WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

2006: sixth warmest year on record

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:36 PM GMT on December 15, 2006

The planet's high fever abated only slightly in 2006 compared to 2005, according to preliminary figures issued by the National Climatic Data Center on Thursday. Following the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since record keeping began in 1880. The annual averaged global temperature was 0.52�C (+0.94�F) above normal, just 0.09�C below the record set in 2005. Very little of the globe was cooler than normal in 2006--only Siberia had temperatures more than 1� C cooler than average (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Temperature departures from normal for 2006, based on preliminary data from the National Climatic Data Center.

U.S. Temperatures
The 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) will likely be 2�F (1.1�C) above the 20th Century mean, which would make 2006 the third warmest year on record. Only 1998 and 1934 were warmer than 2006. Three months in 2006 (January, April and July) were either the warmest or second warmest on record. Only September and October were cooler than average. A quick look at the jet stream pattern for the remainder of 2006, as forecast by the GFS model, reveals a continuation of the abnormal warmth we've seen over most of the U.S. this month. There will be very few regions of the country experiencing a white Christmas this year.

European temperatures
The Meteorlogical Office of England announced yesterday that 2006 was the warmest year in England since record keeping began in 1659. The years 1990 and 1999 shared the record, previously. The weather this Fall has been the warmest ever recorded over most of western Europe. One UK newspaper trumpeted the headline yesterday, "The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom". I don't agree that the hottest year ever in one small country is evidence that global doom is approaching. However, the statistics of what has happened globally the past 30 years speak volumes. Including 2006, six of the seven warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the ten warmest years have occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6�C and 0.7�C (1.1 - 1.3� F) since the start of the 20th Century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the mean for the past 100 years. If the rate of warming since 1976 (Figure 2)--0.55�C in 30 years--is sustained the remainder of this century, the Earth will be a full 2�C warmer in 2100 than it was in 1990. This amount of warming would be tremendously costly to society and highly damaging to many ecosystems.

Figure 2. Temperature departures from normal for 1880-2006. Source: National Climatic Data Center.

The globe is undeniably warming at rapid rate, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if 2007 surpasses the global temperature record set in 2005, since we are entering 2007 with a moderate El Ni�o event on our hands. El Ni�o conditions add a tremendous amount of heat to the Earth's surface, and the current El Ni�o--which is expected to last at least until May--should drive up global temperatures significantly. Global doom is not at hand, but the predictions by our best climate scientists of a 1.4 to 5.8�C increase in global temperatures between 1990 and 2100 are quite believable and need to be taken seriously.

Next week, I plan to talk about the not-so-cheerful study published in Geophysical Research Letters this week titled, Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice. A sudden and complete disintegration of the North Polar ice cap could happen by 2040, according to some computer model calculations.

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

Looking at the graph of mean temperatures since the 1880's, this sure looks like a natural cycle. Pre-1940, temperatures were lower than "normal" on the almost the same scale that temperatures are higher now.

I do not discount that the pollution we are causing are having an effect on the temperatures and weather, but how do we know that that is the entire reason, or even the majority of the cause of this warming trend, and not part of a natural cycle of the earth?

My point is that while global warming is a problem, and that we should definitely do all we can to reduce emissions, how do we know that if we were somehow able to magically stop all emissions completely right now, that the warming trend would not continue?
This is all interesting stuff but really, what percentage of actual data do we really have. What? We have 120 years of human reporting in selective areas and the Earth was formed approximately 4,567,000,000 years ago. Thats a big percentage, maybe .00000003284. Wow......Granted, we do have ways of looking at trends through trees and Ice. No matter how close I am to the actual age of our home, the bottom line is that we really dont know whats going to happen. Look at all the professional predictions that were made about our Hurricane Season. Enough said.....It is fun and challenging to predict our home's atmosphere. But i dont think that we are even close to realizing the potential or extremes that can become reality. Have a great weekend! And as always, thanks to Dr. Masters for providing a great website for all of us weather fanatics to come to.
turbines and so?
morning mr. cyclone,how are you today ?
Glad to hear that...
I'm kind of sad that in spite of all the proclamations and high-stepping agreements, the place seems to be still heating up. Cant understand the attitude that we should just keep going regardless, until we know for sure..............
I could send you doors and windows, I never seem to get around to shutting them anyway.........
oooops, visitors, I gone
"There will be very few regions of the country experiencing a white Christmas this year."

I agree. However, it's been funny to see some of the wishcasting happening on local Kansas City weather blogs. One blogger is already predicting, in detail, a major snowstorm for Chirstmas day...10 days from now. A little knowledge (in this case, knowledge of where to find the Day 10 model output) can be a dangerous thing.
I believe that there is unanimous consent among scientists that the reason for the increase in temperature globally is due to the increased CO2 count in our atmosphere and that a reduction in the CO2 count will have a positive impact of lowering the temperature. The belief that there is disagreement about this among experts is a politically motivated fallacy driven by special interest. Don't believe me...do your own research; I did.
When you look at that chart, the "normal" is the average for the chart, not some global normal over all of time. Of course half will be above and half will be below.

We ARE in a global warming trend. That is real. It's only a guess to speculate the cause, duration, and magnitude of the warming, but the warming is real.

Are humans at fault? Who knows? The only way to scientifically prove it is to test it; to reduce our CO2 and see what happens. Then we'd have to test it again to make sure it wasn't a fluke. And lets face the reality of it; unless you're 20 something or younger, there's really no chance of us lowering the CO2 in our atmosphere within our lifetimes.

We're already on the rollercoaster, and there's no getting off until the end.
I don't hold much credence in these 1.4-5.8 C increase forecasts. We can't even get 3 day outlooks correct and they expect us to believe their almost-doomsday scenarios? Earth's climate (and this is fact) fluctuates according to natural cycles, ones that we CANNOT interpret or predict because we only know 0.0000000001% of the whole story. Yes, humans can influence these natural cycles, but not by 4 or 5 degrees globally. We don't know how long this warming trend will last, but let's not get carried away. The planet will regulate itself as it has done for 4.6 billion years.
Caffinehog, I disagree with you on one key point. I do believe that humanity could drive down CO2 levels if our political leaders became persuaded that it was necessary. I expect that for the US this will come either when rising sea levels starting causing flooding of coastal US cities, increasing droughts wreck American agriculture, or a hurricane slams into Washington DC. The myopia of the American political elite is absolutely staggering, and THE major impediment to serios global action on this issue..
good stuff
Thank you to Dr. Masters for these new world temperature reports. They are extremely easy to follow. The Sydney Morning Herald has an article in today's online edition titled "Water Thieves Leave Farmers Parched." Australia is going to be one of the first modern climate disaster societies due to drought, heat, and fire. Just in case anyone was wondering about long term climate records, Australia is living proof that, records or not, the heat is on.
Afternoon all,

Interesting to see the Dr.'s comments, expecially the one about the ice pack breaking up. Lots of implications for waterfront properties in the Bahamas . . .

Meanwhile I've been looking at the NASA satellite viewer and noting that all the heavy rain I expected this morning "dematerialized" before it got here [Nassau]. In fact, currently it's only partly cloudy! However, another batch looks like it is building to the west of Andros, so we may get some rain this evening instead.

Who mentioned Australia? I remember in doing some reading about ENSO that Australia is usually badly hit by drought in ENSO+ years. The idea that El Nio episodes may be forming more frequently has to have a ring of doom to Aussie meteorologists and farmers . . .
Look at all the professional predictions that were made...

Remember, professionals built the Titanic. Amateurs built the Ark.

A little knowledge...can be a dangerous thing.
Climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get.

On the global temperature thing, I still don't see how a ball of metal and rock, molten at its center but cooling for millions of years, surrounded by liquid and gas, can be proclaimed absolutely to be warming as a whole. The atmosphere (the most important part to us), and the oceans may be warming, but do we truly understand where this energy is coming from and where it is going globally? Is more energy really coming in than is going out?

The melting of polar ice is troubling. Due to the latent heat (enthalpy) of fusion, melting a mass of ice represents much more heat than heating an equal mass of water one degree. The effect is that it tends to keep the temperature of the system stable until all of the ice is gone (think lemonaid). Still, it could just be a redistribution of heat, not a net increase globally.

True we might be able to lower CO2 emissions, but how do we lower the concentration of CO2 already in the atmosphere(and in the oceans)?
It takes energy to convert it back into carbon. Plants can do it, but it is a slow process. Anyone working on solar powered "scrubbers"?
Concerning the drought in Australia, the good Dr. Masters is trying to say something. Records or no records, if you're living in a drought situation, you have a different perspective. you have every reason to be freaked out about the latest climate records. Many Australians are drinking recycled water.
indigenous....If you would post links to information regarding the status of the drought situation in Australia it would be most helpful.
Hi Randrewl,

Here is one link from the ABC.


Here is a rainfall map from the BoM for June to November. (the growing season in Oz) showing the departure from normal rainfall.


Here is the latest drought statement from the BoM.

That should be enough to get you started. :-)

Trying again...
Global Cooling:
Thanks, osprof. Excellent information. What I was trying to say is that on a percentage basis, if the Australian drought was happening in the U.S. we would be having a very different conversation regarding the climate information that Dr. Masters posted this morning. In other words, if it's not in my back yard...
37. TX
nice comment Mosaic
38. TX
if it's not in your back yard (NIMBY), then why care ? how about the flutter of a butterfly's wings in brazil...or michoacan?
The thing about back yards is that they can be separated by just little things, like fence lines. So if, just for example, there was a fire in your backyard, I'd be worried about where that fire might spread to next. Even if my back yard isn't contiguous with yours, there's a good chance I'd have to deal with some smoke, and maybe even a poisonous fume or two hundred . . .

On a global scale, we're all in the same neighbourhood. As a case in point, I read something earlier this year about ENSO concerns - in BOTSWANA [N of S. Africa] of all places. You realize that Bostwana doesn't even have a coastline. Yet ENSO conditions 1/2 a world away can result in even greater dryness in a country that is already semi-arid.

We should be as worried as they are.
On a vaguely related note, I wonder how much weather conditions in the late 1920s and early 1930s contributed to the prolonging of the Great Depression? If I remember correctly, these were high hurricane and also Dust Bowl years . . .
ozprof....Appreciate the links.
Storms Leave 4 Dead, 1M Without Power

UPDATED: 12:15 pm PST December 15, 2006

SEATTLE -- Howling windstorms and heavy rains left at least four people dead and more than 1 million homes and businesses without power across Western Washington early Friday.

One woman died after being trapped in the flooded basement of her home, while falling trees killed three others in the worst storm to hit the state in nearly 13 years.

The Evergreen Point floating bridge across Lake Washington east of Seattle remained closed early Friday and numerous other highways were blocked because of high water or windblown trees. The Hood Canal floating bridge and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge were reopened early Friday after being closed Thursday evening.

Video: 520 Bridge Damaged In Storm

"It hit right when we thought it would -- in the middle of the night," said KIRO 7 Eyewitness News meteorologist Rick VanCise, of perhaps the most powerful storm in decades.

Hundreds of schools are closed for the day. Get the latest school closures here.

Video from Chopper 7 showed dozens of trees down in West Seattle Friday, including one uprooted right on the busy California Avenue along with a light pole. A few blocks away, a 90-foot tree crashed down on Fauntleroy Avenue, another main thoroughfare.

It was the worst windstorm to hit the state since one on Jan. 20, 1993, that left five people dead, destroyed at least 79 homes and badly damaged 581 others, cut electricity to 750,000 utility customers in the Seattle area and caused about $130 million in damage, said Clifford F. Mass, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor.

About 50 residents of Sunrise Assisted Living of Edmonds were evacuated after a tree came crashed through the third floor about 2 a.m., knocking out the fire main and flooding the building, Snohomish County emergency management officials said.

Residents were sent to other facilities operated by Sunrise in the area, many to one in Snohomish where employees were working through a power outage. No injuries were reported.

Hazardous material shipments were prohibited on Interstate 5 through Seattle and on some other major routes because of power outages, and one of the concourses and the south satellite terminal at the airport were without electricity. A second concourse was evacuated after a window blew out.

Winds gusted to a record 69 mph about 1 a.m. at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, breaking the old mark of 65 mph set in 1993.

A number of flights were canceled, including all American Airlines service through the morning hours. Some were canceled because planes that normally would have been used Friday morning were unable to land Thursday night. Airport spokesman Robert Parker said he didn't know how many flights were affected.

Video: Some Flights Canceled At Sea-Tac

Seattle public schools and numerous suburban and outlying school districts with more than 300,000 students were closed Friday, as was The Evergreen State College in Olympia.

In Seattle, firefighters cut a hole in the floor to pull Kathryn Fleming, 41, out of her flooded windowless basement after neighbors heard her screaming that she was trapped, but she was pronounced dead after being taken to Harborview Medical Center.

"Somehow, the door shut, and she couldn't open the door because of the water pressure," Fire Department spokeswoman Helen Fitzpatrick said.

In Grays Harbor County, a 28-year-old man was killed around midnight when the top of a tree snapped off, crashing into his home in the Brookside Trailer Court in McCleary, 18 miles west of Olympia.

The 40-foot section of the tree crushed the man, who has not been identified, while he slept, Chief Ron Pittman of the McCleary Fire Department, told The World newspaper in Aberdeen.

"The tree came down and flattened every down to the floor. It just came right down on him," Pittman said.

In Pierce County, Harold J. Fox, 47, of Eatonville, was killed Thursday when a tree fell on his vehicle on State Route 7 near Roy, the Washington State Patrol said, and a woman died and her husband was critically injured when a tree fell on their pickup truck after they stopped because of fallen trees southeast of McKenna.

The Seattle Times reported a reduced press run of 13,000 editions because of the storm. Normal weekday circulation is more than 210,000.

About 700,000 customers of Puget Sound Energy, the state's largest private utility, were without power early Friday and about three-fourths of the circuits were down in the company's nine-county service area, spokesman Roger Thompson said.

Other outages affected about 171,000 customers in Seattle, 120,000 in the Snohomish County Public Utility District north of the city, 70,000 to 80,000 to the south in Tacoma and 22,000 in the Grays Harbor PUD on the coast.

There was no estimate of how long it would take to restore all service, but Neil Neroutsos of the Snohomish PUD noted that repair crews were busy for more than a week after the Inauguration Day storm of 1993.

The hardest hit area was King County, which includes Seattle, where drenching rain accompanied the first wallop as the storm hit Thursday afternoon, slowing commuters to a crawl. The winds picked up again around midnight.

"That second one is when we saw the greatest number of outages, after midnight," said Dorothy Bracken, a Puget Sound Energy spokeswoman.

Repair crews were waiting for the winds to subside after daybreak before beginning to assess the damage and restoring power, and some are likely to be in the dark for three she said.

"They've been defeated in doing that because of the continued strong winds ... they never died down," she said. "It's just not safe."

Puget Sound Energy already had 50 to 60 two- and four-person repair crews from areas as far away as California and Nevada for a total of more than 180 crews primed to begin work following an earlier, less damaging wave of storms that hit Wednesday.

Outages from the earlier storm were all fixed before the one began Thursday, and the extra crews were kept rather than sent home, Bracken said.

Even with the outside help, though, some customers won't have their lights back on for days, he said.

Some of the outages were caused by lightning, an unusual circumstance in the Puget Sound region.

As the storm system passed over the region, "we've had some embedded thunderstorms that dropped impressive amounts of water," said Dennis D'Amico, a National Weather Service meteorologist.

Winds were clocked at 90 mph near Westport on the coast, in the 80s along the Strait of Juan de Fuca leading inland toward Seattle, 74 mph at the Hood Canal floating bridge, which links the Kitsap and Olympic peninsulas and 63 mph at the Evergreen Point floating bridge, one of two linking Seattle with the suburbs east of Lake Washington.

Rain drenched Qwest Field in Seattle shortly before the NFL game between the Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers, leaving standing water on the field. About half an hour before kickoff, a power surge briefly knocked out electricity to the large video screens at each ends of the stadium.

Nearly an inch of rain fell in one hour at the weather service's north Seattle office. A record rainfall of 2.17 inches was set in Seattle for the date, breaking the old record of 1.24 inches on Dec. 14, 2002.

In the 24 hours ending at 4:30 p.m. Thursday, the Weather Service said the Mason County city of Shelton recorded 2.19 inches of rain, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport received 1.09 inches, Olympia had 1.53 inches, Hoquiam on the coast had 1.83 inches, and Maple Falls in the Cascade foothills east of Bellingham had 1.46 inches.
Here is how I think we are affecting the Earth's temperatures:

Note: Unlike Dr. Masters' graph, this is not averaged over the whole period, only over the pre-GW period, to show the temperature rise above normal better.
Alotta good points made. Though comparing a prediction as to how many specific hurricanes are gonna form & land where to getting an estimate on the global temp using models is like apples to oranges, to me. Hurricane season predictions are mostly done with areas getting scores based on conditions & simply added up. & the info that is gathered for this is from a few hundred years with inacuracies that arrise when your trying to gage windspeed & finute things, particlurly before just recently (no satalites before the '60's).

On the other hand a good record of Temperature & CO2 amounts is stored safely in the ice...at least for now. It's been cored, counted & graphed at least to 400,000 years. There seems a real corilation between the amount of CO2 & the temperature. CO2 goes up, temp goes up. CO2 gets around 300ppmv, temp rises like mad, til peak & the world gets cold. & those saying there's a cycle, I agree. But don't be blind look real close at the red CO2 line at the very right of the graph, time now. That is not normal or part of the cycle. Aerosols, air pollution, contrails & some volcano events have held the temps for a bit, masking global warming, as well as the ocean soaking up some heat but as history shows at some point the temp should rise substantually with that CO2 line, which is currently now 2X's as high as it has ever been in the last 400,000 years & got that high in less then 150 years.

Lets look at he last 100 years more closely & how most scientists roughly agree different forcings are effecting things & notice temp is following CO2.

credit wikipedia & Meehl et al.
The grey modeled line doesn't show perfection but way better then Dr Grays December 'cane season prediction for the next year.

As far as scientits agreeing~ from the EPA to Iraq & back again again, it's agreed burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. Find a peer reviewed paper in the last 5 years that says is isn't. There are plenty of papers coming from think tanks & what not saying it isn't, look closely at their funding..big energy.

Everything you do to reduce CO2 will pay you back, get the fancy light bulbs. They save you roughly $40 a piece, energy effecent appliences & cars pay for themselves when you consider what you would have payed to run your old ones. US govt will pay part of your new solar water heater (which cuts your electric by roughly a 1/4) & for solar house panels (tie into the grid & sell your power company your extra & buy at a reduced rate when you need..in the end it pays you & no batterys). It costs less money to put in solar exterior lights & solar lights in outbuildings then to run a line. It's not hard to conserve & what your do will pay you money in the end.

As for cleaning CO2 from the air. This is a hot new industry & area of research. I've seen stuff from getting it out of open air & pumping back into the ground, to collect roughly 60% of what is leaving a smoke stack & turning it to fertalizer.
Ernesto's TCR has been released - pressure decreased at NC landfall but not upgraded to a hurricane. Also, it was a tropical storm the entire time it was over Florida.
Gotta run. I'll check in later; this discussion is pretty interesting . . .
Patrap, Randrewl et. al. I think you might enjoy this junk science report at Fox news.
Ernesto formed from a tropical wave that emerged from the west coast of Africa on 18
August and moved steadily but uneventfully westward across the tropical Atlantic during the following several days.

It was only "uneventfully" if you weren't reading the blog! lol
Vegetarians are more intelligent, says study

Thingamabobbercane revisited?

Interesting on the global climate data.
BTW, I updated the forecasts on

Florida Weather

Looks like a relatively tranquil time ahead.
More proof of the new Thingamabobbercane

MichaelSTL, I like your graphic you created. I also like the post from Skypeony.

A lot of the uncertainty about the rate of global warming this century comes from how rapidly heat is absorbed by the ocean. One recalibrated model released yesterday showed a lot more heat being absorbed into the ocean (not all a good thing, it made the thermal expansion of the ocean considerably greater, no free lunch) Any more thoughts on that?
That just looks like a low level circulation with the main baroclinic energy being shoved off to the northeast by the mid latitude jet.
Stsimons come to my blog.
Heres a nice loop of itLink
Hey StSimons,

Long time no hear from . . .

What is your take on all the global warming stuff?
I dunno about the thingermabobercane thingie.

Looks like whatever CoC there is is actually a low pressure centred south of the bulk of the convection (in between the Canaries and the Verdes, but west).

I think global warming is real. The industrialization of China and India, combined with their large domestic coal reserves will send CO2 concentrations above 500 ppm before 2050. I think the world of 2050 will be very different than today.

Also, I think that the 22nd century will have a very difficult time dealing with the magnitude of global warming that will be taking place.

I am pretty pessimistic long in the long term about this issue, as I see very little of substance being done. The industrialization of India and China (along with southeast Asia in between, and possibly Latin America) will overwhelm any conservation measures we can take here.

Bluntly, I think that global warming with make the majority of the world's breadbaskets unproductive during the 22nd century.

The amount of energy infrastructure we have here, along with the coal and petroleum based energy consumption patterns in the countries I mentioned mean that large increases in CO2 concentration are inevitable, with the huge increases in coal-generated electricity plants under contstruction and planned in China and India.

Conservatives are right about one big point--the market is a powerful force. I think that there are enough petroleum and coal reserves in the ground to be readily used to handle future economic growth--no long-term energy crises. Large petroleum reserves are being developed in the Sudan, Chad, and off the central african coast. The petroleum reserves in the tar sands and oil shales in Alberta and Venezuela are enourmous, althoug costly. Coal is widely abundant.

The only limit on carbon-based fuels is what we voluntarily chose to do, not because the resources will run out.

So, since I don't think people will stop using carbon based fuels as long as they are resonably priced, abundant, and easy to exploit, I think that large CO2 increases are inevitable. Nothing I can see changes that.
This is probably the most sensible thing anybody has had to say about the argument for a long time. I think opportunities for so-called "first world" countries to impact the global warming issue from a political perspective have basically faded. And most of the people who will be developing these resources will be using them themselves, to help reduce economic dependence outside their borders.

It should be interesting to see how the world evolves, especially weatherwise.
Ah Junkscience.com...

The term was further popularised by Fox News columnist Steven Milloy, who used it to attack the results of scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of the term, and of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was damaged by revelations that Milloy had received extensive funding and direction from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil.[1][2][3]

Nice point Randrewl not only does being a vegaterian help make less CO2 it makes ya smarter.
The Ol nail in the Coffin.
Thanks Baha :)

One of the trends that more optimistic people had cited was "decarbonization", the generation of less CO2 emissions per unit of economic production. That has been going on in the US since the 1973 energy crisis. This continues here--from 1995-2005 economic growth averaged about 3 1/4% annually, while CO2 emissions increased about 1 % annually

That is not so difficult to do when you are already an advanced economy. If you buy a new car, get a more efficient one. Buy more efficient appliances and light bulbs. We do that all the time.

However, what is going on in China and India is that people are buying their FIRST car, getting electric appliances for the FIRST time. The growth rates for electricity and energy consumption have been as high as 22% in China, and around 15% in India.

Another thing is that while India and China have large domestic coal reserves, they do not have large oil or gas reserves. Petroleum and natural gas generate less CO2 than coal. Natural gas generates about 50% less CO2 than coal per amount of power, and petroleum about 30% less. Coal fired plants now comprise about 80% of the electric power plants being built and planned in China and India, and power plants typically last around 50 years or so. So the CO2 that a plant generates now will continue to be generated for the next 50 years!

In China, assuming that economic growth continues at almost the present levels, the middle two quartiles of households (according to income distribution) will be able to afford their first car between 2010 and 2030. This is a larger population than Japan, Canada, the USA, and western Europe combined. In India the same thing will happen between 2025 and 2045. Yes, petroleum will become expensive, but the reserves in the Alberta and Venezuelan tar sands can all be exploited (Alberta's already are) at under $100/bbl Even if technology to exploit the oil shales and tar sands doesn't become more efficient (and who believes that) a $100/bbl oil price in 2045 is only about a 1% annual increase from today's prices. That's not difficult to handle. Reserves of these oils are in the trillions of barrels.

The oil will be there to fuel their cars, and the coal to fire the generators. The only thing lacking is restraint, and I expect that they will exercise the same restraint in using coal and petroleum that we did when we industrialized *grimace*
Tunnel Effect..3
Translated..LOL! 6
BRAVO !!!!!!!! this is a wonderful discussion. My view, stated earlier, is that its madness to continue generating CO2 at current levels, while we argue about whether or not CO2 is the culprit (that can be reduced ). Unfortunately I cant see us doing any meaningful reductions at all.......
Where did everybody go ???
LOL.... Tunnels = Boring... Right... LOL
Good evening,

Not sure if this has been posted yet in the blog but earlier today the NHC released there ernesto report.Over all the National hurricane center indeed kept ernesto as a cane as it maintained cat 1 strength for a brief period.Heavy rains were felt from hispaniola to parts of north carolina.Gale-force winds were also felt in a few areas.

Ernesto was the only real possible siginificant threat to the united states in 2006 but the mountains of cuba took a toll on the circulation and ended up being nothing of great significance.

90. Alec
I believe Aaron has told you CB to take your "tunnel rant" to your own blog on multiple occassions.......
I don't see any Thingamabobbercane.
Great debate all! Very well done!

I believe that Global Warming is very real. I do have a couple points to make.

One, to StSimonsIslandGuy, who says that he doesnt see any reductions in the short-mid term furture of c02 as superpower giants China and India have plans to build copious amounts of coal power plants, 1 every week in fact.

I would answer this as saying we have simply not seen the true wrath of Global Warming yet. There is a clause as to how bad the wrath will be as we could theroretically reduce our emissions quickly. However, if we dont, and it may happen, we wil truely see the wrath, and by that time we will be so darned scared, litterally shiting in our pants at the wrath of the once stable climate we took for granted throughout human history, that we will IMMEDIATELY switch over to fossil fuels; whatever the cost. For Global Warming is a unique and scary phenominom as it has the ability to wipe out entire economies, civilizations and the human race, including most life on Earth.

The next point is

About the fuel when crude runs out and we need to resort to the oil shales and coal as our main source of fuel...If oil runs out it would be extremely expensive to soley rely on oil shales as the extraction process is very difficult and you can only use a very small percentage of the shales. Secondly, I remember hearing that right now we have 500 years worth of coal. Lots. However if we were to run out of petroleum and switch to coal, we wouldn only have enough coal for around 75 years, definetly not sustainable for long perionds of time.

Third point

For those who do not believe Global Warming is human induced, the amount of damage we are doing to our oceananic ecosystems is unbelievable. At the current rate right now, due to over consumption and pollution in our waters from fossil fuels, in just 30-40 years, 100% of the viable fisheries will be gone = no more fish = hige economic loss + breakdown of ecosystems. Also because of coral bleaching due to pollution, up to 30% of the Worlds coral reefs will be gone in just 50 years. These trends were predicted long ago and continue at a faster rate today.


Why the hell are we waiting to use renewable energies. In the long run they are much more cost effective on houses and public facilities. One houshold can save hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on their energy using solar. Its clean, long lasting, boosts the economy ei: England who has over the past 25-30 years an ecomomy that has grown 41% with carbon emissions being reduced 15%. Renewables are also much safer as we will not have to fight for oil around the globe. And once on solar, we will be able to enhance our public works/services for our country as we will save huge amounts of money.

Great progress in California which is consistently the trend setter for economic growth.

Thanks all and keep up the great work. Lots of great hope for the future and our children.


Burning hydrocarbon fuel consumes O2 faster than it creates CO2, so it stands to reason that the level of free O2 in the atmosphere should be decreasing. This would be of concern for anyone who likes to breath. Does anyone have a link to recent data ( a graph, I'm lazy)on atmospheric O2? As far as historic levels of O2, there seems to be at least two different ideas:
Which one is right? At 35% O2, any fire would be spectacular!
Posted By: WunderYakuza (Admin) at 6:37 PM GMT on April 25, 2006.

The tunnels topic is probably spent, and any further discussion of it is going to be spammed.
That's interesting buster. I see you managed to work tunnels
Very interesting finding this while looking for something else today on the web:


Massachusetts Institute of Technology has teams studying the insurance coverage issues and the levee breaks.
Posted By: WunderYakuza (Admin) at 6:37 PM GMT on April 25, 2006.

The tunnels topic is probably spent, and any further discussion of it is going to be spammed.
Atmospheric oxygen has been steady in concentration for at least the last billion years, maintained at an equilibrium by the combined effect of the world's biota.

What has not been steady is CO2 - when it goes up, temps go up. When it goes down, temps go down. Not that hard to follow, and the underlying greenhouse effect concept is not that hard to grasp.

Much can be done very quickly to take carbon out of the air - for example, you can plant a LOT of trees! Canadian firms are starting to experiment with carbon "sequestration" (burial), with the aim of taking as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as the extraction of the Alberta tar sands puts in.

I am noting the comments about how India and China will be putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere in the future, and that being used as an excuse for the US doing nothing. That is so lame. The US is directly responsible for much of the atmospheric CO2 that is up there NOW, and if any nation on this planet should be taking the lead in reducing CO2 emissions it is the US.
mgreen91 -- looks like they need someone from LA on Team 6. They remembered to put in "corruption," but they put it last!
Ahhhh ...

Not to change the subject, but check out the tracks from the Southern Indian Ocean's cyclone season. Pretty interesting stuff.
Atmospheric oxygen concentration has not been constant for the last billion years, though it is reasonably stable at 21% right now. It has varied from 35% 252 million years ago to nearly zero a few million years later, after the P-T extinction event.
There is no proof that CO2 has led to increased global warmth. You have paralelled two outcomes and drawn a conclusion that they must be tied with a minimal population of numbers. Further, plants are not even a 1/3 of what removes CO2 from the atmosphere, not even a 1/3. You have missed the largest CO2 sink, the oceans themselves, you know the one thing you alarmists keep clamering about how they are getting larger by the day. Which by the way is another normal cycle, along with the slowing of the currents. Proof positive is in coral growth and population distribution throughout the world. Coral growth and distribution slows with the currents as sea levels rise. Quite a normal pattern.
The real deabate is the rate at which the earth warms. Guess what? We have no clue at what rate it has warmed/cooled in the past before human records existed, but we do know rapid changes in climate have occured causing extinctions.
I believe that lab experiments have confirmed that CO2 indeed traps heat (more specifically, infrared radiation), which is why we know that it does the same thing in the atmosphere (and other greenhouse gasses).
MichaelSTL, that's exactly what it does.

But we're still missing some important answers:
1. How much does it absorb?
2. How much of each ton of CO2 that we put out stays in the atmosphere?
3. What other effects does increased CO2 cause?
4. Is the NET effect of increased CO2 global warming?
5. How much of the CO2 increase is due to human activities?
6. Is increased CO2 the ONLY reason for the warming?
7. Is there anything we can do to counteract this?

We don't know these answers, and they're pretty important.
One could consider this possibility:
A natural change in ocean currents increases the warmth near the north pole. Ice melts, and decreases the amount of reflective, white snow. This allows more heat to be absorbed, accellerating the process until all the ice is gone. Poof! Instant global warming without CO2!

One could consider this:
CO2 causes warming, which decreases rainfall, which decreases vegitation. Bare ground is more reflective, and therefore cooling occurs. Poof! We're back to normal.

One could consider this:
The earth could be in an unusually seismically active period, resulting in an abnormal number of volcanic eruptions. These release LOTS of CO2, and so we enter a warming phase. Would we have any clue if it were unusually seismically active right now? Maybe the opposite is true, and only that has prevented global catastrophe.

Or this:
Might our CO2 emissions be the only thing preventing another ice age right now?

There are thousands of possibilities.
All that we really know is that the earth is in a warming trend right now.

Of course, we should take action to decrease CO2 emissions. But is it too late? Is it too little? Will it have any effects at all? And would a warmer earth be all that bad for humanity? Who knows?
Wait!!!!!!!! I have an idea!

We all breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, right?

Well, what if we got everyone in the world to hold their breath for 30 seconds every day?
127. V26R
Yeah, but for how many days are you talking about?
129. V26R
Like Make Love Not CO2?
I thought that warming increases rainfall (at least worldwide)? Warmer temperatures = more evaporation (and it is not a linear process; the rate of evaporation increases exponentially with temperatures).
132. V26R
Buster, You're asking for alot now
135. V26R
I'm sure there are many on this list who would agree with you
137. V26R
Depends, That might cause trouble, we already have over a thousand TV channels with nothing on!
trouper, I hope you didn't think that I felt that we should do nothing--I think we should conserve energy, develop more efficient power plants, cars, appliances, lighting, all of it! And help the emerging countries like China and India develop a less carbon-intensive energy economy. I just see no sign of substantive steps being taken. Also, I agree with you that we have not seen the real wrath of global warming yet (and may not until after 2050, although possibly before) I am concerned that during the next few decades that the oceans may absorb more heat than may be forecast, which would mean that atmospheric temperatures would rise less rapidly than otherwise. If that is the case, there may be no real pressure for India and China to develop a less carbon-intensive economy. Between now and 2030 India and China will develop most of the energy infrastructure they will use, and I am afraid that most of their power generation will come from coal--and these coal plants will not be shut down just because of climate change--people would not stand for it. Once all those coal power plants are built, you just can't tear down hundreds of power plants and turn the lights off. I just think that the wrath of global warming will really become apparent too late to forestall China and India building a carbon-intensive economy.

I just have a gut feeling that ocean absorbion of heat will delay rapid atmospheric temperature rises a few decades, prompting a lot of skepticm about global warming, and making excuses to do nothing seem palatable. After 2050 the ever rising concentration of CO2 and accelerating feedbacks (loss of snow and ice reflection of heat, release of CO2 from thawing permafrost and maybe methane releases from clathrates will make for a truly hellish world.

I fear than in 2030 we will have a world maybe 2 F or so warmer than today, and it will not be so different from now, and people just wont think it is a big deal with some conservative wag saying "climate change is a great crisis for the future and always will be"

In sum, I am afraid that by the time RAPID global warming starts, which will generate the political pressure needed to replace energy sources it will be too late to prevent catastropic climate change.
cyclonebuster, how about mouse potato society? ;-)
This is interesting: How Much Do Bicycles Pollute?


Sooooo... CO2 production from human bodies is insignificant compared to machines... also, food, especially organic food, removes CO2 from the air.
147. V26R
Why waste the money on a tandem bike if you intend to just put your feet up? Seems like
a waste to me, why not just a side car?
148. V26R
Im not so sure about eating 22 pounds of rice either
That could be a potential HazMat Problem
all i want to say is two years ago my Environmental Science teacher told out class by 2050 the ice caps could be virtually gone. Now two years later its 2040? So whats it gonna be two years later its gonna be 2009, and were gonna here 2030, then what?

I love science, but sometimes i just feel like we are constently trying to fix science.
154. V26R
Okay Buster, but what do you do when you gotta do a Milk run at midnight or its cloudy outside?
GM killed the electric car...

and to let you know it solar power vehicles are about as much as a McLaren F1. So world wide use is about as possible as it being sunny everyday.
158. V26R
But how long do the batteries last before recharging is needed? I remember seeing a documentary about a race in Australia by these guys using Solar Cars that everyone got stuck when it was really cloudy for a few days. The key point in your Pix is that they are all in bright sunshine. What would happen to the Folks in the Great White North?
160. V26R
I think that the closest we've come so far in the way of Solar Powered Vehicles is the ones with both Gas Engines and Batteries. You are Right The Future holds Promise!
164. V26R
Hey Rand, Last Three Posts were the same, time to change the graphic
Change the rhetoric.....the graphic changes. And why would anyone know that my last three comments were the same if this place was not boring?
167. V26R
Well off to Work I go, Its been fun
Night All
168. V26R
Well if its so boring, go do something else or try and liven it up abit!

I just enjoy a good laugh y'all!....LOL
Well, my site's shut down for the moment. Since it's winter and my hosting expires before next year, farewell till next Summer.
I can't believe people sat up here until 5 a. m. being bored. . . .

The Indian ocean tracks seemed pretty interesting. They don't usually get quite so many in a season, do they?

I am also interested to see what will happen in the Australian forecast areas during their summer and fall. I think El Nio increases cyclone potential along the east / north coast.

Hmmm . .. . I think I'll check and get back to u guys on that.
All I see is two big extra tropical lows that have a surface reflection.
All I see is FOG!
My exit Link
Live Video feed..More Fog..Link
..Aint it foggy outside!..all the container trucks..their all Grounded...
Aint it foggy Outside!
I saw all of this baloney last spring. Here is a more important number, er, approximation: 6.5 billion. That's about how many people there are. Most of those would be happy to own a bicycle. I'd go buy one, but I don't have a good place to ride it.

See there is a more realistic goal, one that has been proven, and the effects cannot be refuted. Localized polution! I do not buy into the global BS people with hidden agendas are trying to push. But we can see the polution in localized environments. Anyone who has ever lived or visited SOCAL knows the fine layer of yellowish haze that actually sticks to everything it comes into contact with. Citites need to do away with local roads. There is just no need for localized traffic any longer. I can agree that we need to strive to push for better utilization of our cities and the roadways.
Looks like Al Gore Might have been right bout htis globalwarming issue
Justcoasting, of course Al Gore was right. Just like millions of others are right about how we affect global temperatures. Unfortunately,big business demands profit at any expense, and the destruction of the atmosphere as we know it doesnt bother Big Business too much......
191. ZRR
Global Warming, An Upper Midwestern Perspective

The surface record is flawed and unreliable as
the margin of eror in readings dating back to the late 1800's I'm sure are greater than
+/-0.6C with is the current anomaly. Its funny how all warm anomalies are blaimed on Global warming while cold anomalies are just that, anomalies. Just to balance things out note that Alaska experienced its 4th coldest november on record this year. And while much of europe has been above normal this fall for example large areas of below normal surface temperatures existed in the north pacific were nobody lives to complain about it. Were was global warming in 1996 when we experienced 6 straight nights with lows below -40 degrees F and almost two straight weeks of below -10 degree lows. Or January 1994 wich was our second coldest January on record second only to 1912. 1996 Was the coldest year on record according the NCDC Data for many upper midwestern cities. The northern himisphere did take a warm turn begining with the 1997 supper El Nino. What are you guys going to say when the current warm period abates and we go through another cold period, say similar to ones in the late 70's.
There was thunder snow in the northwest last night. That was really interesting.
ZRR , to sumarise your post, you do not agree that we have effects on climate, and the rise in temp is nothing to be concerned about, because it may even cool down again. Possible. But unlikely. In the meantime, carry on man, someone else gets to clean up after the party........
Global Warming, An Upper Midwestern Perspective

The surface record is flawed and unreliable as
the margin of eror in readings dating back to the late 1800's I'm sure are greater than
+/-0.6C with is the current anomaly. Its funny how all warm anomalies are blaimed on Global warming while cold anomalies are just that, anomalies. Just to balance things out note that Alaska experienced its 4th coldest november on record this year. And while much of europe has been above normal this fall for example large areas of below normal surface temperatures existed in the north pacific were nobody lives to complain about it. Were was global warming in 1996 when we experienced 6 straight nights with lows below -40 degrees F and almost two straight weeks of below -10 degree lows. Or January 1994 wich was our second coldest January on record second only to 1912. 1996 Was the coldest year on record according the NCDC Data for many upper midwestern cities. The northern himisphere did take a warm turn begining with the 1997 supper El Nino. What are you guys going to say when the current warm period abates and we go through another cold period, say similar to ones in the late 70's.

Ummm... isn't that why they call it GLOBAL warming, not U.S. warming, or Midwestern warming or European warming, etc (see the maps and graphs in the blog entry above)? The entire world has to be taken into account; there will always be areas that are cooler than normal but on average the earth is warming. Similarly, you can see this where I live; there are warm spells and cold snaps, but on average it is warmer than normal; there could even be years that are cooler than normal but in the longer run, it is warming:

Satellite measurements show the Earth's magnetic field is weakening quite rapidly. Using the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) data set, the magnetic field at the equator in open ocean has declined 1.7 percent in intensity since 1980, a decline from 34,824 to 34,246 nanoTesla (nT). In contrast, the entire decline over the period from 1900 to 1980 was 2.8 percent. The dramatic decline in Earths magnetic field strength has led many to believe that the Earth may soon encounter a magnetic pole reversal.

Odd on how that lines up perfectly with that global temperature map. Significant drop in magnetic field from 1980 to current and significant increase in average temperatures from 1980 to current. Lets put one more thing into perspective.........


Odd once again that those two components line up........Hmmmmm guess we will need tunnels in space to send the solar output away from us............
The trends are disturbing.Link
The topic is lenghty to say the least.I enjoy discussing the Ice alone.Cause we losing so much reflectivity,..the process could go critical..much sooner than the masses know.
ZRR, I can't believe that post of yours. Just look at the first image Dr. Masters posted - that is the deviation from normal of temperatures PLANETWIDE in 2006. Not seeing a lot of blue areas on there, are you? It has been like that year after year since the mid-1990s. I will eat my shorts when your period of cooling comes, just send me an e-mail. In the meantime I'll continue to put my trust in all of the world's pre-eminent atmospheric scientists, who are all predicting warming..
Odd on how that lines up perfectly with that global temperature map. Significant drop in magnetic field from 1980 to current and significant increase in average temperatures from 1980 to current. Lets put one more thing into perspective.........

First: Where did you get that graph?

Second, the magnetic field and global warming have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Nothing at all. They can't: the earth's magnetic field is driven by internal forces unconnected to the carbon cycle or the heat cycle, while global warming has only two components: external radiation and greenhouse gases.

Virtually all of the world's climatologists agree: the vast majority of global climate change is now anthropogenic, and hand-waving about sunspots does not change the fact that CO2 levels are at their highest and that the change that has been observed agrees with the models that place blame on humans.
On another topic:

The slow pace and sharp left turn at the end do not bode well for rainfall totals.

First: That graph came from NOAA.

The Earth's magnetic field provides protection from the intense Solar radiation. The gradual reduction in the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field results in an increase in the level of harmful radiation at the oceans surface and thus reducing bio-mass of oceans' surface plankton trough a process of sterilisation by irradiation. Result of this is reduced uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Increased solar output increases SSTs as represented in the previuos graph. We know warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. The oceans are the largest CO2 sink, they represent nearly 80% of the absorbtion of CO2.
BigBake~ your graph would say more to me if it didn't end more than 20 years ago. The 10 warmest years have been in the last 11 years & rapid warming didn't really start til the last 9 years before your graph ends. What little of your graph that does show those 9 years the temp line is steeper then the sunspot line.
Patrap love your graphics....Read this morning that anyone east of Alberta could end up with a green Christmas. Pray tell me this is not true. Don't mind it for a couple of days...
Thanks canuck..I had a white xmas in New Orleans in 04.Dec25th
Did someone say the fission reactions that heat the earth's core which allows the earth's rotation to generate the magnetic field is weakening? Ouch! That's what happened to Mars!

Man, Patrap, that was a crazy day. You couldn't get to NO for a while and they had two feet of snow in Victoria, Texas.
Patrap , thanks for the link to tropical glacier research. Good one........
Here's what JMA has to say about the TD headed towards the Philippines:

Tropical Depression

PSTN 162100UTC 09.5N 142.9E POOR

24HF 172100UTC 10.7N 138.8E 150NM 70%
This is the Wikipedia entry on Mars' magnetosphere:

Evidence indicates that in Mars' distant past, it may have had a strong enough magnetosphere to deflect the solar wind coming from the Sun. However, about 4 billion years ago Mars' planetary dynamo ceased, leaving only remnants of the planetary magnetic field to be frozen into magnetically susceptible minerals. Over time, most of this material was reprocessed through various geological events leaving only sections of the ancient southern highlands with remnant magnetic fields. Because of this, the solar wind interacts directly with the Martian ionosphere and thus the Martian atmosphere has been slowly stripped off into space, although the exact amount lost remains uncertain. Both Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Express have detected ionised atmospheric particles trailing off into space behind Mars.
Its been extremely active for those folks with typhoon after typhoon threating the area.

Right now 96W is steadly becoming better organized with improving banding features and with low windshear ahead this system should continue to become better organized.Models right now take 96W on a path that would once again threaten the Philippines.

215. ryang
I know 23.
Ryang, hi....
217. ryang
Hi Pottery.
218. ryang
WHATS UP!!!!!!!!!!!
Ryang, I gather you are leaving. Where are you going ?
220. ryang
Right now i am in st.lucia.I am going to canada to study.
The earth's magnetic field flips every 5,ooo to 50,ooo,ooo years. Average every 250,000 years but with no real cycle on a time scale. It hasn't flipped in 750,000 years, so naturally some say we are overdue & with the weaking of the field & recent roaming of the Magnetic North Pole as well as some satalite info ( grace mostly) it looks like we could be in for one, could be a few centuries. NOVA did a decent show on it not long ago.

The sun on the other hand flips every 11 years like clockwork. It flips at solar sunspot maximum of each sunspot cycle. Last flipped in 2001, the last maximum, the next maximum is 2012. We are pretty much in the minimun of the sun cycle right now.

credit NASA

Back to earth, since it hasn't flipped here in 750,000 years it is imposible to tie it to the glacier cycle, as Big bake was trying to do. & Notice there Bigbake how well the temps follow the amount of CO2. & notice on the very right in now time where CO2 is compared to times past.
Canada.bbrrrrrr. Shivers. Do well my friend. Good luck to you
Beaucoup good article Patrap. I emailed it to a Michael Crichton State of Fear fan I know. Of course, he likes that book just because it tries to justify contradicting the experts.

Interesting how the glacier article tackles Crichton. Ironically, the machinery that Crichton asserts is being used to create a state of fear is being used to obfuscate the global warming issue. This reminds me of a spy novel where you don't know who is really on what side of an issue or what the issue (agenda) really is.
224. ryang
Yeah BRRR.
thank you all but its been rather pleasant here in Southern Ontario. The temps have been very reasonable with highs between 40 and 50F with bouts of rain every now and then. That is thanks to our wonderful friends down in the Gulf region. The cold and snow seems to be centered in the Western provinces and States. I really feel bad for those poor folks in Washington state and hopefully it will be the last for awhile.
..well put, Babbit.
.....so sorry, Bappit.
well put indeed.a good read
People who resent authority figures will reject global warming.

Other people reject global warming because they are in control and want business as usual to continue because--well, obviously--life's been good for them.

Those two camps make strange bedfellows.

Others, I think Crichton is one, just see an opportunity to make money. The owners of this web site could potentially fall in this category, but I see no real issue there. Just so it is duly noted.

My own disclaimer: I resent authority figures and go the route that there are so many people that the debate over global warming is academic in the long run.
Dallas VS Falcons on...
231. ryang
Bye all.Party at my blog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.......debate over global warming is academic etc. You have to explain that to me please.
See Thomas Malthus.
OK , I will......
I get depressed watching all the suburbs going up around me, and my county is growing only the third fastest in Texas.

I get depressed thinking the U.S. has 300 million people and I remember when we reached 200 million.
But, yeah, global warming is a real issue, and if we can start to deal with that then maybe we can get onto the really hard problems, too.
Movement with 96W is mostly westward at a pretty good clip.

Ok, i see where you are coming from, and share that sentiment. The poulation here has doubled in 50 yrs, and 23 % are under 25.
is there any info I can find about possible snowfall on December 25 in Iowa?
CORRECTION>>>>>>23 % are under 18 !!!!
Winds are currently at 20kts with 96W...

23 I just hope the models are wrong. Those people dont need another storm..........
Good night all. I'm out............
Pottery i hope there wrong too...But overall conditions in front of this TD are actually quite favorable and possible strengthing seems likely.Overall symmetry has become much better over the past couple of hours with improved banding features and deep convection now developing near the LLC.

Here is an Infrared view from NRL...


I was not inferring "flips", but in fact periods of weak magnetic fields. Also it was one of many factors I have pointed out driving the warming bus. Also I hate to break it to you but 750,000 years ago an interglacial period did occur. Right now, the earth is in an interglacial period (in between ice ages) that began about 11,000 years ago, and as expected, this is also a time when the estimated solar activity appears to be high.
At least twelve magnetic reversals can be linked to glaciation during the last three million years alone.
A magnetic reversal about three million years ago marked the onset of glaciation. A magnetic reversal about two million years ago marked the onset of glaciation. And yet another reversal about one million years ago (780,000 years ago) marked the onset of glaciation.
The Jaramillo magnetic reversal marked the onset of glaciation, as did the Brunhes magnetic reversal.
The Biwa I, Biwa II, Biwa III, and Blake (at the end Eemian) magnetic reversals coincided with glaciation, and so did the Lake Mungo, Mono Lake, and Gothenburg magnetic reversals (or excursions).


Might want to do some more research there SKYE!
There is nothing about glaciation on that chart! That seems misleading to me.

One side of that chart names magnetic field reversal events and the other side shows VADM. VADM is virtual axial dipole moment - a measurement of magnetic field.

Magnetic and magnetic ... nothing about glaciation.
Looking at that sat pic, things are not good for Phillipines . . .

BigBake, this stuff is half-baked.. The rest of us are talking apples, and you're showing us oranges. Try some more research yourself, ok?

That graph only shows magnetic data, you have to research glacial occurences yourself and match up with the same time periods. If you notice the left side of the chart is years in tenths of a million. At 780,000 (.78 on the chart) a large change occured, doing some research and you will find a glacial occurance at the same time period. Each large change has had a significant glacial occurance.
um hey...this is patrap jr and i was wondering...........what exactly is this conversation about????? (@@)
possible Tropical Cyclone in the southwest Indian Ocean.

no active warnings yet by the Regional Special Meteorological Center in La Reunion but the Joint Typhoon Warning Center has issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert.
well if thats true then why put up a cyclone warning,,,,thats just redundant.... imean just put up the tropical storm warning.

if u ask me i would just keep an eye on things and if it got any wors tell sailors to keep docked \,,,/(-_-)\,,,/
BigBake~ I'm posting the graph since I don't think you looked at it.

If the sole reason it's getting hotter is because we are in for a magnetic flip, why no flip at 130,000, 240,000, 320,000 & 410,000 years ago? Oh yes you were really refuring to "weaknesses"

I was not inferring "flips", but in fact periods of weak magnetic fields. Also it was one of many factors I have pointed out driving the warming bus.

I've seen the research that started back in the '60's & though you can expect the world to freeze up after a flip. Overall you can't predict an average world temp by the strength of the earth's magnatism.

There is other factors that inhance & mask warming, but to throw it out there as the main cause is being blind to the red line in the graph there. That's CO2, look how it corrilates to temp. Look all the way to the right, now in time. CO2 goes up like never in 400,000 years of that graph...we did that & we should do something about it quick before temps catch up.

Here's your sun cycles it was stronger in 1979 when temps were lower then now.

Saw you quoting stuff in "View from the surface" blog from junkscience.com & Steven Milloy. You get informed & stop being a toy of oil.
The term was further popularised by Fox News columnist Steven Milloy, who used it to attack the results of scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of the term, and of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was damaged by revelations that Milloy had received extensive funding and direction from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil.[1][2][3]

Good try with your out of date graph back there. That's like trickery, if the last 20 years had been included your point would have made no sense. I smell alterior motives.
My new blog is up.Happy Chanukka to anyone who celebrates.
Skye with my browser, video driver, monitor, and eyeglasses it's very hard to see that final spike of red for the CO2. I'm posting this resized copy with a link to the original just to be sure it's clear to BigBake. Hope you don't mind.

click to view the original
I'm not entering a debate,but it seems to me that there are always variations in both variables.Also,how did they get their data?
Do you notice something very odd with this loop of TCHP in the Atlantic? I thought the Atlantic cooled down until March?
I noticed that earlier also,Michael.I geuss there must be some sort of upwelling going on,but that normally leads to cooler SSTs doesn't it?
Better idea,it's the clear skies.
I saw that in your previous blog and wanted to mention it here, to see what others had to say about it. Also, upwelling reduces heat content while downwelling increases it (as explained in the El Nino updates on Kelvin waves; page 16). The reason is because downwelling brings warm water under the surface increasing heat content and upwelling does the opposite.
Another typhoon in the Phillippines in about 72 hours?
Madagascar may have to look out as well; 98S is under a TCFA and already has a T number of 2.0. Also, the CMC model goes insane with it (like it did with Durian):

26W and model forecast:

Nice graph you posted there Skye - haven't seen that before and it scares the hell out of me every time I look at it..

That's the one I've been watching off and on all evening, the Madagascar-headed one, I mean.

Don't forget all the little islands in between. I do believe some of them are French . . . lol

I am noticing their 2006-07 season is off with a bang - 3 systems since DEC 1????

Now that EUMETSAT has moved one of the older satellites over the Indian Ocean, it is possible to get near realtime imagery from practically the entire tropical globe without having to go squinty-eyed at the edges.

Here is a recent radar shot from over the Bahamas. It's been raining here since about 8 pm, which is strange since the clouds are quite low lying. We didn't get a drop during all the big cloud flareups yesterday . . .

So the Atlantic seems to be showing a heating-up trend. How strange. I wonder why. Couldnt possibly have anything do do with me and you...........
........further, is there a good link to ocean current flow rates for the Atlantic ? What is the comparitive flow rate now, compared to 1 year ago ? How do the flow rates change with surface temp ? And vice versa?? etc etc..........
Come on people. WAKE UP ITS MORNING. I cant keep things in equilibrium all by me little old self here...........
Ski Resorts in Europe are using snow machines to create ski-runs, and the weather in Moscow is wet and grey. No snow at all. It must be warmer than usual............or something......
OK Pottery, I'll stop lurking and just say good morning to you. I am almost afraid to jump in the middle of the current topic because it does seem to get people stirred up.
Oh well, I'll check back later when you guys wake up. Think I'll go outside and rev up an SUV or something............Love..
Oh hi there bear. Yes it does seem to create a fair amount of angst. But discussion and opposing viewpoints are good I think. Look at the BBC news this morning re. European winter. Strange.......
Dodabear, Do you have a link to Atlantic ocean current flows ??????????
Despite what Al Gore thinks, there was a period of time called the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was warm enough to be farmed. I wonder if the factors that caused that are starting to occur again?
There are dips in those time periods. We have experienced a dip every 100,000 years, and in each of those dips we have seen a period of ice. We caused the massive CO2 buildup? So are you stating that ice contains no CO2? Are you stating the worlds bio mass has no contribution to CO2? Are you stating that as the earths warms normally that more CO2 is not released? I mean your chart shows that increase of CO2 before the industrial period. odd, no burning of fossil fuels then and a huge spike, in fact the same trend since twenty thousand years ago. Explain away at that same trend.
That chart I posted is from NOAA, the same people that has made that global mean temperature chart. What had changed 24 years ago? We no longer measure the suns activity from the ground. We went to satelites at that time. All those observation made on that chart are from people on the ground and corresponded with people on the ground taking temperature readings. Why did NOAA leave the new information out in 2001 when they did that chart? Because neither measurements are taken the same way any longer. So a new way to collect data means they would have to come out with a new chart. A new chart requires more data, and 24 years is not enough time to give an accurate picture from either data set. If you have taken statistics you know this to be true. The more data you put in, the lower the error rate becomes. And you surely do not combine data taken from different means and try to make a statement with it.
You want to talk money? You know the evil people behind global warming....... They are on both sides of the issue. Lets take those tunnels for example. Lets just say that someone finally has a total lapse of good judgement and convinces you and I the American tax payer that global warming is a threat and is the root cause of hurricane strength. To protect our coastlines and the people who live along them we need these tunnels... lol.. I can not even say that with a straight face. Anyways, you and I the taxpayer pay for the materials to build these tunnels. Someone has to build them, they get paid to build them. Someone has to place these tunnels into their places in the ocean, they get paid to do this. Someone gets paid to maintain them. They somehow work and generate power, someone is going to want that power, and you and I are going to pay them for it. Man it seems like there is money involved in this. in fact a lot of money. Would want to make someone politic if it had their best interest or pocket book in favor..... Really evil exists on both sides, unfortunately for the "global warming" fanatics history is not behind you. Because as a last closing statement CO2 reading were 300 time higher in one period of time on earth, followed by a massive ice age, strangely enough a large ice came before that massive CO2 spike. Both ice ages were stopped by large geological events.
Good morning everyone. I see they have given name to the storm brewing in the Pacific. Looks like it could be another round of nasties for the poor people of the Philippines. Trami is the new name for this TD.
This does not look good:

T0623 (TRAMI)

PSTN 171200UTC 13.1N 138.2E POOR
30KT 100NM

24HF 181200UTC 14.5N 132.2E 100NM 70%
48HF 191200UTC 15.1N 125.7E 170NM 70%
72HF 201200UTC 15.3N 120.7E 220NM 70%
Trami is looking very impressive:

Geez, looks like almost the same spot on Luzon!

This reminds me of 2004 in FL, only on speed . . .
And here is another, this time in the S. Indian Ocean. Third one since new season started. (Hope u can read French . . .)

Perturbation tropicale: 03-20062007 (Priode du 17/12/2006 au 17/12/2006)


Intensit maximale
Dernier point relev

Date UTC
(et heure locale) 17/12/2006 12UTC
(16h Runion) 17/12/2006 12UTC
(16h Runion)
Position 10.30 Sud et 65.50 Est 10.30 Sud et 65.50 Est
Nature du systme Perturbation tropicale Perturbation tropicale
Pression estime au centre 1002 hPa 1002 hPa
Vent moyen sur 10 maxi 25kt , 46km/h , 12m/s 25kt , 46km/h , 12m/s
Rafales maximales associes 35kt , 65km/h , 18m/s 35kt , 65km/h , 18m/s
Sens de dplacement Sud-Ouest Sud-Ouest
Vitesse de dplacement 5 kt , 9 km/h 5 kt , 9 km/h
OK, trying this again.

New TD in the Indian Ocean

We mentioned earlier this week the effect of El Nio on Autralia. Here is some of what I saw at BoM's website.

What has happened in Australia during previous El Nio events?

More often than not, El Nio events result in reduced rainfall across parts of eastern and northern Australia, particularly during winter, spring and early summer. However, the precise nature (where and when) of the impact differs quite markedly from one event to another, even with similar changes and patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The progress of some events was punctuated by timely rains that made a significant difference to the season.

For example, the 1982/83 and 1997/98 events were both very strong as measured by changes in the Pacific, yet their impacts in Australia were completely different. Eastern and southern Australia was gripped by severe drought in 1982/83, but in 1997 average to above average falls were common in May, and a dry spell over winter was broken by widespread and heavy rains in September. Severe drought can sometimes result from a relatively weak event, as occurred in 2002/03.

Furthermore, changes in the Indian Ocean can enhance the general tendency for reduced rainfall in eastern Australia, or mask it by contributing to timely falls.

Pretty disorganized right now.
Tropical Disturbance 03-20062007 (03R)

Date 17/12/2006 12UTC (16 Reunion)

Position 10.3 South 65.5 East
Pressure at center 1002 hPa
maximum 10 min sustained winds 25kt
Movement Southwest 5 kt

expected to become a Severe Tropical Storm.. hmm stronger than Anita which they had only a tropical storm with 10 min sustained winds of 35 knots.
Hmmmm . . .. after doing some more reading on ENSO effects globally, I am finding it interesting that typical effects are not manifesting themselves as expected for this particular event. For example, someone mentioned earlier that the usual wet weather in the CA area hasn't really developed so far. Also, I have been noting an unusual rain event over the SE and S central portions of Africa, which usually experiences drier than average conditions during el Nino spring and summers . . .
BigBake ~where are you getting these words your trying to put in my mouth? How could I be stating the ice has no CO2 in it? I posted a graph showing how much CO2 is in the ice through the years. You seem to be stating that burning of the world's bio masses has no added effect to the CO2... & yes when the world warms more CO2 is realeased naturally to an extent, til earths balances equalize it (hence the cycles) but there are areas of permafrost (full of greenhouse gases)that havn't melted in eons & if we melt those by forcing the temps beyond nature while removing the balances such as trees...isn't that experiment on our home a little worrisome to you?

I mean your chart shows that increase of CO2 before the industrial period. odd, no burning of fossil fuels then and a huge spike, in fact the same trend since twenty thousand years ago. Explain away at that same trend.

That is not odd that's part of the cycle, what isn't is to the right of that, the red line going straight up from 290ppmv to 370ppmv since the industral revolution began....there is no such trend 20,000 years ago (or anywhere else on that graph). Looking back in the ice (& we now have records going beyond 400,000 years), in those records CO2 natually has always stayed below 300ppmv. Still denying the corrilation between CO2 & temps? If you had taken some chemistry for science majors you would understand how burning fossil fuels enhances the greenhouse affect & unnatually warms the earth. & statistics is a prerequisite so long before that it isn't even funny. That's why I called your graph crap to your point & linked you to a graph that has much more info on it. Obviously you didn't look at so I'll post it.

Monthly averages of the sunspot numbers show that the number of sunspots visible on the Sun waxes during solar maximum, and wanes during solar minimum, with an approximately 11 year cycle. Plot is courtesy of David Hathaway, NASA MSFC.

credit NASA (our space experts)
Beyond '85 where your graph ends, sun out put is less then in '85. Also note at the last positive phase of the NAO cycle (mid 1930's) when the temps were last anywhere compariatable to today the sun output was way less. Looking at long term trends have led to graphs like this.

Your one short term graph that ends in '85 fails to convince me when looking at the recent to long term info statistically that we can blame all this on the out put of the sun.

Your aguments lack links & information & is filled with distractions, like your whole second half of your last post ~dragging the fear of tunnels in this? LOL. Plenty of good renewable energy sources are available, it will lead to a revolution that is good for the economy like the industral, computer or comunication. We could lead it & be the big winners or not, let Sweden & Europe rake in all the dough while our country goes on killing people & running up a national debt over oil. We've stepped on a rollar coaster with this grand experiment of pumping CO2 & greenhouse gases into our enviroment with no known end to how it will effect our enviroment & our species. Seems like the right thing to do is try to quit putting it up there & remove it as quick as we can. You wanna bring evil into this? What would Jesus do?

As for your closing statement~ Because as a last closing statement CO2 reading were 300 time higher in one period of time on earth, followed by a massive ice age, strangely enough a large ice came before that massive CO2 spike. Both ice ages were stopped by large geological events.

Link to some repital source of when CO2 readings were 111,000ppmv? & did humans live though this event?

I did not state that you had stated that ice does not contribute. I just stated that you seem to leave out the largest contributors of CO2. Sorry but our bruning of bio mass only contributes 15% of the current CO2 in the atmoshpere. You have looked passed the living bio mass, the people, the animals to support those people, the fact as the oceans get larger they in turn have a larger bio mass, I mean 3/4 of the Earths bio mass lives there. Omission is what I am getting at, you omit the rest of the key players in CO2 production and concentrate on one sole as if it is key to reducing CO2. It will have no effect, you would have to eliminate life in order to reverse the trend.
Solar output is not only determined by the 11 year cycle, but its total amount of energy being forced onto the planet. During a solar minimum for example, there is little to no activity. Or at least it used to be that way until a thousand years ago. Then the sun started having more activity during solar minimums. We are currently at a minimum, but yet that minimum has more output measured than a solar maximum did thousands of years ago. You are talking and graphicly showing only one cycle of the sun, and missing a bigger cycle that is currently going on.
The amount of CO2 in the forming of the Earths atmosphere was key to forming the air we have today. To show you the level in a graph......... The point had nothing to do with human existance but that CO2 has oscillated since the atmosphere was created.


The tunnel project was drawn into the discussion because you cited that some information is derived by those who have large stakes in energy. I was just pointing out an example that large stakes are also at risk for those who want a piece of the pie. I was not stating the "tunnel" theory as an actual viable solution to our problems and in fact made reference to that as I typed that statement hence "I cannot keep a straight face while typing that". Context of the discussion requires reading all of it, not just a small part.
Hello Y'all!

As cyclonebuster pointed out, there is an interesting-looking low in the Central North Atlantic. It appears to be only an occlusion, and will probably dissipate as the next front approaches the area. Still, it is cool to watch.

North Atlantic RGB Loop

NASA Infared Loop

I don't think I've left out that there is alot of CO2 that naturally occurs, stated time & time it cycles, it's extra scary we've added this extra CO2 & other greenhouses gases that don't end up naturally in the atmosphere (many of which hold more heat in & last longer than CO2) at the peak of a natural cycle.

Don't see how tunnels have anything to do with the funding of junkscience.com

Odd according to the NASA graph there the solar minimum is bottoming out at zero or near there.

The point had nothing to do with human existance but that CO2 has oscillated since the atmosphere was created.

Yeah humans have been around roughly 200000 years & you want to point out the levels of CO2 900000000 years ago. Why? It has nothing to do with the debate other than to distract. Which brings me to my last point, I've continued this partually for the fun of the sake of debate. & the fun has grown thin with your growing lack of info & links that relate to the actual debate topic at hand. So I'm done, shake hands & let the masses decide the winner.

Here's a EUMETSAT view of the same low.
It sure does look like it's going to get run over by that vigourous-looking low that's headed for Europe . . .
EUMETSAT also provides a very interesting view of two low pressure systems with high dust values, one moving north towards Italy from the Sahara and the other over Iran/Iraq. In the lower right u can see the edges of the little TD that is in the Indian ocean.
Thanks everyone for writing really interesting climate information and news. It's fascinating to read, but I think there's a few trillion dollars' worth of easy to get to energy in the ground and someone would just love to sell it to us! So it's a waiting game, I think.
SSTS still above average near Philipines
I don't think anyone will even try to deny that there is a warming trend going on. I don't think people will even deny that human lifestyles and consumption of carbon-based fuels are contributing to the trend.

What seems to be crucial to the debate is how much value is placed on the apparently small percentage of heat-releasing / greenhouse-gas-emitting begin done by people. Based on what I have read so far, most people who decry the need for any changes in current policy are of the view that man's contribution to the warming trend is too minute to play a role in potentially disasterous effects in the future.

Given the evidence we have seen here showing how minute changes in seemingly unrelated variables can have a massive impact on weather and climate, I am not so sure that is a viable stand. Consider the fact that an anomaly of only 2 or 3 degrees in temperature, measured as ENSO, can mean droughts for some areas and floods for others. Consider also how the difference of mere degrees difference in the path of hurricanes can impact their longjevity, speed, and strength. (The two recent hurricanes to impact the Philippines are an excellent example. Ernesto is another good one.) This in turn plays a massive role in what effects they will have on humans in their path.

Can we be certain what effects the relatively "minor" contributions of man to global warming will be? Or should we be playing it safe?

Just a low pressure system, not a 'thingamabobber cane'.

BigBake, I admire your tenacity, but you need to do more research and reading and get up to speed on climate science if you want to participate in a meaningful discussion. Your mash of stray factoids stripped of any context, half-baked theories that have little to do with the real world, and wild distractions (like the tunnels) don't add up to a hill of beans.

It is true that C02 levels were much higher than now in the distant past, as so nicely shown on your graph. Do you know why? Did you bother to try to find out why? The reason CO2 levels were much then is because the sun's energy output was much lower. The planet's biota, which have a vested interested in keeping the planet at liveable temperatures, exert considerable control over CO2 levels. Back then, a stronger greenhouse effecrt was needed, and through natural selection and various feedback loops CO2 levels were kept higher.

As the sun has warmed over time, CO2 levels (again under the influence of the planet's biota) have come down because otherwise the planet would start to bake. So what do we humans do? We drive up the CO2 levels and at the same time wreak havoc on every natural system that could take up some of that CO2. Our planet is going to hell in a handbasket, our climate is inexorably warming (with by far the worst to come), and all you can think of doing is label people who are concerned about global warming as "evil"??!!!

Give it a break. Or better yet, do some homework, learn some atmospheric science, and then come back with a science-based argument on the issue.

The past few pages of comments are a prime example of why I stay out of global warming debates.I don't know that much about it,anyway.
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." --Dave Barry
It was a beach day in Central Florida today, 17 December! It was great. Bring on the GW.
Just watched ISS and Discovery whizz overhead for 6 minutes .Was nice bright star traveling sw to Ne.Link
Patrap - The ISS was a lot lower in the sky for us than it was for you.
Skyepony..do you have a link for Atlantic currents that would lead me to checking the following:
Comparative flow rates- monthly / annually
SST temps vis-a-vis flow rates

there is a warming trend occuring now and to me ( and to michael stl who noted it earlier too ) thats not normal behaviour..........
......a warming trend of Atlantic SST that is.
It amazes me how much weight we put on so little time of record keeping in the scale of global history. The earth has warmed before and to a much higher level than currently observed or predicted,long,long before human beings were here. Has anyone considered what the effect of a miniscule increase in the output of the sun would have on the global climate? Can we even measure this accurately and of course even if we could, we have no historical information to compare to. Humans are not as able to change things as we think, and those who dislike our capitolistic societies would be quick to use this against us. China and India produce as much or more raw carbon output into the atmosphere and will at a much higher level than us in the future, and they are not even considered in the reduction equations. Check out the historical prehisotric records (in the many millions of years scale)on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has been and ask yourself how that level was acheived without humans. It's the natural cycles of the earth and sun that will ultimately determine the climate, not us!
313. ryang
Ramblerbob, seems to me you are taking this thing personnaly. The US is the largest producer of industry realted CO2 at the moment. Europe was the leader once. China and India may be the leaders in future. But to suggest that "if they can we can" makes no sense. The truth is we need to reduce...............and you can be the leader........
cyclone, I cant imagine that a couple of thousand small cooking fires would constitute a real problem.......
eeeeeeeeeek! sea temps in the Atlantic are starting to go up wish it sould not be doing that in tell march

we could be looking at a lot hoter sea temps this comeing summer
why would they burn the forrests????????
Ramblerbob, thanks for your comments. A few cents from me:

we have no historical information to compare to.

I think a few hundred thousand years of history from ice cores is pretty solid info.

It's the natural cycles of the earth and sun that will ultimately determine the climate, not us!

Ironically, I think we all agree on that point. Solar radiation comes in, is reflected or absorbed then re-emitted at longer wavelengths. Liquid water, carbon dioxide and other gases like methane absorb some of the re-emitted radiation or it escapes, etc. This is all natural and not under the control of man. Once CO2, the most rapidly changing factor in the earth's heat budget, is released into the atmosphere, there is indeed little we can do about it.

China and India produce as much or more raw carbon output into the atmosphere and will at a much higher level than us in the future, and they are not even considered in the reduction equations.

Is this the motivation for arguing against the reality of global warming? Is that really what you want to say?
Tazmanian..Hi there. I've been trying to find out WHY are the Atl sea temp going up. Cant figure it out......
pottery dont no this hop that El Nio stays around
Is the Atl sea temp showing an un-seasonal increase due to warmer waters coming off Greenland etc ?????????
They used to burn the forests in the tropics in what was called slash and burn agriculture. It was on a small scale, though, and actually an efficient use of the nutrient poor tropical soils.

Forest fires are a part of the natural ecosystems in the American west. The seeds of some plants will not germinate unless exposed to a low intensity fire.

The record of CO2 concentrations in ice cores would take into account any such historical burning, though, which still leaves the hockey stick.

I don't think an increase like that could be good even if it does not lead to global warming. For instance, CO2 entering the oceans raises the ocean's pH. See this link.
like i said i this dont no this pary that El Nio stays around if it dos not then you no what i mean
Bappit, I'm involved with a group here ( Trinidad ) that is hosting a seminar for a week starting on the 5 th Jan. The purpose, to try to discourage slash and burn (still practiced ) in favour of a more sustainable system. We are pushing tree crops with short term crops between.
seen like
El Nio is starting to die off a little
If the skies are clear and wind speeds are low, I would expect the tropical Atlantic to heat up. The question might be, why was it cooler than it is now in the first place?

Last summer strong trade winds cooled the Atlantic at the height of summer. I don't think the seasons are as important as one might think when you get close to the equator.
OK Taz, I got you....
334. ryang
Pottery you should start a blog about that.
HEY I'm 11 n of the equator. Sure the seasons are important.
My apologies, Pottery. Of course, I was mainly thinking of the historical record.

Just curious. Would slash and burn be a more viable option when the landscape is less crowded with other people?

Hi Ryang. Its called Permaculture. Idealy, it is a system that maintains its own ballance through Bio diversity, and is very workable in tropical environments especialy.
Pottery you should start a blog about that.

I second that emotion.
Don't look at the above animation to see how strong El Nino is; you need to look at this, which only shows the anomalies along the equator, which defines what an El Nino/La Nina is - equatorial SST anomalies (within a few degrees of the equator), not SST anomalies at say, 10N:

342. ryang
Micheal i just cannot post a link are image.HELP ME.
HEY I'm 11 n of the equator. Sure the seasons are important.

Can't argue with someone who is there. LOL! My comment is directed at the sea surface temperatures and the seemingly paradoxical cooling that occured last summer. A midwesterner might be surprised. :)
Bappit, slash and burn works on certain soil types only. Vast areas of the Amazon, and areas of Trinidad, are beds of nutrient poor sands ( Silica actually ) and the forrest is sustained purely on the 4 " of nutrient that is in the leaf litter, along with the fungi and worms and bugs that turn this leaf litter back into useable nutrient in a matter of days. Areas here that have been cleared and burned have shown incredible resistance to being reforested, because there is simply no nutrient in the sand. 140 " of rain each year deals with that real good !

There is a large warm water anomaly which is making its way to the surface as it moves east, and which will rise to the surface sometime around the first of the year. This will noticeably increase the SST anomalies east of 120W for a time after.

This is a solid moderate El Nino, but the chances of a significantly strong El Nino are diminishing. In a month the picture may look different, because the El Nino takes time to mature, and along the way, each month, are a number of factors which can either enhance or work against the El Nino.
Hurricaneblast's blog is kind of interesting: 26 Cat 3+ storms have occurred this year; the average is 20 Cat 3+ storms... I wonder what caused the increase (this is worldwide, not one basin). Also, while the WPAC is below normal in number of tropical storms or higher, it is above normal in the number of Cat 3+ and super typhoons.
Subsurface temperature anomalies:

Kelvin waves and El Nino

I also noticed cooler water building up in the West Pacific; I wonder if this mean anything (will it move to the east and kill of El Nino)?
349. ryang
Please michealSTL.Help me to post links and images.Show me on my blog.
MichaelSTL ..I need a favor.Contact me by WU mail..If ya got time.
A trial plot ( 10 acres ) of an Australian acacia was introduced, with some controvesy. But that tree REQUIRES 120 deg soil to germinate its seed, and it has a continuous leaf fall all year. The trees thrived, the birds came in and dropped indigenous seed, and now there is a nice little forrest coming up. Whether the local speciecs can usurp the Aussies remains to be seen.......
can you get me ice core samples from millions of years ago when co2 levels were higher and then lower so we can compare? Get past the tousands of years thing and get to the millions to hundreds of millions of years and look at the amount of climate change has happened in the past. the peat bogs in norhtern Canada and Russia hold more co2 that we could dream of making so I'm saying that natural elements can have a larger impact and probably do than us. Somebody needs to find a way to check solar output before we definitely blame humans completely for global warming!
Nice link MichaelSTL. Thanks!
Ramblerbob says:

the peat bogs in norhtern Canada and Russia hold more co2 that we could dream of making so I'm saying that natural elements can have a larger impact and probably do than us.

I am reminded of when Buckminster Fuller was asked when mankind would journey into space. Old Bucky replied vigorously: "We are in space!"

It is similarly incorrect to make a distinction between "us" and "nature". We are part of nature, and if we provide the kick start to thaw out all that peat you are talking about then well ... nature is as nature does.
According to that Co2 chart the last 20 thousand years has the highest rate of rise over the shortest time period for the past 500 thousand years!

There was an ice age as recently as 10,000 years ago... I think that only the very recent (30 years or so) rapid rise can be mostly attributed to human causes, with the contribution from human emissions rapidly declining as you go back, especially after 100 years or so.
Good point MichaelSTL. Yep, got to be careful that facts are not mistated. Otherwise, they are spit back to you in an impoverished version of your argument.
well said again Bappit

Clclone, there isnt too much doubt that fire of one kind or another created the situation we now face. Thats what I mean when I refer to CO2 anyway. I'm talking burning forrest, hydrocarbons, whatever.
The previous link from Patrap deserves publicity. Go here for a long discussion of tropical glaciers. Of special note, check the section where the author describes how scientific research has been misquoted and misused.

Clyclone, the scariest part of the chart is that there are people who still dont get it.
Yeah Bappit, I had a long read of that earlier today. Pretty relevant stuff. Thanks again Patrap...
they gone to check the tropical glaciers. you should read it if you have not yet.
NBC did have a very weak and alarmist global warming story on tonight's news. They talked about Chicago and New York being 15-20 degrees warmer than the same day last year, as if that had anything to do with it.

I am a global warming believer, but the NBC news story had a Chicken Little type of attitude, without anything substantive except a brief mention of how the albedo of sea ice in the Arctic helps keep it cold and if it disappears the climate would warm up much faster. But the rest of the story was just silly.
....there is no snow in Europe, and in Moscow the weather is wet and there is no ice anywhere.......the ski resorts are going bust and the Muscovites are not selling any frozen weather coats and socks. Whats up with that then ?
It looks like nobody will have a white Christmas this year, at least not if they live in the CONUS and not in the mountains:

6-10 day outlook for December 23-27:
Its a shame that when an entity the size of NBC does something on the weather, they dont do it properly ( I did not see it )
Yikes STL. No snow?? But what happens later ? Evaporation continues, and if there is no precipitation in winter, do we look forward to excessive precip. later ? Surely it has to even itself out.....
26W forecast track (click to enlarge):

Not expected to hit the Philippines or even strengthen much now.
I mean, there is a finite amount of moisture that can be accomodated in the asmosphere, and if Europe and the US are so dry, where does it fall ???????
It has not been really dry; in fact, the dark green in the forecast maps I posted indicate a well above normal chance of precipitation (but since it is warm, it will be rain). Lately, storms have been getting more intense here; the last dumped over 3 inches of (mostly) freezing rain and snow (liquid equivalent), the most in one storm in almost two years and a daily record. In that storm, it was colder than normal so much of what fell was frozen (rather, the air at the ground was cold, so rain falling froze on the ground and other surfaces). It was almost as bad as the storm I had in July, which cost the utility company $100 million in repairs to power lines.
......but I suppose that as the atmosphere warms, more and more moisture will be suspended there. So rainfall theoreticaly should decrease?
Ah. OK, I misread the dam map !
Warmer air can hold more moisture, but evaporation also increases (this is the basis for stronger storms, which would have more moisture to work with) and precipitation has to balance out evaporation, so global precipitation will have to increase as the earth warms. Changes in rainfall patterns are also likely with climate change; some areas will get wetter and others drier.
26W's getting ripped apart and is turning into a fish storm. Good news for once.

Precipitation Trend in Millimeters for United States Between 1950 and 1993 (44 years)

Is there any consensus as to where will likely be drier and where wetter ?
..globally ?
Well, some say that areas like the Plains will get drier, threatening food supplies (mariginally dry areas like the Plains supposedly may get drier and vice-versa). The trend indicated above shows a trend towards wetter conditions over most of the U.S. except for Florida and parts of the Pacific NW (anybody there would disagree right now). That only goes up to 1993 though. Here is how rainfall and temperature where I live has changed (click for larger images; this is only respresentative of the central U.S.):

Also, snowfall:

Good. It will be interesting to look at those graphs in 10 years. I did not realise your snowfall was quite so sporatic though. Interesting. Thanks.
Hello, This does not anything to do with you guy's topic, but if ya'll would please take a look at the link pasted in. The forecasted high pressurre camped out in the Atlantic and the jet stream positioning appear to want to spin a northeaster type storm in the gulf. What are your thoughts? Would that be a sub-tropical cyclone?

I have been measuring rainfall at my location for the following years;
1998 7"7"
99 7' 7.5''
00 7' 0 "
01 4 ' 2.5 "
02 6 ' 2 "
03 6' 2.5 "
04 6 ' 7 "
05 6' 2"
06 to date 7' 2 "
......I'm out. check you all tomorow. Thanks .......
Pottery, was looking around about what you asked about. Nowcast has a feature where you can look at SST, velosity, salinaty. but now through a 120hr forecast. These were made available last year. Late december or early jan. MichaelSTL we looked at alot of these through last winter. Something that jumped out at me glancing over it was the potentail temp at 700M, seems high. Check out all the fresh water on the salinaty graph from last weeks sudden melting of the sea ice in the NW artic. Check out Margie's blog if you hadn't seen, Steve Gregory sent along some stuff.

Here's some SST anamoly stuff.

Initally I thought maybe we can blame it on the duldrums (lack of winds)...but we can't.

I found just what your looking for for March 1, 2005, but I can't find one older to compare. Came from here.

Tangent but interesting from there was..
Colder NAO winters are therefore generally followed by increased chance of hurricanes in the eastern and southeastern U.S.
Was a warm winter last year, in a NAO pos year, easy season...repeat? We'll see.

Enough tangets, night ya'll.

A lot of noreasters do develop something of a warm core, since they spend a lot of time over the Gulf Stream. Only rarely do they turn truly tropical in nature. JeffMasters did a piece on that a while ago.
Hello all. Skyepony, you there ?