Dark Snow Project: Crowd-Source Funded Science for Greenland

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:03 PM GMT on April 26, 2013

Share this Blog
42
+

"There's no place on Earth that is changing faster--and no place where that change matters more--than Greenland." So said 350.org founder Bill McKibben, in a 2012 Rolling Stone magazine interview. As Earth Week 2013 draws to a close, I want to draw your attention to a unique effort to learn more about why Greenland is melting so fast--a crowd-funded research project that anyone can contribute to, which aims to answer the "burning question": How much does wildfire and industrial soot darken the ice, increasing melt? The Dark Snow Project, the first-ever Greenland expedition relying on crowd-source funding, hopes to raise $150,000 to mount a field research campaign to find out. The project is the brainchild of Dr. Jason Box, Professor at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), and one of the world's leading experts on Greenland's glaciers. He has set up a website called darksnowproject.org to help raise the funds for the field campaign, and has raised about half of the needed amount as of mid-April.


Figure 1. Over the course of several years, turbulent water overflow from a large melt lake carved this 60-foot-deep (18.3 meter-deep) canyon in Greenland's Ice Sheet (note people near left edge for scale). Image credit: Ian Joughin, University of Washington.

2012: Unprecedented melting in Greenland
Watching the weather events of 2012 over Greenland made all seasoned climate watchers a little queasy. The vast ice sheet on the island holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 7.36 meters (24.15 feet) were it all to melt, and the ice melt season of 2012 gave notice that an epic melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet may be underway. According to NOAA's 2012 Arctic Report Card, the duration of melting at the surface of the ice sheet in summer 2012 was the longest since satellite observations began in 1979, and the total amount of summer melting was nearly double the previous record, set in 2010 (satellite records of melting go back to 1979.) A rare, near-ice sheet-wide surface melt event melted 97% of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet on July 11 - 12. While a similar melt event at the summit occurred 1889, but the 1889 event has no basis in the instrumental record from coastal Greenland. It's instead likely that 2012 was Greenland's warmest summer in at least 863 years, since the medieval warm period (see http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=677 and http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=725). The incredibly warm temperatures have been blamed on highly unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream changes, which were also responsible for 2012's unusually wet summer weather in England. It would not be a surprise if this sort of summer began occurring more often, since temperatures on top of the Greenland Ice Sheet have been rising six times faster than the global average during the past twenty years. A May 2013 Geophysical Research Letters paper by McGrath et al., "Recent warming at Summit, Greenland: Global context and implications", concluded that by 2025, there is a 50% chance of ice sheet-wide melt events happening annually. The ice sheet reached its darkest value on record in 2012. The darkened surface was due to below average summer snow, soot particles from pollution and forest fires, and record melting. A darker ice sheet absorbs more solar energy, in a vicious cycle that raises temperatures, melts more ice, and further darkens the ice sheet. The amount of melting that was caused by soot from forest fires is important to know, since global warming is likely to increase the amount of forest fires in coming decades. However, the amount of forest fire soot landing on the Greenland Ice Sheet is almost completely unknown, which is why Dr. Box is determined to find out, via the Dark Snow Project.


Figure 2. Smoke from a fire in Labrador, Canada wafts over the Greenland ice sheet on June 17, 2012, as seen in this cross-section view of aerosol particles taken by NASA's CALIPSO satellite. Image credit: Dr. Jason Box, Ohio State University.

Greenland causing 25% of global sea level rise
In a landmark study published in November 2012 in Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories reported that the amount of ice being lost from Greenland and Antarctica has tripled since the 1990s, with Greenland contributing more than twice as much to global sea level rise than Antarctica. The study, "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance", found that the two ice sheets were responsible for 20% of the global sea level rise of 3.1 mm/year during the 20-year period 1992 - 2011. The remainder of the rise was due to expansion of the water due to heating of the oceans, melting of mountain glaciers, and unsustainable pumping of ground water. Said co-author Erik Ivins of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "The pace of ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a five-fold increase since the mid-1990s." As of 2011, Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise on its own had risen to 20 - 25%, according to an international research group led by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, in an article published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters on 1 June 2012. If the current exponential ice loss trends continue for the next ten years, Greenland's contribution to sea level rise will double to 1.4 mm/yr by 2022, the researchers said. Many sea level rise researchers expect global sea level to rise by about 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2100. During the 20th century, global sea level rise was about 0.18 meters (7 inches.)


Figure 3. Monthly smoothed (purple) and unsmoothed (blue) values of the total mass lost from the Greenland Ice Sheet (in Gigatons, Gt) from measurements by the GRACE satellites between March 2002-September 2012. An approximate equivalent global sea level rise figure is on the right axis. Note that the decline in ice mass lost from Greenland is not a straight line--it is exponential, meaning that more ice loss is lost each year than in the previous year. Image credit: 2012 Arctic Report Card.

Will Antarctica be more important than Greenland for sea level rise?
Although melting from Greenland is currently raising global sea level by about a factor of two more than Antarctica melting is, that situation may change later this century. A 2013 study by Dahl-Jensen et al. looked at a new ice core drilled from the bottom-most depths of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The core suggests that the ice in Greenland may have partially survived the warm Eemian period before the Ice Age, approximately 118,000 - 126,000 years ago, when Greenland temperatures were 5- 8°C warmer than present-day temperatures. Global sea level during the Eemian was 4 - 8 meters (13 - 26 ft) higher than the present sea level, and the scientists estimated that melting from Greenland was responsible for 2 meters (6.6 ft) of this sea level rise. This implies that Antarctica was responsible for 50 - 75% of global sea level rise during the Eemian, and thus we might expect Antarctica to take over as the dominant source of sea level rise later this century, when global temperatures may to rise to levels similar to those experienced during the Eemian.

Related posts
Greenland experiences melting over 97% of its area in mid-July (July 25, 2012)
Record warmth at the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet (July 18, 2012)
Unprecedented May heat in Greenland; update on 2011 Greenland ice melt (May, 2012)
Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event

Dr. Jason Box's blog on Greenland and the Dark Snow Project is at http://www.meltfactor.org.

The http://www.greenlandmelting.com/ website looks like a great resource for following this year's melt progression in Greenland.


Video 1. Glaciologist Dr. Jason Box and 350.org founder Bill McKibben plug the Darksnow project in this January 2013 video by Peter Sinclair. There's some impressive footage of the record Greenland snow melt of summer 2012 sweeping away a 20-ton tractor that was attempting to repair a bridge washed out by the raging Watson River on July 11, 2012 in Kangerlussauaq, Greenland. The driver escaped unharmed.

Support the Dark Snow Project
One of Dr. Box's collaborators, photographer James Balog, who created the amazing time-lapse Greenland glacier footage in the fantastic 2012 "Chasing Ice" movie, puts it like this: "Working in Greenland these past years has left me with a profound feeling of being in the middle of a decisive historic moment--the kind of moment, at least in geologic terms, that marks the grand tidal changes of history." On that note, I encourage you all to support the Dark Snow Project. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Dark Snow Project Expedition Plan 2013
Prepare and gather science equipment including a field spectrometer, snow and ice coring device, and snow metrics kit.

Travel to Iqualuit, on Baffin Island, Nunavut from home locales in California, Ohio, Michigan, Vermont and rendezvous with Dash-6 "Twin Otter" ski-equipped airplane and flight crew.

Organize cold weather survival kit.

Ferry team from Iqualuit to Kangerlussuaq, Greenland.

Fly to and land at sampling sites high on the inland ice sheet.

At each site collect snow samples from a snow pit and obtain snow cores to a minimum depth of the previous year's snow surface, and record snow properties.

Transport of team and snow samples to Greenland's capital Nuuk, where the team will rest after hustling at field sites.

Return to Iqualuit, then to respective home locales to start the data analysis and reporting phase of campaign.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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

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

Viewing: 982 - 932

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 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog Index

Quoting stormpetrol:


Think this might be a little clearer.
Hello :) When and where was this ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.
People come to this forum for many reasons, one of which is to learn. If a small but very vocal minority is allowed to run off at the mouth, spouting one bit of denialist gibberish after another while no one responds to correct their nonsense, this forum would quickly degenerate into the chaotic mess it has been at times in the past.

Now, it's clear that some don't give two hoots about climate change, so they'd actually be okay with denialist nonsense ruling the forum. So allow me to expand on a hypothetical BobChecks wrote of in #966...

Suppose every time you posted one of your very helpful "tropical tidbits" that someone felt the need to tell you that, contrary to what you said, northern hemisphere tropical cyclones do not spin counter-clockwise, but in fact spin clockwise. And suppose this person didn't just say you were wrong about that fact, but that you were a socialist and a liar for saying it. And suppose you and some other bright people took the time to patiently explain to that person that they were both mistaken--after all, there's ample concrete proof that big NH storm systems spin CCW--and out of line. And suppose that person responded by gathering a bunch of his or her equally nonsensical friends to pile on and tell you that they don't believe you or anyone else who "believes" in CCW storms, and that all the world's tropical meteorologists were in on a huge fraud, and that they could point you to websites that have secret evidence that systems spin CW that the government doesn't want you to see, because they want to take all your money or your car or your house or something. And suppose you, with less patience this time, respond to the person that he's a troublemaker and a troll, and is undeniably wrong.

Now suppose that someone responds to your irate outburst by claiming that you're "engaging in negative verbal battles that drag your tidbits into the mud day after day". Should you listen to them, and simply shut up, allowing the obvious trolls to run rampant, diluting your message? Or do you fight the good fight and keep doing your best to be sure your CCW truth is heard the above the din of the CW dimwits?

So long as there remain fake skeptics denying scientific truth, there'll be the need to counter their nonsense.
Quoting beell:
I think both denier and warmist need this dysfunctional interchange to validate their existence here.
So you are of the opinion that Dr. Masters--and Dr. Rood--need non-stop denialist blather "...to validate their existence here"?

Please explain that one when you get a chance...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Yup, there it is, typed in an Arial, 10-point, black font.

"Do not enter games of oneupmanship with trolls or bloggers you find to be annoying. You will be banned along side them, as your verbal jousts consume the space and time everyone else is sharing. If you come across a troll or another blogger whom you find to be irritating, please use the site reporting tools and your ignore list."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Because ignoring them allows them to carry out their propagandist agenda. They should be confronted and exposed.

Sometimes, being even handed isn't a virtue.



But trolls shouldnt be.....?
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9719
It's raining
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9719
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Maybe that's because you're not a part of it. *shrugs*


Oh darn. I guess I missed the memo. I think I'll cry now. *rolls eyes*
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Because ignoring them allows them to carry out their propagandist agenda. They should be confronted and exposed.

Sometimes, being even handed isn't a virtue.



You can't change peoples minds by forcing things on them, it often causes people to appose it with even more fervent obsession. History should tell that to you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


We all ignore JFV (or try to) every year.


Hallelujah for real-time mods this year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx:


A little sensitive, are we? Where in her comment towards you did she falsely accuse you of something? Also, where did she attack you? I've also seen you mention a couple of times something about an "in crowd". Who is part of the "in crowd" in here? I haven't heard of this group and I've been on this blog since 2005.

Maybe that's because you're not a part of it. *shrugs*

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
NCStorm -

The term "Strawman" is a form of false argument, and not a name for a person. I am not calling you anything - I just pointed out that you used a strawman argument.

And for the last time, I am not talking about a disease, but rather a characteristic of human nature. You refuse to follow my suggestion and look up the pshychology of climate change denialism, but rather twist my words and try to make me look bad. Here's what you would find at Google Scholar:


You're really attacking me and trying to make it look like I'm attacking you - and I don't appreciate it. However, you're part of the "in-crowd" here, and I could get falsely slammed for trying to discuss a valid part of AGW/CC, which is the psychology of climate change denialism.

I think it is best that we discontinue this discussion, and I will not respond unless you make false accusations against me again.


A little sensitive, are we? Where in her comment towards you did she falsely accuse you of something? Also, where did she attack you? I've also seen you mention a couple of times something about an "in crowd". Who is part of the "in crowd" in here? I haven't heard of this group and I've been on this blog since 2005.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm apposed to government regulation entirely in regards to environmental action, there has to be some action taken.

Jedkins, I assume you mean "opposed".

If we don't use the power of government (which is really the power of us) what agency/power would you expect to deal with our need to transition away from fossil fuels?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobChecks:


Levi, what if there were people here who were posting incorrect information about tropical storms forming or misleading information about how various wind patterns interact?

Would it be best to just ignore them and let them confuse others?


We all ignore JFV (or try to) every year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
NCStorm -

The term "Strawman" is a form of false argument, and not a name for a person. I am not calling you anything - I just pointed out that you used a strawman argument.

And for the last time, I am not talking about a disease, but rather a characteristic of human nature. You refuse to follow my suggestion and look up the pshychology of climate change denialism, but rather twist my words and try to make me look bad. Here's what you would find at Google Scholar:


You're really attacking me and trying to make it look like I'm attacking you - and I don't appreciate it. However, you're part of the "in-crowd" here, and I could get falsely slammed for trying to discuss a valid part of AGW/CC, which is the psychology of climate change denialism.

I think it is best that we discontinue this discussion, and I will not respond unless you make false accusations against me again.


Xulonn..LOL..I am not part of the in crowd here..I was just ban several weeks ago..no harm done and if you felt like I was attacking you, my apologies..:)
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14397
We had a few strong thunderstorms this morning here in the Hattiesburg area. Some areas received over 4 inches of rain in a very short period of time. These thunderstorms were loaded with C-G lightning and here is some evidence:



Poor oak tree.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Can we outlaw the word "strawman"? It's getting tedious.

The weather's great here in Jupiter at the moment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NCStorm -

The term "Strawman" is a form of false argument, and not a name for a person. I am not calling you anything - I just pointed out that you used a strawman argument.

And for the last time, I am not talking about a disease, but rather a characteristic of human nature. You refuse to follow my suggestion and look up the pshychology of climate change denialism, but rather twist my words and try to make me look bad. Here's what you would find at Google Scholar:


You're really attacking me and trying to make it look like I'm attacking you - and I don't appreciate it. However, you're part of the "in-crowd" here, and I could get falsely slammed for trying to discuss a valid part of AGW/CC, which is the psychology of climate change denialism.

I think it is best that we discontinue this discussion, and I will not respond unless you make false accusations against me again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.


Levi, what if there were people here who were posting incorrect information about tropical storms forming or misleading information about how various wind patterns interact?

Would it be best to just ignore them and let them confuse others?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm just putting in a thought since AGW is again a hot topic...

As I'm sure many veteran posters here know, I used to be outwardly very skeptical of even the existence of AGW at all. Much of that was due to the fact that my first experience with it when I was younger was Al Gore. Because of that I pretty much became hard to any consideration of it and never really did on research on it myself. However, as I got older, I began to realize the importance of not becoming hard to exploring an idea just because of a past experience.

Granted, it is true that people on the political left do sometimes use the issue of climate change as a means to form an agenda, along with science in general. However, I realized its illogical to then conclude that because of this, the science doesn't exist. It obviously makes no sense to conclude that AGW doesn't exist just because of some degree of left political agenda that uses it for an agenda because regardless of this, the science of studying climate change does not vary in any way. That is, research on in remains the same regardless with what politicians do in response to it.


This is because the nature of the scientific method and what it means to be a scientist itself prevents some sort of mass conspiracy. Scientists can't publish journals on a large scale with deceptive intentions because the errors will be found and exposed. You can't have data and research on a large scale to some sort of mass conspiracy regarding climate change, that just doesn't make sense and there is not any proof of its existence.

In fact, if there was some sort of major collective bias among climatologists in regards to AGW, one could figure this out simply be looking at their research and data and seeing what it actually says.

That is, scientists could have a bias about AGW, however, it would be based on their choice to interpret the data with a bias. It would thus be easy to challenge the simply using their own research against them. Again, you can't have collective biased research in science, pseudo science is easily screened and exposed thanks to the scientific method.


With that being said, as I have seen the data for myself and doing personal research on the data, I have begun to realize that AGW is in fact very real. Also if anything, based on human nature, it would make more sense for scientists to have biased reaction to the research on climate change by pretending it isn't much of a threat. This is because us humans by nature are often complacent in how we respond to the obvious warning signs of upcoming danger. Additionally, if there exists any collective bias on climate change, it would be an attempt to silence its existence because all the money and incentive is for the continual use of fossil fuels and the general wastefulness of consumerism.

Not to jump on the criticize Joe Bastardi band wagon, however, he is an example of a scientist who does not the research and the data, but has a biased view in how he presents it and interprets it. If you find out what the data actually says, you'll know his tendency to suggest global cooling just does not line up with an overwhelming amount of research that suggest completely the opposite.


Now, I still disagree with how some of the scientific community reacts to AGW. I do think there is a role in government taking action, but not to the degree some climatologists and scientists are suggesting. I think the danger and harm of massive government intervention is greater than the threat of AGW itself. Therefore, no, I don't see any sign of any mass bias, the research and data backs that up. However, I do disagree still with the reaction. Not that I don't think AGW isn't a serious issue, its just that I disagree with how to respond.

The greatest role in government is providing incentive and education to the public, that is, non hostile ways of educating people to realize the dangers. If the government creates massive intervention, not only will it cause people to all the more appose the movement to improve the environment, but it will bring the threat of revolt, and not to mention, just too much power to the Federal government.

I'm not opposed to government regulation entirely in regards to environmental action, there has to be some action taken. However, the response to climate change needs to be balanced and rational, not one moved by fear and emotion which leads to poor decision making in the government and amongst the community.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


It's the time of year to start looking for our first one, but on the surface map you posted, there isn't much there. The monsoon trough lifts strongly north over western Africa, but there doesn't seem to be a wave structure embedded on the northern side of the African easterly jet yet. Indeed, the AEJ hasn't really formed yet at all.





And the Gulf of Guinea continues relatively warm not allowing the ITCZ to lift more north at this time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:



or how about this the lazey so call mods a round here can this get rid of tthe trolls this like that
yes we could removed them all and have 10 different names everyday to figure out
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


It's the time of year to start looking for our first one, but on the surface map you posted, there isn't much there. The monsoon trough lifts strongly north over western Africa, but there doesn't seem to be a wave structure embedded on the northern side of the African easterly jet yet.



Also i think the Itze needs to come a little higher so the thunderstorms can travel further over land to create the waves
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36829
Quoting Levi32:


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.


Because ignoring them allows them to carry out their propagandist agenda. They should be confronted and exposed.

Sometimes, being even handed isn't a virtue.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting belizeit:
I think we will see or first Tropical Wave soon is any one agreeing with me or am i a loner


It's the time of year to start looking for our first one, but on the surface map you posted, there isn't much there. The monsoon trough lifts strongly north over western Africa, but there doesn't seem to be a wave structure embedded on the northern side of the African easterly jet yet. Indeed, the AEJ hasn't really formed yet at all.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
MSZ045-046-051-052-281910-
NEWTON MS-NESHOBA MS-LAUDERDALE MS-KEMPER MS-
123 PM CDT SUN APR 28 2013

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JACKSON MS
123 PM CDT SUN APR 28 2013

A LINE OF STRONG THUNDERSTORMS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING PEA TO DIME SIZE
HAIL AND 40 TO 50 MPH WINDS WAS LOCATED FROM 3 MILES NORTHEAST OF
DIXON TO STRATTON AT 123 PM CDT...MOVING EAST AT 35 MPH.

DANGEROUS CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING IS ALSO POSSIBLE WITH THESE
STORMS.

PEOPLE IN SOUTHWESTERN KEMPER...NORTHWESTERN LAUDERDALE...SOUTHERN
NESHOBA AND NORTHERN NEWTON COUNTIES SHOULD MONITOR THESE STORMS
CLOSELY.
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 36829
Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
Date: 2:00 PM EDT
Sunday 28 April 2013
Condition:Mostly Cloudy
Pressure:30.0 inches
Tendency:falling
Visibility:15 miles
Temperature:67.6°F
Dewpoint:46.0°F
Humidity:46%
Wind:ESE 10 mph
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


That's a great idea, Levi. Although I think both denier and warmist need this dysfunctional interchange to validate their existence here. Have you ever heard the sound of one hand clapping?


You are right, though I see far more of "deniers" making wild statements followed by advocates responding than the other way around.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Think this might be a little clearer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Re: Post 943 by Jedkins01...

OMG, I too am prone to errors, that once made, I often cannot believe I made such a dumb mistake or decision. I see others mistakes and wonder how they could make such mistakes, and then I remember that I do the same thing. I have always admired people who make good decisions and make them quickly. I sometimes agonize over something far too long, and still make the wrong choice. Pilots, racing drivers, good military leaders, successful leaders, all make me jealous of their talents.

However, as weird as it seems, I excelled at academic tests. The psychology of humans, with its diversity and strange and seemingly random combinations of talents and defects, is fascinating.

And I am fascinated by the very high level of analytical skills among the weather prognosticators here, and baffled by the inability of many of them to apply the same objective skills to their understanding of AGW/CC. If they were as inaccurate with their storm predictions, they would probably be laughed off the blog. It seems that they apply science and analysis to weather, and beliefs and emotions to AGW/CC, jumping on almost every disproven and false anti-AGW/CC denialist claptrap as if it were real science!

And speaking of leaders, mistakes, and such, who are the best hurricane forecasters here at WU? It seems difficult for even the best ones to be consistent. Rather than guessing how many storms we'll have in a season, I would be interested in "who made the best long and medium range forecasts for those storms.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
952. beell
Quoting Levi32:


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.


That's a great idea, Levi. Although I think both denier and warmist need this dysfunctional interchange to validate their existence here. Have you ever heard the sound of one hand clapping?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.



or how about this the lazey so call mods a round here can this get rid of tthe trolls this like that
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
MONSTER STRAWMAN - you are really good at making things up, NCStorm. I never implied or referred to anything resembling a "mental disorder." You are obviously confusing psychology and psychiatry. (I am a former psychiatric technician, and understand the subject well.)

Psychology is "The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context," while psychiatry is "The study and treatment of mental illness, emotional disturbance, and abnormal behavior." You need to learn the difference, or you will become very confused!! ;-)

If you are truly interest in understanding what I posted, and not just lashing out at me, please google "psychology climate change denialism" without the quotation marks, and you will get 20,000 hits! That should keep you busy for a while!


well, here come the names..now I'm being a strawman or whatever you call it because I inquired about something that you wrote and put out there as fact as something being studied by pyschologists?...I work with mental disorders studies and mental disorders are grouped with psychology or "pyschologists"..below is a link for you to read up on to the ICD9 where I did not find anything about "climate change denialism" which is where the medical community would look to verify a specific disease, disorders, symptoms..etc..you wont have to google it as I provided it for you....

Everyone should not take anyone's answer here as fact and form your own research..I didnt want to do this on the blog which is why I asked you to WU mail..have a good day Xulon and please feel free to WU me anytime with more on this mental subject that include links..
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14397
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think we will see or first Tropical Wave soon is any one agreeing with me or am i a loner
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Wrong - simply demonstrating denier characteristics is not sufficient to be labeled a troll. When someone, and there are several here, makes the same false statement - known as a "strawman" - dozens of times and refuses to acknowledge the correction of a blatant error, they are trolling.

An example is someone who repeatedly makes statements like "if a single weather event is different than climate, why do you always say sandy was caused by agw?????"

No climate scientist or knowledgeable layperson would ever say that - therefore it is a "strawman" argument. Science based comments on Sandy might include comments suggesting or stating that the storm was likely influenced by AGW/CC, but never caused by it.

Statements like that, if made by a newbie one time, deserve a civil answer.

However, repeating that false "strawman" statement over and over and over and over is blatant trolling. It's one of the classic symptoms of climate denialism described by psychologists who study the subject.


Suggestion: If AGW deniers are trolls, how about ignoring them like any other troll, and not engaging them in negative verbal battles that drag this blog into the mud day after day and are indeed violations of the rules of the road? If advocates of AGW science would stop feeling the need to respond to every single statement made by these "trolls," considering their minds will never be changed anyway, the atmosphere in here would be so much better.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting no1der:
Only the one we're living in.

Brilliant! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Doug, I've have a bad memory all my life, but in 1976, at the age of 36, I finally managed to earn a college degee at a world-class major university - a B.S. degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from U.C. Berkeley. However, my poor short term memory and random holes (I call them drop-outs) in my memory have plagued me all my life. It's very frustrating to be blessed with good analytical skills and have a poor memory, which is one of the reasons that I never went on to get a graduate degree in a hard science.

There are many people here at WU who are smarter than me, and it is a real challenge for me to comprehend and grasp the significance of some of their technical and science-based posts.

However, like you, I am intelligent, aware and concerned enough to comprehend AGW/CC and its reality.

Hang in there, keep up the weather-related posts, and join me in the struggle to understand AGW/CC more fully and follow the science. I rarely read peer-reviewed scientific papers, but there are many excellent science journalists, reporters and bloggers who digest the information and present it for us non-scientists. A good place to see what science and scientists are up to, and read objective reporting on many fields, including AGW/CC, is Science Daily.

And of course, the WU Climate change pages, and the Skeptical Science and RealClimate websites are great places to learn the truth - scientific truth.



You're not alone, I'm a very analytical person, however I struggle with testing and short term memory myself in regards to mathematics and science. When it comes to most classes that are non science and math based, keeping high grades comes quite easy. However, it just so happens that my greatest interest being science and especially meteorology is where I struggle academically. When it comes to understanding physics and mathematics and how to apply and use it, I have no problem. My problem is that I'm very prone to making errors and I have to study exceedingly hard to improve on errors that most people with a similar mind and interest like me seem to struggle less with. I've had to learn to sacrifice a lot of things including much of my social life, however if I can make to my destination, a B.S. in meteorology here at FSU, it will be well worth it.

I used to think I would never have skill to attain a graduate degree in my field either, however I've since changed my mind since there's no sense refraining from at least putting in the effort. Even if I fail to do so, it will be a lot better psychologically to know I at least put my heart into it and gave my effort rather than not attempting. My greatest weakness is actually just fear of failing academic tests, its my greatest stumbling block.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ncstorm:

Can you provide a link for this mental disorder of "climate denialism" that is being studied by psychologists now?..I work in the medical industry and I have never heard of this? Are there clinical trials being conducted on this disorder? You can WU me so we wont clog up the blog..
MONSTER STRAWMAN - you are really good at making things up, NCStorm. I never implied or referred to anything resembling a "mental disorder." You are obviously confusing psychology and psychiatry. (I am a former psychiatric technician, and understand the subject well.)

Psychology is "The scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context," while psychiatry is "The study and treatment of mental illness, emotional disturbance, and abnormal behavior." You need to learn the difference, or you will become very confused!! ;-)

If you are truly interest in understanding what I posted, and not just lashing out at me, please google "psychology climate change denialism" without the quotation marks, and you will get 20,000 hits! That should keep you busy for a while!

Edit: The psychology of climate change denial is a valid subject here at WU, especially at Dr. Roods's blog. However, I feel that it is appropriate in the comments section here at Dr. Masters' blog when climate change is the subject initiated by Dr. Masters.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer concerning the urgency of sea water rise on the Delaware Bay in New Jersey.

The neighborhoods there were very hard hit by Sandy, but considering they're only very small fishing villages that few people have even heard of, they didn't receive media attention. With each nor'easter they seem to flood worse and worse, and the ecology of the area is undergoing visible changes. To them, the problem is very real and it's happening now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Looking at the record, Orlando has been in the 40s as late as mid-May. In fact, the record low for every day in May is in either the 40s or 50s. Too, Orlando has even experienced several days in May where the high couldn't get out of the 60s. Bottom line: while such cold is unusual, it wouldn't be unprecedented. Having said that, though, I agree with you that it's unlikely to happen. With the sun more than 2/3 of the way toward the summer solstice and snow cover virtually non-existent in the Eastern US (just a thin sliver of the northern tier of states has any left), any air mass will be greatly moderated before extending deep into Florida. And as you state, the lack of model support says that, for the moment at least, this probably won't happen.

(Then again, with this year's wacky weather, and with that cold pool sitting over the Eastern US for most of the past two months, just anything is possible, no?)


Yeah I mean anything is possible, even if the Orlando area had never is recorded history experienced lows in the 50's in May and highs near 70, that doesn't mean a pattern could set up that allows it to be the first time it has happened. As you noted, with weather becoming increasingly anything but normal, if anything the chances might seem higher for something new to happen. Sandy wasn't something that has happened in the Northeast since meteorology has been a science to study it, at least not that I'm aware of? But it happened for seemingly the first time since who knows when.


With that being said, my main reason for doubting it is due to the lack of any real agreement, meteorologists should have strong caution towards any sort of anomalous or even just an unusual event forecast by models unless there is strong consistent agreement. Being that this agreement doesn't exist in this case, at least not yet, I'm quite doubtful it will happen.

Again, its odd to me the CPC seems to be indicating well below normal temps with surety in Florida. While the local NWS offices and local MET's are just as skeptical as me and show temps cooling slightly to near average(low 80's for highs, low to mid 60's for lows) during this period and nothing more.


I don't think these strange patterns are a coincidence, its a little bit exciting as a meteorologist but also scary because more than likely this change does not appear to be natural.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Conventional satellite imagery shows that 92P has developed a CDO-like pattern in the center and outflow in the southern semicircle of the system over the past few hours. However, 92P is expected to remain a weak system as it will move westward and hit northern Queensland by the next few days. Global models, including the GFS and ECMWF, agree to this solution.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pcola57:

I don't have the capacity to stand and throw punches with none believers like I once may have..
I don't know if you remember but I have some difficulties in memory retention..
Doug, I've have a bad memory all my life, but in 1976, at the age of 36, I finally managed to earn a college degee at a world-class major university - a B.S. degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from U.C. Berkeley. However, my poor short term memory and random holes (I call them drop-outs) in my memory have plagued me all my life. It's very frustrating to be blessed with good analytical skills and have a poor memory, which is one of the reasons that I never went on to get a graduate degree in a hard science.

There are many people here at WU who are smarter than me, and it is a real challenge for me to comprehend and grasp the significance of some of their technical and science-based posts.

However, like you, I am intelligent, aware and concerned enough to comprehend AGW/CC and its reality.

Hang in there, keep up the weather-related posts, and join me in the struggle to understand AGW/CC more fully and follow the science. I rarely read peer-reviewed scientific papers, but there are many excellent science journalists, reporters and bloggers who digest the information and present it for us non-scientists. A good place to see what science and scientists are up to, and read objective reporting on many fields, including AGW/CC, is Science Daily.

And of course, the WU Climate change pages, and the Skeptical Science and RealClimate websites are great places to learn the truth - scientific truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
12z CMC 90 hours







Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14397

Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4384
Quoting no1der:
Only the one we're living in.



thats "climate change"..not climate denialism..we wouldnt want to be misleading the masses now?
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14397
Only the one we're living in.
Quoting ncstorm:


Are there clinical trials being conducted on this disorder?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 982 - 932

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 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog 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.