Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:26 AM GMT on July 19, 2011

Share this Blog
9
+

Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:

In the last article I wrote that the extreme events of 2011 were providing us with the opportunity to think about climate and how to cope with a warming world. The U.S. is experiencing an extreme heat event this week (Masters @ WU). This heat wave is the consequence of a strong, stationary high pressure system over the central U.S., and it will move to the east over the next few days. Back on July 14th The Capital Weather Gang did a nice write up on the forecast of the heat wave. At the end of this blog are links to my previous blogs on heat waves and human health.

When thinking about weather, climate, and extreme events an important idea is “persistence.” For example, a heat wave occurs when there are persistent high temperatures. Persistent weather patterns occur when high and low pressure systems get large and stuck; that is, they don’t move. In the Figure below, you need to imagine North America and the United States. There is a high pressure center over the proverbial Heartland. With blue arrows I have drawn the flow of air around the high pressure system, and in this case moist air. There is moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico and, in fact on the date when this was drawn, from the Pacific. This is common in the summer to see both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific as sources of continental moisture.



Figure 1: Schematic of a high pressure system over the central United States in July. While generic, this is drawn to represent some of the specifics of 2011. The green-shaded area is where there have been floods in 2011. The brown-shaded area represents sustained drought in the southern part of the nation.

At the center of this high pressure system there is a suppression of rain, because the air is moving downward. This sets up a situation where the surface heats from the Sun’s energy. There is not much mixing and cooling, because of the suppression of the upward motion that produces rain. Hence, if this high pressure system gets stuck, then there is persistent heat. This is a classic summer heat wave.

Let’s think about it some more. There is lot of moisture being drawn around the edge of the high pressure system, and this moisture contributes to the discomfort of people. People – just a short aside about people: if we think about heat and health, then we are concerned about people’s ability to cool themselves. It is more difficult to cool people when it is humid because sweat does not evaporate. Suppose that in addition to this moisture, there is a region where the ground is soaked with water from flooding. Then on top of already moist air coming from the Gulf, there is local evaporation into the air being warmed by the Sun. If on the interior of the high, where the rain is suppressed, there is hot, wet air, then it becomes dangerous heat.

It’s not easy to derive a number that describes dangerous heat. But in much of the eastern U.S. a number that somehow combines temperature and humidity is useful. Meteorologists often use the heat index. It’s the summer time version of “it’s 98 degrees, but it feels like 105.” For moist climates, the heat index is one version of the “it feels like” temperature. Jeff Masters tells me that in Newton, Iowa yesterday, July 17, 2011, the heat index was 126 degrees F. (see here, and 131 F in Knoxville, Iowa on July 18)

Another measure of heat and humidity is the dew point; that is, the temperature at which dew forms, and effectively limits the nighttime low. The dew points in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are currently very high and setting records. Here is a map of dew point for July 19, 2011.



Figure 2: Exceptionally high dew points centered on Iowa.


Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm – heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration. But by how much? Do I need to know by how much before I decide on a plan for action?

If I think about the air being more humid, then I might expect to see trends in the heat index. I might expect to see trends in dew points, and trends in the nighttime minimum temperatures getting higher. (That’s where a greenhouse effect really matters.) I worry about persistent heat, warm nights, and the inability of people and buildings to cool themselves. I worry about their being dangerous heat in places where people and emergency rooms are not used to dangerous heat – not acclimated to heat – not looking for heat-related illness.

Let’s go back to the figure. Rain is suppressed in the middle of the high pressure system, but around the edge of the high pressure system it will rain; there will be storms. (see Figure 3 at the end) The air around the edge of high is warm and very wet. Wet air is energetic air, and it is reasonable to expect local severe storms. (See Severe Storm on Lake Michigan) And if the high pressure is persistent, stuck, then days of extreme weather are possible. If this pattern sets up, then there is increased likelihood of flooding. If I am that public health official, then I am alerted to the possibility of more extreme weather and the dangers thereof. But, again, can the increase of extreme weather be quantified? Do I need to quantify it before I decide on a plan of action?

Still with the figure - what about that region of extended drought and the heat from the high pressure system? Dehydration becomes a more important issue. As a public health official, I start to see the relation of the heat event to other aspects of the weather, the climate. I see the relation to drought. I see the flood, and it’s relation to the winter snow pack and spring rains.

So what I have presented here is to look at the local mechanisms of the weather – what are the basic underlying physics responsible for hot and cold, wet and dry – for moist air? If I stick to these basic physics, and let the climate model frame the more complex regional and global picture, what can I say about the future? Do I have to have a formal prediction to take action? Here in 2011, I see drought and flood and hot weather and warm oceans that interact together to make a period of sustained, dangerous heat. It does not have to “set a record” to convey the reality of the warming earth. It tells me the type of event that is likely to come more often, of longer duration, and of, perhaps, of greater intensity. If I am a public health planner, then I can know this with some certainty. The question becomes, how do I use that information in my planning?

r



Figure 3: Radar loop showing precipitation around the edge of the large high pressure system in the middle of the continent. July 19, 2011.

Previous Blogs on Heat Waves

Hot in Denver: Heat Waves (1)

Heat Waves (2): Heat and Humans

Heat Waves (3): Role of Global Warming




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: 1268 - 1218

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 | 26Blog Index

1268. Xandra
10:36 AM GMT on May 16, 2012
.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1241
1267. ianday7
12:26 PM GMT on March 20, 2012
Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and serious problem. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem: each individual can bring an important help adopting a more responsible lifestyle: starting from little, everyday things. It's the only reasonable way to save our planet, before it is too late.I am very worried
treat anxiety
There is a debate about who is (or are) to blame for this dangerous phenomenon: what are the causes of global warming? Are them the industry CO2 emissions? Are them other gases, maybe made by animals or producted in another natural way, anyway? Is it the whole mankind itself, with its own way of using and abusing the planet Earth?
We think it does not really matter, because the problem exists (yes, global warming is REAL and it is happening) and is useless to look for someone to blame for it: instead, we need to act: everybody should do what is in his/her possibilities to DO something: we as humanity can still slow down the rising of temperature on the planet.
Member Since: July 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
1266. boling
7:55 AM GMT on August 30, 2011
Let's say that the climate of Region 'A' for a 100-year period 'a' had 'X' number of extreme weather events, say 253 us zip code. Meanwhile the climate of Region 'B' for a 100-year period 'b' had 'Y' number of extreme weather events
Member Since: August 30, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
1265. sullivanweather
7:30 PM GMT on August 03, 2011
Neapolitan,

While I appreciate your recognition I'm not particularly fond of your interpretation and comprehension of my comment. The point of my comment was the following: "...there are hundreds of examples of extreme weather of varying nature for various places at various stable lengths of time that can be compared against each other." So while there may be short-term changes in the nature of the extreme weather events, the overall number of extreme weather events remains fairly constant. And by fairly constant I mean despite all the ups and downs the filtered values don't leave a predictable range of values, as shown in this graph of US climate extremes.



So while the number of extreme events recently is higher than it was 40 years ago, for the US, it's roughly the same it was 90-100 years ago. There's essentially no way one can determine what the future of this graph will look like based in the information contained therein. This is why my statement was as such: "There isn't one shred of evidence that today's weather is any more extreme than any other period on record in question in any other region of the world" We can compare today's extreme's (1995-present) with extremes from 1910-1935 for the US and the numbers aren't that far apart with any difference easily explained by much improved data collection/increase in reporting stations. We can also look at the period of 1955-1975, a lull in extremes over the US, but should data exist for other areas of the globe that's compiled and analyzed similarly there would be regions where 1955-1975 were above their long term average of extreme weather events while we were below ours. Keeping this in mind, these aren't even 'stable' climatic periods, which is at a minimum 70 years in length to account for well-documented cyclical changes in the state of ocean basins.

Moving on from real data to a hypothetical. Let's say that the climate of Region 'A' for a 100-year period 'a' had 'X' number of extreme weather events, say 253. Meanwhile the climate of Region 'B' for a 100-year period 'b' had 'Y' number of extreme weather events, say 197.
If the following 100-year period Region 'A' has 212 and Region 'b' has 270. . . and the following 100-year period Region 'A' has 235 and Region 'B' has 233, using this example, over the 300 total years both Regions have 700 extreme events a piece, yielding an average of 233 extreme events per 100-year period.

Right now, using NCDC US data as a crutch, we're 17 years into the second 100-year period of Region 'B' and you're looking at the first 100-year period and comparing it against the increase you're seeing in the beginning of the second 100-year period and extrapolating that out to the third, while ignoring Region 'A'. And, in using this example, in the third 100-year period the number of extreme events at Region 'B' falls back to 'normal'. Furthermore, Region 'B' in having only 197 extreme events over the first 100-year period is going to have a smaller sample of events to be able to determine what exactly is a 100-year event. Using this example its still hard to define what a 100-year event would be considered and that's with three separate 100-year periods. This is why using weather events is, in my opinion, short-sighted when trying to win a climate debate. There's endless apples to put up against infinite oranges.

This is why I take issue with your use of the term denialist, which is an insult to those who actually do take the time out to educate themselves about this subject. So you twist my words to fit me into your 'c' category of denialism, which is "refusing to accept the climate is changing." Using my examples above, extreme weather events can change up and down many times over while the climate remains stable, which is why, again, using weather events to promote the theory of human-induced climate change (the greenhouse gas kind) is short-sighted. It's a lazy argument. How much effort does it take to copy and paste a news article about snowfall in the Atacama Desert?

But I shall go on. You say "I've not seen you say anything in support of AGWT, so I think I can safely assume item 'a'" but right I did write the following: "You don't, in fact, have to convince me that the planet has warmed. So your fingers can save some work there." So again, I ask, why throw around the term denialist? What am I denying in that statement?

And what about your 'b' point? Very simply put, AGWT is overstated. It's occurring but not at the rate which is claimed and won't reach the values modeled. I don't know what else you want me to say here because real world data does not fall into line with GCM's. It just doesn't.

So from here on out you may just want to study a person's curriculum vitae before making an absolute fool of yourself through presumptuous comments.


Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
1264. atmoaggie
5:02 PM GMT on August 03, 2011
I *think* everyone but the average Iowa farmer is pretty convinced that ethanol is not a viable solution to any issue, legitimate or not.

University of Miami scientists find way to identify manmade biofuels in atmosphere
Tracking urban atmospheric plumes using isotopic signatures of vehicle emissions

MIAMI – August 3, 2011 -- Scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science have discovered a technique to track urban atmospheric plumes thanks to a unique isotopic signature found in vehicle emissions.

Brian Giebel, a Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry graduate student working with Drs. Daniel Riemer and Peter Swart discovered that ethanol mixed in vehicle fuel is not completely burned, and that ethanol released in the engine's exhaust has a higher 13C to 12C ratio when compared to natural emissions from most living plants. In other words, the corn and sugarcane used to make biofuels impart a unique chemical signature that is related to the way these plants photosynthesize their nutrients.

The team suggests that ethanol's unique chemical signature can be used during aircraft sampling campaigns to identify and track plumes as they drift away from urban areas. The results of their efforts, titled "New Insights to the Use of Ethanol in Automotive Fuels: A Stable Isotopic Tracer for Fossil- and Bio-Fuel Combustion Inputs to the Atmosphere" appears in the journal, Environmental Science & Technology.

Giebel collected and analyzed air from downtown Miami and the Everglades National Park and found that 75% of ethanol in Miami's urban air came from manmade biofuels, while the majority of ethanol in the Everglades air was emitted from plants, even though a small quantity of city pollution from a nearby road floats into the park.

Air samples from the two locations were subjected to a precise scientific process, first separating the elements using gas chromatography, and then burning each component. The resulting carbon dioxide was put through a mass spectrometer, where the researchers were able to measure the abundance of each carbon isotope.

"According to global emissions estimates, plants release three times as much ethanol as manmade sources," said Giebel. "However, if the amount of ethanol used in our fuel continues to increase, vehicle emissions should eventually exceed natural emissions. This is particularly critical in urban areas because the majority of ethanol in the atmosphere is converted to acetaldehyde, which is highly reactive and considered to be a toxin detrimental to human health."
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
1263. atmoaggie
4:49 PM GMT on August 03, 2011
-
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
1261. JBastardi
3:40 PM GMT on August 03, 2011
It appears that "recorded history" doesn't mean much when it comes to climate observations made by warmists. As everyone knows, weather and climate are cyclical, and simply because we haven't seen it in the past thirty or so years doesn't mean it hasn't happened previously:

Link

Link

Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
1260. Neapolitan
10:26 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:
Neapolitan,

Should your rudimentary analogy were to occur in reality we wouldn't be talking about a 100-year event, which is why I said before, we do not have a long enough period of record to actually define a 100-year event. We simply don't. This is why when you begin on this premise of 100-year events it's inherently wrong.

You also make plenty of assumptions. First, I doubt you even know who I am or ever seen me post here before. I see you're rather new here and this is certainly my first interaction with you. So for you to throw around terms like denialist, without even having the slightest clue of my stance on this subject I can already tell that you're going to be rather cumbersome and arrogant. Second, I do believe it was you who made the coy remark about being 'blinded by ideology' so don't sass me about how amusing you find some supposed accusation. You're not going to be able to turn phrases like that with me, buddy.

So, with that in mind, let me answer your query. You don't, in fact, have to convince me that the planet has warmed. So your fingers can save some work there. You will, however, have to convince me that the climate is changing drastically. Hell, convince me that the climate of today is changing more drastically than it has during any other time during the Holocene.

The term "denialist"--like all similar terms--is simple shorthand for those who a) dismiss the overwhelming evidence in support of AGWT, b) haven't offered their own viable alternate theory to explain the current ongoing climate changes, and c) refuse to even accept the possibility that the climate is changing. It may be true that I don't know who you are, but I've been dealing with this issue long enough that I don't need to read a person's CV to understand how they think; a handful of comments is more than enough to tell me.

Now, my interaction with you began after your statement that extreme weather events were not increasing in either frequency or severity, which is something I had claimed. To me, that fits item 'c'. I've not seen you say anything in support of AGWT, so I think I can safely assume item 'a'. Item 'b' just naturally follows, but if you have, indeed, offered such an alternate theory, and it's been independently tested and is still standing, I'm unaware of it; please forward the particulars, and I promise to retract the "denialist" bit PDQ.

Here's the thing: the claim of increasingly severe events isn't something I or others state lightly. There are decades of solid and rigrous observations by thousands of people behind it. And even if it were true as you state that "we do not have a long enough period of record to actually define a 100-year event."--which it's not; if it were, thousands of scientists and risk management types would be out of work--the long-predicted signals of rapid climate change are unmistakable. If people want to honestly debate about the extent to which our burning of fossil fuels has and is contributing to that change, fine. But to simply dismiss it all as coincidence or nothing out of the ordinary is demonstrably wrong.

In reading your comments here and in your blog, it's evident that your weather knowledge is deeper than that of many WU members. It's just as evident that you've a great command of the written word, which is also something that can't be said of many WU members. Kudos on both.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
1259. iceagecoming
3:48 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Thousands isolated by snowstorm in southern Chile
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 22:39

Polar wave has left up to nine feet of snow and possibly 6,500 people isolated.

President Sebastián Piñera declared much of La Araucania disaster areas on Wednesday, as four days of non-stop snowfall have isolated the region’s predominantly rural communities and wreaked havoc on basic utilities.

“The government has resolved to help those affected, especially those living in Lonquimay,” Piñera said on Wednesday. “We declare the zone a disaster area in order to give us greater tools to help our fellow Chileans.”

Lonquimay, the borough with the second most extensive area in Chile, was affected by a polar front that submerged the town of just over 10,000 into chaos.

Intermittent since Sunday, the snowfall has piled as high as nine feet in some areas. Although this part of the country is no stranger to the cold weather, Piñera described the current polar front as the worst the region has seen in 30 years.

Mayor Guillermo Vásquez told local press on Wednesday that temperatures had plunged to -23 degrees Celsius (-9.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in some of the more rural areas.

According to El Mercurio, sub-zero temperatures have frozen pipes, leaving most of the city without water.

Radiators were also reported to be shorting out and even the fuel in some vehicles’ gas tanks was frozen. The same source described the wave as taking a toll on local firewood supplies.

Moreover, help sent from authorities beyond the storm front has been stalled in delivery due to snow-covered roads. La Segunda reported 400 boxes being sent by the regional government to Lonquimay but only 25 reaching their destination.

“In four days we have had four months worth of snowfall,” said Regional Governor Miguel Mellado in an interview with Canal 13. “We’ve got a very difficult situation here.”

With 70 percent of the population living in rural areas, governor Miguel Mellado estimated that 6,500 people were isolated as a result of the storm.

The communities declared as part of the disaster area are: Lonquimay, Curralehue, Melipeuco, Curacautín, Pucón, Cunco, Vilcún and Villarrica.

By Ivan Ebergenyi (editor@santiagotimes.cl)
Copyright 2011 – The Santiago Times





Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
1258. Ossqss
3:03 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:
Neapolitan,

Should your rudimentary analogy were to occur in reality we wouldn't be talking about a 100-year event, which is why I said before, we do not have a long enough period of record to actually define a 100-year event. We simply don't. This is why when you begin on this premise of 100-year events it's inherently wrong.

You also make plenty of assumptions. First, I doubt you even know who I am or ever seen me post here before. I see you're rather new here and this is certainly my first interaction with you. So for you to throw around terms like denialist, without even having the slightest clue of my stance on this subject I can already tell that you're going to be rather cumbersome and arrogant. Second, I do believe it was you who made the coy remark about being 'blinded by ideology' so don't sass me about how amusing you find some supposed accusation. You're not going to be able to turn phrases like that with me, buddy.

So, with that in mind, let me answer your query. You don't, in fact, have to convince me that the planet has warmed. So your fingers can save some work there. You will, however, have to convince me that the climate is changing drastically. Hell, convince me that the climate of today is changing more drastically than it has during any other time during the Holocene.


I have been here in the background for a longer while than most, and I do appreciate what you bring to the table.

Fact + Reality = Truth as we currently understand it.

Thanks for the binocular view!

Out >>>



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
1257. cyclonebuster
1:22 AM GMT on August 03, 2011


Tied for 8th place now.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
1256. Ossqss
1:20 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Quoting PurpleDrank:
Oceanographers have found several ancient cities under water, some by as much as 120 feet, all 5,000 to 9,000 years old. The Japan Pyramids ruin site could be over 10,000 years old.

The warming problem has been ongoing. The results are the same.

There is no such thing as a long term coastline.



Yup, or back yards in some instances? :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
1255. PurpleDrank
1:07 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Oceanographers have found several ancient cities under water, some by as much as 120 feet, all 5,000 to 9,000 years old. The Japan Pyramids ruin site could be over 10,000 years old.

The warming problem has been ongoing. The results are the same.

There is no such thing as a long term coastline.

Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
1254. Ossqss
1:06 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


The only thing endangered in the polar bear department are the baby seals and climate scientists their ever increasing numbers are going to feed on. Maybe the latter is not a bad notion, eh?

These same people will tell you that T Rex could not have been a predator because his arms were too short.
Duh...Ever stood under a T Rex skeleton and looked up???

At the rate polar bears have increased it's just a matter of time before they overpopulate just as alligators did once they were protected and become an overpopulation problem.


I did on more than one occasion , and didn't like it!

Can you say ~ snack? :)



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
1253. theshepherd
12:41 AM GMT on August 03, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:1196
Purple, you killed the blog :)

Here,,,,,,,,, slice this one to pieces folks.

C'mon, you can do it?



Now Ossymon

How can you post such dribble?

Nobody in this video denounced their belief in God, smacked their lips as they spoke or raised one eyebrow as they spoke.

Yet....the sound of silence is thundering...ain't it?

Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1252. sullivanweather
11:21 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Neapolitan,

Should your rudimentary analogy were to occur in reality we wouldn't be talking about a 100-year event, which is why I said before, we do not have a long enough period of record to actually define a 100-year event. We simply don't. This is why when you begin on this premise of 100-year events it's inherently wrong.

You also make plenty of assumptions. First, I doubt you even know who I am or ever seen me post here before. I see you're rather new here and this is certainly my first interaction with you. So for you to throw around terms like denialist, without even having the slightest clue of my stance on this subject I can already tell that you're going to be rather cumbersome and arrogant. Second, I do believe it was you who made the coy remark about being 'blinded by ideology' so don't sass me about how amusing you find some supposed accusation. You're not going to be able to turn phrases like that with me, buddy.

So, with that in mind, let me answer your query. You don't, in fact, have to convince me that the planet has warmed. So your fingers can save some work there. You will, however, have to convince me that the climate is changing drastically. Hell, convince me that the climate of today is changing more drastically than it has during any other time during the Holocene.
Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
1251. PurpleDrank
11:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen:


"badly"


haha!
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
1250. JupiterKen
11:13 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting greentortuloni:


Actually i think 'bad' could be considered correct. It is a idiom rather than a correct use of an adjective as an adverb. However, 'badly' is a bit odd as an adverb as it implies a mode of losing. I am not sure that it is exactly correct to lose in a bad method, although being a terrible loser is possible. But then again, i think that was the point of the post: being a terrible loser.


I just wanted to repeat the original post. I will now change it to "very, badly". Oh noes... a double adverb thingy.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
1249. Neapolitan
10:52 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:


When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation.


Why is it that denialists who more often than not dismiss the dissemination of basic climate facts as a political grab for power are always the first to accuse others of "drawing ideology into the equation"? It's downright amusing, it is... ;-)

Let's go with your analogy of the rainfall, okay? Let's say that one summer, a particular location experiences a 100-year rain. Then three years later, it experiences another 100-year rain. Two years later, another 100-year rain. Then the next summer, then twice the summer after that, then three times the summer after that, then four times the summer after that, and so on. And let's say the same exact thing happens in ten thousand other nearby locations. Is it your contention that that's just the averages at play? That's just normal?

With that in mind, let me ask you a question I've asked many self-proclaimed "skeptics". What would it take to convince you that the planet is warming, that the climate is changing drastically? Seriously, what would you have to see happening in order for you to say to yourself, "You know what? There really does seem to be something going on." Now, while true "skeptics" always have an answer for that, denialists never do--and that's because they long ago made up their minds that no amount of evidence would ever change their minds.

I see that "theshepherd" has taken leave, having exhausted his or her supply of well-worn and thoroughly-debunked denialist standards. That's too bad; I felt I was making headway. Aside from an obvious misunderstanding as to the definition of self-aggrandizement, I'll miss him/her. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
1248. theshepherd
10:18 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:


When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation.



I bow at your feet for your patience.
I had to put this self aggrandizing, self appointed "scientist" on ignore.

He can post factoids, but he can't speak without his monitors on either side of his podium.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1247. theshepherd
10:04 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting PurpleDrank:





DITTO...post 1228

"I'd rather watch the "View" while eating linoleum and holding a small screaming child with a wet diaper"..."copyright theshepherd". If you steal this quote, I'll sue your pants off.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1246. sullivanweather
10:03 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

"wettest winter in decades..."


"...more than five times the annual average..."

"Four years' worth of rain in one day..."

"Three feet of snow to mountains that normally receive zero precipitation..."

"Something no one had ever seen before..."

"...more than six times its yearly average [of rain]."

"Particularly unusual..."

Why, a person would have to be blinded by ideology to not see the glaringly--and increasingly--obvious. Don't you think?


When a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course there's going to be people that haven't seen it before. And when a climate exists where rainfall occurs once every few years-decades of course when it actually does rain it's going to be a relatively huge amount. Same thing when Mobile, Alabama picks up an inch of snow. They may only average 0.1" of snow a year but that one inch of snow is ten times the annual amount of snow. They don't get snow for another ten years, let's say, it averages out to 0.1" of snow a year. It's a normal event. And it's the same premise here in your attempt to link a the average once-in-every-'x'-years-rainfall in the Atacama to some human induced climate phenomenon and your utterly lame attempt to draw ideology into the equation.

Member Since: March 8, 2007 Posts: 273 Comments: 12612
1245. theshepherd
10:00 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


RE: Project NEON.
It is a totally absurd waste of tax payer money.
Projects funded by the National Science Foundation... "that's our money"

Is NOAA doing such a terrible job that we now need to fund another parasitic organization to replicate NOAA's work?

What about NASA's money???

Should we take away NOAA and NASA money who have been looking at the same thing and send it to NEON?

Get real folks. All we have here is another goldbricking agenda driven comrade for the AGWs.

We don't need NASA. The good ol' US Navy can handle space defense programs and the weather can go to private enterprize. But, oh snap, that would mean that BS walks...

Mars can wait...and it can wait...and it can wait.
What kind of fruitcake thinks that in "this economy" we need to invest more than a penny in space travel?



Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1244. theshepherd
9:55 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:


Discredited by whom? You? Everything that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions is discredited.


The only thing endangered in the polar bear department are the baby seals and climate scientists their ever increasing numbers are going to feed on. Maybe the latter is not a bad notion, eh?

These same people will tell you that T Rex could not have been a predator because his arms were too short.
Duh...Ever stood under a T Rex skeleton and looked up???

At the rate polar bears have increased it's just a matter of time before they overpopulate just as alligators did once they were protected and become an overpopulation problem.
Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1243. greentortuloni
9:48 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Hmm, probably ought to leave the blog for a while after those two posts. They even irritate me and I wrote them
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
1242. greentortuloni
9:47 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen:


"badly"


Actually i think 'bad' could be considered correct. It is a idiom rather than a correct use of an adjective as an adverb. However, 'badly' is a bit odd as an adverb as it implies a mode of losing. I am not sure that it is exactly correct to lose in a bad method, although being a terrible loser is possible. But then again, i think that was the point of the post: being a terrible loser.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
1241. theshepherd
9:45 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:


I don't believe you understand what I'm getting at here. You're talking about 100-year events as if they're some rarity. They happen all the time and the term in of itself is a misnomer. We don't even have a long enough period of record to even begin to define a 100-year event. You're also leaving out a key phrase in that sentence. The 1% chance of occurrence refers to a point on a map, of which we can pull from thousands of qualifying sections for dozens of categories of weather.

Each and every weather event carries with it its own scale and scope. For example, if we're looking at 100-year events of daily rainfall, since rainfall varies greatly over short distances, especially convective rainfall, when you grid out the areal coverage of a point on a map that receives a 100-year daily rainfall event you're only looking at a 20x20km area. How many 400 square kilometer regions can you box the United States into? Then you have to consider the completely random nature of this record in particular. A city can get stalled thunderstorms that drop a 100-year daily rainfall event amounts on July 24th and August 3rd while a nearby city gets nothing. Does this mean the weather of Dallas is more extreme than Waco? And due to how we compile the data the monthly rainfall total in this example would be above average for both months in Dallas but had those events occurred on July 20th and July 31st, in the same month, the monthly total for July would likely be a 100-year monthly rainfall event, so there's ambiguity inherent to the data wit all else being equal.

Then just look at the sheer number of categories of weather we log.

Hi max temperature
Lo max temperature
Hi min temperature
Lo min temperature
Daily mean temperature
Monthly mean temperature
Annual mean temperature
Daily (24hr.) rainfall
Calendar day rainfall
Monthly rainfall (greatest and least)
Seasonal (actual seasons) rainfall (greatest and least)
Annual rainfall (greatest and least)
Daily (24hr. snowfall)
Calendar day snowfall
Total snowstorm
Monthly snowfall (greatest and least)
Seasonal (actual seasons) snowfall (greatest and least)
Annual snowfall (greatest and least)
Calendar year snowfall (greatest and least)
River flow events (low and high)
Drought events (by index/% areal coverage)

This is only scratching the surface of the weather events we keep records of.

There's '100-year events' that can be pointed to happening in the country at just about any time because there's so many different kinds on 100-year events. So the chances of one actually occurring during any given point in time for any given place in the country is likely 100%.


Major Dittos...(Liberals hate that term)
:)

Part of my job requirement was to be certified NPDES Phase II.

I have never seen any Storm Water Management District change a 100 year event status for any stretch of river bank or water shed area. It ain't gonna happen.

Anyone that knows anything about NPDES knows that this was yet another EPA blunder.

The EPA in their infinite wisdom thought they could write a "Universal Code" for all states to comply with. That idea of course folded like a cheap suitcase.
The states now write their own standards that are more realistic and "workable" throughout their many districts.

We don't need the EPA. States can take care of themselves....afterall, we live here, they don't.

Now all you Liberals can go digging into your handy dandy factoids and present something in your usual inexperienced, "stump the teacher", prepubescent mentalities that someone with 38 years in construction doesn't already know...this should be amusing :)



Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1240. JBastardi
9:45 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting streamtracker:


The article you cite relies on a discredited study.



IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

Summary of polar bear population status per 2010

For the subpopulations that have sufficient data the majority are declining. In several declining subpopulations links have been established between decline and sea-ice retreat.

Drowning is not considered the only or major source of decreases in population size in declining subpopulations. Cub nutritional status and female weight are important factors. Fewer weeks of sea ice means less time to feed out on the ice and poorer nutritional status. This increases individual bear mortality and decreases female fecundity. When you simultaneously increase mortality and decrease fecundity a population declines.

Nice summary here: Ursus maritimus

As with most species threatened by climate change, this is only one of the many factors impacting their populations. Hunting of bears and pollution are also considered contributing factors.

The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group is a group of bear biologists and you'll find lots of factual information on polar bears and climate change on their websites.

Or you can rely on JBastardi's link and remain misinformed.


Discredited by whom? You? Everything that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions is discredited.
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
1239. JupiterKen
9:37 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad.


"badly"
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
1238. greentortuloni
9:35 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad.


You might add whining and looking for scapegoats to that list, bra.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
1237. nymore
9:18 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Let me see our educated kids keep performing worse. They don't know the basics such as reading, writing, science and math. They live at home till their 30, don't want to work by a schedule unless it is their schedule. We can't have an opinion that might cause someones feeling to get hurt. We can't cheer at sporting events for children, we can't keep score of the game although ask any kid playing at the end of the game what the score was they will tell you. We always have to tell the person how special and good they are even when they lose and make sure they get a trophy. We must hand out trophies to the team with the least penalties not the winners of the game. We have to be told what to eat, what to drink, where to smoke such as no smoking in bars. We have to wear helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, safety glasses, gloves and shoes just to ride a bike so nobody gets a scratch. Who to sleep with, who can.get married to each other. I could go on all day. Hell now lets teach a 7 year old about global warming and add another department to the government to duplicate what others already do. I mean why not America as a country is just about over anyway. By the way the rest of the world is still playing this game called life, and it is a ruthless game, and we are losing bad.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
1236. theshepherd
9:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting biff4ugo:
What do folks think of the NEON project?
neoninc.org


It is a totally absurd waste of tax payer money.
Projects funded by the National Science Foundation... "that's our money"

Is NOAA doing such a terrible job that we now need to fund another parasitic organization to replicate NOAA's work?

What about NASA's money???

Should we take away NOAA and NASA money who have been looking at the same thing and send it to NEON?

Get real folks. All we have here is another goldbricking agenda driven comrade for the AGWs.

We don't need NASA. The navy can handle space defense programs and the weather can go to private enterprize. But, oh snap, that would mean that BS walks...

Mars can wait...and it can wait...and it can wait.
What kind of fruitcake thinks that in "this economy" we need to invest more than a penny in space travel?



Member Since: September 11, 2008 Posts: 9 Comments: 10030
1235. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:49 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube.

Link


Is this the same author that wrote that article?

Link
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
1234. PurpleDrank
8:06 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
More govt. spending...


not surprised.


replace classic literature with instructions on buying green products.

wonderful.


might as well rewrite Huckleberry Finn and rename the Duke and King, Exxon and Mobil.


educated and informed, indeed.

solve for x.


Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
1233. streamtracker
7:56 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
More brainwashing by the Dept. of Education. They really need to be abolished.

Link


Given that most of the major US scientific organizations have published position papers supporting the basic tenants of climate change science and supporting the observations of increases in global temperatures linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases,

Joint science academies' statement - The National Academies

Scientific organizations supporting the consensus position

I applaud the Dept. of Ed. for taking the initiative to educate our young people regarding an issue that will have a major impact on their future.

I also support Waxman's call for a major push to include climate science in the curriculum of US public schools. An educated and informed public is crucial for efforts to deal with this issue.

Or we can drown in the noise coming from the denialist blogosphere.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
1232. Neapolitan
7:52 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JupiterKen:


The AP is not biased, no siree. They're fair and balanced just like MSNBC, et al (& any Nea favorite ;-)).

Not just the AP: a whole panoply of scientists from all across the climate science spectrum have found numerous flaws with Spencer's paper. Blame it on the messenger, if you want, but the "science" behind the paper just isn't good, and the piece shouldn't have been published.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
1231. biff4ugo
7:41 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
What do folks think of the NEON project?
neoninc.org
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 113 Comments: 1501
1230. JupiterKen
7:35 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting streamtracker:
AP issues a report on scientists reactions to Spencer's paper:

Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor

Favorite blurb: "Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared."


The AP is not biased, no siree. They're fair and balanced just like MSNBC, et al (& any Nea favorite ;-)).
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
1229. streamtracker
5:51 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting JBastardi:
Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube.

Link


The article you cite relies on a discredited study.



IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group

Summary of polar bear population status per 2010

For the subpopulations that have sufficient data the majority are declining. In several declining subpopulations links have been established between decline and sea-ice retreat.

Drowning is not considered the only or major source of decreases in population size in declining subpopulations. Cub nutritional status and female weight are important factors. Fewer weeks of sea ice means less time to feed out on the ice and poorer nutritional status. This increases individual bear mortality and decreases female fecundity. When you simultaneously increase mortality and decrease fecundity a population declines.

Nice summary here: Ursus maritimus

As with most species threatened by climate change, this is only one of the many factors impacting their populations. Hunting of bears and pollution are also considered contributing factors.

The IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group is a group of bear biologists and you'll find lots of factual information on polar bears and climate change on their websites.

Or you can rely on JBastardi's link and remain misinformed.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
1228. PurpleDrank
5:27 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
On a related programming note, Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be aired in its entirety tomorrow evening at 8:00 PM CDT on Current TV. If you're not on of those lucky enough to get the network, you can watch it online.



Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
1227. streamtracker
5:05 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
AP issues a report on scientists reactions to Spencer's paper:

Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor

Favorite blurb: "Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared."
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
1226. streamtracker
5:02 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


So let me get this right.

The first referenced addresses, not links, are not functional.
The next talks about Dry times ahead due to climate change and the next talks about excess precipitation due to climate change.

Everything is a climate change problem?

You are correct, just not for the reasons you think.

Here, try one small piece of the puzzle that does not contradict itself.

Land use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling
analysis and
observational evidence


Absolutely! Landuse change is one factor that changes climate. This is well known by climate scientists. Climate scientists do not claim that CO2 changes are the only factor driving the heat budget of the planet up, but just currently the most important.

"Here, try one small piece of the puzzle that does not contradict itself."

You apparently do understand climate dynamics well enough to understand that it can become dryer in some places and wetter in others. Do you you understand climate zones and what creates them? Why we have deserts in some places and tropical forests in others?
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
1225. JBastardi
4:43 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
More brainwashing by the Dept. of Education. They really need to be abolished.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
1224. JBastardi
4:41 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Looks like "global warming" is actually good for the polar bears. I thought they were going to become extinct. Yet another Algore/IPCC prediction down the tube.

Link
Member Since: July 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
1223. Neapolitan
4:40 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
At 11:00 AM CDT, the following temps have been measured:

Wichita Falls, TX: 102 (predicted to hit 108 today, and 110 tomorrow)
Oklahoma City, OK: 102 (109 today, 112 tomorrow)
Dallas, TX: 99 (108, 109)
Ft. Smith, AR: 100 (109, 109)
Kansas City, MO: 99 (109)
Tulsa, OK: 100 (110, 113)
Wichita, KS: 102 (113)

There will be many hundreds of daily records set today, dozens of monthly highs, and even a number of all-time highs at some stations.

A few other items:

--Today is the 42nd straight in Wichita Falls with temps at or above 100, tying the record there. (It's also the 61st day out of the last 62 to reach that mark.) The most 100-degree days ever in a single year there was 79; today marks the 68th, with many weeks left in peak heat season.

--Today will be Amarillo's 33rd day of the year at or above 100. The average is six, and the previous record was 26.

--Ft. Smith, Arkansas, is suffering through its 29th consecutive day at or above 100. 13 of those says have been records, the hottest being yesterday's 111.

--This will be the 32nd consecutive 100 or higher day in Dallas.

And so on, and so forth. Just more coincidences. Nothing out of the usual...
- - - - - - - - - -
On a related programming note, Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be aired in its entirety tomorrow evening at 8:00 PM CDT on Current TV. If you're not on of those lucky enough to get the network, you can watch it online.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
1222. nymore
4:03 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
I suggest everyone no matter which side of the debate you are on take an hour and watch the video posted by Ossqss post number 1196.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
1221. greentortuloni
3:40 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting sullivanweather:


I don't believe you understand what I'm getting at here. You're talking about 100-year events as if they're some rarity. They happen all the time and the term in of itself is a misnomer. We don't even have a long enough period of record to even begin to define a 100-year event. You're also leaving out a key phrase in that sentence. The 1% chance of occurrence refers to a point on a map, of which we can pull from thousands of qualifying sections for dozens of categories of weather.

Each and every weather event carries with it its own scale and scope. For example, if we're looking at 100-year events of daily rainfall, since rainfall varies greatly over short distances, especially convective rainfall, when you grid out the areal coverage of a point on a map that receives a 100-year daily rainfall event you're only looking at a 20x20km area. How many 400 square kilometer regions can you box the United States into? Then you have to consider the completely random nature of this record in particular. A city can get stalled thunderstorms that drop a 100-year daily rainfall event amounts on July 24th and August 3rd while a nearby city gets nothing. Does this mean the weather of Dallas is more extreme than Waco? And due to how we compile the data the monthly rainfall total in this example would be above average for both months in Dallas but had those events occurred on July 20th and July 31st, in the same month, the monthly total for July would likely be a 100-year monthly rainfall event, so there's ambiguity inherent to the data wit all else being equal.

Then just look at the sheer number of categories of weather we log.

Hi max temperature
Lo max temperature
Hi min temperature
Lo min temperature
Daily mean temperature
Monthly mean temperature
Annual mean temperature
Daily (24hr.) rainfall
Calendar day rainfall
Monthly rainfall (greatest and least)
Seasonal (actual seasons) rainfall (greatest and least)
Annual rainfall (greatest and least)
Daily (24hr. snowfall)
Calendar day snowfall
Total snowstorm
Monthly snowfall (greatest and least)
Seasonal (actual seasons) snowfall (greatest and least)
Annual snowfall (greatest and least)
Calendar year snowfall (greatest and least)
River flow events (low and high)
Drought events (by index/% areal coverage)

This is only scratching the surface of the weather events we keep records of.

There's '100-year events' that can be pointed to happening in the country at just about any time because there's so many different kinds on 100-year events. So the chances of one actually occurring during any given point in time for any given place in the country is likely 100%.


I didn't want to bring all this up because it feeds excuses to the scientologists but your points (and some others that you left out) are true. However, the overall process is still valid. A lot of your points concern the trees versus forest arguments of statistics. Any reasonable statistician would be able to see the forest of global warming for the trees - unless paid not to.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
1220. Patrap
3:17 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
A 1 F degree increase in Global Avg Temp,,creates a 4% increase in WV.


Thus the extreme Precip events noted.

Have a nice day.



......................swoosh


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
1219. nymore
2:53 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Here is the statement by Bond ( With typical atmospheric dynamics,when a large area is exceptionally warm such as the central and eastern United States have been IT IS NOT UNUSUAL for an adjacent area to be substantially cooler as much of the northwest has been ) I see you are getting mad and it is fine if you want to ignore me that is what a child does when they are caught in a lie. Some people can not handle the truth. I will let the people read the ORIGINAL ARTICLE and decide for themselves what it says. BTW the graph you posted is on the original article along with one more so don't act like you just found it I posted the link to it. sigh ;-)
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
1218. Neapolitan
2:24 PM GMT on August 02, 2011
Quoting nymore:
Neapolitan- I like how you took part of a statement from Johnstone at the beginning of the article and part of a statement from the end of the article and added them together to come up with one statement. The statement about nothing unusual is a statement by Nick Bond not Johnstone. Sir are you ever honest and any shred of credibility you had left here has just been taken away. I put the original paper up for people to read themselves. Once again I have proven you dishonest. You were just PWNED

From your comment #139: "James Johnstone Associate Researcher and Nick Bond who is a Research Meteorologist and The State Climatologist make no mention of it and even say it is not an unusual pattern."

Yes, I accept your apologies.

Now, I grow weary of games. Because you choose to continue the juvenile "PWNED" thing, I'm going to ignore you. I'll watch you to see whether you grow out of the phase; if and when you do, we can talk again. Good luck to you.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304

Viewing: 1268 - 1218

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 | 26Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.