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: 697 - 647

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:
I understand what you're saying, but we're beyond that. There's a tsunami approaching and it's just a mile or two offshore. Now isn't the time to gingerly step down the beach, gently awakening people and whispering quietly in their ear that they might consider action. No. You sound the sirens, you blast the air horns, your ring the bells...in short, you do whatever you have to to get people moving immediately. If a few decades of panic-prventing babysteps have told us anything, it's that.

And, yes, the situation really is that dire...


For you in Naples - yes (my entire immediate family lives 75 miles to your immediate east, where I grew up).

There is going to be change and impacts. But it can be mitigated, if the proper steps are taken. Imposing change on people rarely works as well as getting people to accept change. And that acceptance takes time, unfortunately.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting Grothar:


As long as it's in rainbow
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Grothar:
I hate being off topic but...



Lol..hey Grothar!
How are you doing?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?


Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.


The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.


Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate

Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.


Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.



Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.


800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.




Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. The 2008 observed value is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and projections are based upon future emission scenarios. More information on the data can be found in the Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. report.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allancalderini:
I am having my doubts this would become Barry.
This will be neat to watch...I hope...or da blog might implode..:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I can't claim to know how much time we have left to really act, act seriously. There are studies that come to various conclusions there, but at this point, I'm really not confident in any of the modeling getting the feedbacks right. They still give us until 2050 with persistent arctic sea ice, more or less; at this point, we might see significant times of essentially no sea ice up there in the summer... oh, you know, anytime soon. 2015 is my current guess, but the truth is that if there's some big event, it could be this year, for all I know.

I do think that there _is_ a possibility for urgent, fast action -- that will, unfortunately, involve large economic disruptions, most likely -- that isn't the same as running around like headless chickens.

I think that the longer we take to really start changing things, the more likely to culminate in serious panic and massive scale political unrest this is going to be, to be honest, when the proverbial unmentionables hit the fan.

I'm ok with starting out with action that isn't at a huge enough scale yet, to try to get us moving at all. Something is better than nothing, and may provide frameworks for doing more.

But we really have to start acting, in large scale ways, _now_, is my honest informed opinion. We really have to start _yesterday_, actually. There is still time to avoid the worst, I think, but we're running out of it very fast, from what I can tell.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Another picture of tornado near Denver. Spooky.

Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 28 Comments: 7880
Remains as TD2


TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWO DISCUSSION NUMBER 6
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL022013
400 PM CDT TUE JUN 18 2013

A FEW HOURS AGO I WAS TEMPTED TO DECLARE THE DEPRESSION A REMNANT
LOW. HOWEVER...CURRENT VISIBLE SATELLITE IMAGERY AND SURFACE DATA
FROM MEXICO STILL SHOWS A LARGE CIRCULATION WITH ENOUGH DEEP
CONVECTION TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS AS A TROPICAL DEPRESSION AT THIS
TIME. THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE CIRCULATION IS ALREADY OVER THE
SOUTHERN BAY OF CAMPECHE WHERE SOME CONVECTIVE BANDS ARE
REDEVELOPING. ASSUMING THAT THE DEPRESSION MAINTAINS OR IMPROVES ITS
CURRENT STRUCTURE...TROPICAL STORM WATCHES OR WARNINGS FOR A
PORTION OF THE MEXICAN COAST WOULD BE REQUIRED THIS EVENING.

THE INITIAL MOTION IS HIGHLY UNCERTAIN AND THE DEPRESSION APPEARS TO
BE MOVING TOWARD THE WEST-NORTHWEST OR 300 DEGREES AT 9 KNOTS. THE
CURRENT TROUGH OVER THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO IS FORECAST BY THE
GLOBAL MODELS TO BE REPLACED BY A NARROW RIDGE. THIS PATTERN SHOULD
KEEP THE CYCLONE MOVING SLOWLY WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AND THEN WESTWARD
OVER THE EXTREME SOUTHERN BAY OF CAMPECHE FOR THE NEXT TWO DAYS OR
SO...UNTIL THE DEPRESSION MOVES INLAND OVER MEXICO.

REGARDLESS OF THE EXACT TRACK OF THE CENTER AND WHETHER THE CYCLONE
DISSIPATES OR STRENGTHENS A LITTLE DURING THE NEXT COUPLE OF
DAYS...THE PRIMARY CONCERN CONTINUES TO BE HEAVY RAINFALL...WHICH
COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT FLOODING OVER PORTIONS OF CENTRAL AMERICA
AND EASTERN MEXICO.


FORECAST POSITIONS AND MAX WINDS

INIT 18/2100Z 18.3N 91.9W 25 KT 30 MPH
12H 19/0600Z 18.7N 93.3W 25 KT 30 MPH
24H 19/1800Z 19.0N 95.0W 30 KT 35 MPH
36H 20/0600Z 19.0N 96.0W 30 KT 35 MPH
48H 20/1800Z 19.0N 97.0W 20 KT 25 MPH...POST-TROP/REMNT LOW
72H 21/1800Z...DISSIPATED

$$
FORECASTER AVILA
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 13926
Quoting MechEngMet:


Did you even read the original question? What if something occurred (or in this reference NOT occur) to shake your belief in something?

There are LAWS of thermodynamics of which you reference (yes I use those laws too). But it is not yet called Global warming LAW, it is still theory.

All I asked was if something doesn't happen soon (as he claimed it would) will he alter his beliefs? That's a reasonable question is it not?
No, it isn't a reasonable question, for all the reasons that have been pointed out to you that you refuse to accept. Maybe if you framed the question differently you would actually get an answer.

How about: if something disastrous doesn't happen soon (but you had better define soon), then would you lose confidence in the climate change models and predictions?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Weather Channel‏@weatherchannel2 min
#Tornado reported at Denver Int'l Airport. Weather observation at the airport showing 96 mph wind gust per NWS Chat Boulder/Denver
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting goosegirl1:


Science does not work like that, or we would still believe that rats hatch out piles of dirty rags or flies are birthed from spoiling food. Link A scientist would ask a question (where does that quarter come from, anyway), form a hypothesis (I bet dad does that!) set up an experiment (I will leave this tooth under my pillow, and will have a control pillow with nothing under it as well) and then observe what happens (when I stay awake, the tooth stays there... what happens if I fall asleep? Time for another experiment!)

Facetious, of course but certainly a bit more scientific :)


Very good! Yes, I agree. Science should not work like that. I'm suing an analogy to prove a point about theories.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
Friedrich Nietzsche


My faith and scientific facts aren't at qualms with one another. I believe in scientific facts, I believe in Christ's sacrifice. I want to know the truth, very much so. I believe the laws of thermodynamics fly in the face of evolution. Do I believe in the "theory" of evolution? No, but I do believe in what is proven science like man driven GW and almost all other facts that have been scientifically proven? Absolutely. Existentialist thinkers like Nietzsche, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc. etc. have taught us a great deal of the love of self. While faith, by its nature is the belief in the unseen, it by no means dictates me not wanting to know the truth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tornado at Denver International


Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 28 Comments: 7880
Quoting Grothar:
I hate being off topic but...
Quoting hydrus:
Reported.

Thank God!
Member Since: May 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 558
The Weather Channel ‏@weatherchannel 47s
#Tornado reported at Denver Int'l Airport. Weather observation at the airport showing 96 mph wind gust per NWS Chat Boulder/Denver


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hydrus:
If my parents told me that fairies would leave quarters for my teeth, I would have locked the door and left a bat on the nightstand...T.D.2 looks anemic.
I am having my doubts this would become Barry.
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3958
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Confirmed tornado near Denver International Airport with debris on radar (not shown).



Live streaming camera at DIA:


Click image for live view. Somebody is doing a mediocre job driving the camera right now, but if there is a funnel on the ground they MIGHT accidentally spot it...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Water Vapor
Member Since: May 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 558
Quoting Grothar:
I hate being off topic but...


Reported.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Any tornado is capable of producing damage. The weakest of the weak, rated EF0, have winds equivalent to a moderate tropical storm to solid Category 1 hurricane (65 to 85 mph).
Thanks Cody.
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3958
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You got quarters from the tooth fairy???! ... I need a new tooth fairy! Mine would only leave me a dental appointment!
If my parents told me that fairies would leave quarters for my teeth, I would have locked the door and left a bat on the nightstand...T.D.2 looks anemic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I hate being off topic but...


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Any tornado is capable of producing damage. The weakest of the weak, rated EF0, have winds equivalent to a moderate tropical storm to solid Category 1 hurricane (65 to 85 mph).


EF-0 damage at my swimming pool.

broken small leaves and branches, and a loose roof gutter.

Also blown pinestraw etc.


Both of you beat me to posting it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:


...and a consensus of 5 yr olds believe (have faith) in the tooth fairy. They even have evidence! The teeth are in fact replaced by quarters.



Spoiler alert - for those of you still believe in the tooth fairy - please stop reading.

What you are saying is correct. Based upon the factual evidence that the (in this instance) 5 year-olds have, they believe in the tooth fairy. So this is not a question of faith.

In your example, this is no longer an issue of faith. There is factual evidence to support the belief. The belief is verifiable according to the data.

Until they don't tell us that they have left a tooth under the pillow - and they have no money left to them, and the tooth is still there in the morning.

Or they wake up, while we are attempting to remove the tooth, and plant the money.

In these cases, they have evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist.

Now the dilemma begins - which to believe?

Most confer with their colleagues, determine that they have made the same observations, and come to the conclusion that the tooth fairy was some weird hoax perpetuated by their parents.

Some confront their parents, armed with the evidence acquired. Eventually, the truth is revealed.

Some choose to go along with the charade, for their own economic benefit.

Kind of like the whole scientific process - would you not agree?

So your point is what? You have undermined your own argument.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting MechEngMet:


Did you even read the original question? What if something occurred (or in this reference NOT occur) to shake your belief in something?

There are LAWS of thermodynamics of which you reference (yes I use those laws too). But it is not yet called Global warming LAW, it is still theory.

All I asked was if something doesn't happen soon (as he claimed it would) will he alter his beliefs? That's a reasonable question is it not?


A scientific LAW doesn't hold special rank over a scientific theory. Because it's a "theory" doesn't mean an idea is still subject to serious debate - in fact, theories are typically more useful since they also include mechanisms or explanations, not simple casual relationships that are often distillable to mathematical equations.

Gravity is not a law, it's a theory.
Evolution is not a law, it's a theory.

Are either of those up for scientific debate?

This is an odd line of doubt, especially if you are an engineer; you should have had enough physical science during your education to disabuse you of these misconceptions about what a scientific law and scientific theory are and what they do.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 62901IL:


It;s moving in
The circulation is out in BOC NOW?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Got beat to by TA13, but confirmed tornado at Denver International Airport.

Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 28 Comments: 7880
Quoting MrMixon:


You were ripped off - I got dollars.

I'm skeptical that you have a factually-based (i.e. - non-faith) position on AGW. Have you any evidence to refute the scientific consensus? If not, then what is your motivation? Before you answer - remember that posting things here just to stir up disagreement is considered trolling.



I base my life on facts and evidence. I'm open to AGW but it's not proven; to me yet anyway. I don't intend to come off as a troll, I just ask questions.

As far as technical rational opposed to AGW theory, are you familiar with Beer-Lambert law?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allancalderini:
I know this is a stupid question but when it has debris it means is a strong tornado or weak tornadoes also have them?

Any tornado is capable of producing damage. The weakest of the weak, rated EF0, have winds equivalent to a moderate tropical storm to solid Category 1 hurricane (65 to 85 mph).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Lucky you, for some reason since Andrea departed here along the West Coast of FL. it has been unusually dry with the exception of 1 or 2 pop up thunderstorms in the morning. I guess the West Coast seabreeze is holding firm.


Many areas over here have had 9" to 13" of rain so far this month. Since April 1st I have picked up 26" of rain. Very impressive to say the least.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JNTenne:
You Betcha Campeche


It;s moving in
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


If the science is settled with agw.... why do we keep using tax dollars to fund more studies??????
Asked and answered multiple times, as you well know. And BTW .....

From Dr Rood's blog
992. yoboi 5:13 PM EDT on June 17, 2013
.why is it when you ask a question and you don't like the answer you ask the same question again?????is that an alarmist trait????
------------------

Apparently a denialist trait too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You Betcha Campeche
Member Since: May 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 558
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You got quarters from the tooth fairy???! ... I need a new tooth fairy! Mine would only leave me a dental appointment!

hey! you're back!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:


...and a consensus of 5 yr olds believe (have faith) in the tooth fairy. They even have evidence! The teeth are in fact replaced by quarters.



You got quarters from the tooth fairy???! ... I need a new tooth fairy! Mine would only leave me a dental appointment!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MechEngMet:


Did you even read the original question? What if something occurred (or in this reference NOT occur) to shake your belief in something?

There are LAWS of thermodynamics of which you reference (yes I use those laws too). But it is not yet called Global warming LAW, it is still theory.

All I asked was if something doesn't happen soon (as he claimed it would) will he alter his beliefs? That's a reasonable question is it not?


A scientific theory is not the same as the casual use of the word theory. Scientific theories are tested explanations for observed events, not best guesses. Come on now.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3210
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Confirmed tornado near Denver International Airport with debris on radar.

I know this is a stupid question but when it has debris it means is a strong tornado or weak tornadoes also have them?
Member Since: October 15, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 3958
Quoting MechEngMet:


...and a consensus of 5 yr olds believe (have faith) in the tooth fairy. They even have evidence! The teeth are in fact replaced by quarters.



Science does not work like that, or we would still believe that rats hatch out piles of dirty rags or flies are birthed from spoiling food. Link A scientist would ask a question (where does that quarter come from, anyway), form a hypothesis (I bet dad does that!) set up an experiment (I will leave this tooth under my pillow, and will have a control pillow with nothing under it as well) and then observe what happens (when I stay awake, the tooth stays there... what happens if I fall asleep? Time for another experiment!)

Facetious, of course but certainly a bit more scientific :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormTrackerScott:
Some pretty significant flooding will occur if we get this much rain across Orlando as we are soaked right now as flooding as already ongoing in areas.

Lucky you, for some reason since Andrea departed here along the West Coast of FL. it has been unusually dry with the exception of 1 or 2 pop up thunderstorms in the morning. I guess the West Coast seabreeze is holding firm.
Member Since: August 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 5628
Quoting daddyjames:


Panic (fear) induces the "flight or fight" response in people. Nothing will be accomplished if there is panic. Once you start talking like you are, people will just shut down. If you really want things done, small, babysteps have to be taken. People are resistant to change - and we cannot change things so quicky (see my previous post regarding economics).

I understand what you're saying, but we're beyond that. There's a tsunami approaching and it's just a mile or two offshore. Now isn't the time to gingerly step down the beach, gently awakening people and whispering quietly in their ear that they might consider action. No. You sound the sirens, you blast the air horns, your ring the bells...in short, you do whatever you have to to get people moving immediately. If a few decades of panic-prventing babysteps have told us anything, it's that.

And, yes, the situation really is that dire...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Confirmed tornado near Denver International Airport with debris on radar (not shown).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


If the science is settled with agw.... why do we keep using tax dollars to fund more studies??????


Science is settled on evolution - why do we fund more studies into genetics?
Science is settled on germ theory - why do we fund more studies into medical fields?
Science is settled on plate tectonics - why do we fund more studies into earthquakes and volcanoes?

If you can answer those, you'll have the answer to the question you've asked over and over and over again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It does not matter at the end of the day what someone believes. No matter what it is, it has to be provable. Imputation and belief fail miserably where hard, irrefutable scientific evidence is concerned.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


If the science is settled with agw.... why do we keep using tax dollars to fund more studies??????


Because that way, we can keep kicking the can down the road? It's what it feels like, sometimes.

More genuinely, we _do_ need more studies on the specific aspects of things, on the effects we will need to handle, on finer details. And that's mostly where we're at, now, honestly. We're studying specific pieces of what we can expect, and what we might be able to do about it, not studying whether global warming is happening (nor, really, whether it is significantly man-made, though scientists... you know, we like to keep measuring things so we have long data sets.)

Studying more is always good. Studying more is not a substitute for actually acting.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Some pretty significant flooding will occur if we get this much rain across Orlando as we are soaked right now as flooding is already ongoing in areas.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
651. SLU
Quoting daddyjames:


Follow up question: So Figure 11 in the 2011 Hurricane season shows the exact opposite pattern in that the western Indian Ocean region is cooler than the Eastern Indian Ocean region?

Is this not what the current SST anomaly is showing? A cooling of the western region compared with the region around Sumatra?



Edit: I think that it is painfully obvious that I am still confused - so maybe i should hit the books, do some calculations and enlighten myself.
Thanks for trying though.


In figure 11 they used the OLR to measure the IOD which is different from using the SSTs like I did. But they moreless indicate the same set up. The SSTs are easier to understand.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


I'm pretty sure "belief" in global warming is the same as believing in the germ theory of disease, or gravity, or thermodynamics. You don't need to bring "faith" to a science fight-- when I calculate G = H - TS as part of my work as a scientist, do I first pray to Gibbs, or make a burnt offering to Enthalpy?


Did you even read the original question? What if something occurred (or in this reference NOT occur) to shake your belief in something?

There are LAWS of thermodynamics of which you reference (yes I use those laws too). But it is not yet called Global warming LAW, it is still theory.

All I asked was if something doesn't happen soon (as he claimed it would) will he alter his beliefs? That's a reasonable question is it not?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


...when I calculate G = H - TS as part of my work as a scientist, do I first pray to Gibbs, or make a burnt offering to Enthalpy?


I just wanted to repeat that part, because it made me happy.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
Quoting MechEngMet:


...and a consensus of 5 yr olds believe (have faith) in the tooth fairy. They even have evidence! The teeth are in fact replaced by quarters.



You were ripped off - I got dollars.

I'm skeptical that you have a factually-based (i.e. - non-faith) position on AGW. Have you any evidence to refute the scientific consensus? If not, then what is your motivation? Before you answer - remember that posting things here just to stir up disagreement is considered trolling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 697 - 647

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.