TD 2 Crossing the Yucatan, Bringing Heavy Rains

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:44 PM GMT on June 18, 2013

Share this Blog
52
+

Tropical Depression Two is slowly spinning west-northwest across Belize after making landfall late Monday afternoon in southern Belize. The storm is bringing heavy rain to Belize, Northern Guatemala, and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, as seen on Belize radar and satellite loops. The center of TD 2 will remain over land all day Tuesday, but TD 2's west-northwest track may be able to bring the storm over the Gulf of Mexico's southern Bay of Campeche on Wednesday--if the storm hasn't dissipated by then. The Bay of Campeche is a region where the topography aids the spin-up of tropical cyclones, and TD 2 may have barely enough time to become Tropical Storm Barry with 40 mph winds before making landfall on Thursday between Veracruz and Tampico. However, the track of the storm may also keep it just inland during the remainder of the week, keeping it from ever getting to tropical storm strength. Heavy rains are the storm's main threat, but a ridge of high pressure over the Gulf of Mexico should keep any of TD 2's rains from reaching the U.S. Observations from an AMSU instrument on a polar orbiting satellite on Monday afternoon found that TD 2 had developed a modest warm core characteristic of a weak tropical storm, and it is possible that NHC will upgrade TD 2 to a tropical storm in post-analysis after the hurricane season is over. Elsewhere in the tropical Atlantic, none of the reliable computer models is showing tropical cyclone development in the next seven days.


Figure 1. MODIS satellite image of TD 2 taken on Monday afternoon, June 17, 2013. image credit: NASA.

Participate in Tuesday's live radio call-in show to talk climate change in Tea Party country
I spent last week in Granby, Colorado at the American Geophysical Union's conference on climate change communication. Approximately 100 of the world's top climate scientists and specialists in communication gathered to discuss how to effectively communicate climate change. Four of the speakers at that conference will be part of a radio call-in radio show on KCNR 1460AM from downtown Redding, the politically conservative heart of deep red Northern California. The show is today, Tuesday, June 17, from 10 am - noon EDT. The show will be live-streamed at http://www.kcnr1460.com/, and will be preserved in the archives as a podcast. KCNR is a Fox News radio station with all-conservative talk radio programming, featuring such guests as Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, and Mike Huckabee. Call in with questions today at 530-605-4565. The four guests will be:

1) Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS and RealClimate)
2) Simon Donner  (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~sdonner/)
3) Bob Henson (Rough Guide to Climate Change)
4) Melanie Fitzpatrick (Union of Concerned Scientists)

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: 297 - 247

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

Quoting Neapolitan:
Bought it. Read it (well, most of it). Wasn't impressed. Anyone who hopes to be taken seriously in the climate science arena--especially a non-scientist like Kehr--needs to not begin a book by repeating the term "climategate" over and over, almost like a mantra. (There was no "climategate", period. A number if independent investigations have proven that.) And to be taken seriously, one can't simply dismiss all the science that says otherwise and claim there's some Great Global Ice Age upon us, while failing to provide one speck of data to back up such a bizarre assertion.Can you guys make up your minds? Maybe huddle up and come to a consensus? If I use emoticons to show mirth, I'm accused of baiting; If I omit them, I'm accused of being bitter and angry. What would make you guys happy?

Anyway, anyone who is bitter and angry certainly has a right to be. After all, a concerted, deep-pocketed, decades-long effort by Big Energy to manipulate the public and delay action on what's considered to be the gravest threat modern civilization has ever faced is something to be up-in-arms about. I think anyone would agree. At least anyone with children...


And Gore's science credentials are what, exactly?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well, Masters certainly picked a topic that would get the blog blogging. Like Jeff said recently; There's no convincing those who refuse to look or passionately believe otherwise for whatever reason. I'm paraphrasing what he said, mind you, but it's largely the truth. I think you have to fight for what you believe is the truth, expecting others to believe it too is often a very different matter. It can take decades or even centuries for some hard truths to take hold on a populace. History has taught us this over and over again.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437
just checked on the Latin translation for "Poof"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tribucanes:
Oh, the deniers come out to deny something that's not even being debated in the legitimate climate science community; AT ALL. It's sad and has been smacked down here with clear and precise proven scientific fact so many times; that it's bemusing that the deniers even come back. Perhaps they don't have the time to read. Or is that agenda I smell?


Ah 'name-calling' (denier). Yup that always goes into every doctoral thesis. You'll be sure to win over your scientific peers by calling names.
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
Quoting MechEngMet:



Swing and a miss. Strike one. I thought I pitched that one in the zone and it went clear over his head.

Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist! Go on do it!

In your spare time look up 'argumentum reductio ad absurdum'. (Hint, it's latin)


It's not up to anyone to prove the non existence of something. You have the burden of proof all wrong. In hypothesis testing you look for change, if there is no evidence of change, then you cannot reject the null hypothesis of no change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


I do too. I admire Nea's passion, and enjoy his presence on the blog.

Nea and I (some time ago) had quite a debate regarding upon how the way in which the message is delivered affects its perception.


@Nea - none of your emoticons are sarcastic.


Its not that I don't like Nea, its that he must go out of his way to turn everything into A) an argument and B) a Satirical piece. It is obvious that Nea is very intelligent, and does bring a lot to the blog. However, everything from Global Warming to the political geography of California to the amount of rain that Naples has had is an argument, he rarely agrees with anybody, and has an overwhelming passion to change dissenting opinions. My problem is, he uses vinegar so much more often than honey.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

What other things can you name that would be candidates for "main cause of anthropogenic global warming?"


Methane. Just heard a report about scientists in England trying to genetically design a non-flatulent bovine. They assert, quite rightly I believe that the largest release of green house gases is from livestock. Livestock that is bred to feed us. So then if we use more oil in equipment to farm food, and eat more livestock that emit the majority of harmful gases then wouldn't the solution to this problem be less people?

Just food for thought, I am not condoning genocide and I AM NOT a Georgia guide stone nut lol. Just making a hypothesis the same as anyone with some knowledge can
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My best friends son just got back from his fourth tour overseas.

He told me.

I don’t think climate change will be an issue for much longer (Time frame years).

If I understand correctly.

Climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.

More people means more fuel used.

I think we will have a war of one religion against everyone else. There will be many less people when it is over.

Sure hope he is wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting Patrap:
You should what asbestos does to Lungs after 30 years..




All this comes from Human thought, all around us is what human thought has created. But in that process we have set loose a new Climate that is warming at a rate faster then any in History. We know the forcings,..we know the drivers.

But But things are being loved and people used, when its supposed to be the other way around.

Until the driving force of the Plant, becomes something others than the accumulation of wealth and Nations,

Do not expect anything to change until the Climate well, demands it.

Adaptation will be key, but Calamity can wipe out Whole Species here.

It's happened before.










wow... well said Patrap.. (though I thought I was reading T@z for a sec.)
+100
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Blog has finally slowed down. Reminds me of a debate in my chem class over nuclear power. Started out with a few talking calmly and ended with many passionate voices.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


I do too. I admire Nea's passion, and enjoy his presence on the blog.

Nea and I (some time ago) had quite a debate regarding upon how the way in which the message is delivered affects its perception.


@Nea - none of your emoticons are sarcastic.
I admire him too ( and have actually stated that I do on the blog ) but if ya hit it too hard, people will claim your a fanatic....which in passing does not make it so..
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21189
Quoting Neapolitan:
I suppose in certain circles, a group of tooth fairy-believing three-year-olds carries as much weight in a scientific debate as tens of thousands of highly-trained, highly-educated, and highly-devoted scientists. But I tend to stay away from such circles. You know?



Swing and a miss. Strike one. I thought I pitched that one in the zone and it went clear over his head.

Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist! Go on do it!

In your spare time look up 'argumentum reductio ad absurdum'. (Hint, it's latin)
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
I don't see what everybody's issue is with people discussing climate change on Dr. Masters blog. Climate and weather, after all, are very much interrelated, and the doctor himself talks about it several times a week. Either ignore the people talking about it, come back later, or do what most people do and just deal with it. Who said there can't be more than one conservation on the blog at a time? Nobody's forcing you to be part of the discussion lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


I wouldnt necessarily say that.
Science agreeing that CO2 is the main cause doesnt mean it's necessarily the only thing. It's the main thing we have going now. The climate is changing (as far as we know continually warming, and as well as we can predict, continuing to do so), it probably is caused by CO2, which humans are responsible for...

That said we cant be 100% certain of that yet.
That's all I'm saying.
As I understand it, climate scientists do not deny that natural factors have some small effect, but there isn't anything that comes anywhere close to having the warming effect that CO2 does.

You say we can't be 100% certain warming is caused by CO2. What percentage of certainty do you want before you agree that we are under a great threat? Are you just going to sit back waiting for "100% certainty" while the arctic ice melts and the jet stream patterns change and the weather gets more and more wierd? Really? Have you actually read any of the science?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting txjac:


I was thinking of scurrying over to Dr. Rood's blog ...maybe there's some weather there ...lol


I can't wait for Dr. Master's next blog on Neapolitan, and his posting techniques.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


The Tea party is an extreme element - even among those who consider themselves "conservative". And using that in the post/title is an unfair characterization of the people who live in that area.

It certainly colored my conception of what the show would be like . . .

And certainly communicated a certain bias of Dr. M (IMO).

This does not lend itself to effectively communicating with audiences resistant to the potential impacts of climate change and ways to mitigate it.


I think it's a fair point you're making.

I have no particular problem with, say, mocking the Tea Party -- because, I mean, I just... well, I'll leave that mostly alone. I am old enough to remember a time where I disagreed with many of my conservative friends and neighbors on many things, but also knew that they clearly lived in reality and were concerned about dealing with the actual, real universe we live in. We had different answers and approaches, not a different willingness to accept factual stuff. That is... not like now, at least in regards to the Tea Party. It's very hard for me to not mock people who seem to me to just make up stuff and believe whatever is most convenient to their preconceptions, even when there is a vast amount of data that shows it to be wrong.

I do think that it winds up counterproductive to write off whole regions, though, or to assume that all people coming from a different set of concerns and histories and so on, and tend to be conservative, are doing the same thing that the Tea Party is doing.

I was the _very_ liberal, obviously gay, obviously weird kid in a very, very, very conservative area of the valley, growing up. More than left/right, I've discovered that these things in rural areas are about personal interactions and trust. There were extreme folks who hated me and always would, but to this day, you can take me -- who generally looks like I should be more at home in Arcata or San Francisco -- and pop me into most "deep red" rural places in CA, and within a half hour, me and the locals will usually be having riotously fun, friendly conversations about all sorts of stuff, _including_ politics and identities and environmental issues and so on, alongside laughing about the first time one of my horses saw a cow and took me backwards a half a mile because she was sure it was going to eat her. With the political and social and economic and environmental, we often wind up finding many places where we agree, and wind up having great conversations where we find that we don't.

I think we write off people willing to actually have conversation at our own peril. The ones unwilling to have it, and have it openly and with genuine desire to hear each other, well, they're going to have to just be worked around, treated like exactly the irrelevant things they are swiftly becoming.

But rural issues are also really, really complicated, everywhere, both big picture and local, and the lines in most of CA are even weirder than anywhere else, I think. So I understand the drivers for the simplifications that happen. I find them a shame, but there's a lot of mistrust and poor communication and cross-signaling all around, there.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting SouthernIllinois:
Hello!

Rode through a long, dark, damp tunnel on my bike earlier. Of course, my light had to go out half way through it!! LOL. But it was okay. Finally got to a nice ridge where I am using my wire service to use my new Kindle Fire tablet. Trying to post some pics of cypress forests in southern Johnson County and pics of some forest coves with 100 years old oaks over-topping rich herbaceous vegetation and wildflowers, but my tablet doesn't have the plugin yet to do so successfully! Ugh!!! But maybe a good thing I have to wait to post my pics since that might be off topic with the bitter mood the blog is in right now. LOL.

SO.........I'm getting back on the trail to find a nice shady spot under a 200 year White Oak to have my picnic!! :-) I will try to post those pictures maybe tonight or later this week! :D

Natalie


Can't wait to see them Nat..
Darn plug in..LoL.. :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting txjac:


I was thinking of scurrying over to Dr. Rood's blog ...maybe there's some weather there ...lol


Yep... quite so
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You should see what asbestos does to Lungs after 30 years..




All this comes from Human thought, all around us is what human thought has created.
But in that process we have set loose a new Climate that is warming at a rate faster than any in History. We know the forcings,..we know the drivers.

But things are being loved and people used, when its supposed to be the other way around.

Until the driving force of the Planet, becomes something other than the accumulation of wealth and Nations,

Do not expect anything to change until the Climate well, demands it.

Adaptation will be key, but Calamity can wipe out Whole Species here.

It's happened before.








Member Since: Posts: Comments:
To fight the truth of man driven GW for the furthering of Big Business/political interests is akin to ignoring the lion that's about to consume your neighbor so you can have the time to grab your wallet and get away before the lion consumes you too. All the while knowing the lion will eventually catch your's and your neighbor's children and consume them. Now I'm not saying all who fight the truth of man driven GW have an agenda. There are many who simply won't do the research, or only believe what those in their political party tell them, or just don't have the ability to properly assimilate the information. This lack of ability to assimilate the information is usually due to grandiose thinking that they are smarter or have some base of "secret" knowledge that the 97% of climate scientists don't. This ball is rolling down hill, and it's only picking up speed.
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2437

Quoting SouthernIllinois:
Hello!



SO.........I'm getting back on the trail to find a nice shady spot under a 200 year White Oak to have my picnic!! :-) I will try to post those pictures maybe tonight or later this week! :D

Natalie
Be safe under those oaks.. I was at a pool party a couple of summers ago and a neighbor had a huge oak and suddenly this 40 foot long branch came crashing down wiping out most of their patio... 
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
276. txjac
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:

I don't understand what's the current discussion of the blog...
The tropics need to get cranking.
See ya then.


I was thinking of scurrying over to Dr. Rood's blog ...maybe there's some weather there ...lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


I find it so amusing that Nea gets such a hard time from the community. I personally quite like his writer's voice Link I think people read too much into it. Anyways, enough of that meta discussion.


I do too. I admire Nea's passion, and enjoy his presence on the blog.

Nea and I (some time ago) had quite a debate regarding upon how the way in which the message is delivered affects its perception.


@Nea - none of your emoticons are sarcastic.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3732
Cue Music to soothe.. :)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


We know CO2 warms the air, I was merely saying we are not absolutely certain that C02 is the main cause of AGW.

What other things can you name that would be candidates for "main cause of anthropogenic global warming?"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Campeche current view Link

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting galvestonhurricane:


Al Gore's claim that global warming/climate change is caused by CO2 is completely false. It's utterly ridiculous.

Accidentally plussed this one (I am terrible at using the iPad). It's not ridiculous, it's settled science. It's one of the most widely accepted facts in the usually very skeptical scientific community.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanehunter27:
My point was that from a readers standpoint how could you come to that conclusion with a graph that just indicates weather the studies support or reject global warming. If he posted that article along with it my point would have been invalid.

The graphic perhaps could have been labeled better... on that we can agree.
The design of the graphic has 0.000000000% bearing on the science behind it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
Well, that's kinda their problem, isn't it?


It may be, but then again he's the only person who really gets that reaction from other people so I dont know.

Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9727
Quoting washingtonian115:
Well I'm out.I hope we do get something off the east coast to track.Lord knows we need it for the sanity of the blog.Laters..

I don't understand what's the current discussion of the blog...
The tropics need to get cranking.
See ya then.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We kind of should have known this was coming from the turn of the industrial revolution more vehicles on the road more factories, more mass productions on manufactures goods because of the increase in supply and demand, also the increases in the world's population and lower morbidity rates, all this means is more CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere. I think even a 5 year old can see that. ;)
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


I wouldnt necessarily say that.
Science agreeing that CO2 is the main cause doesnt mean it's necessarily the only thing. It's the main thing we have going now. The climate is changing (as far as we know continually warming, and as well as we can predict, continuing to do so), it probably is caused by CO2, which humans are responsible for...

That said we cant be 100% certain of that yet.
That's all I'm saying.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science. There never will be. (There are very good reasons for that.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Scientifically it's not absolutely proven that CO2 is the only significant cause of GW.



If roughly 100 years of known science that carbon dioxide's physical properties cause it to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation is "absolutely unproven," then I'm not sure what science is proven.

If the decades of science that show carbon dioxide is one of the main drivers of the earth's greenhouse effect is "absolutely unproven," then I'm not sure what science is proven.

If the years and years of science that show all other known natural climate forcings are causing substantially less contribution to climate change (and maybe even the opposite direction) is "absolutely unproven," then I'm not sure what science is proven.

With that severe of a threshold for proof, maybe you should just not believe any science?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
..rut, roh..ric is deep in thought.

; )

We could seen a QOD update maybe?


actually i'm enjoying the posts....weather (pun intended) educated, uneducated or just plain ridiculous....a qod might be forthcoming....although more posts concerning water retention of concrete will astound me to the point i might not be able to concentrate
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I know this much: more than one peer-reviewed study has shown that regular viewers of Fox News are among the most uninformed and misinformed of all consumers of major US media. I also know from personal experience--I live in a deeply conservative county, one in which Fox is blasting on every TV in every bar, restaurant, and shop in town--that where climate science is concerned, Fox presents a point of view that is overwhelmingly incorrect, and overwhelmingly biased against scientific fact and consensus. Surely you're not suggesting that listening to some Fox hogwash would be a valid way of "balancing" the tens of thousands of words from peer-reviewed science I read every day, are you?


Yes, you do live in a extremely red area, the county with the largest population in FL that backed Romney by a margin greater than 2-1. However, most of Collier county is racially homogeneous and older, both of which backed the republican by a 10+ point margin. Collier county is more fiscally conservative though, rather than socially or environmentally republican. Wealthy people that are against taxes, as we are an Income tax haven. Many citizens in Collier are actually well aware of the climate and the effects of fossil fuels and oil. Living in Lee County (conservative) I seem to recall both the buying of undeveloped waterfront property to make into a park/preserve on Gordon Drive, as well as an overwhelming displeasure of drilling in East Naples/Golden Gate. We also have extensive preserves and environmental protection on Sanibel, (JN Ding Darling) which is slightly conservative and extremely affluent. For you to insinuate that people in Collier County (as well as the rest of SWFL) to be misinformed just because of watching news on a particular channel is condescending. Of course, your the king of making other people feel horrible. Just because people have different viewpoints from you does not give you the right to verbally "pants" them and suck the dignity out of the person. I understand you have rigid viewpoints, and this is a climate change blog, but please stop being so draconian with your words. You may sugarcoat things because you are a great debater, but I am tired of seeing you bash everyone for their dissenting viewpoint.

For pete's sake, please stop the ;-), thats what made me come up with this rant in the first place. Make me eat my words like so many others before you. (In no way am I against global warming, I'm fed up with your attitude)
FM
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
The science says climate change is happening and is caused largely by human emissions of CO2. There's a whole lot of information up there in the upper right hand corner of this page.

Anyone who lets Nea's posts, attitude, or emoticons stop them from understanding the threat we are under -- just didn't want to understand in the first place.


I wouldnt necessarily say that.
Science agreeing that CO2 is the main cause doesnt mean it's necessarily the only thing. It's the main thing we have going now. The climate is changing (as far as we know continually warming, and as well as we can predict, continuing to do so), it probably is caused by CO2, which humans are responsible for...

That said we cant be 100% certain of that yet.
That's all I'm saying.
Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9727
Quoting Minnemike:
speaking of interesting psychological studies.. WU's Masters' Blog... like no other, a suitable microcosm of America (international contributors aside)


Thats gonna be a long PDF File then,....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

No, that's not correct. The research was done to find how many science journal articles rejected the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for the majority of the warming.
See more on the methodology here.
My point was that from a readers standpoint how could you come to that conclusion with a graph that just indicates weather the studies support or reject global warming. If he posted that article along with it my point would have been invalid.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


It's not you saying it, it's the context or derived meaning others interpret
Well, that's kinda their problem, isn't it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


It's not you saying it, it's the context or derived meaning others interpret
speaking of interesting psychological studies.. WU's Masters' Blog... like no other, a suitable microcosm of America (international contributors aside)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


Nea - I love your passion, do agree that you come across too strong, and often your comments exude sarcasm - but that made me laugh. :D


Nothing at all wrong with sarcasm; often it's the only appropriate response.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
...were gonna need a bigger blog'


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:



Do you deny the existence of the 'tooth fairy'? A consensus of 7 yr olds told me the matter was settled.
Just wondering, did you agree with the bulk of your peers in the study? :O
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ILwthrfan:
Here is a little more concrete definition, as they state that it is cause of man that is contributing to the extra warming.





Source: Skeptical Science.
I guess this is more of a "Are humans causing Global Warming" more then a "What particular green house gas is causing the greatest affect." My apologies. I misunderstood what you were all getting at.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Says the Killer Klowns avatar :-)
Quoting washingtonian115:
Perhaps sounding like a person not going off the edge?.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Scientifically it's not absolutely proven that CO2 is the only significant cause of GW.



"Proven" isn't a scientific word. It is better suited to philosophy.

That said, it is beyond all but a perverse doubt (to steal from Sagan) that the cause of the current warming is primarily human activity and the overwhelming majority of that is due to CO2 emissions. It is beyond reasonable dispute.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Classifying something known as true to science for roughly 100 years as "certainly should have some truth value" or saying you "wouldn't say it is false or true" or suggesting that this known fact is "debatable" is completely unsubstantiated.

Indicate a mechanism by which this could occur. That's a very very weak hypothesis. Until you do so, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it isn't the already-known, already-researched, well-understood theory that the physical properties of carbon dioxide absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.


It was purely an example, not my belief.
We know CO2 warms the air, I was merely saying we are not absolutely certain that C02 is the main cause of AGW.

However it was GalvestonHurricane's statement was what I was aiming at disagreeing with.

C02 being the main cause of global warming is not in any way a ludicrous idea, or else we wouldn't see most scientists beleive in that idea.

Member Since: February 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 9727
Quoting hurricanehunter27:
I am confused then. Why would you say then that 97% of the scientific community believe that CO2 is the primary component of global warming and then just provide a chart of those that believe in global warming? I am not arguing your point I just don't get why you would post a chart that seems to miss the point. This is a conversation about CO2 affect on global warming correct? Not one that discusses if Global warming is real? I do believe that CO2 is the main component as well but I just don't get the graph post and how you can make the point that 97% of scientist believe that CO2 is the main component from it.


I posted before thinking about the exact content of his post. In others I made a mistake. See post 239. Yes you are correct at your statement. Just got caught up reacting too quickly and not thinking through what I posted. The closest thing I could find to actual number supporting the notion that man is the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases that are the cause of the increase in warming is again post 239.

My apologies, but thank you for the correction.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mikatnight:


Respect your point an' all, but I think the reason the good ol' doc made his inflammatory pronouncement was to utilize an advertising technique of creating controversy to garner attention. By all accounts, I'd say he succeeded spectacularly!

Well played...


But we need to stop playing like that - that is one of the reasons neither side talks with one another, and tries to shout each other down.

Statements like that, do not lend itself to conversation/debate.

Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3732
Quoting hurricanehunter27:
What you just posted was not a graph of how many people think CO2 is the cause of Global warming but rather the % that believe in global warming.

No, that's not correct. The research was done to find how many science journal articles rejected the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for the majority of the warming.
See more on the methodology here.
Quoting James Lawrence Powell:

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
...
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 297 - 247

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

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy