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: 247 - 197

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

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: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3170
WV

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Keep on keeping on Neapolitan.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting daddyjames:


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


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.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3297
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Your emoticons come off as sarcastic or demeaning sometimes, it's part of the whole bitter and angry thing.
Whether you are right or not, it certainly won't stimulate anyone to change and agree with you.
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.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2331
Quoting ILwthrfan:


That is correct, but I'd rather speculate that the % of those papers that due in fact show the climate is changing due to CO2 is in the majority.
Alright I see you edited your post. Thanks for answering the question.
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.


Yes, because a bunch of adults who have invested huge amounts of time -- usually, most of their adult lives -- to deep study so that they can understand vast amounts of scientific knowledge is _totally_ just like a bunch of 7 year olds.

There can be consensus opinions that are wrong. But the more people who have dedicated their lives to studying the stuff involved here all agree with each other about something, the higher the bar for actual evidence that might make it look questionable.

Scientists don't generally agree on things. In fact, arguments that are vitriolic, personal, and nasty -- often over some incredibly minor point in the grand scheme -- are the normal name of the game in research, really. When you see the bulk of scientists in any field all start to basically agree on something, take note, because it doesn't happen that often in reality.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Your emoticons come off as sarcastic or demeaning sometimes, it's part of the whole bitter and angry thing.
Whether you are right or not, it certainly won't stimulate anyone to change and agree with you.


Well said young man. I for one would love a discussion that would stay civilized, you know maybe not calling people ignorant or blind; not discrediting their put forth evidence with sarcasm or "mirth", but a true conversation from everyone on what they know to be real, not assumptions that are unyielding to other possibilities. Instead we get the same left and right arguments that "you're wrong, I'm right". Which only fosters closed minds and ill feelings
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is a little more concrete definition, as they state that it is cause of man that is contributing to the extra warming.

It's still at the very least a 10:1 ratio that man is the cause of the warming, which implies greenhouse gases.





Source: Skeptical Science.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
A) Which one(s) do you consider bitter, angry, sarcastic, and demeaning, and more importantly, B) why? TIA for your thoughtful, honest answer.

1) ;-)

2) :-\

3) :-)


It's not you saying it, it's the context or derived meaning others interpret
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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?


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
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
It looks like the remnant low-level circulation of TD Two should emerge over or just north of Ciudad del Carmen, which is a bit farther north than predicted. Could give it some extra time to reorganize and intensify.

NHC will probably discontinue advisories for this afternoon at least. It doesn't mean it's dead, so don't start putting nails in it..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ILwthrfan:


That is correct.
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

It's not debatable scientifically. Politiaclly, anything is debatable, but AGW is a scientific issue. What do about it is political.



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


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.


I keep tellin' 'em Scott, don't mess with ya. You been on a roll ever since Andrea...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


Your emoticons come off as sarcastic or demeaning sometimes, it's part of the whole bitter and angry thing.
Whether you are right or not, it certainly won't stimulate anyone to change and agree with you.
A) Which of the three below do you consider bitter, angry, sarcastic, and demeaning, and more importantly, B) why? TIA for your thoughtful, honest answer.

1) ;-)

2) :-\

3) :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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..
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...


I agree. daddyjames' point is completely valid. The controversy created sure did get us all talking. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3297
Quoting redwagon:

All this focus on greenhouse gasses pales in comparison to the amount of water the planet is locking up in concrete, plastics etc. that can't be gotten back.


Regardless of the water issue, concrete production is a large contributor to CO2 emissions, and plastics - since the vast majority are derived from petroleum - also contributes to CO2 production (indirectly, as the petroleum is already available).
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting 62901IL:
Why the coke are we talking about volcanoes and mountains?
'cause that's where all the radio show callers live around Redding!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A fading Heartbeat, a almost Cyclone, wimpers into the BOC barely.

"tha-thump, tha-thump"..................................


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.

It was hardly Al Gore's claim. Link Might I ask for you to explain what is driving the change and provide evidence to back up your claims then, please.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3297
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


I wouldn't say that it is false or true.

It certainly should have some truth value by the nature of what CO2 is...but whether the warming we see is necessarily caused by carbon dioxide is debatable.

It's not debatable scientifically. Politiaclly, anything is debatable, but AGW is a scientific issue. What do about it is political.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Levi32:


That's exactly what I was discussing with one of the NWS Norman forecasters yesterday. I was questioning him on whether this area saw as many MCSs come through in a NW flow during May and June during the last couple years as we have seen this year, and it certainly seems that the ridge is not as overbearing as it was. Every time I look at the height field in the southeast U.S. it is somewhat depressed, which would be a bad pattern for the rest of the hurricane season. The above-normal soil moisture to the east is only going to support the continuation of this pattern as well.



One of the GFS products that is sort of interesting is the change in soil moisture anomalies, here's a view of the CONUS with the current soil moisture anomalies and clearly you can see, as you say, the southeast is pretty damp right now:



If we look at the 1 and 2 week anomaly changes we start noticing that Texas along with the rest of the Southeast dampens up a little:



Whereas the northeast begins to dry out, this is due to ridging that moves out during the early half of the GFS run.

Unfortunately for those of us along the gulf coast, we're starting to dry out again, climatologically Houston should be getting more rain now than the rest of the year, in fact, June is typically the rainiest month, but this year we haven't seen a lot.

So, improvement, yes, maybe. If the conus remains troughy through the summer then we might get more rain in the middle of the state where we really need it, but I don't have high hopes for that.
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.
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?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I was going to stop in and get some opinions on the storm but uh

Looks like the only opinions ill be getting are political

When you come on a weather blog and you see tea party, you know it's not what you signed up for

Ill stop back when you clear everyhing up
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
I wouldn't say that it is false or true.

It certainly should have some truth value by the nature of what CO2 is...but whether the warming we see is necessarily caused by carbon dioxide is debatable.


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.
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
Heck it could be that human population explosion increases water vapor on earth or natural variation but we never know.

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.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3170
Quoting daddyjames:


bu that is not my point - let's say the talk show was gonna be held in the San Fran area.

Would it be fair to characterize that as "Rainbow Coalition" country?

I think not.

In a blog where weather is to be discussed, and political discussions discouraged, then the title given above certainly did not lend itself to that.



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...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Perhaps sounding like a person not going off the edge?.As you can see it's not helping getting action done any faster.

We need to do more like push our congress/politics..teach it to the younger generation use more recycling methods/and renewable energy resources and such ect.
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.

When did you first realize that you hated physics?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
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.


That is correct, but I'd rather speculate that the % of those papers that do in fact show the climate is changing due to CO2 is in the majority.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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 graves threat modern civilization has ever faced is something to be up-in-arms about. I think anyone would agree. At least anyone with children...


Your emoticons come off as sarcastic or demeaning sometimes, it's part of the whole bitter and angry thing.
Whether you are right or not, it certainly won't stimulate anyone to change and agree with you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well until this politics discussion is over, I guess I'll just step out.
Member Since: May 1, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 756
TD 2 looks dead, put a nail in the coffin, rip...Anyhow we still have plenty of more season left, the meat of the season is still about 2 months away when we get to track the monsters, hopefully like recent years those ones stay OTS.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanehunter27:
Haha. It looked lost for a second then zipped up to the north.


Ya, I noticed what looked like a jog north of the MLC? on GRB satellite and the mimic shows what my eyes thought they saw.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
..rut, roh..ric is deep in thought.

; )

We could seen a QOD update maybe?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting galvestonhurricane:
Please read the book, "The Inconvenient Skeptic." I'm guessing you will find some excuse not to read it.
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.
Quoting galvestonhurricane:


Nea, you come off very much as someone who is bitter and angry.
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...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
All this focus on greenhouse gasses pales in comparison to the amount of water the planet is locking up in concrete, plastics etc. that can't be gotten back.


please expound
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FtMyersgal:


Much of South Seas was closed for a year after Charley for repairs.
I bet. The only road ( known as San-Cap Rd out there ) has been wash out numerous times, which a major effect on the island. I cannot remember exactly what year it was, but is was closed for at least a week....good thing we had lots of boats..:)
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 20539
Quoting Naga5000:


The Tea Party is quite entrenched in Redding actually. Just a quick google search on Redding, Ca and the Tea Party will bring up tons of hits, including some law suits. I don't have exact numbers, but they are a major factor there.


bu that is not my point - let's say the talk show was gonna be held in the San Fran area.

Would it be fair to characterize that as "Rainbow Coalition" country?

I think not.

In a blog where weather is to be discussed, and political discussions discouraged, then the title given above certainly did not lend itself to that.

Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting galvestonhurricane:


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


I wouldn't say that it is false or true.

It certainly should have some truth value by the nature of what CO2 is...but whether the warming we see is necessarily caused by carbon dioxide is debatable.

Heck it could be that human population explosion increases water vapor on earth or natural variation but we never know.

It could be primarily CO2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ILwthrfan:


It's not Al Gore's claim, it's over 97% of the scientific community's claim. ;)



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.

Edit: Just to clarify I do believe that CO2 is a main component of global warming. I am just pointing out that the graph and point is incorrect with the information provided.
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.


It's not Al Gore's claim, it's over 97% of the scientific community's claim. ;)




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HurricaneHunterJoe:
Haha. It looked lost for a second then zipped up to the north.
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.


I would encourage you to study the scientific literature, and basic physics/thermodynamics.

Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting daddyjames:
Caller:

Asking a question regarding clear-cutting forests and any relationship with global warming.

Sounds like a personal agenda (on the caller's) against deforestation/timber companies.

I'm all for conservation - but dislike extremes on both sides of the argument.

All this focus on greenhouse gasses pales in comparison to the amount of water the planet is locking up in concrete, plastics etc. that can't be gotten back.
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.


Got ya talkin' though, didn't he? (lol)
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.


A wonderful analogy to counter arguments against AGW, intelligent design, etc.

You can believe all you want - but the evidence (facts) are what is needed.

Manipulation of the facts, on both sides, to minimize or trumpet the message should be discouraged.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Here is a link to all of the collateral materials from the Portlight "Getting it Right" Conference.

Thank you to everyone who made this conference such a huge success!

We will also be posting the PowerPoint presentations that were at the conference.


Dr. Jeff Masters delivering his Presentation Monday evening June 5th at the Atlanta Shepherd Center

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.

Yeah, it is ridiculous.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 247 - 197

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
69 °F
Mostly Cloudy