WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

2005: Warmest year on record

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 6:57 PM GMT on January 25, 2006

A study released by NASA yesterday confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, narrowly beating out 1998. That year a strong El Niño--a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean--added significant warmth to global temperatures. The new record was set without the help of an El Ni�o. This suggests that a very substantial warming trend is affecting the globe and more "warmest years ever" will continue to occur in this decade--particularly if they are El Niño years. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6° C (1° F ). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C (1.4° F). The five warmest years over the last century have occurred in the last eight years. Reliable instrument records of global temperatures extend back to about 1880, but the consensus scientific view is that the current level of warmth has been unmatched for at least the past 125,000 years.



Figure 1: (Top) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. The blue segments represent the uncertainty of of the measurements at the 95% level. (Bottom) Temperature anomaly for 2005 calendar year. Image credit: NASA Goddard.

The plot of 2005 temperature anomalies shows that virtually all land areas across the globe were warmer than average in 2005. More warming was observed in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, and the U.S. had its 13th warmest year on record. The Arctic had the most warming, helping make the extent of summer ice coverage over the Arctic Ocean in 2005 the lowest ever measured. It's sobering to note that even the Antarctic showed a net warming for 2005. The Antarctic had been the only land area on the globe to have cooler than average temperatures the past decade. If 2005 signals an end to this Antarctic cooling trend, we can expect a higher rate of global sea level rise in coming years as Antarctic melting increases.

Jeff Masters

Climate Summaries

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

hmmm. outlook looks bleak in Dr. Masters opinion. but exactly what does "current level of warmth has been unmatched for at least the past one million years" mean? is that the global average? surely not all places show identical responses...
Very interesting....Hasn't the earth gone through these cycles since the beginning of time...warming up, then the ICE Age, now warming up again?????

Don't fossils show the earth going back and forth with the earth's temperature over the thousands of years???...

Believe me, I am no scientist, just wondering if I remember my ancient history????
Is it possible to account for the measured rise in temperature by correlating it with any or all of the following possibilities: a change in the distribution of heat across the globe rather than a warming of the entire system (climatological oscillations like La Nina, etc), an increase in energy output from the sun, or an increase in the conversion of incoming energy into heat (decrease in reflectivity or increase in greenhouse effect)? I ask from the point of view of a musician who reads nonmathematical physics and climatology with interest... 8-)
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! j/k
TampaSteve,
LOL!!!!

(lost prev post...maybe this will make it, or maybe it will be a dup if the other one ever shows up!)
Tell you what, I feel bad for the generations to follow ours. This report brings a general sadness over me.
Wow, amazing statistics. Of course, if we had those tunnels built none of these problems would exist at all XD
Don't fossils show the earth going back and forth with the earth's temperature over the thousands of years???...

Absolutely, the record retrieved from Greenland's ice cap from two studies in the 1990s that drilled all the way through to bedrock revealed that Earth's climate is unstable. Sudden shifts in climate from warm to cold or cold to warm of 20 or more degrees in just a few years have occurred often in the past 100,000 years. The relatively stable climate of the past 8,000 years is quite unusual (see Figure 1 below). Natural climate change is always occurring, and can be sudden and substantial. However, human meddling with the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere substantially increases our risk of a sudden shift to a new climate state, which would cause great suffering and be extremely costly. How much this risk is, no one can say for sure, because we don't understand the system very well.


Figure 1. Average yearly temperatures in Greenland over the past 100,000 years as inferred from oxygen isotope analysis of the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Fossil records from around the globe have shown that the extreme temperature changes shown here affected the entire globe, not just Greenland. Source: Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow, "Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland throughout the last deglacial transition", Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 383-396, 1997.

Jeff Masters
9. F5
They key from Dr. Masters statements, as well as others, is this..."How much this risk is, no one can say for sure, because we don't understand the system very well."

Until we understand the system better, any action we take, assuming it is the correct action, may exacerbate the problem, or push us too far in the other direction, as well as possibly being the correct action. Or what if it has a positive influence on certain local scales but has adverse affects in other locations. Then who gets to make those decisions? Instead of trying to blast each other with nukes, we'll be trying to blast each other by controlling the weather, with just as dire consequences.

Also, who is willing to take those chances when the correct action and outcome are unknown? I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I want people monkeying around with things they don't understand. It's just not sufficient reason to experiment on.

There are other reasons to reduce emissions into the atmosphere, chief among them reducing pollution/saving the environment, reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, etc.
Dr Masters, thanks again for all the info & your research, this time particularly, how long it has been since the earth was last this warm, the answer to a question I'd posed a week or more ago with very mixed responses.
11. F5
Skypony, you mentioned insurance costs in your last comment in Dr. Master's previous blog...

The way to reduce/eliminate most of the cost of disasters caused by hurricanes/tropical storms would be to not build in areas prone to such storms hitting. If there were no government assistance to rebuild and the cost of insurance were prohibitive, no one would live on the coast, or they would design/build structures that can withstand those types of storms.

After all, would people build homes in the direction of a lava flow of a volcano that erupts several times a year? Should we subsidize the cost of insurance and disaster cleanup just because they have a pretty view?

Now, clearly, we can't abandon the entire sea-coast, so what you do is you tier rate your insurance based on a sliding scale.

For example, suppose you have a building rated to withstand a Cat1 hurricane, then you might pay 5x what a person who has a building/property that was built to withstand a cat 5 hurricane. Now, Cat5 hurricances that hit the US are relatively rare, so you might opt to go with lesser construction and pay less insurance. Say you went with a Cat3 level construction, then anything Cat 1 - Cat 3 would be covered in full by your insurance. But, if you got damage from a Cat4, then insurance would only cover say 80% of the cost to repair/rebuild. If you had cat1 building and hit by a cat4, then insurance would only pay 40%.

This would of course encourage people to build with the knowledge of what would happen up front and discourage people from building the minimum or building at all if they don't have the resources to cover the shortfall.
However, human meddling with the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere substantially increases our risk of a sudden shift to a new climate state, which would cause great suffering and be extremely costly. ~It's kinda hard not to see this as a key statement

Yes there are many reasons we should stop putting chemicals with Global Warming Potential (GWP), into the air. But it's kinda hard to ignore they're making a hole in our ozone layer, which is medeling pretty hard with our envirement.
Also, who is willing to take those chances when the correct action and outcome are unknown? I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I want people monkeying around with things they don't understand. It's just not sufficient reason to experiment on.

Continuing on our present course is an experiment.

It's an experiment that, according to our best available models, is likely to exacerbate global warming, with extremely expensive and deleterious consequences.

We have nothing better to go on than our best available models. They might be wrong, but that's not the way to bet.
F5 ~ I totally agree about your thoughts of people building on the coast. That's why I don't live beach side. Even as a rare town native i bought an older home, not into the new rampent shoddy developement. As for my mention of insurance that pertained to Cyclonebusters need for someone to help with his research & trouper's accusations I was being totally mean to the dude. I was saying that i was trying to be helpful by stating perhaps an insurance company might like to look into helping him, since maybe this could help the insurance companys reduce their loss.
F5, I very much like that insurance idea.
Yeah ~ F5, I guess i should have said I totally agree with your insurance scale as well. At least here Nationwide does that to some extent. You get discounts for many of the upgrades available to storm ready a house, even for agreeing to board up!
17. F5
Well, from a disaster perspective, we've simply moved the costs associated with living in harms way from those who should bear them to those who shouldn't. I have nothing against people wanting to live on/near the ocean. And I have nothing against spreading out the risk of those who live there. But they have simply shifted some of the true costs to those who shouldn't pay any price whatsoever.

It should boil down to a risk/reward scenario, and unfortunately, given all the government bailouts, they've removed a lot of the risk associated with making bad decisions.

Somehow though, given the state of our government, I'm sure they'd find a way to make it illegal(if it isn't already) to enforce these kind of requirements.
18. F5
Skyepony, re: greenhouse gases being a substantial risk, I just don't know. Seems like everyday there is some new discovery that is in opposition to our current understanding, so I just can't see placing a substantial risk assessment on it, because we really don't know how the climate responds. The increased warming that is currently occurring could be for a multitude of reasons, none of which may have anything to do with the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we release. It's also possible that they overestimate the quantity of greenhouse gases attributable to human actions. Remember, just the other day they discovered that plants are emitting a lot of methane into the atmosphere. Was that methane previously attributed to human activity? An important question that I don't think they answered.

As far as the hole in the ozone layer, we have done a good job of reducing the quantity of aerosols into the atmosphere. At this point, that's pretty much all we can do. Even that interaction is poorly understood.
19. F5
jeffB,

Living our lives is an experiment? I suppose you could think of it that way, but the only way to know for sure what effects humans are having would be to have another earth with all the same history, features, interactions, etc., with the exception of having no humans, and then measuring the differences between the two. Since that isn't possible, and we are part of the system, then our conclusions may be suspect. It doesn't matter what our best available models say, because it could be just as likely that being the best of a bad bunch doesn't really do much for you. After all, if you had 10 programs to calculate your taxes and they were all wrong, it may not matter that 3 of them were the best of the available programs, they are still wrong. Until you know why they are wrong and can fix them, they can only produce one possible out of an infinite number of choices, and I don't really think I want to wager on those odds.
20. F5
Of course, the tax calculation may not be a good example anyway, because at least theoretically, there is a correct answer. Given a dynamic environment such as the earth's climate in which there is no right answer, it's that much worse.
21. Inyo
Yes there are many reasons we should stop putting chemicals with Global Warming Potential (GWP), into the air. But it's kinda hard to ignore they're making a hole in our ozone layer, which is medeling pretty hard with our envirement.

the greenhouse gasses (co2, methane, etc) arent the gasses that cause the ozone hole. It's a seperate issue.

Has anyone speculated on why the earth's climate for the past few thousand years has been so stable (except in California, apparently)? I mean, what if over the last 100 years we would naturally be slipping into a cold pattern, which is being negated by the CO2? If this were the case, then when the pattern switched back to warm, the shift would be much more extreme than the others in the past.
Man I wish my school would have let me use gobal warming for my pre graduation project. They wouldnt let me do it. There is so much information on this site alone I could easyly write a 4-7 page paper.

Anyways F-5 I agree with only some of what you are saying. I feal that less people should build on the coast. This is more of an issue in the East coast and the Gulf states. You got to keep in mind however even with increased storms the chances of the worst part of a Hurricane going over your area is still fairly slim in ones average life time.
23. F5
lightning10,

You are right, the chances of even having the worst part of a hurricane go over your area are marginal (although I'm sure for those who have had it happened, they would claim anything but :)).

That said, there are a variety of reasons we shouldn't build right on the coast. Some are economic , some are environmental, and some are weather related. I think we've hidden the true economic costs of living in what really can be a dangerous area, thus allowing people to make decisions they might otherwise not make. It's been said repeatedly, storms may not be getting any stronger, but the damage estimates only go higher as more and more people build in harm's way. And as more people build there, that only adds to the potential environmental damage as well. And I'm not a greenie either, but I'm not stupid. The more phosphates, fertilizers, etc that go into our streams and eventually end up in rivers and our oceans are not good. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.

I think that kind of insurance plan though, could help put a little balance back into the equation. That, and eliminating the federal assistance that goes along with hiding/redistributing the actual costs.
24. F5
Inyo,

If I recall correctly, we were coming out of a cold period anyway coming into the 20th century. Should the warming period be over? Who knows. Who's to say that next year, we aren't going to go into a cool phase again, and that the CO2 will help mitigate it. Who's to say that the earth doesn't have a way to eliminate excess CO2 from the atmosphere as well. We don't know the answers to these possibilities, which makes selecting options to try and change things a total crap shoot.
A few years ago I was browsing through this article and found an essay about the ozone hole which, among other things, suggested that the gasses making it were actually due (by a degree of orders of magnitude) to volcanic eruptions in Antarctica rather than human production of CFC's. At the time I thought it worth considering. Now, Who knows? It is worth a reread, I think.

http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/mevo.html

is the homepage for volcanic activity at Antarctica's active Mt. Erebus.



all her this all her this big news in the weather today

record wind 200mph+ extensive damage to vistor cetner at grandfather mt nc at 5 ,964ft so all her this all her this
I would also like to note that even thow there was 50% chance of rain today in Phoenix, AZ today and there where a lot of factors working for a rainy solution there was no rain for the area. Flagstaff, AZ was expected to get around 3-4 inches of snow and only 2 inches fell(it still might be falling). Doesnt look like any rain will fall for most of the south west for the next 5-7 days.
F5, regarding your comments

"If I recall correctly, we were coming out of a cold period anyway coming into the 20th century. Should the warming period be over? Who knows."

Climate scientists say that the warming due to the huge increase in CO2 is just starting. They've been predicting this for some time.

"Who's to say that next year, we aren't going to go into a cool phase again, and that the CO2 will help mitigate it. Who's to say that the earth doesn't have a way to eliminate excess CO2 from the atmosphere as well."

Again, climate scientists refer to us "taking over the climate". There is not going to be another ice age now because of the forcing we've introduced. We are talking about a huge increase in sea level (how does a couple meters sound?) and 6-10 degree warmer weather for your kids.

The Earth DOES have ways to eliminate excess CO2, but these processes work on timescales of millenia.

"We don't know the answers to these possibilities, which makes selecting options to try and change things a total crap shoot."

No. We are on track to double atmospheric CO2 by the end of the century. The consequences of this are at once incredibly plain and awfully painful. Options are to convert to total carbon sequesteration now or ensure that one billion people's homes are in the ocean in one century, and that a wave of extinction rolls across the planet. Take your pick.

WE'RE IN AN ICE AGE





There is no danger of this planet exceeding the high end of its normal temperature range in the next several million years.

There is no danger of "runaway greenhouse effect", as can be seen from the second chart. CO2 levels have been twenty times their current levels with no runaway greenhouse effect.

The normal condition for this planet is to have no ice sheets.

The greater risk is for the planet to freeze over and kill off all the plant and animal life. Look up "snowball earth" on your search engines.
Well the news just keeps getting better and better, if you own property about 100 meters above current sea level. :-)

One of the important things that Dr. Master's mentioned in the reply about the fossil record and what it tells us about our current climate was this:

"meddling with the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere substantially increases our risk of a sudden shift to a new climate state"

That's the big concern and the big unknown. We are in uncharted territory when it comes to the current level of CO2 and other gases that contribute to global warming. There is no fossil record to look back on so that we can say, "We'll, when it was like this back in the unknown era blah, blah happened."

This is akin to the freezing water analogy: suppose you lived in a place where it had never gotten below 32. So being the inquisitive experimenter you get some water and start lowering the temperature. You make careful measurements of the viscosity, volume, and other attributes that you can measure. After a while you begin to think, "As the temperature drops waters volume changes in this manner and it's viscosity changes like this." Then all the sudden you hit freezing and you're eyes bug out. You would have never thought that water could turn into a solid.

We may - MAY - be in a similar situation with the Earth's climate. There are so many feedbacks, many of them positive, that in the next few years we may face a world that we thought was only possible in the hyperbole of Hollywood.

That's pretty much the feeling I have right now about the warming trend. It's like watching a Hollywood movie that takes place over the span of decades. The current administration is so oblivious to what's at stake that they seem like caricatures of themselves.

We say to ourselves that it will level out before it gets too bad. But that's not what the charts say. We used to think that the climate needed 1000 years to make any significant change. Now we know better.

What can you do? You can make your own drop in the ocean effort to cut back on your own contributions but it won't matter. You can join a cause, donate money, whatever but that won't make a difference. We are on a course and we'll have to follow it through. It reminds me of Santayana who said, "Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it." To which I would add, "Those who do know history - and climatology - are condemned to be dragged kicking and screaming into repeating history by the unknowing masses."

My personal feeling here is to enjoy the show and be as prepared as possible to survive in a changing environment. It going to get worse and worse, faster and faster.

Posted By: VentusMaximus at 1:36 AM GMT on January 26, 2006.

We are in uncharted territory when it comes to the current level of CO2...


The black line in the second chart in my post a little above yours is the CO2 content. In the past 600 million years it has nearly always been many times the current level.

We are at the extreme low end of the scale. The variations being mentioned today would not even be noticeable changes on the overall chart.

so are the sea temp going to be hoter then last year hurricane year
I googled snowball earth~ amazing, I had forgotten, a little tiny bacteria, billions of years ago, began releasing Oxygen as a waste product. This mixed with abundant methane making CO2. Though many people mention CO2 as a major greenhouse gas it is not with it's GWP=1. Methane's GWP is much higher (no where near some things we release these days). Anyways, once the methane was gone the earth froze, even to the equator, for a good long time. Tiny little bacteria ratically changed the climate of the whole earth & some people don't think humans could do the same?

Inyo ~ thanks for pointing out something i keep forgetting to touch on. That the ozone hole issue & greenhouse effect are 2 totally different things. The greenhouse effect is much more easily argued, that humans have little impact, as we can't be exactly sure what is releasing how much of what. The ozone hole is different. We need that layer to survive as a species, enough that numurious laws have been passed to help reduce it. We know what chemicals destroy it as it is easily recreated in a lab.

As for the volcano ozone hole~ that has been predictied to occur in the future by NASA. When there is a lot of volcano activity in the N hemisphere, we could see a spring time hole over the north pole (current hole is over south pole) due to the sulfuric acid + what we've done to thin it already.
California,

That's a cool chart. You posted it while I was writing so I didn't see it until afterward.

You're right, during the Paleozoic the CO2 levels were off the charts compared to today. But that was a totally different world. Just think of what our climate would be like if we got back to Cretaceous levels. In the recent past, say million years or so, that we have a good idea of the state of the climate we can say that CO2 levels are at an all time high. The feedbacks that we face right now with melting polar ice and the corresponding decrease in albedo, melting of permafrost, increased temperatures and increased water vapor content, they all point to higher and higher temperatures that will feed back faster and faster.

So, your right about the CO2 levels but I don't think the Paleozoic levels can be taken into consideration. Hopefully one of our resident experts will help us out with that.

Dan
"I'm not sure where I'm going, but what am I doing in this hand-basket?"
36. F5
VentusMaximus,

There was an article on science.com the other day that stated that albedo is increasing, not decreasing. They were unsure why when temps were up too. More proof that no one really understands the climate and how it all interrelates.
38. Inyo
Inyo,

If I recall correctly, we were coming out of a cold period anyway coming into the 20th century. Should the warming period be over? Who knows. Who's to say that next year, we aren't going to go into a cool phase again, and that the CO2 will help mitigate it. Who's to say that the earth doesn't have a way to eliminate excess CO2 from the atmosphere as well. We don't know the answers to these possibilities, which makes selecting options to try and change things a total crap shoot.


well as you know, 50% chance of rain means its just as likely it wont rain. that being said, watch that little blob of moisture off the so-cal coast.. whats up with that?

very true. i believe that reduction in fossil fuel consumption is worth it since it has other beneificial effects too, even if it doesnt stop the warming which may be largely natural. but i dont think we should build giant tunnels to shut down the gulf stream or anything :)

and as someone who spent 3 years living/working in and around malibu, i agree 100% with your thoughts on the idiots living in harms way and crying about it.


Posted By: lightning10 at 1:10 AM GMT on January 26, 2006.
I would also like to note that even thow there was 50% chance of rain today in Phoenix, AZ today and there where a lot of factors working for a rainy solution there was no rain for the area. Flagstaff, AZ was expected to get around 3-4 inches of snow and only 2 inches fell(it still might be falling). Doesnt look like any rain will fall for most of the south west for the next 5-7 days.



There is no danger of this planet exceeding the high end of its normal temperature range in the next several million years.

i dont think our actions are going to cause the 'high end' of possible temperatures on the planet. that being said, how can you say in any confidence that there's no danger that these temperatures won't occur anyway? Obviously there are factors other than human ones involved. and with or without us, in the next 5 billion years before the sun goes nova, it will surely get a lot hotter at some point.


The normal condition for this planet is to have no ice sheets.


true but the normal condition of our planet also puts a billion people underwater.

ive often wondered myself if releasing the CO2 might not be 'good' for the planet as a whole... biodiversity and biomass increases with temperature and moisture... as a whole, warmer temperatures mean a more 'productive' earth.

But we are a species of dry deserts and cold, windy steppes. A conversion to swamp and jungle would not do our species any good.
39. Inyo
There was an article on science.com the other day that stated that albedo is increasing, not decreasing. They were unsure why when temps were up too. More proof that no one really understands the climate and how it all interrelates.

well, one theory is that warmer temperatures mean more clouds, and the clouds increase the albedo.

the earth isnt drifting away from the sun at any appreciable rate. To my knowledge, studies have been done on solar output and it is not believed to have raised or decreased enough to be responsible for recent climate changes.
hey cyclone i think your obssed over this tunnel thing
Albedo is one of those things I can never keep straight. My dyslexia doesn't help. It's a measure of reflectivity. So as the reflectivity goes up - Earth becomes more white - albedo goes up. As ice melts and the underlying water/ground is exposed the Earth gets darker - albedo goes down.

Do I have that right?

It shouldn't be surprising that albedo is going up if there is in increase in water vapor. That will still add more heat to the planet since water vapor is a GHG.

You know, speaking of which, what isn't a GHG? :-) In a way all gases are GHGs because with no atmosphere the planet would be very cold, overall.
I'm building back..hi tampa steve; I'm still alive lol
Califonia, I love your graphs. But you haven't really grasped the essential fact, which is that HUMAN CIVILIZATION has entirely been founded and built up in the last 10,000 years. Look at your graphs and highlight the last 10,000 years. That is the "normal" climate which we take for granted and upon which our civilization is based.

If there is a sudden shift away from the relatively cool conditions that have provided the background climate for our civilization (and I acknowledge that the planet has often been much warmer), then we risk an equally sudden collapse of all we hold near and dear. Our civilization has the appearance of being stable - it is not.

And with our current emissions of greenhouse gases we are doing what our best models and our best scientists say we shouldn't be doing, namely pushing the global climate system towards a new and much warmer equilibrium. The planet will take it in stride, but our human civilization will not.

It is ironic that some of the biggest losers in a much warmer climate (the US, China and India) are the ones that who are emitting most of the greenhouse gases, while relative winners (Canada and northern European countries) are the ones far-sighted enough to be taking measures NOW to reduce emissions.

Posted By: Inyo at 3:11 AM GMT on January 26, 2006.

The normal condition for this planet is to have no ice sheets.

true but the normal condition of our planet also puts a billion people underwater.


Heheheheh. No, they will move out of the way.

The record clearly shows that this planet is most likely to loose all of its ice sheets at some future time. It's natural and normal, and I think we're smart enough to be able to adapt.

.. biodiversity and biomass increases with temperature and moisture... as a whole, warmer temperatures mean a more 'productive' earth.

From what I've read, the record seems to show that too. They say the planet was teeming with life during the warm periods.

LOL cyclone you would make it great with Jay Leno lol thats too funny
i have to say this tunnels thing is all a joke some things cant be done.
I just want to know what is considered 'normal' the earth fluctuats so much that you cant call anything we are seeing today as 'normal'
Califonia, get real.

People will "move out of the way" if global sea level rises?! Where do they (eg. the Dutch, Pacific Islanders, people in Florida and along every ocean coast) go?

"Smart enough to adapt"? The USA wasn't even smart enough to build good dams and levees in New Orleans, one of the most flood-threatened cities in the world. What makes you think smartness will suddenly develop as sea level starts to rise?

If we were smart, we'd act now in a preventative fashion.
Snowboy,

I totally agree with many of your comments:

1-Our civilization has existed during a very temperate and stable Holocene period. Toss in a few more events like the "Little Ice Age" and droughts in the American SW and there goes our budding civilization. Archaeologists have discovered that changing climates of the past may have been the primary reason for the decline of a number of civilizations.

2-Mother Earth is going to be just fine no matter what we do. Lets stop talking about saving the planet and start talking about saving our civilization. I've often wondered just how stable Western Civilization is. I think that the next few decades will put it to the test.

There is no doubt that our civilization is chaotic but it's the type of chaos that matters (It may sound like I know more about this than I do, which isn't much.) Is it the type of chaos that is all over the place like a marble rolling around in the bottom of a bowl? It would take a lot to get the marble out. Or, is it the kind where the marble is on the edge of the bowl being pulled back and forth and just managing to stay up? If that's the sort that we have then a "tipping event" could be Global Warming.

On the plus side, the summer blockbuster movies haven't been that good - over all - for the past few years. Lucky for us we've had some very entertaining hurricanes to take up the slack. :-) (My wife would kill me if she read that. )

Dan - the blowHard
Really? Well look at all the ups and downs on those graphs prior to the industrial revolution, that tells you how 'normal' global temps are. The only thing you can consider 'normal' on this planet is that the climate will change.

Posted By: snowboy at 3:31 AM GMT on January 26, 2006.

Califonia, I love your graphs. But you haven't really grasped the essential fact, which is that HUMAN CIVILIZATION has entirely been founded and built up in the last 10,000 years.


Excellent observation, Snowboy.

However, I believe that if Greenland, Iceland, Antarctica, Siberia, Alaska, etc., became fertile lands with forests and wildlife, that it would INCREASE possibilities for humans rather than decrease them.

Sure, we lose some coastal land (we still keep about the same amount of coastilne), but we gain far more in land that is no longer covered in ice.

I don't see how we lose in that scenario.

By the way, F5 was correct, in a post he made a ways above this one. A study was released yesterday showing that since 2000, even though CO2 has increased, and global temperatures have increased, the earth is now reflecting more of the sun's energy back into space than it is absorbing.

They don't have a theory as to why, and they pretty much are saying they no longer believe they understand clouds, or the role of clouds in the whole CO2 / global warming theory.

That graph shows a .00001 second in the life of the Earth. Look at the graphs above on this blog, that will show you how chaotic the climate is on this planet.
HurricaneMyles - for our modern technical civilization (with an earth population in the billions) "normal" is the climate of the last 100 years.

Any major move away from that "normal" will quickly push our house of cards toward collapse. Right now we're moving away from that normal (getting warmer) by about 0.2 degrees C per decade, with that rate of warming predicted to increase ...

Note that if you correct Dr. Masters' temp graph of the last century for the effects of above-ground nuclear testing (which off-set the global warming from the 1940s through the 1970s), then the overall trend is a pretty steady climb in global temps since 1900...
Maybe so, however, just because what we consider 'normal' in sense of what we expeirence does not make it 'normal' for the Earth to be like that. We are actually in a very abnormal time as the Earth has been relativly stable for the past few thousand years
My point is that the climate is going to change whether we directly do it or not. Instead of trying to stop it we should develope techniques to deal with it.
great, luckly I have digital cable. Anyway, its nice having a lot of people from around Philly. During the hurricane season everyone was from flordia or some other place in the south where there were hurricanes so they didn't care about snow. Whats really suprising is that I don't remember anyone from New York City or Boston coming on here. Not even Northern New Jersey (Correct me if I'm wrong).
sorry flipping back between blogs
A lot of nuclear tests those days were in Nevada and other land sites around the world, it wasen't until later in the period that they went underwater. Plus it wasen't the upwelling that curbed global warming(i dont know how upwelling would, the heat is only moving around, not leaving the planet), but the cloud which obsorbed much heat from the sun.
HurricaneMyles, yes climate is "chaotic" in that things are always changing - but can you discern a trend on Dr. Masters' graph of temps since 1880?

My reading of that graph is that aside from the nuclear bomb-induced slight cooling from the 1940s to 1970s (the dust thrown up cut-off and reflected away incoming solar energy), the trend has been inexorably upward since 1910. Note that some nasty volcanos and meteors caused some of the brief downturns between 1880 and 1910. Note also the two cool years in the early 1990s were caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in Indonesia.

The overall trend is upward, upward with no end in sight and in fact with all serious models predicting further temperature rises. The only difference between the models is the magnitude of the predicted ongoing rises in temperatures. Is this going to be good for our civilization?
No is doubting the principle behind your idea. If you could get it to work great, it would lower SST's when needed and slightly lower our dependence on fossil fuels which will indirectly help the enviornment. However, getting your idea from priciple to real life is extremely difficult. If you really want to get this done stop arguing with us and find someone to fund some more reseach because you need to overcome the fact that Bernoulli Principle assumes (1) a closed-loop system, (2) constant density of the fluid and (3) no externally applied flow. This is possible in a theory, in practice there is simply no such thing as a closed hydraulic loop in which fluid circulates with no external flow.
cyclonebuster, there was above-ground nuclear testing (done mainly by the US, Russia and China) in the 1940s through 1970. Greenpeace came of age as an organization, by mobilizing world opinion and forcing an end to it.
Snowboy,
I don't dispute that the Earth is warming. The graphs show we are in a relativly cool period temperature wise and it would be expected for us to warm. I'm simply saying we cant expect the climate to stay in this 'normal' period we've seen during out brief exsistance.
And as far as good for our civilization? No, it probably won't be. However, unless conditions become extreme, that is either a bad ice age, really, really hot temps, or metero strike, basicly something cataclysmic, humans will survive. Civilization(knowledge, culture, ect) won't and we will have to relearn everything we already have, but I'd say we have a good chance of surviving as a species.
cyclonebuster,
if its going to warm up to levels its been in the past there's nothing we will be able to do to stop it.
Hey everyone,

Honestly, I'm beyond tired of the obsessive and alarmist push to blame the NATURAL global warming trend of our planet on human activities, as though we have that much control over our climate in the first place. In reality, it is both foolish and naive to think so.

As Califonia has done an excellent job of pointing out as well as others, the ONLY true way of eliminating ANY possible effect(regardless of how ever so small it may be) would be by reducing the human population. I for one am not in favor of that.

In other words, the continued population increases, along with increased metropolitan areas taking the place of wooded urban areas are naturally going to allow more record breaking heat readings as a result of these temperatures being recorded out in more exposed locations surrounded by heat enhancing asphalt areas amongst other things. Of course, this type of simple logic continues to be overlooked when taking historical records into consideration.

I still can't understand why anyone would be surprised if the Earth slowly(relatively speaking)and gradually saw an increase in sea level. It is an undeniable FACT (not speculation)that the vast majority of our coastal states were underwater in the past and will be so again. Think about it, if I decide to build a home on a sand bar at low tide, how much control do you really think I will have over the NATURAL causes that will ensure its ultimate destruction? It will simply be a matter of time before the ocean NATURALLY reclaims what is rightfully hers to begin with.

I know that this analogy will sound foolish to those with an opposing view, but the reality is that whether it be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years from now, the ocean will once again NATURALLY reclaim these same coastal areas that were historically underwater and the destruction of our properties should not be blamed on any human activity other than the fact that we have built in these areas for as long as nature will allow us to keep them.

In short, the Earth will most likely continue to warm at record breaking levels(which is not very significant because of the limited time period of reliable record keeping)for more centuries to come. Therefore, if one were to completely eliminate ALL greenhouse gas emissions worldwide for example, what will be your next excuse for this NATURAL warming phase of climate variability?

Moreover, who can accurately predict that there WILL NOT be a far greater impact on the human race than what is perceived by the most extreme proponents of the Global warming theory? In reality, no one really knows nor could know in advance. People need to understand that the Earths atmosphere is so inherently complex that scientists have a hard enough time predicting climate change a week in advance(that most people complain about when they are not surprisingly incorrect on their forecasts), much less think they or anyone else can accurately predict Global climate change decades in advance. You have to remember that the computer models are incorrect the vast majority of time even a few days in advance and they are only as good as the information and hypothetical assumptions that are put into them.

Now, consider how VERY LIMITED our true understanding is of the Earths atmosphere. Please tell me how ANYONE can make a full proof prediction as to what will ACTUALLY occur a century from now. That is not only extremely arrogant but incredibly foolish to suggest such a thing.

The only thing we can all can know for certain is that most SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG MOST OF THE TIME, so a consensus of them means VERY LITTLE to support this speculative argument. Likewise, we can also be assured that WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL the weather and it is quite arrogant to even think otherwise, because our attempts to do so, may very well have far worse adverse consequences (makes we think of a tunnel idea I heard about once).

I am sure that all those on here who want to blame everything from last weeks sinus problem to the next severe thunderstorm in their own backyard on human induced global warming, will repost my comments and give their best UNPROVABLE AND SPECULATIVE rebuttals. However, the simple FACT is that it is UNDENIABLE that noone truly knows how much warmer or even cooler the Earth might have been had we never inhabited our planet.

Moreover, the same has to be true when trying to determine if we have truly had ANY noticeable impact on the earths temperatures with greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is that it is impossible to know and will never be known. All arguments in support of this theory amount to little more than speculation and conjecture.

Therefore, people will keep posting their favorite links and posting on these blogs as to what they personally think or choose to believe. On the other hand, it truly matters very little because there is no scientist, computer model, or anything else than can PROVE that we have had ANY SIGNIFICANT effect on climate change. As a result, this debate will last for as long as we all inhabit the earth. Then at that point, there will be no one still here to tell us how much effect if any, we have truly had on NATURAL climate change.

Please note that I am also in favor of finding alternative forms of energy as well, but not because environmental alarmists are trying to blame it on the ultimate extinction of our planet. Can we all please use a little common sense and humility and stop thinking we know more than we do or could possibly ever know. Just a thought.:) Honestly, I can think of more valid and reasonable reasons for finding alternative and cleaner forms of energy than abscribing to the aforementioned human induced global warming GUESS.


Well, I hope everyone has a great night and I am sure I will awaken to more of the same ongoing UNPROVABLE and speculative worse case assumptions regarding this post by those who have a right to believe what they wish. Honestly, I am most disappointed that there seems to be a correlation between ones political affilation and their perspective on this issue.

I will never understand the logic in that reality since I believe EVERYONE is in favor of reduced pollution. On the other hand, too many are going overboard and don't face the reality that to elimate all pollution would require doing away with the entire human race. Simply put, this is really the ONLY way to get rid of it all. Instead, the extremists want to suggest that the extinction of the human race will actually occur because we are driving automobiles for one example.

See, this debate is never ending and there are far greater threats to our survival than the relatively trivial increase in Global temperatures that are NATURAL and should continue to be expected before this NATURAL climate warming phase once again reverses itself.

Thanks,
Tony


Califonia, in your scenario of lose some land but gain some land so who cares:
- the land we lose along the ocean coasts is our most valuable land. It holds fertile farming areas, and many of the world's great cities.
-the land we gain in Siberia and Greenland will take 100s of years to develop soil and grow forests - we just don't have that time.
Cyclonebuster,
Do you understand that if the earth is going to warm to levels that it has before your tunnels will not do anything to stop it? You should, the Earth has so much more influence then your tunnels.
Oh god, the ignorance in that statement is unbelievable.
HurricaneChaser, it would be nicer if you joined the discussion rather than just posting a huge diatribe and ducking out again.

Your rant about scientists and models surprises me. We have scientists (meteorologists) who use models to try to predict hurricane tracks and intensities. We know they're not perfect, in fact they'e often way off. But they're the best we've got, and people respect them and make major decisions based on what they're telling us.

Why is the situation suddenly different when it comes to climatology? Again, we have scientists (climatologists) who use their models to try to predict future trends in world climate. We know they're not perfect, but again they're the best we've got. In the rest of the civilized world, people respect them and are making major decisions to try to curb greenhouse gas emissions based on what they're telling us.

Not the USA though. Because of some toxic mix of idealogy, religion, and general hubris the overall US approach to the threat of global warming appears to be shoot the messenger, ignore the message, and go on polluting as if there's some God-given right to do so.

As pointed out below, it's funny in a kind of sad way because the US is one of the countries that has the most to lose as a result of a warming climate.
3 cheers for snowboy. Right on the money.
By the way, forgot to say hi Chaser, good to hear from you. Hope your house troubles are getting resolved. Note that I respect your abilities as a scientist, even as I disagree with your opinions...
It could be all over tomorrow.

About 74,000 years ago, Mankind was reduced to about 10,000 folks and it will happen again, it's just a matter of time:

Link

As for climate change, if you look up the CO2 records for the past 150 years there is definitely not a 1:1 correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.

There are some many cycles to the climate we are still discovering them all the time. The present warming is not out of line. And anyone who can strictly tell you that we have not had such and such climate for the past 1,000,000 years is simply taking an educated GUESS, I would not read much into that.

Where I live there used to be an OCEAN, my present elevation is 800 feet above current sea level. Fossilized bananas have been found in what is currently the state of Oregon. Bottom line, the climate changes, enjoy the ride.

-StormMan
You can mix all the water you want, but there are so many more forces then just what the temperature of the ocean is. It does play a role, but if a rapid global rise in temperature happened, there would be so many other forces acting to warm the Earth that you wouldn't be able to cool them enough. Even if you ran them all day you would eventually run out of cold water while the Earth would continue to try to warm.
bye buster, keep at it..
Hey chaser..blah, blah, blah..LOL..
StormMan, I agree it could all be over tomorrow. One huge meteor or volcano or solar flare could end civilization as we know it.

But shouldn't we do what we can to ensure WE'RE not the cause of it all being over?

SNOWBOY:

The only real and long-lasting "solution" to both CO2 emissions and pollution, is mandatory worldwide population control (and possibly reduction).

Are you in favor of that?

Hey snowboy,

I hope you also know I respeect you and your opinions. I need to make it clear that I don't have access to a computer long enough right now to join the discussion and that is the ONLY reason I posted and then had to leave. Since when has anyone thought of me as being afraid to debate with anyone? lol

Whether you or anyone else likes or respects me or not, no one can deny that I am a person of conviction who will stand up for what I personally believe to be true no matter if it is unpopular or regardless of what others may think. That is my personal definition of having principles, without being closed minded.:) Moreover, I also will and have admitted when I am wrong, but I have NO REASON to apologize for my previous post which I believe to be most accurate.

I am simply pointing out FACTS, not speculative arguments which is ALL everything else amounts to. Naturally, I for one certainly realize that the models are the best we have and since I do actually work with them, I also am aware of their falliability.

My post was not meant by any means to be seen as belittling, but rather to put it all in its proper perspective since it's a reality that all of us scientists are wrong more often than not in predicting the extreme event a few days in advance much less decades.

I'm disappointed you read my post and saw my intentions differently. But then again, this is simply another example as to why two people and look at the same evidence and view it so differently. Well, I do have to go but I hope you and everyone else does have a great night.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Bob,

Nice seeing you on again. I hope you are doing well as always.:) I am sorry to disappoint you but I am past letting ANYONE on here upset me any further.:)

Therefore, I do actually hope you and your family is doing well.:)
Thank you Tony..I will sleep better tonite!!!..LOL..
LOL...Bob...I sure hope so.:)

Great post Storm man in my humble opinion.:)

Snowboy, I also hope you have a great night as well as my good friend, Califonia.:)

Snowboy, Thanks again for your kind words regarding my house.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Interesting question Califonia. We are well above the "carrying capacity" of the planet, especially given the current consumption-based lifestyle that most people aspire to.

Cutting consumption (esp.of energy) and shifting to smarter energy sources (solar, wind and nuclear) would do more (and do it more quickly) than reducing population, so that's where I think we should focus.

We can insulate our homes better, drive less and drive more efficient vehicles, and try to curb our excesses in consumption without harming our quality of life.
Hey snowboy,

I need to clarify that I am not ranting, it is called speaking from my heart with conviction. You will find nothing in that long post that can be anything that is speculative, but rather a plea to keep this ongoing debate in perspective.

Naturally, those who hold an opposing view will use derogatory language in an attempt to demean the validity of my comments. Regardless, I hope you and everyone else sleeps well.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Chaser, here's a question for you - what would happen to "hurricane season" if the global climate were 8 degrees F warmer than today? Would it just be longer, or would the storms get nastier too?
Chaser, I take back the word "rant". Sorry.

Posted By: snowboy at 5:34 AM GMT on January 26, 2006.

Cutting consumption (esp.of energy) and shifting to smarter energy sources (solar, wind and nuclear) would do more (and do it more quickly) than reducing population, so that's where I think we should focus.


Isn't that kinda like bailing the water out of your boat, but ignoring the big hole in the bottom?

In 50 years we'll probably be about out of oil, but at current rates there will be 15 billion people.

Don't you think you would need to do both?
world population is on track to hit its peak this century at about 10 billion, which I agree is way too many for the planet to support given the magnitude of our in dividual "footprints" on the planet and its ecosystems
102. F5
Why do people always think that we are approaching some number or time, at which human civilization will no longer be able to sustain itself? If you believe the alarmists, we should already be out of oil, unable to produce enough food to feed ourselves, and suffer from massive disease outbreaks, etc.

Never underestimate the ability of man to adjust to and cope with the changing conditions of the planet. Unless we annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons, or a catastrophic event occurs (like a giant asteroid hitting the earth or a super massive volcano like Yellowstone erupts), we'll be here in some fashion or another. The only thing that keeps us from feeding the entire world is politics. And we've just barely begun to scratch the surface of our productivity capabilities. Humans will come with solutions to various problems. One such idea was to install mirrors in orbit around the earth, to reflect some of the sun's energy back into space before it even gets here. It might not sound all that plausible now, but in 20, 30, 50 years, who knows what we'll be capable of. Or they may come up with other ideas.

But if not, then we'll simply adjust. If land ends up under water from rising ocean levels, then people will just have to move. That's just the way it is. If cities have to be abandoned or people die, I guess they'll have to make a choice of whether they want to live or not. Will it be unpleasant? Yes, but considering the alternative, I'll take unpleasant to dead.

After all, we are one epidemic, or asteroid, or super volcano eruption away from massive death as it is. If you thought the flu epidemic of 1919 was bad (and it was), imagine what would happen today? Instead of millions dead world-wide, how about hundres of millions, even a billion dead.

So again, humans will just have learn to cope with the changes. We have no other choice, other than to become extinct.
I still don't buy any of this global warming mumbo jumbo. We can only look back at .0000002% of ACCURATE data on the average global temperature. If you call looking at a rock and making up some "formula" to GUESS what the temperature might have been thousands of years ago, scientific evidence, then I have lost any faith I had in the field of science. The only rock solid evidence is that the climate has changed dramitically on our planet for tens of millions of years. Unless you can show me caveman journals of the yearly global temperature, you don't have conclusive evidence to support global warming. In my opinion, a 1 degree C increase (1.8 F) (as show in graph A), does not justify an abnormal surge in global temperature, considering this is a period of 120 years.

Still I did some reading. I don't dare venture into looking at "is it happening", I'm more of the "what is the worst case" researcher. So my little anlysis, and personal input... All of the stats I will mention I have recieved from a Mr. Robert Johnson, who has done some lengthy research on the topic. Therefor I am basing MY OPINIONS on his data, and if his data is flawed then my thoughts are flawed as well...

Looking at grpah B, the only location to have a substainal rise in temperature is the artic north. This region contains about 10% (aprox. 3,000,000 million cubic kilometers) of the world's total ice. In the unlikely event that all of this ice would melt, it would result in a global sea level rise of 15 - 25 feet. Now yes this would be bad, but how fast could all this ice melt? In the unlikely event that the average annual temperature in the artic north hit 20.C, it would still take some 750 - 900 years for all of this ice to melt. So worst case we would experience an annual rise in average sea level of 2 - 3 inches per year, but this rate only applies when the average annual temperature at in the artic north hits 20.C.

Ok so now to the anartic region, which looking graph B, does show a warming trend, but not as significant as the artic north. In this region we are looking at about 85% or (aprox. 255,000,000 million cubic kilometers) of the world's total ice. Again.. in the unlikely event that all of this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise some 125 - 200 feet. Now this would certainly be worrysome. But again we must look at how long it would take to melt all of this ice. Using the 20.C average temperature medium in the antartic region as well, we would be looking at a time frame of 7,000 - 9,000 years for all of this ice to totally melt. This would result in a rise of 1/4 - 1/2 inches per year.


Now I won't debate the fact that we are in a warming trend, but is this unfounded in our history. Thousands of years ago, northern ice galciers extended as far south as the mid atlantic states, and resulted in craving much of our current landscape. So it's easy to say that the earth has warmed in that time, since the ice in confined to extreme north. Okay so we can see we are in a natural pattern of the globe warming. The main question that reamins, how much warmer will the earth get? Will the ice caps fully melt? Is it possible that in the comming centuries the earth will cool back down? If the planet does cool back down, wouldn't an equal threat of another ice age be just as likely as the ice caps melting? Regardless any of the environmental damage we have may have done will not have any significant impact on the natural warming process the earth is experiencing.

One last line that I think needs some consideration. "It is known the earth has changed in the past, and will do so in the future... Our current world [today's population] has simply grown acustomed to the earth's geographic features and deemed them as normal, but are they really?"


** Ok, I'm done now... I'm not trying to win support for this debate, and I do not take a side. I am simply passing along some stats I have found and giving my 2 cents on the issue. If you agree with my thoughts, that great, if you don't like them, I could care less. If you don't care for MY OPINIONS, then sorry you wasted your time reading this all. **

K, let's see if I can get this image inserted...



104. Inyo
The proof is out there now the stream is shutting down now. The tunnels restore what has already been lost.They return the stream to a normal flow prior to the industrial revolution.

haha, if the stream stops, the tunnels will be 100% useless

as for the list of things the tunnels could do, about half those things are completely impossible or even contradictory. and most of the points have already been stated so i won't bother to do it again.

Honestly, I'm beyond tired of the obsessive and alarmist push to blame the NATURAL global warming trend of our planet on human activities, as though we have that much control over our climate in the first place. In reality, it is both foolish and naive to think so.

hurricane i respect your opinion that much of the change is natural. However, your spouting as fact that all of the climate change is 'natural' is just as grating as cyclonebuster's obsession with the tunnels . Why don't you just agree with many of us who say we can't tell what is causing the warming yet. as for what to do about possible climate change, i guess it isnt within the realm of this blog. also, you state that all the changes are 'natural' and then you blame land use changes on some of the warming. well, i don't think the heat island effect or deforestation count as 'natural' climate variation.


humans will survive. Civilization(knowledge, culture, ect) won't and we will have to relearn everything we already have, but I'd say we have a good chance of surviving as a species.


yeah us, coyotes, ravens, roaches, rats, and rabbits. I dont think anyone is predicting the extinction of all humans due to global warming, but it could definitely knock out or collapse many of the current major empires.
Th tunnels work! and as they work everyone will see them as a divine power. Thus as everyone worships the tunnels it will bring an end to all religious wars snd terrorism
Dictators will be in awe of the tunnels and as they go 'ooooh' and 'ahhhh' looking at them, their peoples will be voting in new leaders.
Thus a new age where every country will be a democracy will begin.
Now lets all bow our heads and say the Tunnel's Prayer.
"Our Tunnel that art in the Gulfstream....."
snowboy -

You want to make sure that we are the cause of any demise, good luck!

At last count there are plenty of nukes out there and now you have Iran joining the party.

There are deadly pathogens out there supposedly due to humans and animals being in too close of contact.

The list goes on.

But whatever the weather does it is not going end civilization on a whole, weather occurs as a series of local events, not a single global event.

-StormMan
The fact of the matter is we don't really know what the human population "carrying capacity" of the Earth is, but we do know we are far from reaching it any time soon. Like F5 mentioned, people in third-world countries aren't starving because there's not enough food...there's plenty of food in the world...those people are starving because they live in countries with greedy, corrupt, totalitarian governments.

Over the past century, agricultural technology has advanced to the point where we now get over forty times as much food per acre of farmland as we did a century ago. Humans aren't perfect, but we are by far the most intelligent and adaptable species on the planet. Barring a true global catastrophe, like a 100-km asteroid impact or a nearby supernova, the human race will survive.

If the ice sheets melt and the oceans rise 50 feet, then I'll just move back to the hills of Virginia...with global warming like that, Virginia would have weather like Florida does today...I wouldn't mind 75 degrees in January in Virginia...nope, not at all...
I was going to just ignore you, cyclonebuster, but I will give your tunnels the undeserved honor of one last argument:

1.) Provide 75,000 MWs of pure hydroelectric power enough for 22 million people.

You're forgetting something. Remember that pretty little law known as the conservation of mass/energy? If you're pulling such amounts from the water, you're SLOWING THE WATER DOWN BY THE SAME AMOUNT. I bet you simply took the mass of water that would flow through a tunnel and multiplied it by the velocity of the Gulf Stream. If that is the case, that energy draw would completely stop the water in your tubes. Since obviously it is impossible to draw all or even most of the energy from them, I'll grant, maybe, that you could get a tenth of that - or roughly the power supply to the city of Tampa.

2.) Return the gulfstream flow to pre-industrial revolution velocities.

How? Clarify.

3.) Weaken any hurricane prior to landfall proven by Kerrys formula.

Which gives the maximum intensity a hurricane can *attain* over such waters. A cat 5 spending 3 hours over your waters might lose 5-10mph.

4.) Increased sea life around the tunnels as the temperatures are moderated to 65/70 degrees locally.

Not all fish like it at 65/70 degrees, as you've been told before.

5.) Eliminates Ozone hole.
6.) Skin cancer rate decreases.


Haha! This I've GOT to hear explained!

7.) Remove dependance on foriegn oil.
8.) Lowers the cost of fuel oil.
9.) Lowers the cost of natural gas.
10.) No longer nead Nuclear power plants.
11.) Fisherman will prosper from the tunnels as life thrives around them just like the oil wells in the gulf fish love structure.


All based on previous unexplained assumptions.

12.) It will create jobs.
13.) Tunnels pay for them selves in five years.


But those jobs take more money, making it not pay for itself.

14.) Could prevent tornados in the mid west do to cooler SSTs which in turn will modify gulf air temps.

That can't even be justified as a hypothesis, much less a theory or fact.

15.) Can bring rain in drought stricken areas.
16.) Reduce famine by allowing crops to grow since there is now an abundance of water.


Guess you missed physics 101 - colder SSTs=less evaporation=less rain=more drought.

17.) Prevent polar ice from melting causing a rise in sea level and shutting down the stream.
18.) Restore global air temps to normal.
19.) Restore global SSTs to normal.


How? The total heat content doesn't change, and in fact your tunnels would cause a slight warming due to the colder water being exposed.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ice_age/ice_age.pdf

The Ice Age didn't end that long ago.
Could Global warming lead to another?
Some would say we Canadians never left it.
The Hurricane Cindy report is out!

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL032005_Cindy.pdf
113. Inyo
we've already established that the tunnels would raise the temperature of water deep under the ocean, damaging the thermohaline circulation. Also, they would weaken the Gulf Stream by decreasing temperature gradients. This would lead to More, not less hurricanes, and also cold, adverse weather in northern latitudes.
so # hurricanes plus one, eh?
115. MZT
Sigh. Feature Request: The ability to block any message with the word "tunnel" from appearing in the blog results.
lol i think this tunnel argument is very funny (:
I am growing very tired of reading all of the alarmist journalism that permeates our culture. If you were naive enough to believe everything you read, you would think that in 20 years we would have 105 degree SSTs, we'd all be riding camels and have no electricity, and that the population would be greatly reduced due to some massive pandemic.

The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of oil and natural gas. As one poster once pointed out, there is likely more of these fuels underground than the total which has been consumed thus far. Now, it is a fact that oil will run out someday, which is exactly why scientists are researching alternative energy sources. Granted, I don't feel there is enough attention and concern paid to this issue, but why do so many people feel they need to assign the worst possible outcome to the "energy crisis"(and there is no crisis)? I am in favor of alternative energy, for many different reasons.

In regards to global warming, I cannot fathom how so many people think that humans could be accelerating, or causing, climate change. Maybe I am dead wrong, or I am misinformed, but the climate has been changing ever since it possibly could have, and the fact that it is changing now is NATURAL, and not something to go crazy about. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure if global warming is caused by fossil fuel emissions accelerating the greenhouse effect, or if this is natural. Since that is the case, people need to recognize our ignorance of the matter and stop assigning doomsday scenarios. The Earth may begin to cool back down in 10 years, who knows. A coworker of mine told me yesterday that he doesn't know if he wants to have children because he is reading more and more about global warming. This is getting out of control.
I have to agree with the comments made by hurricanechaser and inyo. The current rate of warming is about 1* F (sorry I don't know how to make the degree sign). Yet we know that:

"the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15F (8C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years."

This came from an article by Dr Masters on Link. Everyone here should look at this. We have only seen tiny fraction of nature is capable of. What we would call a dangerously fast warming rate is actually still quite small, and given our very short history of recording the temperature, its really to slight and short to attach any cause of understanding to it. If today's warming is human-induced then we are pretty pathetic at it. Regarding Inyo's earlier comment:

"we've already established that the tunnels would raise the temperature of water deep under the ocean, damaging the thermohaline circulation. Also, they would weaken the Gulf Stream by decreasing temperature gradients. This would lead to more, not less hurricanes, and also cold, adverse weather in northern latitudes."

I want to add my support to it, andmention that in Dr. Masters article, this weakening the Gulf Stream is actually what triggers the really wild swings in the first place. I appreciate cyclonebusters iniative, and it might even work in the short term, but he's going to have to do a lot more research to convince me that this isn't going to blow up in our faces after a few decades and lead to conditions even worse than they are now.
Sorry I can't stay and talk, I'm busy with school work right now but after reading this stuff for the last week or so I had to throw my two cents in. Have a great day everyone :)
nice image there smadsen8486 - what sea level rise does it represent?

Note that Florida and all coastal cities are gone.

But who cares eh, F5? So a few people have to die and a few others have to move. Adaption is the mantra. Glad you're not in charge of running the country (though come to think of it, you could hardly do worse than the current lunk-head).
Oops, typo. The article is on abrupt climate change. I tried to be fancy and it didn't work.
snowboy,
so what's wrong with a few active measure now AND adapting to changing situations. it's not an either/or with climate change, even if it wasn't uncertain.
StormMan, you are right that "weather" occurs as a series of events which in and of themselves can not end our civilization. "Climate" on the other hand is the sum total of all weather events occurring over time, and global climate change could indeed knock out our civilization. That is why people are so concerned about it.
hey observer12 I was just being sarcastic. If you scroll down the posts you'll see that I was just paraphrasing F5's "survival of the fittest" ideology.

I believe firmly that we are putting our civilization at serious risk, and need to implement those measure we reasonably can NOW to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
hey rebel13 you from Canada too?
mctypething you ARE dead wrong and misinformed...

Our best scientists and our best models are predicting that our atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions will cause exactly the kind of global warming currently being observed. Can we prove that they're right? No. But we can't prove that they're wrong either, and in the meantime, this is what our best scientists using their best models are predicting.

So why (unless we are pathologically stupid ) would we attack them or ignore their message, instead of trying to take their advice and do what we reasonably can to reduce our emissions?
that's my point - we can do some little things now, but we must be able to adapt in the future. we have over the centuries. people aren't THAT forgetful and stupid. although i do doubt it sometimes, there is a point where it becomes too much for people to live in a certain manner, and beyond that they can change they way of living, be that manner, location, or whatever...
I guess where we differ observer12 is you would have us do "some little things now", while I would advocate doing as much as we reasonably can now to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
My dorm room weather station reads 46.8 degrees. I am in MINNEAPOLIS!!! It should be 22 right now! I miss winter....
Anybody seen the tropical depression approaching Vietnam. Talk about high strangeness in the climate. See link:

Link

cool link arcturus, yet another sign that global climate change is upon us...
maybe, but i'm not so sure that every odd weather phenomenon can be identified as proof of such change
133. jeffB
The only thing we can all can know for certain is that most SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG MOST OF THE TIME, so a consensus of them means VERY LITTLE to support this speculative argument.

I challenge your statement here. I'm sure one could contrive a set of definitions under which "most" "scientists" are "wrong" "most of the time", but I believe you'll find that -- in general, in the main -- predictions guided by scientists' majority consensus are more accurate than predictions guided by minority opinions. Where the minority opinions prove to have better predictive power, they are adopted by the majority. That's how science works.

The vast majority of the published scientific results in this area support the hypothesis that human activity is significantly affecting global warming. Rhetoric about how it's "foolish and naive" to believe this, or how "the simple FACT" is that they're wrong, or that the hypothesis is "UNPROVEN", is of less than no scientific value -- "less than no", because it is effective rhetoric, and it does sway the opinions of those who read and listen, leading them to give less weight to the preponderance of scientific opinion, and less support to those who would further test it or act on it.

If you deny the effect of human activity on climate change, you may be right. But you're more likely to be wrong. And, as I've said before, the stakes in this gamble may be terribly, terribly high.

I'm sure many people here get tired of reading posts like this. But as I said, repeated assertions of the minority view do affect the public's perception of the problem, and my convictions require me to challenge such assertions as much as my ability and resources allow.
no, buster, that's a weak depression
CINDY IS A HURRICNAE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OHHHH AM IIII GOING TO BE BUSY!!!!!!!!!!
Buster, I doubt that Dr. Masters will dignify it as such. He might do so right before banning ya tho :)
LOL COLBY
wow buster why dont you get it were not very interested
The NHC has also released its report on Tropical Storm Bret. (www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml?)
nut 99percent of the rest of use know it wont work its 1 to 99percent look at the odds
Yeah, and cold fusion is the perfect concept for producing all the power we could ever need. But going from concept to reality is very hard, and we cant help you. In fact, I think I could say most people would agree that this idea is about as dificult as cold fusion except with far more possible repercusions.
yes mtles extremely difficult if not impposable
sorry bout those typoes
And yeah, that tropical entity is barely a depression. Its pretty much a low lvl swirl of clouds with barely any convection. It actually looks like Epsilon or Zeta during there last dying hours trying to keep any convection it once had.
so cyclone have you presented your tunnels to NOAA yet and see what they think?
ahh so there is a tropical something out there gosh snowman made me believe there was another hurricane when he said that well im going now


oh buster get a life (:
I just discovered one way the 2005 season was absolutely normal! 15 of 27 storms (56%) became hurricanes. Normal is 5.9 of 10.6 (56%).
I refrain from calling anything impossible because many times what has been 'impossible' for the time has been overcome in the future or even right in the faces of the critics who called the idea 'impossible'. I'm simply stating that there are many hurdles ahead beside some weather enthusiasts and maybe a few people with degrees stating that your ideas arent sound. If you cant even prove to us this will work then how do you propose to pursued someone else of your work?

I can tell you why you cant win us over, cyclonebuster, because you state radical ideas as facts when you have little evidence to back you up. Not to mention you mention you say things like stop tornadoes and increase rain. There are so many other factors other then SST and fossil fuels to all of the things that you have mentioned. You must take into account everything before concluding that changing one variable will have a dramatic positive effect on the whole system., and the fact is we probably, almost certainly, dont know all the variables, so how can you except to get the correct answer?
LOL gippgig, you wont hear any news anchor or weatherman talking about that. Interesting statistic.
I dont have to, you have to prove to me that your tunnels will do the same.
So far, you haven't because I've seen more evidence to the contrary then what you've present to prove your point. The fact is you wont accept that model as true because it says in the situation you provided it doesn't produce upwelling. Your bumps, hills, humps, what ever they may be, are totally different situtations.
What formula? I'm sure there are many formulas that going into calculations that your are trying to make. You are trying to make a very complex problem way too simple.

And yes, upwelling does occur. I dont see why you are trying to say that anyone says it doesn't. However, every casey you have pointed out to say upwelling occurs is completly different from the condition you are trying to create upwelling with.
I would say that it a good possibilty, cyclonebuster. There is a lot more force behind all the water when just a narrow band of it.
Sorry, last sentence should read...

"There is a lot more force behind all the water when it goes up a hill then when just a small band is trying to go up a hill."
snowboy, that image is said to represent what would be America if 100% of the ice caps were to melt, and not a single cube of ice was left anywhere on the planet. They used a sea level rise of 200 feet to represent where the coastlines would now be. Here are a few more closeup images of a few locations... (the current coastline is lighty shaded.


Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and southern New Jersey (DC is gone)


The "new" San Fransico Bay


Southern Texas coastline

img
src="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/antarcticwater.jpg">
Antartica turns green

Again, these images are what the author believes would be the ultimate worst case, if all of the ice caps melted, a process that would take *THOUSANDS OF YEARS*, even if the earth warmed to unimageable temperatures.
Cyclone, answer my questions please.
*** Patent Pending ***

I propose a series of giant chimmneys to transport cold air
down from the upper reaches of the Troposphere.

Hehe

Dah, I gotta work on my html skills.

Anyways. Another thing I get sick of is everyone comparing this winter to solid proff we are warming. Yes I would agree this winter has been abnormally warm, but it has happened before, just in the past 100 years. For many locations this will not even rank as the warmest january, but still in the top 5. So this has happened before (speaking of a warm winter), is it not normal that it would happen again?

Well N. America is warm, but areas in Asia have been seeing extreme snow and cold, something that is not normal for there area, but has happened before.

So why is their a freak out that we are boiling like a pot of water and in the next decade we will be flooded by ice caps or have 100 hurricanes a season. My only explanition is a lack of logical and reasonable thinking due in part to the medias overexaggeration of global warming in recent movies.
Hey smadsen..You must of gotten bored waiting for all of that snow to come!!!..LOL
I ran across this article written by Dr Jeff Masters~ The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole . Everyone should read this. I wonder if this blog inspired his research onto this topic:P
Wow, Bastardi acually defends the NHC. Link
Just thought I'd mention it. It's on Wednesday's edition so it might go away soon.
Here's another oddball proposal to fight hurricanes that was in the Oct. 3, 2005 Washington Post (One Researcher's Plan: Fight Storms With Storms): Tow a barge carrying 10-20 jet engines pointing down into the path of a hurricane and run the engines. The jets would create a tropical storm, lowering the ocean temperature in front of the hurricane. Moshe Alamaro proposed this at the annual meeting of the Weather Modification Association where it caused "a lot of commotion". Deja vu!
"forecastercolby,

I will when I get back.Obviously you like the idea or you would not be coming back. Tell the truth."

I'm beginning to like you - few people have such patience in the face of overwhelming opposition and obvious insanity.
175. F5
snowboy,

"But who cares eh, F5? So a few people have to die and a few others have to move. Adaption is the mantra. Glad you're not in charge of running the country (though come to think of it, you could hardly do worse than the current lunk-head)."

Why does anyone have to die? Who said anything about anyone dying? If you are in harms way, then you move out of harms way. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Adaptation has always been though, and always will be the key to survival, regardless of the species. And I'm glad I'm not in charge of the country as well. But given a choice between a pragmatist like myself and an alarmist, I think I'd choose me.

As for your other statements, I'll leave politics out of this, with this exception. No one can rightfully judge another in current context. It is up to future generations to decide if we made the correct or incorrect decisions. And it may take may future generations to pass before a correct assessment can be made on those leading us in this generation, because we can't see the long-term effects of the decisions being made today. We may disagree with them, and there are a number of decisions that I do disagree with based on the information I have available to me at this point in time, but that doesn't mean that I'm right and they are wrong. That's as far as I will take any political statement. Otherwise, it has no place in a weather blog.
176. Inyo
Negative: Even if the cool water from the bottom were displaced by the warm water at the surface it would cool back off again since no sunlight is there to keep it warm.

Have you taken high school physics even? Energy can not be created or destroyed. If you dump warm water deep under the ocean, it can only cool by warming the water around it. Energy is constantly entering the earth via the sun and then radiating out via infared rays, etc. If you put cold water on top of the hot water, it will absorb heat without giving as much off at night. The net effect on the ocean would be either neutral or a warming.


Also, i found it kind of silly that in a scenario posted by the pictures where 'all ice caps have melted', the Sierras still have a thick coat of snow down to about 4000 feet. The Sierras are one of the few places in the world where the (tiny) glaciers are actually growing... due to increased precipitation. However, any scenario in which *all* ice caps melt would include the Sierras too.
Cyclonebuster have you checked out the Weather Modification Association? Seems they specialize in researching ideas such as yours:)
Hey cyclone, perhaps some sedation?

Are we still discussing your tunnels, cyclonebuster?
atmosweather mail for you
5.) & 6.) We all know fossil fuels add to the ozone hole problem. The tunnels displace fossil fuels so it is logical to assume the tunnels should help the ozone hole problem.
We all know lack of ozone leads to increased skin cancer rates and so the tunnels restore ozone and incidents of skin cancer should reduce also.

Ahh, fossil fuels dont contribute to the ozone hole, aerosols do. Reducing fossil fuels does nothing about the ozone hole.

14.) We all know if you can reduce the temp. differential between the two air masses between the north and the south then the amount of lift is reduced and therefore tornodos won't form.

Thats not true either. Tornadoes require far more then just lift from thunderstorms, or Florida would the tornado capital of the world since we have many thunderstorms everyday during the summer. The Jet Stream, the low pressure system, and may other factors play a role in tornado development.


17,18,19.) Already have shown how the warming trend is reduced with the tunnels.

You havent shown any proof that your tunnels would stop global warming.


All in all, since you cant get your tunnels to work, it really doesnt matter.
i think i finally fingured it out - all buster has to do is hold out until April 1 before he reveals that this is actually a joke, and then HE can laugh at US :D
Are you stupid? I never said airmasses dont create lift! I said lift doesnt cause tornadoes, lift causes thunderstorms. When a strong let stream gets to these thunderstroms that causes tornados. Like I said, if it was only lift we would have hundreds of tornados here in FL every afternoon in the summer.
For goodness sakes guys! Until we see these tunnels built we have no clue what they will do and how it will affect the planet. How about we let cyclonebuster get the idea properly funded first? Without the actual idea being passed by the government and such he can't build them anyway.
And BTW, thinking or not thinking doesnt really matter. You cant build a working model and a computer model has already said your wrong. And you can claim all the things about upwelling you want, but they're not the same circumstances and Im sure if that guy modelled the `charelston hump it would show there is upwelling.
He's been trying, no one will buy into it. He's been told every time to politly look somewhere else, or that they're too busy, which is just an excuse to say they dont think its worth while. Because if it was the cure all to hurricanes and global warming they would jump all over it and make time to fund and model the tunnels.
Yes, something missing in your idea.
I dunno, I dont have a degree in physics with exceptional knowledge in fluid dynamics. I can tell you whoever made that model did have the expertise. The fact that you have gone to many people, including peopl at MIT, and they have not taken interest should show you this isnt the sure thing you think was. If was such a sure thing, wouldn't you think they would have helped you out??
oh boy oh boy hey why dont we just ignore him?
atmosweather mail for you get back to me thank you
199. Inyo
SO2? N20? What do these gases have to do with anything? They may be greenhouse gases but it is the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels that is believed by many people to be causing the warming.. that and methane from various sources. greenhouse warming and the ozone hole are NOT closely related.
Have they modeled it?? Have they taken it on thier shoulders and made sure it's getting done? No. So like I said, if this was such a sure thing that would save us from hurricanes they would make sure they were the institution that helped it come into exsistence. They would make sure everytime it was mentioned that MIT was mentioned with it as the machine and institution that built it. That is if it was such a sure thing.
why dont we just ignore?
no cyclone i did not mean mother nature my gosh she cant be ignored I MEANT YOU!!!
206. dcw
Well then Cyclone, go get yourself some money, build the tunnels, sell the electricity, and rub the money after they pay for themselves in our arrogant faces. Until then, drop it.
Inyo,

I followed the link back and read the article. The author didn't alter hardly any of the pictures save for the coastlines. To quote:

The illustrations above do not depict any changes in vegetation. In reality, local climates would be very different in ways that are currently difficult to predict. It might be that the warmer climate would lead to generally greater precipitation (this is suggested by comparison to the last ice age, when cooler temperatures caused expansion of the Sahara). Unfortunately, current models are not reliable enough to give a confident answer.

He also commented that it would have to be a very large increase in temperature to melt the ice in Antarctica, as we seem to be warming up enough currently to allow it to snow over the ice and that snow is building the ice up faster than the warmer temperatures can melt it. He suggested that it would take averages of 20 deg C over a period close to 10,000 years to melt all the ice. If the temperature in Antarctica is 20 deg C, I don't want to know what it is here in Tucson.... We average just a touch more than around 20 deg C right now....

BTW, for those who are interested: 147 days with no significant rainfall in Tucson.
well said dcw =)
It doesn't matter if it was thier idea or not. If it were so great they'd probably offer you money to sell it to them. If this was the way to stop global warming and do all the things you say, then they would be doing anything to be involved with you. It would be the greatest invention of the 21st century and they would have the opportunity to be known by it and to help stop global warm. That what you're saying, that these things will stop global warming, so if they beleived that they would be doing far more to help you.
Lol dcw. Absolutely right.
atmosweather more mail for you and did you get my log e mail
He gave MIT permission...well, I'm glad. I wouldn't want MIT students to feel unwelcome :)
lol
200+mph Wind Hits Grandfather Mtn, NC

Wind breaks record, property
by From staff reports
published January 26, 2006 6:00 am

Link

Wednesdays winds broke records, along with windows, floors and walls at a local tourism spot.
Advertisement

The visitor center at Grandfather Mountain took a beating during morning winds too strong for U.S. Weather Service equipment to measure accurately.

Winds knocked over a 300-pound boulder cemented to the visitor center parking lot, Grandfather Mountain spokeswoman Catherine Morton said in a news release. The gusts tore tiles off the floor, shattered three reinforced windows and opened a locked door.

A reading of 200 mph for some gusts broke Grandfathers record of 195.5 mph set on April 18, 1997. But speeds could have been higher, Morton said, because the Weather Services anemometer only measures to 200.

The highest wind speed on record in the eastern United States was 231 mph at Mount Washington, N.H., in 1934, she said.

By Wednesday evening, Progress Energy crews had restored power to all 9,900 customers who had lost service after powerful winds toppled trees onto power lines. The outages were widely scattered across Buncombe and Haywood counties.

We were able to get folks back on quickly, spokesman Ken Maxwell said.

A high wind warning remained in effect for the mountains until 6 p.m. Wednesday, with sustained winds of 25 to 40 mph with gusts of up to 60 mph expected.

Last weekend, a day and a half of high winds accosted the mountains, toppling trees and tearing shingles from homes. The weather settles down today, with the forecast calling for mostly sunny skies with a high around 40.
216. RL3AO
That wind is very impressive, I wonder how high it was?

On a different note, it appears that the uppermidwest will have above average temps everyday in January.

In the Twin Cities it has been above average temps everyday since December 22. This will be the warmest January on record in the Twin Cities and I cannot remember such a "heat wave" in January like this.
The Mile High Swinging Bridge appears to have survived the windstorm without damage, officials said. The bridge is anchored by two large cables and stabilized by 42 support cables. Link
That cold snap in europe ended up killing a lot of people. Link
St Paul's Winter Carnival Is melting:( Dr Masters had posted some pics when it had opened for the winter. Link
How about those temps in Minnesota this time of year?
My Aunt is from St. Paul, usually in a deep freeze this time of year.
223. Inyo
yeah i dont think any noticable sea level rise will occur in our lifetimes beause as you said, precipitation in antarctica may increase, in fact i believe it has already been noted. If it raises 10 degrees, well its -20 instead of -30 in the summer and it snows twice as much. that ice cap isnt going to go anywhere.

in my opinion, if the climate continues to warm... it isnt rising sea levels but shifts in rainfall and storm patterns that will cause severe floods and storms in some areas and droughts in other areas. One model i saw predicted rainfall increases of 50% in California with 2000 foot higher snow levels. It's just a model and could be completely wrong.. but if this occurs, the entire central valley will go back to being a swamp. not hurting 'the earth' at all, but removing most of California's agriculture
Wow, I'm amazed at the number of responses to this last post. As a newcomer to this website, I am so PLEASED to see so much critical thinking about our obvious short-term (uh where's winter?) and long-term global climate change issues. To those who doubt there is a problem, well I sure do hope this strange winter makes you scratch your head and say "WTF?" I don't know how much more obvious things really need to get for you.

To all others who have posted so much intelligent content about the issue of global climate change, I implore you to NOT STOP HERE! What an amazing thinktank we have here! But please, talk to your friends, your neighbors, your family, your professors, your congressperson, reporters, anyone who will listen to you! Share your knowledge about these crazy weather patterns we're observing, these record-breaking times when nothing is making sense. Why isn't there more hoopla about this in the media? You don't just have a 5-20 degree increase across the US without long-term effects. How's our agriculture industry going to cope with lost crops? Who's got Anderson Cooper's phone number? This is the time to call him and tell him he's got a story to tell! The winter that never came: how, why, and what now?

I urge you all to join nonprofit groups that take the kind of action that you believe in, that you're trying to convice people of in this forum. If all of us overeducated nerds (myself included) turned our thoughts and observations outwards, we'd have a huge impact! Maybe enough, if we start soon.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Hope somebody's listening.
Hey everyone...even though it's over and done with, it looks like the infamous Hurricane Season of 2005 managed to toss one more surprise at us: During a post-storm analysis of Tropical Storm Cindy, the National Hurricane Center has upgraded it to a hurricane, bringing the total number of hurricanes to 15. They say that it briefly became a hurricane just before and as it was making landfall in extreme SE Louisiana. Check out the storm report here.

I'd imagine Dr. Masters will have something to say about it by tomorrow morning.
Inyo,

It is very disappointing that you misread either intentionally or untentionally the content of the post when you made this following comment.

"hurricane i respect your opinion that much of the change is natural. However, your spouting as fact that all of the climate change is 'natural' is just as grating as cyclonebuster's obsession with the tunnels . Why don't you just agree with many of us who say we can't tell what is causing the warming yet. as for what to do about possible climate change, i guess it isnt within the realm of this blog. also, you state that all the changes are 'natural' and then you blame land use changes on some of the warming. well, i don't think the heat island effect or deforestation count as 'natural' climate variation."

Now, PLEASE REREAD most post and you will see what I declared as FACT, is that no one can say Global warming has been significantly affected by greenhouse gas emissions. Please post any comments where I said it is a FACT that there is NO WAY greenhouse gas emissions haven't had any effect.

I've ALWAYS stated that I personaly believe it hasn't and that the proven FACT of NATURAL climate variability is undeniable while we could NEVER know if human activity has had any effect whatsoever on increased temperatures. You took my comments out of context and attributed statements to me that I didn't make...just plese read them below once again.:)

Moreover, I was also making a reference to the fact that many of the record temperature reading throughout our Country are likely being enhanced by the NEW airport sites that are located in wide open areas, and are being measured while being surrounded by such artificial heat enhancing factors such as nearby asphalts, etc. Therefore, it is hard to accurately compare past decade temperatures with the more recent ones for factors such as these. Once again, you misunderstood my comments and tried to give them meanings that weren't intended.:)

The comments below are a reposting of the comments that you said are getting on your nerves so to speak, and that I am saying such things are FACTS that aren't...ok, where am I wrong? These are FACTS because I am ONLY stating the obvious, that no one can say now or ever, what the global temperatures would've ever been WITHOUT greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, no one can deny that it is actually POSSIBLE that there could have been no difference at all. Anyone who ascribes to the alarmist view as you might be doing (I apologize if I am incorrect), can't circumvent the FACT that the only way to prevent ANY human impacts on the Earth is that we no longer exist. It is far more annoying when others (maybe you included)suggest that we are going to become extinct because we choose to drive cars for one example.

This GUESS is not only alarmist, but is absolutely based on NOTHING except assumptions, conjecture, and FEAR. Basically, there is no reality involved in such arguments. Unfortunately, that won't stop the unfounded and speculative posting that continues to feul a completely unprovable hypothesis such as human induced global warming.


MY PREVIOUS POST FOR YOU TO READ ONCE AGAIN.:)(Please try to read it more carefully this time.:)

"The only thing we can all can know for certain is that most SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG MOST OF THE TIME, so a consensus of them means VERY LITTLE to support this speculative argument. Likewise, we can also be assured that WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL the weather and it is quite arrogant to even think otherwise, because our attempts to do so, may very well have far worse adverse consequences (makes me think of a tunnel idea I heard about once).

I am sure that all those on here who want to blame everything from last weeks sinus problem to the next severe thunderstorm in their own backyard on human induced global warming, will repost my comments and give their best UNPROVABLE AND SPECULATIVE rebuttals. However, the simple FACT is that it is UNDENIABLE that noone truly knows how much warmer or even cooler the Earth might have been had we never inhabited our planet.

Moreover, the same has to be true when trying to determine if we have truly had ANY noticeable impact on the earths temperatures with greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is that it is impossible to know and will never be known. All arguments in support of this theory amount to little more than speculation and conjecture.

Therefore, people will keep posting their favorite links and posting on these blogs as to what they personally think or choose to believe. On the other hand, it truly matters very little because there is no scientist, computer model, or anything else than can PROVE that we have had ANY SIGNIFICANT effect on climate change. As a result, this debate will last for as long as we all inhabit the earth. Then at that point, there will be no one still here to tell us how much effect if any, we have truly had on NATURAL climate change.

Wow! you certainly proved me right by reposting a comment that you didn't like and followed it up with completely INCORRECT and distorted comments regarding my post.

WHY CAN'T WE ALL AGREE THAT HUMAN INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING IS UNPROVABLE AND THAT NO ONE CAN DENY THE FACT THAT IT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE THAT NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILTY COULD BE THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE RECENT INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

This is a summarization as to my thoughts on the issue. Please DON'T add anything else to what I have said in the future.:)

It is a FACT that I can't PROVE that human activities have had no effect whatsoever. On the other hand, you can't PROVE that it has. The only thing that I try to help people understand is that we need to keep it all in perspective. Moreover, we do have undeniable PROOF of global climate variability and this should NOT be discounted as POSSIBLY the only reason for increased temperatures.

Just because you don't share my views and may not like me personally, I simply ask that you please don't attribute comments to me that I have NEVER made.

Thanks,
Tony


JeffB,

Nice attempt to belittle the obvious intent and truths in my post. EVERYTHING in my post wasn't based on speculation nor assunmptions but on UNDENIABLE FACTS to keep this debate in perspective.

YOu on the other hand choose to try and manipulate the obvios meanings of the comments I posted. I stand by the FACT that most scientists are incorrect the vast majority of time trying to predict the extreme event more than a week in advance much less DECADES.

I feel very comfortable making such a statement because I work in a scientific fiels known as Atmospheric sciences and don't base my presumptive opinions on what I choose to believe.

You can choose to believe that the current increase in global temperatures are directly related to greenhouse gas emissions JUST AS YOU CAN CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THE TOOTHFAIRY if you like (please excuse the sarcasm). The fact is that just because a consensus view is the prevailing standard for acceptance of a theory in the scientific community, it still doesn't make it an infalliable TRUTH. As a result, I ask you to once again contemplate the real meanings behind my post instead of your desired and perceived mischaracterizations of my views.

PLEASE READ MY POST TO INYO BELOW.:)

Thanks,
Tony


"most scientists are incorrect the vast majority of time trying to predict the extreme event more than a week in advance much less DECADES. "

They have difficulty predicting exactly when the extreme events will happen, but they can predict how often they will happen. For example, if I throw a coin
10000 times, having 10 heads in a sequence is an extreme event, and I
have no way of knowing when it will happen, but I can confidently predict that this extreme event will happen a few times (about 10 times, in fact).
229. RL3AO
THIS IS AMAZING!!!

In Minneapolis the record high for 1/27 is 47 degrees.

The low today was 43 degrees. The days low was only 4 degrees lower that the record high!
230. RL3AO
For the winter carnaval in st. paul, there is no snow left and the ice scuptures are melting.

This will be the warmest January on record for MSP
hurricanechaser it is so nic to see you back on the blog we miss you so march and by the way mail for you
Just dropping in to say hello, its been quite a while.
Here is an article from this mornings paper about the cold here in Fairbanks. Its a balmy -51 degrees this morning in the heart of the Golden City and the ice fog is thick enough to move with your hands provided your brave enough to go outside.

Here is the article from the Fairbanks Daily Newsminer

Here is the WUnderground Forecast for Fairbanks today.

Here's to staying warm.

Destiny in Alaska
233. F5
Forecast for today and tomorrow for D/FW area is more rain! Hooray...If we could get a nice 1/2 to 1 inch every week, it would go a long way towards getting us out of D4, lowering the fire danger, replenishing lakes/reservoirs, etc. I'm sure that's asking too much, but I'll take whatever we can get. After today/tomorrow, there is a low chance for precip late next week. So long as it doesn't get too warm/windy, any rain we get today should stay in the soil and not evaporate too much. Current forecast details average temps so not worried there, just not sure about the winds.

Hope everyone else in the drought areas gets much needed rain as well. Tucson, sorry, I don't think this is going to help you, but I hope you get rain soon...
Kudos hurricanechaser, I wish that I had your patience to deal with these global warming leftist...Always blame humans and most of all blame America First!!!
Good to see you again Chaser! How are things?
236. TPaul
Destiny, thanks for the report, that was interesting to read and shows how adaptable we are as a species. I certainly couldn't function at those temperatures and yet it seems there life goes on. We had ice fog here in Lexington, Kentucky the other morning with temperatures in the low 20's (above zero) and you should of seen the problems it caused. Around here schools would be closed if the temperature dropped below zero for highs.

Stay warm.
So what does everyone think of now-Hurricane Cindy? Funny how they can look at the data months after the storm made landfall and decide that it was stronger than they said it was at the time...how exactly can they do that?
>> Always blame humans and most of all blame America First!!!

awww, someone hurt your feelings.
[sarcasm]
americans can do no wrong, humans can do no wrong.
quakeman55,
After the hurricane season ends the NHC gathers all the information it can from all the weather stations that were effected by a tropical system. They also re-analyse data they collected from satalites and ships and decides if the forecasts they issued were correct.

In Cindy's case doppler radar sampled greated then 73 knots in the air during landfall and with 90% reduction to the surface that equates to greater then 65 knots, which is a hurricane.
In Cindy's case, it was pretty much certain a few days later with only a slight analysis. It was missed at the time, but the modification has been expected for a long while.
Here is something I think we can ALL agree on. There needs to be ALOT more research into the global warming. I wrote an e-mail to Dr. Masters in the beginning when I started my blog. I think he summed it up pretty well.
"the fact that so many researchers don't agree on this issue is cause for alarm". Like I have said before I have heard alot of good "facts" for both sides. This is the stuff that the scientists need to be working on. I would hate to think that in future generations they look back at our generation & see all the warning signs & we did nothing about it. That's MY main point....
MORE FUNDING & RESEARCH TO FINALLY COME UP WITH AN ANSWER!!
Yeah but the more research that is done, the more evidence there will be for BOTH sides of the argument. The debate over global warming is one where for every piece of evidence found to support one side, there will be another piece found to support the opposition. Another difficult thing about global warming is that there are numerous aspects which are at debate...

1) is the planet warming or not?
2) are we causing global warming or do the greenhouse gases have no significant effect?
3) is the current warming cycle natural or is this an abnormal surge we have caused?
4) should we be concerned over the impacts or will the effects be minimal?

Those are just a few on the top of my head, I'm sure there are dozens more of topics being debated. That's what makes this whole main topic of global warming difficult. There are dozens of questions to be answered before we can even come to the slightest idea of what is really going on.

Personally in my opinion I don't argue against further research of the problem, but regardless of the results we need to let whatever may be happening go on naturally. Sure we may be looking at a potential re-landscaping and re-climating (if those are words) of the entire planet, but if we were to do something about it, we would be messing with nature and the natural course it has set for this planet. Should we really change what this planet already has in store for us, might those effects be far worse then what is already set to happen?

Just a few more cents of mine thrown into the tango. This has turned into a rather interesting and informative debate, (from most bloggers).
cyclone, It's not just the SST's that are involved in hurricane formation.... If the upper winds aloft are too strong, it's not going to happen. Why do you /think/ we haven't had one since Zeta? There's been too much sheer.
Any guidance from models on whether the arctic air in Alaska and Siberia will move down towards the lower 48 in February in massive arctic outbreaks? Or will the really cold air stay bottled up to the north like it was all January?
i dont think the wind shear will go away if the water warms its different right?
Its complicated and I'm no Met so I really have no idea how complicated. I can say this, the Atlantic's temps aren't going to effect the shear over the Altantic, its water temps and pressure upstream that determines what the shear is over the Atlantic. Like El Nino & La Nina cause different pressure setups above them and as a result different setups in the Atlantic, the Atlantic pressure setup causes different effects downstream. Its a global system thus pressure setups halfway accross the globe effect us on the other side. Look at Siberia, all the cold there us causing us in the Western Hemisphere to be quite warm.

I can say this, it is very unlikely, damn near impossible, that we will ever see a year long hurricane season in the Atlantic. Even in the West Pacific, where the season is year long, they have 85% of thier storms during May-December. And outside those times its very rare to see a typhoon, only about 20 have formed in 100 years outside of May-December.
Hey Colby and GetReal,

It is nice seeing you guys again as well. Everything will be ok in time(maybe like two months, before we get back in our home instead of the hotel).:) However, I will try to keep in touch as I am able to and ALWAYS enjoying hearing from you both.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Tony :)

It is great to see you here. We are all very grateful that you can find time to post in your most difficult of situations. I too am going through some very tough times right now but friends like yourself are always comforting to me and make me feel a lot better about life.

Have a great night everyone,

Rich
hey atmosweather and hurricanechaser mail for you too
and 3M to go to the next hurricane year oh boy what will we see
I thought some of you may appreciate a different perspective on the global warming debate. :)

Link
I LOVE THE ONION!!!
Observer~ that was too funny:P but the snowwoman from Chicago, now than near broke my heart.
atmosweather mail for you
michalp wrote:

"americans can do no wrong, humans can do no wrong."

We're not saying America is perfect, or that humans are perfect, but the loony left's chant is "America can do no right", which is ignoring reality.

The left's idea of Globalism would be economic suicide for the USA. The Kyoto Treaty is a big scam, and the USA was smart to reject it.

BTW, I agree with chaser...there is no definitive empirical evidence that humans are primarily responsible for any warming trend in the climate. The earth has been far warmer, and CO2 concentrations far higher, in the past (long before the industrial revolution), and the Earth survived...we didn't become like Venus, and we're not going to...at least not for a few billion years or so.

Relax, folks...have a beer...life is good...
Cretaceous levels of CO2 have been estimated at 6 - 8 times higher than today. Why wasn't there a "runaway greenhouse" effect then like all the hysterical doomsayers are predicting for our future? In fact, since the sun's energy reaching the earth now is estimated to be lower than during the Cretaceous, isn't there less chance that there could be a "runaway greenhouse" effect now?