regard in the USA as the rest of the world ... he was runner up to schumacker in F1 ..that is no mean feat !!

Hit 54°f today and not a cloud in the sky


54 here right now .... was 57.1
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
Link

Try this instead

removed was gone
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4945
549. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Yes it was a parts failure. Cut JP some slack... But it was funny at the time.


I know that he is not held in the regard in the USA as the rest of the world ... he was runner up to schumacker in F1 ..that is no mean feat !!

Hit 54°f today and not a cloud in the sky
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm not going to sway anyone's opinion on the Torcon when some people don't understand the science behind it.

Now I know how some of the CC, GW, AGW people feel haha

That cell in Cali completely fell apart
Member Since: June 28, 2006 Posts: 24 Comments: 8185
Quoting DoctorDave1:


This link has the real story on the impact of increased CO2. If anyone has a link that disputes this, please provide it (including Dr. Masters).

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/2895143 30087641088/photo/1

tus/2895143 30087641088/photo/1
Bastardi is, to put it kindly, unreliable.

Guess what? Weather still occurs even with AGW. Pass that on to Big Joe, will ya?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5293

Viewing: 597 - 547

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.