Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 10:50 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

Share this Blog
124
+

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased." Thus opens the landmark 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued today. Working without pay, hundreds of our most dedicated and talented climate experts have collaborated over a six-year period to create the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific document on climate change ever crafted. The first 31 pages of what will be a 4,000-page tome was released this morning after an all-night approval session that stretched until 6:30 this morning in Stockholm, Sweden. This "Summary For Policymakers" lays out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that will limit the damage.

Q: How much has the planet warmed, and what has caused the warming?
The report documents that Earth's surface temperature warmed by 0.85°C (1.5°F) between 1880 - 2012. Two-thirds of this warming (0.6°C, 1.1°F) came after 1950. Human-emitted heat-trapping gases likely were responsible for 0.5 - 1.3°C of this post-1950 warming, while human-emitted aerosol particles reflected away sunlight and likely caused cooling (-0.6° - 0.1°C change in temperature.) Climate change due to variations in solar energy, volcanic dust, and natural sources of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were likely responsible for a small -0.1° - 0.1°C change in temperature since 1950. The sun was in a cool phase between 1978 - 2011, and the report estimates that lower solar output cooled Earth's climate slightly during this period. The influence of cosmic rays on climate over the past century was to weak to be detected, they said. In short, the report shows little support for a significant natural component to global warming since 1950. In fact, natural effects may well have made Earth cooler than it otherwise would have been. The report says that "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." In other words, close to 100% of the observed warming is due to humans.


Figure 1. The changing view of the IPCC's assessment reports on the human contribution to climate change.

Q: How have the IPCC reports changed through time?
1990: The report did not quantify the human contribution to global warming.

1995: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."

2001: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are likely (67-90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2007: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are very likely (at least 90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2013: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951. This is the same confidence that scientists have in the age of the universe, or that cigarettes are deadly, according to an excellent AP article published this week by Seth Borenstein.

Q: Did the new report change the plausible range of global warming?
A. Yes. The "climate sensitivity" is defined as how much the planet would warm if the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubled. A variety of studies have arrived at very different estimates of the exact CO2 sensitivity of the climate, and the 2007 IPCC report gave a range of the most plausible values: 2 to 4.5ºC, with 3ºC deemed the most likely value. Recent research indicates that a sensitivity as low as 1.5ºC may be possible, so the IPCC widened the range of the most plausible values: 1.5 to 4.5ºC. The new lower limit of 1.5ºC is a best-case scenario that appears no more likely than the high end of 4.5ºC. Furthermore, even the lowest sensitivity scenario would not negate the need for emissions reductions. Current trends show that emissions are on track to increase far beyond doubling, which would create dangerous temperature rise even in a low-sensitivity climate. (Note that they give a small but worrisome possibility--0 to 10% chance--that the climate could warm by more than 6ºC for a doubling of CO2.)


Figure 2. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

Q: What does the IPCC say about the "speed bump" in surface global warming over the past 10 - 15 years?
Much attention has been given in the press to the fact that the rate of surface warming over the past fifteen years has been slower than during previous decades. The report notes that due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) of 0.05 °C per decade, which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 of 0.12 °C per decade. However, the recent slow-down in surface warming is likely to be a mere "speed bump" on the highway of global warming, caused by natural variability. We have seen such "speed bumps" before, as well as short, sharp downhill stretches where surface warming speeds up. For example, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf writes at realclimate.org that "the warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be." Physics demands that the massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide humans have dumped into the atmosphere must cause significant warming, but the chaotic complexity of the system is expected to obscure the magnitude of the long-term trend on time scales of a few years to a decade. The attention being to this latest "speed bump" on the highway of global warming is a direct result of a well-funded PR effort by the fossil fuel industry. One has to look at the total warming of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice to judge the true progress of global warming, not just the surface temperature. There has been no slowdown in total global warming when we regard this entire system, as I argued in a post earlier this year. More than 90% of the energy of global warming goes into the oceans, and the reason for the relative lack of surface warming this decade is that more heat than usual is being stored in the oceans. That heat will be released to the atmosphere at some point, removing the "speed bump".

The new IPCC report says that there is medium confidence that the "speed bump" in surface warming is due in roughly equal measure to natural multi-year unpredictable variability in the weather, and to changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. Most of the climate models do not reproduce this lower surface warming rate during the past 10 - 15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is due to natural climate variability that is impossible to predict (for example, the El Niño/La Niña cycle), with possible contributions from the models' inadequate handling of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and changes in light-reflecting aerosol particles, and, in some models, a too-strong response to heat-trapping gases. For an explanation of why arguments about the global warming “slowdown” are misleading and should not offer any consolation, see this explainer from Skeptical Science and this one from the Union for Concerned Scientists.

Q: What does the IPCC say about drought?
A: Drought and reduction in water availability due to decreased mountain snow and ice is the greatest threat civilization faces from climate change, since it attacks the two things we need to live--water and food. Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of drought in the text, and we will have to wait for the March 2014 release of the "impacts" portion of the report to hear more about the threat drought poses to society. Today's report does mention drought in one of their two tables, giving “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have already observed a human-caused increase in the intensity and/or duration of drought in some parts of the world. This is a reduction in confidence from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) However, the forecast for the future is the same as in the 2007 report: we are likely to see dry areas get dryer due to human-caused climate change by 2100. In particular, there is high confidence (80%) in likely surface drying in the Mediterranean, Southwest U.S., and Southern Africa by 2100 in the high-end emissions scenario (RCP8.5), in association with expected increases in surface temperatures and a shift in the atmospheric circulation that will expand the region of sinking air that creates the world's greatest deserts.

Q: What does the IPCC say about sea level rise?
A: Global average sea level has risen 7.5" (19 cm) since 1901. Sea level has accelerated to 1.5" (3.2 cm) per decade over the past 20 years--nearly double the rate of rise during the 20th century. The report projects that sea level will rise by an extra 0.9 - 3.2' (26 to 98 cm) by 2100. While the maximum sea level rise expected has gone up since the 2007 report, when the IPCC did not even consider melt from Greenland and Antarctica because of the primitive state of glacier science then, the new upper bound (3.2') is still is a very conservative number. IPCC decided not to include estimates from at least five published studies that had higher numbers, including two studies with rises of 2 meters (6.6 feet.) This is in contradiction to NOAA's December 2012 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, which has 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) as its worst-case sea level rise scenario for 2100. Even this number may be too low; at a presentation Thursday in New York City for Climate Week, glaciologist Dr. Jason Box, who knows as much about Greenland's ice sheets as any person alive, explained that Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise doubled over the past ten years. If Greenland's melt rate continues to double every ten years until 2100, Greenland alone will contribute 4.6' (1.4 meters) of global sea level rise, he said. If the doubling time becomes every nine years, then Greenland will cause 16.4' (5 meters) of sea level rise by 2100. His best-guess number for global sea level rise by 2100 is 4.7' (1.5 meters), but warns that our models used to predict melting of ice of Greenland have large unknowns.

Long-term sea level rise is expected to be much greater. The IPCC report states with "very high confidence" that 119,000 - 126,000 years ago, during the period before the most recent ice age, sea levels were 16 - 33 feet (5 - 10 meters) higher than at present. Melting of Greenland "very likely" contributed 1.4 - 4.3 meters of this rise, with additional contributions coming from Antarctica. Temperatures at that time weren't more than 2°C warmer than "pre-industrial" levels during that period. Two of the four scenarios used for the report project we will exceed 2°C of warming by 2100, with "high confidence", raising the possibility that we could see sea level rises of many meters over time scales of 1,000 years or so. The report expects sea level rise reach 3.3 - 9.8' (1 - 3 meters) by 2300, assuming CO2 levels rise above 700 ppm (close to what the higher-end RCP6.0 scenario prescribes.)

Q: What does the IPCC say about ocean acidity?
A: The world's oceans have seen a 26% increase in acidity since the Industrial Revolution, as the average pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. Under all report scenarios, the acidification of the world's oceans will increase, with the pH falling by another 0.06 - 0.32 units. According to a 2012 study in Science, the current acidification rate is likely the fastest in 300 million years, and "may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems."

Q: How about hurricanes?
A: The new report gives “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have observed a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes in some parts of the world. This is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) The IPCC likely took note of a landmark 2010 review paper, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", authored by ten top hurricane scientists, which concluded that the U.S. has not seen any long-term increase in landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." The 2013 IPCC report predicts that there is a greater than 50% chance (more likely than not) that we will see a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes by 2100 in some regions; this is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said this would be likely (66% chance or higher.)

Q: How about extreme weather events?
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe." The report made no mention of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, since the uncertainties of how they have behaved in the past and how climate change might affect them in the future are too great.

Q: What does the IPCC say about a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario?
A: In the disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)--the ocean current system of which the Gulf Stream Current is a part of--collapses, causing a rapid and extreme change in climate. A collapse of the AMOC is very unlikely (0 - 10% chance) before 2100 according to the report, but cannot be ruled out beyond the 21st century. A weakening of the AMOC by about 11 - 34% by 2100 is expected in the moderate RCP4.5 scenario, where CO2 levels reach 538 ppm in 2100. However, these odds assume that Greenland will dump a relatively modest amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic by 2100. If the higher-end sea level rise estimates that the IPCC did not consider as plausible come true, the AMOC will likely slow down much more, with a higher chance of collapse this century. No slow-down in the AMOC has been observed yet, according to the report.

Commentary
As I read though the report, digesting the exhaustive list of changes to Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and ice that have occurred over the past few decades, I was struck by how the IPCC report reads like lab results from a sick hospital patient. The natural systems that civilization depends upon to thrive have been profoundly disturbed, and the forecast for the future reads like a medical diagnosis for an overweight smoker with a heart condition: unless the patient makes major lifestyle changes, the illness will grow far worse, with severe debilitation or death distinct possibilities. We can and we must make the huge effort to turn things around. Oil and natural gas are the energy technologies of the 20th century. Coal is the energy technology of the 19th century. We have countless innovative and dedicated people ready to move us to the energy technology of the 21st century; I heard three of them speak last night at the Climate Week event I am at, and they really gave me some needed hope that we can turn things around. We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!

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: 1429 - 1379

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog Index

Quoting 1426. SuperStorm093:
and will continue the trend of wasting of names this season. It looks horrible and a mess but they will most likely classify to get numbers up.

Maybe this would be like one of those years long before satellite where many storms would not be detected and recorded.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1428. Skyepony (Mod)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1422. CybrTeddy:
I'd be surprised if 96L doesn't become TD 11 sometime today or tomorrow.
Torito's and my theory came true.If we don't pay attention to it.Maybe it will form!.It appears that 96L is a T.D.We just need a renumber for conformation.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16327
Quoting 1422. CybrTeddy:
I'd be surprised if 96L doesn't become TD 11 sometime today or tomorrow.
and will continue the trend of wasting of names this season. It looks horrible and a mess but they will most likely classify to get numbers up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1425. SLU
From the St. Lucia Met Office:

http://www.slumet.gov.lc/forecast.asp

TOTAL RAINFALL FOR THE MONTH THUS FAR AT:

HEWANORRA.....120.1 MM.
GFL CHARLES...120.5 MM.

The average is around 250 - 300mm
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1424. Skyepony (Mod)
Dvorak numbers for WUTIP..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1414. ncstorm:


I agree..but the prediction was for this season..not a certain set of years as you stated..I agree with everything you said..

it was way too early to use Sandy or this hurricane season as a case for GW..I understand why there isnt intense hurricanes..I want to hear the GW experts admit they were wrong in jumping the gun

I'm out..got a lot to do for Saturday..but best believe I will be checking the blog when I get back for any answers..


Oh sorry, I didn't see that. Well, I wouldn't know as I pay no attention to predictions for the season. I'm more of a "here and now, 3-5 days out" sort of person. Trying to predict an accurate amount of storms and how many majors there are in a given year before the season even starts is quite a stretch for even the most elite meteorologists and supercomputers. Mother nature does what she wants, as we've seen with what I like to call the 2013 Atlantic troll season. xD
Member Since: June 16, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 466
I'd be surprised if 96L doesn't become TD 11 sometime today or tomorrow.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 23499
1421. ricderr
Neap I am going to re-shingle my roof soon....what type of shingles would you suggest that best reflects the heat?????TIA

I'm not neap but I can answer that question..in regular shingles there's about a three percent heat retention difference between a dark shingle, such as black and a light shingle such as light gray which manufacturers call white...now there are reflective shingles however pricey that do reflect the uv rays very well....catch word there...PRICEY...the most important thing you can do to lower your cooling bill in the summer is to have adequate ventilation, both in and out...i am a big proponent of ridge vent...google ridge vent and you can not only see the product but they also have calculators to let you know what the proper ventilation should be....personally we re-roofed last spring and our summer electrical bill dropped by a third paying for the cost of ridgevent in just one season....hope this helps
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Aug. 2, 2013:

Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 11 Comments: 7367
1419. SLU
Quoting 1402. allancalderini:
I actally thought the lesser antilles had a lot of flood in the months of June and July,guess I was wrong.Hope it can rain soon SLU in your area.


Only Trinidad had some isolated flooding events which actually occurs more frequently in normal years. Apart from that, the rainy season has been very uneventful elsewhere. Ironically, since mid-August and it's gotten worse in September. Tropical waves have been virtually non-existent this month and 70% or our ANNUAL rainfall comes from waves.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1415. Tazmanian:



nop not yet


how about now
Member Since: August 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3091
1417. Skyepony (Mod)
96L
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Still remains my favorite view.

Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 11 Comments: 7367
Quoting 1403. Andrebrooks:
I think we have 11L now.
Or maybe even Jerry.



nop not yet
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1414. ncstorm
Quoting 1411. Envoirment:


Come on ncstorm, you can't expect them all to roll out at once. You have to give it time before you see a trend. For instance, perhaps 2014-2020 will be a very quiet period for the Altantic basin, but then 2021-2045 has a very active pattern which produces some of the most intense storms to have ever been recorded in the basin. Which are in part fueled by high SSTs and increased water vapour, due to the atmosphere being warmer and able to hold more water.






I agree..but the prediction was for this season..not a certain set of years as you stated..I agree with everything you said..

it was way too early to use Sandy or this hurricane season as a case for GW..I understand why there isnt intense hurricanes..I want to hear the GW experts admit they were wrong in jumping the gun

I'm out..got a lot to do for Saturday..but best believe I will be checking the blog when I get back for any answers..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Let's see what the 12z run throws at us.

Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 11 Comments: 7367
1412. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
Quoting 1398. SLU:
September to forget:

its a blank except for the couple in boc and the east pacific strikes on the other side
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1343. ncstorm:





where are the intense hurricanes that GW experts predicted for the US?


Come on ncstorm, you can't expect them all to roll out at once. You have to give it time before you see a trend. For instance, perhaps 2014-2020 will be a very quiet period for the Altantic basin, but then 2021-2045 has a very active pattern which produces some of the most intense storms to have ever been recorded in the basin. Which are in part fueled by high SSTs and increased water vapour, due to the atmosphere being warmer and able to hold more water.




Member Since: June 16, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 466
1410. yoboi
Quoting 1327. Neapolitan:
Again, I'll do so just as soon as you and/or Tampa Spin show me where any "experts" said GW would lead to an above average year. Now, that's the third time I've asked for that this morning. Givewn that I've yet received no answer, I'm going to assume 'tis nothing but a straw man. Thanks!


Neap I am going to re-shingle my roof soon....what type of shingles would you suggest that best reflects the heat?????TIA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1407. washingtonian115:
So it's okay for us to see a storm headed for land intensifying as long as it's not the U.S.Got it!.

...what?
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 112 Comments: 31336
Quoting 1393. ncstorm:


Please see the link I provided below from the GW authority source Skeptical Science website..yesterday that website had at least 10,000 hits from bloggers from WU alone posting graphs and articles here in defense of the IPCC report but today when I post an article where they stated GW will fuel intense hurricanes for this year's hurricane season, they are not considered experts??

I cant keep up with the madness here..lord knows I cant..LOL


I saw your link, it doesn't say that AGW will bring more intense hurricanes for 2013. It says AGW will likely increase the strength "This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. "
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1390. TropicalAnalystwx13:
Good news [for Wutip]: Shear and dry air seem to have become less of a problem since midnight. Outflow is trying to expand to the east. Dry air entrainment should be harder from here on out.

Bad news [for Wutip]: That dry air entrainment got into the core early this morning. It wasn't terribly destructive, but it did cause the northern eyewall to weaken and perhaps open. That's why we've seen it transition from an eye scene back to a uniform central dense overcast scene.

Should make landfall tomorrow as a Category 2-equivalent.

So it's okay for us to see a storm headed for land intensifying as long as it's not the U.S.Got it!.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 16327

Look at those 30-35kt winds.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A decent CCKW should traverse the Atlantic over the coming week. It may be able to help development of both the Caribbean disturbance and Invest 96L:



The issue is that a majority of the MJO is centered in the West Pacific:

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 112 Comments: 31336
1404. ricderr
son of a biscuit eater...it's going to be a long freaking winter......i've seen enough misinformation on both sides in just two pages of posts to make my head spin....i only thought wannabe weather forecasters make my head spin....wanna be climate scholars on both side make me want to puke....think i'll retire to a few games of backgammon....enjoy everyone
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I think we have 11L now.
Or maybe even Jerry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1394. SLU:


Could be a bitter next 6 - 8 months weather-wise.
I actally thought the lesser antilles had a lot of flood in the months of June and July,guess I was wrong.Hope it can rain soon SLU in your area.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1401. hydrus
Quoting 1305. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Global Warming didn't only imply that extreme weather would lead to more hurricanes, it implied to other extremities like Drought, Flooding, Wildfires, and Blizzards, and we are talking about on a Global scale, not just what's going on in the US either. Let's see last year we had Superstorm Sandy and this year we have had the Colorado flooding and droughts in Brazil. Now one could use a better argument and that would be has Arctic Ice melt over the recent years shown to limit activity in the Atlantic Ocean this year? Think about why ULL's form, from mid-latitude systems, think about what causes mid-latitude systems to form from the Jet Stream, think about where the Jet Stream originates from? The Arctic and North Pole. Now has high pressure ridging dominated the Arctic region this summer and has there also been persistent troughiness on the East Coast this year? Happen to notice most every time a system tries to get going there happens to be an ULL nearby? So why is that? Is because of the reasons I just explained?

Certainly this is not an El-Nino year, so has a point been made? That even in non-El-Nino year, hurricane season can be inactive? How about in 2004 another extreme an El-Nino year that was active? See this is what makes the weather so fascinating because there is so much aspects involved and there is still lots of studies being done on the weather. You have to look at the low levels, the mid levels, the upper levels, the stratosphere, the troposphere, conditions have to be ripe in all of those levels, then you have to look at sea surface temperatures, TCHP, SAL, Vertical and Horizontal Instability, High Pressure and Low Pressure, Trade Winds, Prevailing Westerlies, African Easterly Waves, African Easterly Jet, ITCZ, TUTT's, and Airmass.

Teleconnection, is the Indian Ocean active because usually when they are the Atlantic is active. Man I could go on and on, but there is still lots to be learn and the effects that climate change are having on these weather systems is one that will be a subject to study for many years to come. Good luck to all who are pursuing a career in Meteorology or one of the Geosciences and may the force be with you.
The 2004 El-Nino was not extreme. It was not even officially an Nino until around September 10. It never was much of one at that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1378. Skyepony:
WUTIP should be making landfall in ~36hrs at ~85kts...



Ouch...right near where last week's tropical depression made landfall. I feel for them.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1388. southfla:


I do not know any scientist or group who made the claim that GW had anything to do with the predicted above average season and I certainly did not see any claim that any hurricane this season would be more intense due to GW.

Maybe some journalist suggested that or even misstated that, but no scientist did. In fact, the majority of scientists and groups have been VERY careful to not mention GW in their predictions for this season.

The problem is the media gets betwixt and between scientists and the public and in their effort to explain (sensationalize) the science they distort study results in favor of the most extreme prediction. Because well, let's face it, science is boring to most of the public and simply stating that there might be more intense hurricanes over the next 100 years is not very exciting news.

There are two major papers that I am aware of. One predicted an increase in intensity of hurricanes over the upcoming decades (not a specific year or season) due to GW and the other cited model results that indicated that GW induced higher levels of zonal shear would reduce the total number of hurricanes over the coming decades. Both of these papers were describing model run results that projected (not predicted) what might happen in the tropics if the earth warms X number of degrees C.

There is no one model used to project the impacts of the earth warming 1-4 degrees C. There are many versions and scientists are simply reporting in the scientific literature the results of the model runs. They are NOT writing in these papers that something specific will definitely happen. They are saying this model projects that this might happen over the next 100 years.

Unfortunately what the public hears is warning, warning, danger, more intense hurricanes this year will obliterate the planet. I read the same newspapers and watch the same news, but maybe I have an automatic filter that dismisses the more sensationalistic sounding crap posing as science.

Sigh.

Thank you for having the patience to write a longer narrative.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1398. SLU
September to forget:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1397. ncstorm
Quoting 1391. redwagon:


Once our coffee kicks (I still have to brew mine) you remember that GFS you posted yesterday morning with a system running into TX? Could it be a Wrn track of the CARIB system instead of a homegrown spinup? No rush, take your time getting back to me.. :)


It was the CMC..

open lows now but still plenty of rain..



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1376. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Oh no not questioning if they are right or wrong, just wanted to point that out as they used the same reasoning as they did with the Atlantic:

1) A continuation of the climate pattern responsible for the ongoing era of low-activity for Eastern Pacific hurricanes that began in 1995;

2) ENSO neutral (meaning El Niño or La Niña is unlikely), but with near- or below-average sea surface temperatures in eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.

I find #1 interesting because at some point we will enter a new cycle either increased or decreased activity in the Atlantic at which point the EPAC may be the basin that sees the uptick in activity as opposed to the Atlantic.
So far the Atlantic has been quiet but the Epac even though have a lot of storms none can get to pass cat 1 execpt for Henriette which was just a cat 2.Both basins looks to be dead right now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1382. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
good morning peeps hope ya having a good day


Morning, Keep. It's a beautiful day here in S. Louisiana. How are things waaay up north?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1394. SLU
Quoting 1348. CaribBoy:


By june 2014, I won't be surprised if there are no leaves on the trees...


Could be a bitter next 6 - 8 months weather-wise.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1393. ncstorm
Quoting 1388. southfla:


I do not know any scientist or group who made the claim that GW had anything to do with the predicted above average season and I certainly did not see any claim that any hurricane this season would be more intense due to GW.

Maybe some journalist suggested that or even misstated that, but no scientist did. In fact, the majority of scientists and groups have been VERY careful to not mention GW in their predictions for this season.

The problem is the media gets betwixt and between scientists and the public and in their effort to explain (sensationalize) the science they distort study results in favor of the most extreme prediction. Because well, let's face it, science is boring to most of the public and simply stating that there might be more intense hurricanes over the next 100 years is not very exciting news.

There are two major papers that I am aware of. One predicted an increase in intensity of hurricanes over the upcoming decades (not a specific year or season) due to GW and the other cited model results that indicated that GW induced higher levels of zonal shear would reduce the total number of hurricanes over the coming decades. Both of these papers were describing model run results that projected (not predicted) what might happen in the tropics if the earth warms X number of degrees C.

There is no one model used to project the impacts of the earth warming 1-4 degrees C. There are many versions and scientists are simply reporting in the scientific literature the results of the model runs. They are NOT writing in these papers that something specific will definitely happen. They are saying this model projects that this might happen over the next 100 years.

Unfortunately what the public hears is warning, warning, danger, more intense hurricanes this year will obliterate the planet. I read the same newspapers and watch the same news, but maybe I have an automatic filter that dismisses the more sensationalistic sounding crap posing as science.

Sigh.


Please see the link I provided below from the GW authority source Skeptical Science website..yesterday that website had at least 10,000 hits from bloggers from WU alone posting graphs and articles here in defense of the IPCC report but today when I post an article where they stated GW will fuel intense hurricanes for this year's hurricane season, they are not considered experts??

I cant keep up with the madness here..lord knows I cant..LOL

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1392. SLU
Quoting 1350. hydrus:
I wouldnt go that far. The Philippines is a poor country with earthquakes, volcanoes and typhoons that occur on a regular basis. It is one dangerous and hard place to exist...It is beautiful though..Link


True that
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1386. ncstorm:


sorry If I was rude, not my intentions..waiting on my coffee kick in.. but you are an expert on Global Warming, correct?


Once our coffee kicks (I still have to brew mine) you remember that GFS you posted yesterday morning with a system running into TX? Could it be a Wrn track of the CARIB system instead of a homegrown spinup? No rush, take your time getting back to me.. :)
Member Since: August 4, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3091
Good news [for Wutip]: Shear and dry air seem to have become less of a problem since midnight. Outflow is trying to expand to the east. Dry air entrainment should be harder from here on out.

Bad news [for Wutip]: That dry air entrainment got into the core early this morning. It wasn't terribly destructive, but it did cause the northern eyewall to weaken and perhaps open. That's why we've seen it transition from an eye scene back to a uniform central dense overcast scene.

Should make landfall tomorrow as a Category 2-equivalent.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 112 Comments: 31336
1389. pottery
Quoting sar2401:

No, you would be correct, Pottery, and Nea knows that you're right. However, to admit that would admit that some of his Science Heroes were {GASP!} wrong. Can't have that, since it would indicate some of his Science Heroes are actually human, and denialists might pick up on his admission and use it to say the whole AGW thing doesn't exist. :-)


LOLOL, never did I think that you and I would be perceived to be sitting on the same side of the fence, on this GW thing.

Frankly, though, there is just too much nit-picking in the debate to make any worthwhile progress.
Which is a real shame.

It's got to the point where people are ignoring the obvious science, and are looking for spelling mistakes.....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 23903
Quoting 1313. ncstorm:



care to comment why GW was supposed to fuel stronger hurricanes for this upcoming season?


I do not know any scientist or group who made the claim that GW had anything to do with the predicted above average season and I certainly did not see any claim that any hurricane this season would be more intense due to GW.

Maybe some journalist suggested that or even misstated that, but no scientist did. In fact, the majority of scientists and groups have been VERY careful to not mention GW in their predictions for this season.

The problem is the media gets betwixt and between scientists and the public and in their effort to explain (sensationalize) the science they distort study results in favor of the most extreme prediction. Because well, let's face it, science is boring to most of the public and simply stating that there might be more intense hurricanes over the next 100 years is not very exciting news.

There are two major papers that I am aware of. One predicted an increase in intensity of hurricanes over the upcoming decades (not a specific year or season) due to GW and the other cited model results that indicated that GW induced higher levels of zonal shear would reduce the total number of hurricanes over the coming decades. Both of these papers were describing model run results that projected (not predicted) what might happen in the tropics if the earth warms X number of degrees C.

There is no one model used to project the impacts of the earth warming 1-4 degrees C. There are many versions and scientists are simply reporting in the scientific literature the results of the model runs. They are NOT writing in these papers that something specific will definitely happen. They are saying this model projects that this might happen over the next 100 years.

Unfortunately what the public hears is warning, warning, danger, more intense hurricanes this year will obliterate the planet. I read the same newspapers and watch the same news, but maybe I have an automatic filter that dismisses the more sensationalistic sounding crap posing as science.

Sigh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1372. GatorWX:


It's less boring than no storm.


Very very very very very very (x100) slightly less. Lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1386. ncstorm
Quoting 1383. ScottLincoln:

I am not an expert on how hurricanes and tropical weather respond to year-to-year variability. I've point you in the direction of science and evidence that is more authoritative on the topic, and included friendly advice on how you might be able to find the answer you seek.

Your insinuations are unfounded and very rude.


sorry If I was rude, not my intentions..waiting on my coffee kick in.. but you are an expert on Global Warming, correct?

and by the way, you are rude many times to me and have never apologized for your actions..maybe Im just guarded when it comes to you responding to me..pot calling the kettle black..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1353. GTstormChaserCaleb:
Hey question for you CaribBoy, what is the coldest it has ever gotten in St. Barths? And do cold fronts ever make it as far south as your island?


I think the coldest temperature ever recorded is 16C or 61F. The lowest early morning temperatures occur during the winter months (no surprise here lol), especially jan and feb.

Yes, cold fronts come as far south as 16N sometimes. When they do so, they are generally weak... but still bring a change in the weather : mostly cloudy to overcast, some welcomed little rain showers (amounts are generally lower than 1/2 inch), an increase in winds and seas, and lower temperatures (lows around 70-72 and highs not exceeding 77-78).

The winter season is so boring that cold fronts are always a good thing even though they don't bring much.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is the system Teddy is talking about if anyone else is interested.

Member Since: June 30, 2013 Posts: 11 Comments: 7367
Quoting 1377. ncstorm:


so you have nothing..yesterday and the day before you were a scientist but today you're not..okay..

exactly what I thought..

I am not an expert on how hurricanes and tropical weather respond to year-to-year variability. I've point you in the direction of science and evidence that is more authoritative on the topic, and included friendly advice on how you might be able to find the answer you seek.

Your insinuations are unfounded and rude. Perhaps you could consider avoiding them if you would like people to continue helping you in the future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1382. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
good morning peeps hope ya having a good day
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1381. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
Quoting 1366. ncstorm:


LOL..thanks Scott..I will actually do that..but can you answer my question though on the blog? I just want to hear it from you scientists in layman terms as to why the prediction didnt pan out?
we don't know its all a guess as to how fast things will change and what will be the results of those changes
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1371. ncstorm:


I haven't trashed anyone..I have high most respect for the hurricane experts..I didnt even mentioned anything negative towards them..I just asked where are the intense hurricanes?

I could never do what they do and will never try either to attempt at being an expert..


Fair question, I think you already know my theory why though (I'm by no means an expert though). I wish Levi was around though, he'd explain something to you I'd imagine. Perhaps you should shoot him an IM?
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 23499
1379. 7544
morning all looks like we might have a a few things to watch in a couple of days and fl may be on a alert but will the dry air in the gulf be gone by then and make this a stronger system .

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1429 - 1379

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53Blog 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

Overcast
72 °F
Overcast