Extreme Drought to Flood in Georgia: Weather Whiplash Strikes Again

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:57 PM GMT on May 06, 2013

Share this Blog
39
+

The remarkable storm that brought record-breaking May snows and cold to the Midwest last week continues to spin over the Southeast U.S. The storm is unleashing flooding rains, bringing a case of "Weather Whiplash" to Georgia: flooding where extreme drought had existed just a few months ago. The storm formed when a loop in the jet stream of extreme amplitude got cut off from the main flow of the jet over the weekend, forming a "cutoff low" that is now slowly spinning down as it drifts east over the Southeast U.S. On Sunday, the storm dumped 3.4" of rain on Atlanta, Georgia--that city's sixth heaviest May calendar day rain storm since record keeping began in 1878. Remarkably, the rains were also able to bring rivers in Central Georgia above flood stage. This portion of the country was in "exceptional drought"--the worst category of drought--at the beginning of 2013.


Figure 1. The record May snowstorm that hit the Midwest U.S. on May 1 - 3, 2013, got cut off from the jet stream and was seen spinning over the Southeast U.S. on Sunday, May 5, in this image from NASA's MODIS instrument. The 3.4" of rain that fell on Atlanta, Georgia on May 5 was that city's sixth heaviest May calendar day rainfall since record keeping began in 1878.

Weather Whiplash
Weather Whiplash--a term originally coined by science writer Andrew Freedman of climatecentral.org to describe extreme shifts between cold and hot weather--is also a excellent phrase we can use to describe some of the rapid transitions between extreme drought and floods seen in recent years. I brought up a remarkable example in mid-April, when a 200-mile stretch of the Mississippi River north of St. Louis reached damaging major flood levels less than four months after near-record low water levels restricted barge traffic, forcing the Army Corp to blast out rocks from the river bottom to enable navigation. As the climate warms, the new normal in coming decades is going to be more and more extreme "Weather Whiplash" drought-flood cycles like we have seen in the Midwest and in Georgia this year. A warmer atmosphere is capable of bringing heavier downpours, since warmer air can hold more water vapor. But you still need a low pressure system to come along and wring that moisture out of the air to get rain. When natural fluctuations in jet stream patterns take storms away from a region, creating a drought, the extra water vapor in the air won't do you any good. There will be no mechanism to lift the moisture, condense it, and generate drought-busting rains. The drought that ensues will be more intense, since temperatures will be hotter and the soil will dry out more.


Figure 2. Weather Whiplash in Georgia, 2013: the center of the state was in exceptional drought as the beginning of the year, but heavy rains in February, March, and April busted the drought. Heavy May rains have now brought flooding. Image credit: U.S. Drought Monitor.

Weather Whiplash in the Southeast U.S. more likely due to an intensification of the Bermuda High
This year's "Weather Whiplash" in Georgia is the second time in the past decade the state has gone from exceptional drought to flood. In September 2007, Atlanta, Georgia was in the midst of a 1-in-100 year drought, and was just weeks away from running out of water. Yet just two years later, the drought had been busted, and a phenomenal 1-in-500 year flood ripped through the city, killing ten and causing $500 million in damage. According to a 2011 study by a Duke University-led team of climate scientists, "Changes to the North Atlantic Subtropical High and Its Role in the Intensification of Summer Rainfall Variability in the Southeastern United States", the frequency of abnormally wet or dry summer weather in the southeastern United States has more than doubled in recent decades, due to an intensification of the Bermuda High. The scientists found that the Bermuda High, which is centered several hundred miles to the east of the Southeast U.S., has grown more intense during summer and has expanded westwards over the past 30 years. Since high pressure systems are areas of sinking air that discourage precipitation, this has made abnormally dry summers more common over the Southeast U.S. However, in summers when the Bermuda High happens to shift to the east, so that high pressure is not over the Southeast U.S., the stronger winds blowing clockwise around the Bermuda High bring an increased flow of very moist subtropical air from the south to the Southeast U.S., increasing the incidence of abnormally wet summers. Thus, the intensification of the Bermuda High has made extreme droughts and extreme floods more likely over the Southeast U.S. Using climate models, the scientists determined that human-caused global warming was likely the main cause of the significant intensification in the Bermuda High. Thus "Weather Whiplash" between drought and flood will probably become increasingly common in the coming decades over the Southeast U.S.


Figure 3. Observed June-July-August departure of precipitation from average over the SE United States for a 60-yr period (mm day−1). Horizontal dashed lines represent 1 standard deviation of the summer rainfall. Note that summer precipitation extremes exceeding one standard deviation have more than doubled during the most recent 30-year period compared to the previous 30-year period. Image credit: Li et al., 2011, Journal of Climate.

New climate change blog at The Guardian
In these days of steadily decreasing media coverage of climate change (and all science, in general), its good to see a fresh new source of good science appear in a major newspaper. The Guardian, a prominent UK news source, has a new blog called Climate Consensus – The 97%. The primary authors are Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience and John Abraham, Associate Professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. The first post at the new blog is titled “Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming’s acceleration?”

Related Links
Don't miss the summary post on last week's remarkable snow storm by wunderground's weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, The Phenomenal May Snowstorm of May 1-3, 2013

Extreme Drought to Extreme Flood: Weather Whiplash Hits the Midwest: my April 19, 2013 blog post.

Southeast U.S. drought: another Tropical Storm Alberto needed: my April 2012 post describing how 20% - 50% of all droughts in the Southeast U.S. are broken by tropical storms or hurricanes.

Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse: October 2010 post by Joe Romm at climateprogress.org.

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: 317 - 267

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate

One of the best titles for a scientific paper has to be the Ig Nobel prize winning "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". The paper compares people's skill levels to their own assessment of their abilities. In hindsight, the result seems self-evident. Unskilled people lack the skill to rate their own level of competence. This leads to the unfortunate result that unskilled people rate themselves higher than more competent people. The phenomenon is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, named after the paper's authors, and is often seen in the climate debate.

There are many with a cursory understanding who believe they're discovered fundamental flaws in climate science that have somehow been overlooked or ignored by climate scientists. Some take this a step further and believe they're being deceived.

[...]

The most common example is the argument, "why don't climate scientists look up and see that big, fiery ball in the sky - don't they realise the sun drives climate?" In actuality, climate scientists have noticed the big, fiery ball in the sky that provides almost all our climate's energy. Consequently, there are a multitude of peer-reviewed studies examining the sun's role in global warming. These studies have independently come to the conclusion the sun has not shown enough trend to have contributed significantly to recent global warming. More recent papers using the latest data have found the sun is actually moving in the opposite direction to climate. Eg - the sun has been cooling while the climate is warming.

The second most common example of the Dunning-Kruger effect is "don't climate scientists realise climate has changed naturally in the past?" If one peruses the peer-reviewed science, they'll find that yes, climate scientists do realise that climate has changed in the past. There is a whole field of science devoted to examining and understanding past climate change: paleoclimatology. And what scientists find in the Earth's past is that the planet is highly sensitive to changes in energy imbalance. When our climate loses or gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the temperature change. This is one (of many) lines of evidence that tell us our climate is sensitive to CO2 forcing.


Complete article here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


You're even considering the possibility that natural factors have had no role at all in the warming trend? This is not scientifically realistic.



ding, Ding! I've told him that time after time, his comments result in mud slinging!
And how stupid I am because the scientist are so superior with their intellect, and data,
Many know that much of the global warming data is flawed and skewed!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We are having one heavy rainstorm on Fort Lauderdale.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


Sure didn't get much response.
ECE - Echo Chamber Effect.

And, while I cannot take credit for a friend's brilliant description of this blog's comment section as an echo chamber, I will take credit for knowing VORTEX2 did its final field work in 2010 (ref. comment 54).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Basin wide zonal wind stress anomaly in the tropical Pacific should keep SSTs cool in the Nino regions for the next week. Wind anomaly largely a result of the predicted development of twin cyclones in the Indian ocean (huge upward motion pulse in that region). Pacific basin is forced to compensate for the upward displacement of mass, creating the zonal wind anomaly (stronger trades).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Denier behavior, while dismaying, is interesting.

We've know since 1824 how CO2 traps heat.

We've been measuring the increase of atmospheric CO2 for over 50 years.

We can determine the source of that additional CO2 by chemical analysis.

The additional CO2 (and other greenhouse gases we've put in the atmosphere) easily explain the observed warming.

But the deniers won't acknowledge the obvious and reach for any fluttering ribbon of hope that might offer an alternative explanation.

It's as if they look out one morning and notice that their car is sitting lower to the ground than normal.

Someone points out to them that there is an elephant sitting on top of their car.

They dismiss/ignore the elephant and start speculating that their tires might have lost some air. Or that the pavement might have gotten soft overnight. Or a road crew added more blacktop under their car....
Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
Quoting spathy:
299. BobChecks 11:58

Bob
That was rather harsh.
Science is a process of learning. This was a study of something the scientific community doesnt fully understand yet.
To say it isnt worth it is to be a scientific ostrich.


Perhaps some tough love is in order.

When you run across something like this that claims to be groundbreaking/whatever it would be a good idea to see what you can find on Skeptical Science. They do an excellent job of taking ideas like cosmic rays and pulling together the science.

Link

Or you could check with NOAA's Climatic Data Center.

Link

Or you could check Real Climate.

Link

In fact, had you checked Real Climate you would have found that there was a review paper published in 2012 which pulls together all the papers written on the subject from 1959 through 2012.

Laken et al.‘s review indicates that there never really were any strong correlations, and subsequent investigation found that those which looked interesting, didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Being a good scientist, or consumer of science, requires being a bit of a skeptic. Don't grab onto a single claim and assume it's "the answer". Check and see what the larger scientific community has to say about the idea.

Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
Quoting MrMixon:
It's a shame to see the same two or three people come back over and over to mercilessly troll this blog with crud like that. It's one thing to make a reasoned argument based on facts, but the language used in several posts above is just flat trolling.

Meanwhile, check out the tripartite upper-level "conveyor belt" the NAM spins up by tomorrow morning...


This is NAM's 200 mb layer for 9:00 GMT tomorrow (click image to see it in all its wundermapiness glory).

I'm no meteorologist, so I can't comment on this with scientific language. I just think it's cool that all three upper low pressure centers are roughly the same shape and size (at least briefly) and are distributed evenly across the continent.
What is most interesting to me is that the upper level wind flow is completely reversed. Where we normally have westerlies we actually have easterlies. On the map below one can easily trace the flow from Pennsylvania through Michigan and Wisconsin, across the Dakotas and the Pacific NW, and then into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Oregon and Washington.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


It's not the biggest hoax in history. Man probably has a partial role, however there are other factors to consider as well. Natural Factors are very important, and may even play a larger role than humans do with the warming of the climate over the last 100 years.


Man isn't partially responsible. Man is the primary driver. Natural forcings would have cooled the planet if left to their own devices. In fact the planet had been on a cooling trend up until we started digging up long buried carbon and throwing back into the atmosphere (while simultaneously destroying natural carbon sinks).

The Earth produces a tiny fraction of a watt/m^2 from geological heat at the surface. For all intents and purposes, the sun supplies all of our heat. And no, there has been no appreciable increase in insolation; the average remains fairly constant over solar cycles.

That alone indicates something has changed on the planet so that it is retaining more heat. And it just so happens that there has been a large increase in GHG's over that time period. And it just so happens that the increase in GHG's happens to match the rate of emissions of human industrial activity. And it just so happens that the GHG's radiological signature happens to match that of fossil fuels we are consuming.

More GHG's means more retained heat. Joseph Fourier figured this out in 1824. Many famous scientists since then (including Alexander Graham Bell) figured out that unchecked burning of fossil fuels would end up warming the planet.

Attributing Climate Change to Weather Events is also where there is a lot of disagreement.


It's not that there is a lot of disagreement. It is just really hard to do. Don't confuse opinions and media with peer reviewed research. Unless a news story specifically references a paper on the subject, treat the story as garbage. You've got wackos claiming every snowstorm is a result of climate change and you have wackos claiming that receiving 5 back to back 1-1000 year events is "normal". Real attribution studies can take YEARS to complete.


However, there are a few things that I think should be considered "settled."

1) Global Warming has taken place over the last 100-150 years.

2) Man has a partial role in that warming.

3) Natural Factors have a partial role in that warming.

What is not settled is how much of the warming is human induced versus naturally caused,


An exact percentage? No. There will always be error bars so you will never get an exact percentage. However human contribution has been pegged anywhere from 80%-120%. How can you have 120%?

how sensitive the Climate System is to an equilibrium doubling of CO2


There are many papers on this topic, including the IPCC reports. But to summarize, even the best case scenarios aren't very pleasant (and seem to be off: See Arctic Meltdown).

and how weather patterns will change with an increase in CO2.


It's not the increase of CO2 that is the problem, it's the increase in heat. There have also been many papers on this topic, and Dr. M has had several posts about them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hello boys and girls
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Dakster:


Wait.. There's a two for one at Wal-mArt?



Wouldn't you rather ship your own pants?

--

Gro - I don't like that Hurricane return graphic, that means we are overdue for a return...


I think that is what return implies.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobChecks:


Too bad you didn't put a bit of effort into finding out whether there was anything to it.

Had you done that you would be glad you didn't bother bookmarking it.

(Why do a very small number of people continue to fall for obviously erroneous stuff? What's up with them?)


Wishful thinking, maybe?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166
Beautiful day here in Grand Cayman...I wonder when the rainy season will kick in
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
300. BobChecks
12:00 AM GMT on May 07, 2013
Quoting spathy:


It would if the house was inside the furnace (solar system)


Nope.
Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
299. BobChecks
11:58 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting spathy:

There was ,just recently a study by some Japanese University that was suggesting that the variances from temp and Cosmic ray correlation was due to some sort of Polar/magnetic cycle.
I wish I had bookmarked it. It was quite interesting.


Too bad you didn't put a bit of effort into finding out whether there was anything to it.

Had you done that you would be glad you didn't bother bookmarking it.

(Why do a very small number of people continue to fall for obviously erroneous stuff? What's up with them?)
Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
296. BobChecks
11:52 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
I found this graph from Georgia State University.



Cycle length = the number of days/months/years solar activity is high and then low?

Why would cycle length have any effect on overall warming?

Would turning on the furnace for 15 minutes and then off for 15 minutes (over and over) make the house overall hotter than if the furnace was turned on for 10 minutes and then off for 10 minutes?
Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
295. Tropicsweatherpr
11:50 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Negative PDO continues
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14020
293. TropicalAnalystwx13
11:46 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
I found this graph from Georgia State University.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31468
292. BobChecks
11:42 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


There has been no trend in solar activity over the 20th Century?
There actually has been a dramatic increase in solar activity during the 20th Century.


Solar output increased until about 1960 and then decreased, disassociating itself from observed global warming.

Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
291. Tazmanian
11:37 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting washingtonian115:
One of the biggest troll comments and you all fell for it..fools.




reported
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5091 Comments: 114732
290. BobChecks
11:37 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
The reduced sensitivity estimates are likely because of the hiatus period observed over the last 15 or so years.

Please, can we put this myth out of its misery?

We can't have a meaningful discussion if some are bringing false information.
Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
289. mermaidlaw
11:36 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Hello everyone. I am just wondering...does anyone here remember hurricane Donna in 1960? I remember her well! I lived in an old wood framed house in South ST. Pete, FL. She was not a direct hit for us, yet an old oak tree crashed on the back of the house! We stayed in the living room on the floor that night. That is probably what saved us! I remember the next day seeing trees down everywhere!
Hurricane season is near! I pray that everyone is prepared! I also Pray for ALL in the path of bad storms anywhere! I really care!
Member Since: July 23, 2006 Posts: 20 Comments: 8768
288. Snowlover123
11:29 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

Perhaps, if your intent is to show trends in solar activity over the 20th century (1900-2000), you should show a graph where you can actually resolve some of the 20th century. The graph you used is very misleading, as it has few sub-century timesteps and is clearly meant to show trends over much longer timescales than 1 single century.


See the post above. The chart from Scherer et al. was meant to show that there has been a large trend upward in solar activity over the 20th Century.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
287. Snowlover123
11:28 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

What person has claimed that natural factors have "no role" in climate change or recent warming?

All the climate forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, have a role, however, each of these roles may be quite different in magnitude and sign, depending on the time frame being discussed.

It seems that you have misunderstood his comment to mean "no role", when it is much more likely that he was mentioning the widely-held view of climate scientists that the dominant role is that of greenhouse gases. Natural factors' "role" is that they are very stable, if not slightly cooling, and cannot explain the warming trend.


This is what NeaPolitan wrote in a previous post:

"It's not settled, but it's increasingly apparent to climate scientists that somewhere between "most of" and "every bit of" the warming is due to our burning of greenhouse gases."

Every bit of the warming would imply that all of the warming was due to anthropogenic factors, right?

Natural Factors have not had an overall cooling trend. They can explain most of the warming over the 20th Century.



From Cliver et al. 1998.



From Georgieva et al. 2005.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
286. 1900hurricane
11:24 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting MrMixon:
It's a shame to see the same two or three people come back over and over to mercilessly troll this blog with crud like that. It's one thing to make a reasoned argument based on facts, but the language used in several posts above is just flat trolling.

Meanwhile, check out the tripartite upper-level "conveyor belt" the NAM spins up by tomorrow morning...



I'm no meteorologist, so I can't comment on this with scientific language. I just think it's cool that all three upper low pressure centers are roughly the same shape and size (at least briefly) and are distributed evenly across the continent.

All three of the upper lows can actually be seen on WV right now.

Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 46 Comments: 11666
285. ScottLincoln
11:24 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


There has been no trend in solar activity over the 20th Century? Since when?



There actually has been a dramatic increase in solar activity during the 20th Century.

Source.

Perhaps, if your intent is to show trends in solar activity over the 20th century (1900-2000), you should show a graph where you can actually resolve some of the 20th century. The graph you used is very misleading, as it has few sub-century timesteps and is clearly meant to show trends over much longer timescales than 1 single century.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3168
284. ScottLincoln
11:22 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


You're even considering the possibility that natural factors have had no role at all in the warming trend? This is not scientifically realistic.

What person has claimed that natural factors have "no role" in climate change or recent warming?

All the climate forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, have a role, however, each of these roles may be quite different in magnitude and sign, depending on the time frame being discussed.

It seems that you have misunderstood his comment to mean "no role", when it is much more likely that he was mentioning the widely-held view of climate scientists that the dominant role is that of greenhouse gases. Natural factors' "role" is that they are very stable, if not slightly cooling, and cannot explain the warming trend.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3168
283. MrMixon
11:18 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
It's a shame to see the same two or three people come back over and over to mercilessly troll this blog with crud like that. It's one thing to make a reasoned argument based on facts, but the language used in several posts above is just flat trolling.

Meanwhile, check out the tripartite upper-level "conveyor belt" the NAM spins up by tomorrow morning...


This is NAM's 200 mb layer for 9:00 GMT tomorrow (click image to see it in all its wundermapiness glory).

I'm no meteorologist, so I can't comment on this with scientific language. I just think it's cool that all three upper low pressure centers are roughly the same shape and size (at least briefly) and are distributed evenly across the continent.
Member Since: March 26, 2006 Posts: 44 Comments: 1520
282. Snowlover123
11:05 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting BobChecks:


If you look at the climate record prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution the Earth was slowly cooling.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the Sun has not increased its input. The Earth has not changed its orbit away from what would lead to a cooling pattern. Immense amounts of inner-Earth heat has not been pouring out via a large numbers of volcanoes.

Any "natural factor" which could raise the temperature of the Earth as rapidly as it has risen should be very easy to detect.

Now, if you can identify any "natural factor" which might be contributing to the observed warming tell us what it is.



There has been no trend in solar activity over the 20th Century? Since when?



There actually has been a dramatic increase in solar activity during the 20th Century.

Source.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
281. beell
11:05 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting OrchidGrower:
I would like to see Dr. Masters reply to Levi's comment #49 on pg. 1 of this edition of the WU blog.



Sure didn't get much response.
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 141 Comments: 16217
280. Snowlover123
11:04 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
I didn't say that. But there's ample valid scientific evidence to suggest that our current warming would be even greater than it is were "natural factors" taken out of the equation. Those factors alone would, in sum, be causing cooling. The only reason they don't is that we've very obviously upset the planet's CO2 balance.


The level of scientific understanding of how strong the aerosol forcing is that is "masking" any warming is very uncertain. If it's low, then climate sensitivity is likely very low, considering a significant fraction of the warming has probably been naturally induced. If the aerosol forcing is high, then climate sensitivity is likely very high. However, a recent influx of scientific papers have been reducing the sensitivity estimates.. a large number have reduced it down to less than 2 Degrees C. The reduced sensitivity estimates are likely because of the hiatus period observed over the last 15 or so years. There is also evidence for a negative Cloud Feedback, which would reduce the climate sensitivity as well. There are many uncertainties with Climate Sensitivity and the Aerosol Forcing that need to be quantified before anything definite can be said about the climate system concerning how much of a role natural and human factors have had.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
279. taistelutipu
10:58 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Good evening folks. Nice and settled weather in Wales but speaking of extreme weather: Northern Italy got hit by large hail and a tornado. The Guardian posted a video of both and the damage. Tornadoes are somewhat rare in that area of the world.
Member Since: August 20, 2007 Posts: 12 Comments: 639
278. psetas23
10:56 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
whats the main factors of a storm hitting tampa
Member Since: June 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 52
277. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
10:52 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 169 Comments: 53296
276. BobChecks
10:52 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


You're even considering the possibility that natural factors have had no role at all in the warming trend? This is not scientifically realistic.


If you look at the climate record prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution the Earth was slowly cooling.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the Sun has not increased its input. The Earth has not changed its orbit away from what would lead to a cooling pattern. Immense amounts of inner-Earth heat has not been pouring out via a large numbers of volcanoes.

Any "natural factor" which could raise the temperature of the Earth as rapidly as it has risen should be very easy to detect.

Now, if you can identify any "natural factor" which might be contributing to the observed warming tell us what it is.

Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
275. hydrus
10:51 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting OrchidGrower:
I would like to see Dr. Masters reply to Levi's comment #49 on pg. 1 of this edition of the WU blog.

I'll date myself here and confess that I am a child of the 1960s. I grew up on the North-Central Gulf Coast in a family that farmed a very small plot of land.

Until 1980 we never had any kind of severe drought - of the sort we couldn't handle by watering from our own well. But in 1980 and '81 we kicked off both years with spring floods, then couldn't buy a drop of rain for our property for months on end. In 1980 the drought was so bad and so hot, I remember news shots of I-10 having exploded in Texas, damaging vehicles! (Pockets of air under the asphalt super-hearted and eventually exploded.)

I remember another horrible drought in '87, and I believe that was a 2-year drought as well. Then I moved to Georgia, and saw many droughts of at least 2 years' duration.

Today, my family is scattered but all of my immediate family farms or gardens. We are close enough to the weather that we watch it pretty closely. And the sad thing we've come to realize is that we no longer seem to get those 3 or 4 years of "normal" weather inbetween really crazy weather years any more. Every year is just bizarre, epic.
87 and 88 were dry for us too in S.W. Florida..Finally had a bit of a drought breaker in late Nov- 88 from Tropical Storm Kieth...this image shows 70 mph Tropical Storm Keith on November 21, 1988 near the Yucatan Peninsula. Keith would turn to the northeast and hit Florida before becoming extratropical.Tropical Storm Keith near Florida landfall
Formed 17 November 1988
Dissipated 24 November 1988
Highest winds 1-minute sustained:
70 mph (110 km/h)
Lowest pressure 985 mbar (hPa); 29.09 inHg
(945 mbar (27.92 inHg) as extratropical)
Fatalities None reported
Damage $7.3 million (1988 USD)
Areas affected Honduras, Belize, Yucatán Peninsula, Jamaica, Cuba, Florida, coastal areas of Southeast United States, Bermuda This was mean Kieth that was retired from the list.
Keith near peak intensity, shortly before landfall in Belize
Formed September 28, 2000
Dissipated October 6, 2000
Highest winds 1-minute sustained:
140 mph (220 km/h)
Lowest pressure 939 mbar (hPa); 27.73 inHg
Fatalities 40 direct
Damage $319 million (2000 USD)
Areas affected Central America, Mexico
Part of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season

Hurricane Keith caused extensive damage in Central America, especially in Mexico and
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20509
273. TropicalAnalystwx13
10:49 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Link

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31468
272. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
10:46 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 169 Comments: 53296
271. BobChecks
10:46 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting help4u:
ALGORE now worth 200 million dollars,global warming does pay off.Hope the elities leave us alittle to live on after they tax us to death!Oh how the rich in this government get richer!All from the biggest HOAX in history!


I know that facts are troublesome things for some people, but perhaps a dose would do you some good.

1. Al did not make money on his climate books and film. He donated those earnings to his non-profit, the Climate Reality Project

2. Al lost money on some of his 'green' investments, including a couple of carbon-trading firms and a solar panel manufacturer. Overall, he has made some money and lost some money on green investments but any earnings are only a modest amount of his total wealth.

3. Al made a huge amount of money from the TV network he started and then sold. About $70 million.

4. Al made another huge amount of money by serving on the board of directors of Apple Computer. About $75 million.

Link

The hoax? Look in a mirror. There you will find someone who has been taken by the climate change denial hoax.

Member Since: September 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 134
270. MAweatherboy1
10:45 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
18z GFS has a 938mb cyclone getting ready to crash into SE India in a week or so...



I wrote a blog update on the Indian Ocean a little while ago, if you're interested in a discussion more centered around potential tropical activity in this region feel free to stop by.

Link
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 82 Comments: 7614
269. Neapolitan
10:44 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


You're even considering the possibility that natural factors have had no role at all in the warming trend? This is not scientifically realistic.
I didn't say that. But there's ample valid scientific evidence to suggest that our current warming would be even greater than it is were "natural factors" taken out of the equation. Those factors alone would, in sum, be causing cooling. The only reason they don't is that we've very obviously upset the planet's CO2 balance.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
268. psetas23
10:42 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
who thinks the northern caribbean will be a major factor to see if the west coast florida or/and the east coast will be hit by a major hurricane
Member Since: June 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 52
267. JohnLonergan
10:40 PM GMT on May 06, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
It's not settled, but it's increasingly apparent to climate scientists that somewhere between "most of" and "every bit of" the warming is due to our burning of greenhouse gases.


According to Gavin Schmidt:

"Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3166

Viewing: 317 - 267

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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.