WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie review

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 5:02 PM GMT on June 19, 2006

Al Gore's global warming movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," aims to call attention to the dangers society faces from climate change, and suggests urgent actions that need to be taken immediately. It is based on a slide show on climate Gore has presented to audiences worldwide over 1000 times in the past 15 years, but it is not purely a documentary. Gore's movie is an advocacy piece that is part documentary, part biography, and part campaign ad. I'll discuss all three of these aspects below. In brief, Al Gore has the right idea--climate change is an urgent issue that requires immediate action, and his thoughtful movie is a welcome addition to the usual array of mindless Hollywood summer fare. However, the movie has flaws. The presentation of the science is good, but not great--I rate it B minus. The excessive details on Al Gore's life make the movie too long, and his insistence on using the movie as something of a campaign ad detracts from its message.

An Inconvenient Truth as a biography of Al Gore
The creators of the movie presumably thought that simply presenting Gore's slide show would be too dull, so they decided to give the movie some human interest by interweaving a biography of Al Gore's life. Al Gore has led an interesting life, but "interesting" and "Al Gore" are not words one can often put together. As my daughter noted in her movie review yesterday, Al Gore is boring, and the 20 minutes or so of biography presented in An Inconvenient Truth is too much for a movie that is 1 hour and 36 minutes long. For example, I didn't really need to see the road where Al Gore totaled his car when he was 14 years old, or a replay of his loss in the 2000 election. On the other hand, some details of his past were interesting and relevant, such as the fact that he took college courses in the late 1960s from Harvard's Dr. Roger Revelle. Revelle and Dr. Charles Keeling were the pioneers in measurements of atmospheric CO2, and thus Gore got a very early exposure to the now infamous "Keeling Curve" (Figure 1), showing the build-up of atmospheric CO2. This early exposure to the significant impact humans were having on the atmosphere deeply affected Gore, and in the movie he details efforts he made to call attention to the issue long before most people had heard of it, back in the 1970s and 80s. Gore's slide show appropriately displays many graphs of the Keeling Curve, as it is probably the most important and most famous finding in climate change science.


Figure 1. The Keeling Curve is a record of CO2 measurements taken at he top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii since 1958.

The science of An Inconvenient Truth
The science presented is mostly good, and at times compelling, but there are a few errors and one major distortion of the truth. Gore does an excellent job focusing on the most important issues, and usually presents them with a minimum of hype and distortion. The only exception to this comes in his treatment of global warming and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

Basic global warming science
Gore begins the science part of his talk with a very easy to understand presentation on the basics of how the greenhouse effect works. His speech is clear, the graphics top notch, and he spices it up with a hilarious two-minute cartoon depicting roughneck global warming gases preventing poor Mr. Sunbeam from escaping Earth's atmosphere. Gore addresses the argument of skeptics who claim that the Earth is too big for humans to affect by showing Space Shuttle photos of how thin the atmosphere really is compared to the vast bulk of our planet. "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide," he asserts, which is not correct. The build-up of CO2 has virtually no effect on the density or thickness of Earth's atmosphere. The correct thing to say would have been, "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being made more opaque to the transmission of infrared radiation (heat) by huge quantities of carbon dioxide."

Glaciers
Gore shows an impressive series of "then and now" images documenting the widespread retreat of many glaciers over the past century. Most dramatically, he shows Tanzania's Mt. Kilimanjaro, whose 11,000 year-old glaciers are almost gone. While not all the world's glaciers have retreated in the past century, Gore's presentation is an effective and reasonable way to show how global warming has affected the majority of the world's glaciers. Greenhouse skeptics, including Michael Crichton in his State of Fear book, are fond of bashing those who use Mt. Kilimanjaro as a poster child for demonstrating global warming. They cite scientific research showing that the glacial retreat on Mt. Kilimanjaro is due to drying of the atmosphere, not global warming. However, as discussed at great length in a realclimate.org post, the research which supposedly supports the skeptics' claims has been widely misquoted and misinterpreted, and much of Kilimanjaro's melting can indeed be ascribed to warming of the atmosphere since 1960.

Gore does an excellent job discussing the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. Again, Gore's graphics are superb, and he does a nice job narrating. He shows animations of what a 20-foot rise in sea level would do to Manhattan, Florida, India, and China. A 20-foot sea level rise is what we expect if all of Greenland or all of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt. Such a 20-foot rise is not expected by 2100, and it would have been appropriate for Gore to acknowledge that the consensus of climate scientists--as published in the most recent report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 and 35 inches, with a central value of 19 inches, by 2100. He should have also mentioned that temperatures in Greenland in the 1930s were about as warm as today's temperatures, so the current melting of Greenland's glaciers does have historical precedent. Nevertheless, the risk of a catastrophic melting and break-up of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets is very real, when we consider that sea level before the most recent ice age was 15 feet higher than it is now. Gore is right to draw attention to what might happen if sea level rose 20 feet.

Drought and heat waves
An excellent discussion of the most serious climate change issue our generation is likely to face, the threat of increased drought and reduced water supplies, is presented. Gore makes reference to the extreme heat wave that affected Europe during the summer of 2004, and I was glad to see that he didn't blame the heat wave on global warming--he merely said that more events of this nature will be likely in the future.

Hurricanes and severe weather
The biggest failure in the movie's presentation of science comes in the discussion hurricanes and severe weather events. The devastation wrought by Katrina is used to very dramatic effect to warn of the dangers climate change presents. We are told that Katrina grew "stronger and stronger and stronger" as it passed over the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico that were heated up by global warming. We are told that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes, but not provided information on the great amount of uncertainty and vigorous scientific debate on this issue. Graphs showing recent record insurance losses from natural disasters are presented, but no mention is made of how increasing population and insistence on building in vulnerable areas are the predominant factors causing recent high insurance claims from disasters such as Katrina. Gore points to some unprecedented events in 2004 as evidence of increasing severe weather events worldwide--the record 10 typhoons in Japan, the most tornadoes ever in the U.S., and the appearance of Brazil's first hurricane ever. However, examples of this kind are meaningless. No single weather event, or unconnected series of severe weather events such as Gore presents, are indicative of climate change. In particular, the IPCC has not found any evidence that climate change has increased tornado frequency, or is likely to. Gore doesn't mention the unusually quiet tornado season of 2005, when for the first time ever, no tornadoes were reported in Oklahoma in the month of May.

Other science
Gore presents many other important aspects of climate change, including the threat of abrupt climate change leading to a shut-off of the Gulf Stream current, the increase in damaging insect infestations and tropical diseases, loss of coral reefs, loss of ice in the polar ice cap, and melting of permafrost in the Arctic. With the possible exception of his treatment of the spread of tropical diseases, all of these issues were presented with sound science.

An Inconvenient Truth as a campaign ad
Gore has repeatedly said that he has no intention of running for president again, and that this movie was created as part of his life-long passion to protect the environment. Gore undoubtedly does care very deeply about the planet, but this movie very much looks like a campaign ad. We are shown many scenes of Gore being applauded, Gore traveling the globe to present his slide show, and Gore working to uncover evidence of Republican shenanigans to alter or suppress climate change science. Gore is portrayed as a humble and tireless crusader for good, and if the movie is not intended to promote his political ambitions, it is certainly intended to benefit the Democratic Party. All this gets in the way of the movie's central message.

Conclusion
At the end of the movie, we are presented with the same image that Gore started the movie with, that of a beautiful river in the wilderness. Throughout the movie, Gore emphasizes how beautiful and special our planet is, and he does an effective job conveying this. He also makes a powerful case that something can and should be done to protect the planet, and it is worth hearing his message, even if the science is flawed and the messenger does get in the way of the message. Overall, the movie rates 2.5 stars--worth seeing, but you might want to wait until the DVD comes out.

At the end of the movie, Gore presents some tips on how everyone can contribute, and points people to his web site, www.climatecrisis.net. However, I would recommend that people who want to get educated about climate change get their information from web sites not associated with a politician; perhaps the least politicized source of information is the latest scientific summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history.

Jeff Masters

Book and Movie Reviews

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

Tropical wave is along 57w/58w S of 17n moving W 10-15 kt.
Well-defined broad multilayered curvature signature is observed
on infrared satellite imagery. Scattered moderate/strong
convection is within 120 nm of line from 10n54w-15n59w.
Scattered thunderstorms are approaching the islands this morning
with heaver rain later in the day.


her some in we need to watch i think it has a ch
3. AZ
Gee Houstonian. Be sure to gloss over the Glaciers paragraph above as it might contradict your assertion of the melting of the ice caps in the next ten years. Remember, it is perfectly alright to never admit to slight exagerations in one's ramblings if they might show some level of misunderstanding of the facts. Hate to see you disagreed with. Shucks.
GulfScotsman; To add to what you posted, I'd like to see the above mentioned data going back through-out the history of the Earth, as Man has only been here for a brief period of time.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but scientists that I've worked with felt that this issue has been too politicized and that this was just another natural fluctuation in the Earth's climate cycle.
I would still like to see the science compared side by side of the TOTAL volume of green house gases from human activity as a comparison against the volume of gases caused by volcanic activity planet wide.

The net effect of volcanoes is cooling, not warming, so this is irrelevant.
: Michael

tropical flaater visible of the Gulf, not a bad looking spin on it.

can you find a link to that
I would also like to se the total radiation output of the sun for the last 10,000 years. dpesn't take much of a change in that to make a difference. I remember in the 70's everyone was panicking about the coming ice age. Measurements haven't been taken long enuff for anyone to say for sure what is happening; if indeed the planet is warming, is it a natural thing, is it caused by man's activity, or is it just something that normally happens and we are looking for an explaination and blaming mankind.
MichealSLT,

Volcanoes release tremendous amounts of C02, along with other particles that block sunlight - so the question is extremely relavent.
Did you read my link?

It is now generally thought that the aberrations occurred because of the 5 April 15 April 1815 volcanic eruptions of Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies (in today's Indonesia) which ejected over a million and a half metric tons or 400 km[3] of dust into the upper atmosphere. La Soufrire in Saint Vincent in the Caribbean in 1812, and Mayon in the Philippines in 1814, had already built up atmospheric dust in major eruptions. As is common following a massive volcanic eruption, temperatures fell worldwide owing to less sunlight passing through the atmosphere.

Obviously, small scale eruptions will not have such a dramatic effect, but there will still be some effects. This goes with the studies that say the "AMO" is really caused by levels of aerosols, which cooled the tropical Atlantic.
MichealSTL,

I know about the year without a summer. However, you're excactly right that small scale eruptions do not throw as much particles into the atmosphere to block sunlight, but still pumps tons of C02, making the question very relavent.
The front on the eastern seacoast seems to be twisting in the gulf region just south of the low over Texas. That area of flow seems to be becoming weakest. The low over Texas is being distorted by the twisting. On the other side of the gulf over Florida yesterday we were probably seeing the effects of the other side of that twist.

I think the low over Texas will follow the twist over open water at least until it breaks.
The pressures in the gulf has been going up all morning despite how impressive this thing looks.
Anyone have a link to surface wind map of the gulf?
turtlehurricane as a new blog update on the low you are all talking about
ya i was gonna say i updated on the new disturbance. it might form if it gets off land and my colleagues agree.
Has the frequency of volcanic eruptions increased dramatically enough to explain this?
looks like a flare-up north of panama..... about the same location that alberto formed?

"Overall, the movie rates 2.5 stars--worth seeing, but you might want to wait until the DVD comes out."

think i'll wait to see it on the sci-fi channel! LOL j/k

Great review Dr. Masters, and I for one appreciate your "middle of the road" approach and presentation. I think everyone would agree, we need more facts, and less politics.








There are three important questions regarding global warming:

1. Is global warming actually occurring?

2. If global warming is occurring, how much does human activity contribute to global warming, and how much is from natural processes?

3. If global warming is occurring, and is indeed primarily caused by human activity, is it necessarily a bad thing, and would the cure be worse than the disease, so to speak?
Because youre even asking that tapma, now, in that specific form, predisposes any shift in the entire argument to the realization that there is a metaphysical and aesthetic disjoin in world views that is incredibly difficult to successfully navigate, especially when dealing with a populations, popular culture and individual decisions.
here we go again...


it is impossible to prove that we are causing global warming...


its faulty science at best...

were is the control expierment to compare the hypothetical collaberation of data...


oh my...JEFFMASTERS!!!!
" many graphs of the Keeling Curve, as it is probably the most important and most famous finding in climate change science."

man this is either the biggest oxymoronic statement ever...or just a way to lend credibility to an incredible topic...

funny how the keeling curve actually rises at the same rate our population has too huh...

genius
guys ive been right in the middle of the lil "L" all night itd not TROPICAL.. i know the spin is impressive but the rain has no tropical characteristics.. look at the pressure it way to high this low is a UPPER level low!! also consider the fact that there is little to NO wind at all... ive seen my fair share of tropical stuff in my time.. and this has very little tropical characteristics
Not impossible to prove just something that cant be written in a simplistic one liner, and marketed successfully to a narcissistic conservative consumer base.
ohh now i see you AZ.. i was not disagreed with at all?? what r u talking about ???if anything it validated my WHOLE POINT???...as a matter of fact i was thinking while i was reading the article that I bet you were still trying to pry your foot out of your mouth .... LOL and i was right you WERE!! hahahaha you've obviously got some serious issues...
AZ ...based off of everything that is valid that ive seen, read and heard .. AT THE CURRENT RATE 10 to 15 years... ive shown you facts, ive had people in HERE (that know what theyre talking about it) validate these facts .. the article up top fell just short of validateing these facts.. and yet you still argue??
See what I mean Mr. Houstonian. Blogging all over themselves to be first to "name" Beryl out of a rain storm.

Some people are apparantly disgusted with the way everybody wants a storm to form (some even ask if it will become a Cat 5), despite what they can do, as you can see here.

I always wait to see if models are going to do anything, as with Alberto; the CMC model had it developing several days before anybody else suspected anything or an invest was issued.
"However, he should have balanced his discussion of the high loss of life such heat waves cause with the expected reduction in loss of life from fewer severe cold waves."

Why? There is no reason to expect there to be fewer cold waves, or less intense cold wave. I'd expect there to be more extreme cold snaps in a world of increased global warming.

The artic gets no sunlight in the winter. It is always going to be damn cold there, unless there is a total venusian-like climate change. The question is how far that cold air penetrates south, catching people by surprise.

More energy in teh atmosphere will great greater differences between high and low pressure systems. The greater the difference, the greater the winds. The greater the winds, the greater distance cold air from the artic is going to penetrate south (even as warm air fills in behind it).

There were record cold snaps last year, places that never see snow got it. Why? Because of what I just described.

In fact, we can almost certainly expect greater losses of life from heat AND cold as the average temperature heats up.

"We are shown many scenes of Gore being applauded, Gore traveling the globe to present his slide show, and Gore working to uncover evidence of Republican shenanigans to alter or suppress climate change science. Gore is portrayed as a humble and tireless crusader for good, and if the movie is not intended to promote his political ambitions, it is certainly intended to benefit the Democratic Party."

Why shouldn't those things be highlighted? Is there any doubt republican leadership and its industrial base work tirelessly to decieve people about climate science? Is there any doubt Gore has worked to expose those things? Is there some reason people shouldn't know that?

Gore is no longer a politician.

"Gore points to some unprecedented events in 2004 as evidence of increasing severe weather events worldwide--the record 10 typhoons in Japan, the most tornadoes ever in the U.S., and the appearance of Brazil's first hurricane ever. However, examples of this kind are meaningless. "

But trends are not, and showing how those trends result in real meaningful increases is perfectly sensible.

AS you well know, Jeff Masters, Tonado frequency HAS increased in the US, dramatically since the 1950's If you look at the curve, it is very similar to every other indicator of global warming: http://earthstorm.ocs.ou.edu/materials/graphics/TorFatalChart.gif.

As you also well know, Jeff Masters, tornadic activity is fully expected to increase in a world of stronger weather fronts causing stronger storms, all caused by the greater differentials between highs and lows one would expect on an Earth affected by global warming.

As always, I recognize the importance some people place on appearing jaded and unimpressed. I think you should take your role here more seriously than that.
My question is, while volcanoes produce much more greenhouse gases than human activities do, wouldn't that be part of the Earth's natural balance? Would the relatively small, but growing amounts of greenhouse gases produced by human activity be tipping the balance in favor of warming?
" I remember in the 70's everyone was panicking about the coming ice age."

You remember incorrectly. Very few scientists were "panicked". In fact it got almost no media play at all - a couple of magazine covers.

Now, we know that the measurements that were of slight concern were infact caused by the "global dimming" phenomenae that has been well explained and demonstrated, due to the high amount of particulates that fossil fuel burning industries were putting out.
"However, he should have balanced his discussion of the high loss of life such heat waves cause with the expected reduction in loss of life from fewer severe cold waves."

Don't forget that heat waves are far, far deadlier than cold snaps or winter storms; two heat waves in the 80s killed as many as 10,000 each. Link (the heat wave in 1988 was the costliest natural disaster in the U.S. until Katrina).
Anything moving into the gulf should be watched intently. Thats experience. Where are we at in relation to the models? If the models conflict or if you have to wait for a model to be reverse engineered to fit the situation in view out the window it isnt much good.
bottom line -- there are more humans on earth now than there have ever been at any point.. there are things that can be done to curb global warming (that havent been done yet).. but baring a supervolcano eruption or an asteroid impact(some type of massive loss of life) this rock can NOT sustain us .. WE WILL OUT GROW EARTH.. not in our life time.. but in our grandchildrens?? definately their children!!
Carbon emission responsibility chart:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/map-184.html
GulfScotsman wrote:

What is the science of the TOTAL amount of green house GASES from volcanic activity. Relative to the amount of green house GASES from human activity? Putting aside particulate matter that eventually settles out.

It's apparently difficult to get a precise measurement of annual volcanic CO2 production. It might be 150 times less than anthropogenic emissions:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Or maybe only 30 times less:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

Or maybe 50 times less, according to this site cited by the "global warming is a myth" advocates at JunkScience.com:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

None of this is definitive, but it ought to be enough to quash the "volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans" meme once and for all. Ought to be, but I know it won't. Too "inconvenient". :-)
Refer to this graph:



Has there been a huge increase in volcanic activity? That is what you should be asking, not how much volcanoes contribute.
Some other questions I have:

Are we having more volcanic eruptions now than in centuries past?

What data do we have on CO2 concentrations in centuries past? How did it vary between the warm period about 1000 AD vs. the Little Ice Age from 1500 to the mid-1800s?

With the cooling that occurs after major volcanic eruptions (in the early 1800s that caused the cold summer in 1816 or Pinatubo and the cool summer of 1992), don't the effects of aerosols injected into the atmosphere cancel the effects of the greenhouse gases?
Scot.. but all those humans would create the same amount of waste as now?? whats the difference.. i was refering to space.. i was refering to waste or the bi products of our consuption on any scale...
sorry i was NOT refering to actual space.. (altho that too will be an issue at some point) i was refering to WASTE and the current RATE things seem to be going..
Thanks, Michael for answering one of my questions. It seems CO2 stayed fairly steady during warmer and cooler periods in the last 1000 years until the Industrial Revolution. I guess other factors were at work to cause climate variations before.
why would you say i was silly for again stateing things that are known facts?? weve known for a long time now scot that we will eventually outgrow this planet -- or at the very least our population will evetually grow to be more than this planet can sustain... im sorry if you think thats silly... but im not makeing this stuf up.. if you think that the facts behind this are silly or that the concept itslef is silly.. then that in fact would make you the silly one....
"However, you're excactly right that small scale eruptions do not throw as much particles into the atmosphere to block sunlight, but still pumps tons of C02, making the question very relavent."

"I would still like to see the science compared side by side of the TOTAL volume of green house gases from human activity as a comparison against the volume of gases caused by volcanic activity planet wide. Say over the past 2 decades when this has become such a political issue. I am interested to see the breakdown and comparison if anyone could find such data. And where on earth does the greatest amount of human green house gas emissions actually come from."

Go to the DOE site. In 2003, 25 Trillion tons of CO2 was pumped out in the pursuit of energy.

Between 1980 and 2003, 511 TRILLION tons of CO2 was pumped out in pursuit of energy production. The US was responsible for 123 TRILLION tons of that.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html

"The researchers note that Mt. Etna, a volcano which produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world"

So lets see... thats about 13 million tons a year. 13 million tons out of 25 trillion tons... carry the two... yes, that in fact comes out to SQUAT.

Seriously, you guys could do this yourselves. I mean, if you were interested in actually learning instead of flinging as much mud at the problem as possible.
"AS you well know, Jeff Masters, Tonado frequency HAS increased in the US, dramatically since the 1950's If you look at the curve, it is very similar to every other indicator of global warming: http://earthstorm.ocs.ou.edu/materials/graphics/TorFatalChart.gif."

This increase in tornadoes is due in part or entirely due to increases in the U.S. population and in better tornado observation networks, which let far fewer tornadoes go unreported now than in the past. I listened to several talks at the 2006 American Meteorological Society meeting by our leading tornado experts who all agreed that the short length of the tornado record and it's relatively poor quality make it impossible at this time to detect if there are long-term changes in tornado activity as a result of human-caused climate change. This is the conclusion of the IPCC as well.

Jeff Masters
Gulf, the fact is, CO2 concentrations are increasing. We can measure that. These concentrations increased at the same time as human-caused CO2 emissions increased dramatically. We can measure thos emissions as well.

Volcanos, as far as we know, are not increasing their emissions of CO2, so they are pretty much irrelevant to the question of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
According to this article posted at realclimate.org by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the ratio of human to volcano-produced CO2 is about 50 to 1:

"One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago."

Jeff Masters
The nomenclature for what is tropical, extra tropical, semi-tropical, cold core, warm core, etc. are now distorted. Physical circumstances are changing. For example, from personal experience alone it is clear to me that the zonal climate of the US has moved north at least 200 miles in the forty years, and that is no exaggeration. If anything it is an undertatement.
rwdobson,
That's the conclusion I come to. The bottom line is total CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly since 1959. I think prior to the mid-70s, the aerosols we were also putting into the atmosphere were cancelling the effect of the CO2. Once power plants, industry, and vehicles were made cleaner and above-ground nuclear testing stopped, the warming began to show up in the '80s.
No matter if you agree or disagree with the movie's science, I think we all need to be made more aware of the effect that we humans have on the earth. Anything that shines a spotlight on preserving the planet is ok by me. Even if todays warming isn't caused by human activity, if we continue to spew pollutants into the atmosphere and pollute our seas, rivers and streams, it will eventually have an adverse effect. It might be 20 years from now or 200, but we all need to start being more aware.
i totally agree DJ.. well spoken
60. AZ
Silly Houstonian.
thats all youve got left AZ?? cmon spew some more fictional Hype for us..
explain to us why you being totally WRONG makes me silly... lets hear it..
63. AZ
Don't want to step on your toes. That is your forte.
Would a F6 tornado convince of Global Warming as the upper layer of the atmosphere warms and then becomes unstable and creating a large twist in the lower atmospheres. Any possiblities with this.
Gulf Scotsman, try looking up this info on Google if you want to support your point. The info is out there and not that hard to find.

NO really be my guest.. tell us about how the glaciers arent melting..and about how rising sea levels will never be a threat... PLEASE

case closed.. go play in your sandbox..
I once read that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually from natural events. I read some comments about Vocanoes, which is one that I knew about. Another is Forest fires - so I ask the question, do we now do a better job of preventing and stopping forest fires or do we cause more of them then would naturally occur. If we didn't make such advances in controling and stopping forest fires would there be even more C02 in the air?
you can't just take into account co2 emission..... what about all the methane gas emitted by cow farts! maybe we should look to see if we have more cattle now than in the past! LOL

i know we have more pigs than we used too! ROFL

Sorry, just trying to lighten things up a little.... some people in here just seem a little too uptight! :)
I believe with my instincts that this is possibly a global warming period that our earth goes through just before an ICe Age and then cools and then warms again. This part I agree is natural, but this process could be put into a quicker pace by human increased activity effecting the earth.
The interest in when CO2 levels were high historically in the past before man, I assume due to volcanic eruptions, for me is how the earth recovered the equillibrium.
Wether through increase in plant life, that died and ended up as fossil fuels, absorption in the oceans etc.
If it is the former then deforestation, increase of city areas, with an ever increasing population is going to hinder that avenue again.
"as the upper layer of the atmosphere warms and then becomes unstable and creating a large twist in the lower atmospheres. Any possiblities with this."

No. As the upper layers of the atmosphere warm, the atmosphere becomes more stable, not unstable.
There is no strong surface pressure lows associated with the disturbance near Houston at this time, on the ground or over water. From the radar it does appear to be moving slowly sw. Its always better to check.
hey, the methane comes out of the cow's mouth, as a belch, not out the other end as a fart! really.

seriously, the #1 source of methane is landfills, not cows, and both are pretty small compared to fossil fuels.

and it is true that much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally produced. definitely. what is a concern is the increase above the natural baseline.
When it's once again time to turn to excitement in the tropics, please move this review to your education links page. It would be great to have access to it as we do the "Day After Tomorrow" essay. Thank you.
I always thought that the upper atmosphere was cooler and if it got warmer then it would become more unstable because warm air is unstable with humidity and dew points rising.
About 10 percent of Earth's land is covered with glaciers.

During the last Ice Age, glaciers covered 32 percent of land.

Glaciers store about 75 percent of the world's fresh water.

Antarctic ice is more than 2.6 miles (4,200 meters) thick in some areas.

If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 230 feet (70 meters) worldwide.

SOURCE: NOAA
"hey, the methane comes out of the cow's mouth, as a belch, not out the other end as a fart! really."

i stand corrected! :)

i'm much better at eating cattle, than discussing it! ;)
Anyways what if an asteroid hit the tropics warmed the waters, created a 100ft+ tsunami wave and then the killer HYPERCANE (hurricane with winds over 500mph), or an undersea volcanic eruption occurred, what would humanity here in the United States do to get to safety. You just can't always run from Mother Nature and then the 20 mile high eyewall blocking out the sunlight from reaching the earth's surface and then kills all life forms even if the HYPERCANE doesn't even hit us.
if something causes all the land ice to melt, i believe we have MUCH BIGGER problems going on than global warming!

see cause and effect..........
Would a F6 tornado convince of Global Warming as the upper layer of the atmosphere warms and then becomes unstable and creating a large twist in the lower atmospheres. Any possiblities with this.

Besides what rwdobson said, I don't think that we will see another F5 tornado again; the incidence of such violent tornadoes seems to be declining; this includes F4 tornadoes. In fact, every day that passes extends the "F5 tornado-free record" by another day. Link

I think that climate change may be the cause - warming in the polar regions reduces temperature contrasts and as a result the jetstream is weakened (the jetstream divides air with different temperatures).
if the upper atmosphere is warm, then the atmosphere as a whole is stable. warm air on top is a stable condition. unstable conditions are created when the air on top is cool and the air below is warm, trying to rise.
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, support@wunderground.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log

sorry to be off but is any one geting this when you update your blog or try to i am this want to see if ant of you are???
The if all that fresh water was dumped into the ocean from natural causes which was possibly caused by humans then wouldn't "The Day After Tomorrow" come true if the North Atlantic current shifted and then cause a massive flood of all coastal areas and then the major storm hits.
How much of a ocean level rise are we already committed to?? If all emmisions ceased today, what would the effect be of the greenhouse gases that are already atmosphere?
NAtlanticCyclone wrote:

I always thought that the upper atmosphere was cooler and if it got warmer then it would become more unstable because warm air is unstable with humidity and dew points rising.

"Warm air is unstable" because it tends to rise through cooler air (convection). If the air "at the top" is warm, the air beneath is less able to rise, and that makes things more stable.
I always thought that the upper atmosphere was cooler and if it got warmer then it would become more unstable because warm air is unstable with humidity and dew points rising.

This is only true if the upper atmosphere stayed cool and the lower atmosphere got warmer. In fact, CO2 is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere and causing the stratosphere to get colder.
I find it interesting that some in this blog will stomp their feet about folks giving their opinions on whether storms will form here or there or wherever as being overzellous, yet without the same regard will have the same type of conversation about global warming. I am not going to say what is right or wrong, as I think there is merit to both opinions and fact both extreme and moderate, and left to the unique individual to relate to which ever facet they can identify with. If you are coming to blogs for absolute fact all the time, I may argue this may not be the right forum for that. I enjoy this blog for all opinions and facts, and hope others are not stifled based on a few other's own personal expectations. This thought is not geared to any one individual, but if you take offense to this, I apologize in advance..but if the shoe fits....
^
^
^
^
ME THINKS HIS HEAD JUST EXPLODED! LOL
any one see this when they try to update your blog yes no may be some in


Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, support@wunderground.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log

sorry to be off but is any one geting this when you update your blog or try to i am this want to see if ant of you are???
So if the jet stream then weakens as the polar regions become warmer doesn't that mean the Atlantci OCean warms considerably as there is no more cool water to enter the Atlantic OCean and then the jet stream which creates wind shear would be gone, nonexistent and then a ton of hurricanes form and become more intense so we are dead either way great.
StL, i had no idea it had been that long since an F5 tornado in the US...I do think we will see one again sometime tho.
If anyone wants to see the climate history of earth: Link
Does'nt warmer water naturally expand? Adding to the already melting ice...
Look at that wave at 60 west and the one area of thunderstorms over the Bahamas. Any chance of development within these areas. I believe the area just entering the Caribbean Sea has about a 75% chance of development, as increased amount of thunderstorms has occurred and the area around the Bahamas I don't know about.
well isnt that amazing, earths climate changes all the time regards of human interaction.
MichaelSTL wrote:

"Besides what rwdobson said, I don't think that we will see another F5 tornado again; the incidence of such violent tornadoes seems to be declining; this includes F4 tornadoes. In fact, every day that passes extends the "F5 tornado-free record" by another day. Link

I think that climate change may be the cause - warming in the polar regions reduces temperature contrasts and as a result the jetstream is weakened (the jetstream divides air with different temperatures)."


So, if that's the case, then we shouldn't build cyclonebuster's tunnels, even if they did work...
Re global warming and hurricanes:

Global warming is COOLING the upper atmosphere (more of the incoming solar radiation is trapped inside the "greenhouse"), which in my view is why we're seeing increased hurricane intensities.

Global warming is increasing SSTs, which is why in my view one of the reasons we're seeing increased duration of hurricane activity.

Global warming appears to be slowing the movement of the Gulf Stream (and may cause it to stop flowing, which is a severely scary thought) - less water moved from the tropics to the Arctic via the Gulf Stream means more heat build up that needs to be transferred by other means (ie. through the atmosphere, via storms including hurricanes).
Gatorboy wrote:

well isnt that amazing, earths climate changes all the time regards [sic] of human interaction.

And people die all the time regardless of their actions. I'm so sick of all these alarmists wanting us to wear safety belts, put smoke detectors in our houses, have our trash collected instead of dumping it in the street, and whatnot. Think of how much money we're wasting on all these ridiculous precautions!
With regards to hurricane intensity: the maps on this page are based on a lot more than just SSTs - they take atmospheric conditions into account as well.
MichaelSTL,

Based on your thoughts regarding the jestream as it relates to global warming/F5 tornados..have you run across any data yet that shows a slowing/weakening of the jetstream based on that theory? Additionally, what is the threshold of windspeed from the jetstream required to fuel a F5 tornado? I would agree that there might be a loose tie, but not sure I could concede yet to not seeing another one again. I think we would both agree they are rare to begin with, and they might be declining [though based on newer tech vs. older records..not convinced], I am not sure the jetstream is affecting it too much, unless proven wrong by the questions I had above.
in the (distant geologic) past, the earth's atosphere didn't have oxygen in it. it was a natural condition, but i don't think it's one we want to re-create now.
From the graph on this page, there should be about 10 F4-F5 tornadoes a year instead of only one or two (last year had only one F4 tornado and this year has had only one as well - there should have been around eight by now).
rwdobson: heh heh...we also don't want to go back to the >25% oxygen that was around during the Cretaceous period, either...wet wood burns in a 25% oxygen atmosphere...not good...
Here is a thought to consider...since the Fajita scale uses damage analysis of primarly housing damage in the upper levels, is it possible that steadily since the 50's that building codes have improved the structural stability of newer buildings, thus not having as much damage with what may have been considered a violent tornado 30 yrs ago?
http://louisianaskyline.invisionzone.com/forums

Building codes are partly used to determine how strong a tornado was, so I don't think that better building codes would be the cause of less strong tornadoes eing recorded. In fact, I know that some tornadoes have been downgraded because the buildings that they damaged were found to have sloppy/substandard construction.
is that a steak or chicken Fijita?
*fajita rather
Just a little food for thought:

Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"*
by David Deming (see link)


Link

its spelled Fujita
Re: Just a little food for thought-

If the link doesn't work, this is the web address: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm
I suppose if we do manage to destroy our atmosphere future beings might record it as the microscopic spike on the gentle curve from cold to warm and look upon it in mild curiosity.
I also saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' this weekend. I feel that I have now read enough and watched enough to have an educated opinion on global warming. One of the big problems with our society is that you cannot believe anything you hear or read. 95% of the time, what is printed or broadcast on the news is influenced by money. Everything in this country revolves around how the rich can get richer. I do believe that global warming is occuring and that the burning of fossil fuels is partly responsible for this phenomenom.

Al Gore's documentary is clearly politcally motivated, Dr. Masters is definitely right on about that. Which, of course, throws most of the premises behind it into question. I think the only reason global warming is not receiving the attention it deserves is because "Big Oil" is basically running our country. Think about it, it's true.

Until we reach a point where the news is actually independent and factual, global warming will not receive the attention it deserves.

Even if global warming is a hoax, there are plenty of other benefits to eliminating the use of fossil fuels that should be justification enough for us to devote more research to it.
Why does everybody think we will destroy our atmosphere, dont we realise that Planet has been around for Billions of years, i doubt during our 100 years of having automoblies and factories that we have destroyed the atmosphere.
116. F5
Here's a nice article which quotes a number of researchers who disagree with the CO2 = global warming theory...

Link

And another...Link

Also, lost in one of Dr. Master's previous blog entries was a link I posted regarding SST's and their correlation to hurricanes...Interesting reading

Link

And this one regarding surface temperature changes related to land/use changes...
Link
Yes, Fujita..LOL..subliminal typing, I suppose as I am hungry!

I understand your point regarding the building codes, but I would have to think that what would have been thought a well constructed house in the 70s might not have the same integrity of what is a well constructed house of today. With the same force applied to each, the damamge of the older house may look worse, thus influence the damage assessment.

[caveat - I realize that the reverse may also be true to the extent in the time of great urban sprawl, newer housing may in fact be worse than older houses in construction]

Since the Fujita scale is somewhat subjective based on structural soundness and other factors, I am not convinced that the 1% [as shown on the chart] representing violent tornados can be exacted to what should be expected in any given year. That being the case, it is odd that it has been so long since we have had one, but not ready yet to find factors that may be limiting them. I am not sure there is enough reliable data to dictate frequency and strengh that is objective enough to apply such a small [1%] percentage to.
someone please come on the tropic chat room
If the rain in the NW GOM makes it inland, things here in Houston will get much, much worse.
Boy, if this were out further in the water, in looking at the loop, the bands forming over LA following the spin might be thought as a band..but of course its not in this case..since its just a rain storm.
those are bands...they are just bands associated with a non-tropical upper-level low. ULL's often produce nice looking bands that are separated by wedges of dry air.
not to mention that that hurricane depicted in the movie poster is of a Southern Hemisphere in nature. I don't think they meant that on purpose.
Afternoon all.

sayuh-sometimes upper level lows can transition to warm core tropical lows, but it usually takes a fair amount of time and just the right conditions. This being over land has no chance.

For those that have not seen you can find the best tropical information available on the web at StormJunkie.com

SJ
125. HAARP
Even if global warming is a hoax, there are plenty of other benefits to eliminating the use of fossil fuels that should be justification enough for us to devote more research to it.

finally a valid point...

this I agree with... and as a hybrid car owner and geothermal heating and cooling user...I choose to help my own beliefs...


that do you "alarmists" due to help this planet?

other than blog some non factual political bs on here all day and night...

There is no scientific "FACT" that humans are causing global warming...just because you see a corrolation between rising co2 levels and the industrial revolution doesnt mean squat...

and these measurements are taken on top of a volcano nonetheless...

to prove something scientifically you must eliminate all other possibilities...something that is impossible to do...

our warming could be caused by things we have yet discovered or understand yet...but believe away if you wish

lmfao

the bottom line is Al Gore did nothing in 8 years in office.

AND my choice to do the things I do to live green is for personal reasons and not to perpetuate some mythical "we are bigger than the planet" mentality...

Is the spin around the Bahamas also an ULL?

Or is there no spin there, only optical illusion?

SJ,
I was just looking at the Bahamas Low..but it looks a bit broader.

As far as TX..sure..I doubt anything comes of it..but its fun to look at in the WV. I seems to be pushing SW and eroding the dry air to the west.

It seems to be chasing the tropical moisture that was feeding it, but in the WV the tropical feed seems to be eroding as well.

But if that chase pulls it over water for awhile...
Look at how long it took to prove smoking causes lung cancer, for years there was just a correlation, if you smoked you were more likely to get lung cancer, but they couldn't prove it.
The Bahamas thing may be what several models have shown forming/moving off the SC/NC coast.

Check out turtlehurricane's blog sayuh.

He is claiming that there is a surface low now at the TX ULL. I have not seen this anywhere but his blog, but it could be. It would be unusual.

SJ
Afternoon Creg.

We do not need to prove gw, it is happening for what ever reason, and we don't really need to debate it too much. We need to prepare for it. Talk is cheap. It is time for humanity to take action, but I don't think we will ever be able to get along well enough.

SJ
Hi everyone just popping in to see what's happening.

SJ it's true there is a surface low near Houston. One, look at visible loops. Two, look at the surface obs. both clearly point to a surface circulation. This is a rare feature. It's not a normal upper low, being so small, and it's not a normal mesoscale thunderstorm complex. This thing could almost be classified as "tropical". Very weird item to watch.

Regarding the Bahamas disturbance, there is no surface low, and the circulation you see is the upper low itself. I would watch this area closely as well, because all the models including the GFS have something forming there and moving towards the Carolinas or Florida.
turtle says there is a surface low, but this is what the Houston NWS says (from their forecast discussion):

"Want to reiterate that this is a cold-core middle to upper level low pressure system and not a surface based tropical system impacting the area. As a result...tides will not be impacted."

I think I'll go with the NWS on this one.
surface obs...surface obs show winds 5-10 mph in houston. not a very impressive tropical storm.
135. HAARP
Posted By: Cregnebaa at 9:17 PM GMT on June 19, 2006.
Look at how long it took to prove smoking causes lung cancer, for years there was just a correlation, if you smoked you were more likely to get lung cancer, but they couldn't prove it.


...

oh my...

you missed my point ... At least with smoking there is a control group to compare data with...thus making it provable that smoking highers your risk for getting some cancers...

so does eating certain foods too...and other chemicals we put in our bodies...


with earth there is no control to test hypothesis against...

Rwdobson the NWS is probably right that this is cold-core, but it is surface based.
Hey Dob, what time was that discussion?

I mean it is a surface low, not just upper low.
I would watch this area closely as well, because all the models including the GFS have something forming there and moving towards the Carolinas or Florida.

Which models are you talking about? I see nothing at all (no cyclone, present or forecast) here for any of the 12z runs.
140. HAARP
um there is no doubt our globe is warming...

this has happened how many times since earth formed???


how many times has the co2 levels risin???


see my point people...you fail to point out other possibilities...thus making all your statements biased and worthless
discussion is from 236 PM CDT Monday Jun 19 2006

True my point is that just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it's not happening. You look at indications and trends.
Micheal...


look at these and use the 850mb vorticity. Best way to see potential depressions.

Michael why do you only look at that phase analysis? Look at the real runs. They all show at least a batch of potent thunderstorm activity forming in the area. The GFS has an 850mb vort max forming, along with a weak surface low/trough. And The ETA, Canadian, and NOGAPS all had something forming there.
All.... HARRP?

Go back and read my comments and tell me I am being biased!

That is my point, we can not even start to talk about how to deal with it because everyone has more fun bickering about it.

That being said, there are interesting areas of weather in the tropics that we can learn from, so can we please stick to those for the most part?...:)

SJ
how many times has the co2 levels risin???

but how many times as fast a the rise in the last 100 years?

In the past, how did the CO2 levels drop naturally are we hindering that avenue now with deforestation and destruction of plant habitat?
One would like to concur with the NWS about the TX weather being non-tropical, if it weren't for the obvious cyclonic rotation of the system.
I look at both (mainly SLP and shear for the animations); the phase analysis shows if there is a "real" cyclone (by "real", I mean sonething other than a vort max, from a trough or other disturbance, which can look like a circulation on vorticity only) and if it is tropical.
The Bahamas are extremely hot for this early in the season also.

SJ
150. HAARP
well all idications point towards this has happened many times before

scottsman pointed out about deforestation and i think that is a bigger issue imho

there are many problems that are bigger than global warming ... like sooner or later we will outgrow this planet...


just think this is all just a foolish distraction from everything else...

and another reason to get the people against one another and arguing so they can shaft us behind our backs and we dont even see it coming...

in other words ..

political buisness as usuall
franck, upper level lows have circulation also, how would you differentiate it?

and can a low level low even be cold core?
"One would like to concur with the NWS about the TX weather being non-tropical, if it weren't for the obvious cyclonic rotation of the system."

umm, upper level lows also have a cyclonic rotation. as do non-tropical surface lows. as do mesoscale complexes of thunderstorms rumbling across the plains. the presence of a cyclonic rotation does not make something tropical.
Yes Michael I look at cyclone phase if there is chance for a full-blown depression. If I am looking for a tropical low or disturbance, I look at the normal model runs. The cyclone-phase page only shows well developed lows that have been on the charts for some time. Also they are only anylized if they are initialized on the model runs, and we all know the initializations are not the real surface analysis.
Look, there is a surface low on the latest analysis. Convinced now? There is a surface low, the question is: is it tropical? And will it move over water?
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
530 PM EDT MON JUN 19 2006

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

THE TROPICAL WAVE MOVING WESTWARD THROUGH THE LESSER ANTILLES AND
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA REMAINS DISORGANIZED... AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS ARE UNFAVORABLE FOR TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION.

AN AREA OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS LOCATED OVER THE BAHAMAS AND
THE FLORIDA STRAITS IS MOVING SLOWLY WESTWARD. THIS ACTIVITY IS
PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH AN UPPER-LEVEL LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM
LOCATED OVER SOUTHEASTERN FLORIDA. ALTHOUGH ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS ARE CURRENTLY UNFAVORABLE FOR TROPICAL CYCLONE
DEVELOPMENT... BRIEF PERIODS OF LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL AND GUSTY
WINDS WILL BE POSSIBLE WITH SOME OF THE STRONGER THUNDERSTORMS.

ELSEWHERE... TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH
TUESDAY.
The cyclone-phase page only shows well developed lows that have been on the charts for some time.

Actually, that is not true. The red circles on the maps indicate future (forecast by models) cyclones. This is how I knew that Alberto was going to develop, as I first saw it forming as a low on the SLP animation, then looked at phase analysis and saw that it was forecast to be a strong warm core system; in other words, a tropical storm (this was about 4-5 days before anything formed; the only error that the CMC made was that it had Alberto form in the East Pacific and cross over). If the SLP animation shows nothing, I don't bother to look further, as it is obvious when a tropical storm is shown.
Look, there is a surface low on the latest analysis. Convinced now? There is a surface low, the question is: is it tropical? And will it move over water?

The thing over Texas???

I thought you were referring to the Bahamas low before???

The NHC had a 1014 mb surface low in the discussion earlier, so I know that it already exists.
Michael my statement is true about anylized lows. Forecasted lows are another deal all together.

Anyway, there is a surface low as per the latest surface map, and if this moves over water we will see what happens. Right now models keep it over land, where only rain and flooding will be the problems.
Oh sorry for the confusion Michael. We were talking about it just a second before that comment sorry.

I must go now. Limiting blog time you know lol. Talk with you all later!
Its been ticking down over land and some ocean but REALLY slow. I think that map may be a combined model/real surface output. It has changed from what they were saying earlier though.
the abrupt change in climate possible per the mathematics of climate dynamical systems can go any way, not just towards planet warming. i don't think anyone is arguing that the Gulf Stream might disappear. it's just that it'll change it's route significantly, thrusting most of Europe into a climate comparable to northern Scandanavia. or, depending upon how things are set up (we just don't know), the heating could tip a global climate into an ice age. it depends upon the magnitude and nature of couplings and forcings.

only other thing i have to ask about the movie, which i have not seen, is where, if the movie is so bad, are the alternatives, the publicly engaging and entertaining documentaries by people more familiar with the science and the issues? i mean, there's Divine Wind. what else is there? noone reads or seemingly cares about AGU position papers, and noone will learn much if U2 produces a song about it. yet, those guys are communicating.
well all i[n]dications point towards this has happened many times before

that's certainly true, but civilization wasn't around then. some of the records show sea levels 75 meters higher than they are now. what do you think that would do to the U.S. economy?

actually, noone's talking that 75 meters is realistic, not any time soon. But 9 meters is. small changes can have big impacts. anyway, in terms of direct inundation, you can check it out yourself.
Gore in his movie points out that 900 plus published scienific articles support "global warming" truths while an effort has been made politically to cast aspersions in 56% of news articles on the subject...Jeff, can you comment on this?

Also...I heard Gore in an interview with call ins say he is not a candidate, not interested. And his very low key speaking voice kinda says that also. DISPITE several call-ins asking him to run. His stated goal is to draw attention to the frailty of our planet and to get people to think about taking better care of it. I applaud that goal, and I believe he has no political agenda aside from the one he states.
I'm sorry, but while I agree with you on the relevant points, I cannot disagree more on your recommendation to wait until the DVD. This movie is an imperative, in my view, for anyone who cares what happens to our planet. Yeah there is biographical stuff, but I actually walked away less likely to think that Gore is interested in running for President.
Tropics talk has been deffered to turtlehurricane's blog for now.

And for those that have not seen, please check out StormJunkie.com. The easiest way to find the best models, imagery, and much more. Including WU blogger storm video.

SJ
166. WSI
I am not a Gore fan, but I will probably watch the movie. Regardless if you believe we are causing warming or not, wouldn't it be good to treat the environment as well as we can?

weathercore.com
That's generally my position, WSI. I think part of the problem with modern enviornmentalism is that most of the big lobbies won't take a victory where they can get one.

Our planet would be much better off if we a) build some nuclear power plants and b) planted some trees. Those two simple steps would do a lot to reduce whatever warming is human caused, and just generally keep the planet healthy.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the high end of the sea-rise estimates is 35 inches. Less than 3 feet. Before the last ice age, seas were 15 feet higher (per Dr. Masters) - clearly, we're nowhere near unprecedented.
AnneAbrams - IMO, you're being pretty naive about Gore. To say that Al Gore doesn't have political ambitions is to say that the sky is green, or a Category 5 just hit Winnipeg. It just...doesn't make sense :)
I need to correct something, I messed up on the DOE data, I was doing coveresions to take it into pounds, then decided against it. The totals since 1980 are 511 BILLION metric tons, and the total US contribution is 142 BILLION metric tons.

In relation to that, the total atmospheric CO2 content is 730 billion (non metric) tons (1980). in 2003 , the world dumped 25 billion metric tons additional CO2 into the atmosphere due to energy production, or roughly a 3% addition over the natural equilibrium. This DOES NOT INCLUDE wood burning for land clearing, concrete production, etc.

So, what is the effect of a major volcanic eruption.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/Reports/Pinatubo/pinatubo_abs.html

"Models for the composition of the pre-eruption vapor suggest that it contained a minimum of approximately 96 Mt H2O, 42 Mt CO2, and 3 Mt Cl, in addition to 17 Mt of SO2. The mole fraction composition of the vapor was X(H2O) = 0.80-0.83, X(SO2) = 0.01-0.04, X(CO2) = 0.15, and X(Cl) = 0.01, indicating that the vapor was not excessively SO2-rich. The volume and density of the vapor at depth prior to eruption were at least 0.25 km^3 and about 0.6 g/cm^3, respectively."

42 Million tons for Pinatubo, a major eruption.

Can we stop with the volcano blaming yet?

How do we know the CO2 build up is from fossil fuels? Well, for starters, what do you think happens to oil, gas and coal when they are burned? Fossil Fuel heaven? They turn into CO2.

Now, go figure out how many tons of fossil fuels get burned a year. This is also easy to do, the DOE tracks it. YOu may need to convert some volumes into weights, but that should be easy for everyone out of highschool (you did pay attention in chemistry class, right?)

Now multiply that by 3. It should be higher, but thats a nice easy number. A ton of burnt oil gives three tons of CO2 or so. So again, where do you think all that goes?

Finally, scientists can tell that it is CO2 from fossil fuels, not from natural sources. The carbon in fossil fuels have been isolated from the atmosphere for millions of years - all of the C14 isotopes have decayed into C12. The relative amounts of C14 in atmospheric CO2 have fallen dramatically except for a brief period of above ground nuclear testing, because we continuously inject massive amounts of C12 enriched CO2 into the air.

Can we close the case on who is making the CO2?

We know, positively, that CO2 absorbs IR light better than O2 and N2. Why? Chemistry will teach you.

The electrons holding molecules together via chemical bonds vibrate. They can stretch and twist and wiggle, according to the geometry of the molecule in question. These vibrations occur at the same frequencies as IR energy. When IR energy passes the molecule, it is absorbed by the molecule by the wiggle of the atoms.

O2 and N2 are binary molecules. They can stretch relative to each other, and thats about it. CO2 has 3 atoms. They can do various wiggles in relationship as well as symetric stretches and Asymetric stretches. Methane has five atoms, and they can do all kinds of crazy vibrations, which is why it is so much more effective an IR sponge than even CO2.

You shine X amount of IR energy through a CO2 cloud, and it only lets Y amount pass through. And gets warmer in the process. It passes that heat on to its surrounding gas molecules in our atmosphere.

So, can we please close the case on whether CO2 traps heat?
172. jeffB
Gatorboy wrote:

Why does everybody think we will destroy our atmosphere, dont we realise that Planet has been around for Billions of years, i doubt during our 100 years of having automoblies and factories that we have destroyed the atmosphere.

*rolls eyes*

Yes, we're all claiming that we're going to send the atmosphere *poof* flying out into space, and we're all going to wither in the resulting hard vacuum.

The planet has, as you say, been around for billions of years. (Thank you for granting that it's been more than 6,000 years, at least.) During the earliest part of that history, it had a thick, healthy atmosphere, containing almost NO free oxygen. The advent and spread of photosynthesis pumped oxygen into the atmosphere, incidentally frying much of the life that had previously been present -- anaerobes tend not to do well in oxygen-bearing atmospheres. What's left of that first, thriving ecosystem? Stuff living around deep-sea vents and deep within the Earth's crust. Oh, yeah, and perennial favorites like C. botulinum.

So, sure, let's not worry about it -- global atmospheric change is perfectly natural. But let's hope that we aren't left in an ecological niche like that occupied by C. botulinum, and that whatever species succeeds us is nicer to us than we are to the poor little botulism germs...
From the Austin forecast discussion:

850-700-500 MB ANALYSES SHOW THE LOW
IS PRIMARILY BELOW 700 MB...APPEARS TO BE WARM CORE...AND
CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE A DECAYING TROPICAL CYCLONE. THEREFORE...WILL
GO WITH THAT MENTAL MODEL AND ANTICIPATE CORE RAINS LATE NIGHT AND
EARLY MORNING...THEN CONVECTION EXPANDING OUTWARD IN TO BANDS BY
MID AFTERNOON WITH A LATE EVENING CONVECTIVE MINIMUM.

I'd call it tropical even though it originated with a cut off low. Of course, one can only expect rain from it and if it heads west that will be greatly appreciated by folks I know.
I don't expect politicians to do anything about CO2 until people are dying in droves. There are too many conflicting interests for anything to happen. Debating the science is a waste of time. Besides, there are just too many heffalumping people on earth and will be for a long time to come.

Ok, that's cynical, but it feels good to get it said. We should be debating interests, i.e., priorities, not science. Debating science is a distraction supported especially by those happy with the status quo. It is like smoking cigarettes. Common sense says it cannot be good, but there are dollars to be made. I'm not thinking of the fossil fuel industry either. Changes would cause disruptions for lots of industries/ways of life.

Also, I agree that Gore is a politician and just can't help it. He will promote himself no matter what. But that is again cynical of me. He may surprise. Jimmy Carter was a lousy politician and look at all the good he has done since then. Maybe Gore can, too.
Nice find, bappit. It's looked exactly like that (a decaying ts or td) all day long on radar and satellite. Per the Houston/Galv radar, the system does not look to be moving much at all; perhaps slightly w of s. What do you think?
(referring to Austin NWS discussion, not politics... ;-)
Have to agree with you guys, this is the first I have looked at the low @ Houston. Looks like a budding depression to me, outflow progressing.
Dr Masters,

I am a skeptic as to the cause of any global warming that may be occuring and even more skeptical of predictions years into the future. This skeptisism is based on more than a passing knowledge of modeling be it emperical from data mining/analysis or based on first principles using available theory. Cause and effect are many time difficult to come by. In any event, there is an interesting article which refutes Mr Gore's "science" at this website - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm Where is the truth - or is it not possible to say at this stage of understanding of global climate changes? Any comments by you or your readers would be most welcome.

Thank you.
excellent contribution, Mysticdog. now that's scientific: it's quantitative.
182. Daveg
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006


"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

"Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjrn Karln, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karln clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karln concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karln explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karln

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Beat me to it, Michael! I just posted that NWS discussion in my blog. Are you from the Houston area by chance?
The low is a serious flooding threat, but it is supposed to stay over land and I see no reason to doubt that. The circulation center is in north Houston or maybe over in Waller just north of me.

I have posted graphics intensive blog entries on my wunderblog:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/show.html

It is incorrect to say that "No single weather event, or unconnected series of severe weather events such as Gore presents, are indicative of climate change."

The physics are inescapable. There is an indisputable 35% increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. No weather event can duck, bob and weave to avoid this 35% increase. The results are in EVERY weather event on Earth.

That is a true fact beyond debate.

An issue related to that is still being debated: "Is the impact of 35% known increase in total CO2 having an impact on weather that can be proven by specific weather events?" The answer is YES. There is a major impact, very destructive severe events which can be demonstrated with evidence beyond reproach.

I am hosting an online seminar on this subject on my blog, and have already published several entries in the series over this past week or so.

Tropical Storm Nursery Hot Spots

12 Hours in the life of Tropical Depression Two-E

The Seas are Boiling at the Acapulco Hot Spot.

Teleconnections from the Tropics to Your Doorsteps.

Overview of Teleconnections of the Acapulco Hot Spot to US Severe Weather Events.

I have 140 megabytes of satellite pictures of the WATL Rainbow alone, other going past 100 MBs, the least ones over 50 MBs. The half-hour by half-hour movement from Tropical Hot Spots which never fully cooled down over winter, even in a La Nina year, are conclusive scientific evidence of the damages that 35% extra CO2 is causing.

I also have posted information I found around the internet, some came from evidence used in federal court fraud trials, implicating the biggest names in DENIALISM with corporate paymasters and more than a decade track record of deceits. These are not MY statements, but exact quations from online websites with links so you can go there and see the exac same things I saw there when I went there.

Did you know, for example, that the Famous Fred Singer once tried to get Eisenhower to fund a mARS mission to check out the hollow moon alien bases he claimed were there? This is the quality of "science" the DENIERS produce.


http://www.presidentialufo.com/eisenhow5.htm

"March 1960: The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. No mention was made of the other Mars moon, Deimos.

In his published opinion, Dr. Singer backed a claim first made by the Soviet astrophysicist Shklovsky. The Russian scientist's announcement that Phobos was a hollow, artificial satellite, proving the existence of a Martian civilization, set off heated arguments among astronomers. Shklovsky based his decision on a long study of Phobos' peculiar orbit, which other astronomers have noted. The Russian claim has calculations and those of earlier astronomers prove Phobos cannot possibly be an ordinary moon.

Though Dr. Singer said the figures still had to be proved, his Phobos statement in the February Astronautics, rejected other astronomers' objections.

"I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid," said the white House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet. Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space base, both for Martians and earthlings."


I have no way to prove Singer said that, but I can prove from court evidence that Fred Singer and crew negociated a $20,000 payment to create a science hoax report to help tobacco companies lobby congress to avoid regulations. I know the names of all the conspirators, the dates they met to discuss the deed, the request for payment date, the actual payment transfer date, the phoney "peer-review" process, the publication date of the fraud report, the date of the press conference on Capital Hill sponsored by two congressmen. All this passed by due process of law with lawyers objecting every chance they could to try to keep evidence out of the trials. Did I say trials (plural)? Yes. There was more than one trial where this evidence was presented to the courts, so we have duplicates from each court. We have even more duplicates because man copies of incriminating memos and evidence were filed in more than one executive's file cabinets confiscated as evidence.

Who was Singer's partners at the time? Fred Seitz on the board of SEPP took more than $660,000 of tobacco money to craft deceptions, Patrick J. Michaels works with just about every single Exxon-Funded front group there is, Michael Fumento now occupies the same office suite that Singer occupied during this fraud scam. Fumento and Seitz and Michaels have records in those tobacco file cabinets that trotted out in courts of law.

Sallie Baliunas was warming the Wesson Fellow seat at Hoover Institution at that time, went to work for Seitz at George C. Marshall Institute, while Singer went to Stanford latter to pocket the same Wesson Fellow monetary award. Singer claims Wesson salad oil is the only oil money he ever took -- said that in public in a congressional hearing. He doesn't count the more than ten years he took Koch Oil money at IHS, and shared offices with Charles G. Koch Summer Fellows Program, or the payments from Cato Institute (co-founded by Chas Koch, directed by David Koch) as oil money even though they have been publically fined about $60,000,000.00 for oil pollution acts since Singer started working for them.

Right next to the evidence memos of Singer's acts in those Tobacco file cabinets were other filed papers on Global Warming, attacking Senator Gore by name, attacking Global Warming science as far back as 1989, and now we know who funded part of that widescale coordinated attack. We know all that because we have better evidence that the deniers are corrupt than we do that CO2 affects Global Warming.

As to the question of global warming and CO2, actually methane gas is 20 times more potent gas then CO2 as a greenhouse gas. And plants, are the largest producers of methane. So that blows the CO2 opinion for global warming out the water. Also if, as per Gore, Greenland's icesheet where to melt it would shut off the Atlantic's Gulf stream coveyor belt which some scientist would cause another ice age. So are we going to make it hotter this century for another ice age next? :P It's a matter of conjection on either side.
katrina formed where this low is in the bahamas. Where they think that this has a shot later this week
I don't expect politicians to do anything about CO2 until people are dying in droves. There are too many conflicting interests for anything to happen. -- Does anyone disagree with that?

It is like smoking cigarettes. Common sense says it cannot be good. -- Does anyone disagree with that? I don't want angels-dancing-on-a-head-of-a-pin arguments about who says what. What is the common sense point of view?

We should be debating interests, i.e., priorities, not science. Of course, that is a much more difficult task than doing science-speak. We can do science-speak until the cows come home and it will not change a thing. -- Any disagreement?

Of course, one may need to turn to science to resolve priority issues, but if the priority questions are not asked then the scientific questions are almost certainly a long term investment with no political significance.
We should be honest enough with ourselves to accept that Global Warming is happening and will continue to advance through the next couple centuries.

I don't much care for the blame game; what I do care for is that we develop some comprehensive strategies for dealing with its inevitable impacts.
wow theres a pocket of 90 degree temperatures off the louisiana coast thats scary too see at this time of the year
oh i read that wrong its 85 degree sea temperatures
You know, that low in the Bahamas looks meaner then the Caribbean wave right now. I wonder what will happen tonight during the diurnal max.
what do you think the chances of it becoming a deppresion are
I'd say 20% at this point. Once a surface reflection shows itself, then we will be able to better analize the situation.
The GFS has a low developing tomorrow. A trough to the north is supposed to pull the whole mess slightly north, but it is not forecast to pick the system up. Rather it misses it, and allows it to drift back south and west.
ScienceCop,

I'm having trouble following your argument, for a lot of reasons.

1. There is an indisputable 35% increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since when? What are the relative ratios of man-made CO2 and naturally occuring CO2?

2. The physics are inescapable. There is an indisputable 35% increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. No weather event can duck, bob and weave to avoid this 35% increase. The results are in EVERY weather event on Earth.

Disregarding my qualms with the 35% statement, I grant you this point, the CO2 does exist, and it is in the atmosphere. I'll ask you though, how does a 35% increase in man-made CO2 manifest itself? Quantitatively?

3. "Is the impact of 35% known increase in total CO2 having an impact on weather that can be proven by specific weather events?" The answer is YES. There is a major impact, very destructive severe events which can be demonstrated with evidence beyond reproach.

This is a bold statement to make. One cannot just show pretty pictures of events that they say support their claim -- you need more than that! Where's the actual science behind your argument? How does an increase in CO2 relate to ocean hot spots? How does CO2 relate to Tropical Depression 2E? How do you know the effects, if any, are statistically relevant?

4. What do politicians and conspiracy theories and corporations and tobacco companies have to do with scientifically proving your original point? What do they know about CO2 and global warming that the general scientific community does not?

For having the name ScienceCop, you really do not argue scientifically. Quite often, your statements contain many truths, but usually digress from there with fautly logic. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but I really felt that it had to be said.
yeah i agree levi
I checked out the article referenced by lahcuts and posted by Daveg:

It is an article from the "Canadian Free Press", a web-based publication that I've never heard of and I've lived in Canada all my life and consider myself well read. Checking out their web-site, they are clearly a bunch of right-wing ranters (not that I have anything against conservatives in the conservative sense of the word) - the author of the article in question (on Gore's movie and global climate change) is a mechanical engineer.

So thanks for the propaganda in the article lahcuts and Daveg , but atmospheric science or science based it is NOT.

The tip off that this is not a science based article is the section where the "article" challenges the well-established fact that the arctic ice cap is melting. We are having to live and deal with the reality of the melting arctic ice cap in northern Canada (it is affecting communities, ecosystems, hunting patterns, navigation and more), and it is irritating to have some right-wing nutbars trying to pretend that what is happening before our eyes isn't in fact happening..
please forgive me if someone has already addressed this... but i have a question about the al gore movie - there is a graph that he shows depicting the relationship between temperature and CO2 - which is all well and good (ice age, blah blah blah, ice age etc) until he gets to present day on the graph - there, he shows the dramatic increase in CO2, but the temperature, according to the chart, has not reacted in the same dramatic fashion - it has increased, but not in direct proportion (or even nominal proportion - if there is such a thing) to the CO2 - did anyone else notice this? and, if so, what's the explanation? i'm not disagreeing with the premise of the argument, but he just didn't seem to have sound scientific evidence to show...
sudden activity tonight on 72w 23w any thougths. Was not the GFS forcasting something like this?
sleepy - its kinda like a car's accelerator, just slower. You push the pedal, then a few moments later your speed starts to increase. As to scientific evidence, I think its pretty settled, but its also fair to say that this stuff is pretty recent in the big scheme of things; so in Gore's defense, he may simply be making an effort not to exceed what the actual facts are showing so far.

I won't see the movie till it comes on cable, so I have to defer to what you recall from the movie otherwise.
Hecto, Shear should see this through South FLA with some late week rain is all.
GFS was hinting one a very shallow system as it should be, and in my opinion, will be.
Hey sleepy, good question re the spike in CO2 levels and the lack (as yet) of a similar spike in temperatures..

The Earth, as a planetary system, is in dynamic equilibrium (largely due to the effects of the biota, which in their interactions maintain the planet in a condition which is suitable for life). A sudden disturbance to the system (eg. in the form of a sudden upwards spike in the greenhouse gas CO2), will move the system but only slowly at first. There is a lag time.

There is the inertia of such a massive system (the oceans can absorb a tremendous amount of heat before they start to appreciably warm), and there are negative feedback loops (eg. plants will actually grow faster and better when there is more CO2 in the air, and that CO2 is taken up into the plant structure and not released again). There were also earlier in this century a number of short-term effects which were countering the effects of the increasing CO2:
- above ground nuclear explosions throwing up clouds of dust and fall out;
- humankind's dirty industrial development throwing up clouds of pollutants.

But we have stopped above ground nuclear testing and reduced our emissions of pollutants (for compelling reasons), so these short-term balances to the increasing CO2 levels have fallen away. What we are now starting to see is the temperature spike. It lags the CO2 spike, but it is building.

Particularly worrisome are the positive feedback loops which are coming into play. Two examples:
- the year-round Arctic sea ice is melting, so albedo across the Acrtic is increasing dramatically;
- the permafrost in northern regions is melting, liberating ever more methane (another greenhouse gas) from the depths of frozen wetlands.

At the same time, we are undermining the great planetary safety net - the biota. We are clearcutting forests, draining wetlands, polluting oceans and other surface waters, drying lakes and seas, and generally mismanaging things everywhere you would care to look. As a result, the natural ecosystems of the planet (which have in the past through natural selection helped drive the planet back toward the mdeian from excesses of heat or cold) are no longer able to perform that job as easily or efficiently as they were in the past.

We are just starting up what is in our lifetimes going to be an ominously steep upward spike in global temperatures, and no one knows where it is going to end.

The net result will be a planet much less liveable than what we have enjoyed in that brief period (130 or so years) in which modern first-world civilization has flourished. We will suffer the consequences, our descendants even more so.

The truly annoying thing is that we have a brief window of opportunity within which to act (using all the resources of our 1st world civilization), before our civilization is undermined and begins an inexorable decline. And what are we doing in this time of opportunity, in which the global warming problem has been identified and solutions are at hand? We are frittering it away, as the multinationals which profit from the status quo (and the governments they control) exert their influence and chant their ever-catchy mantra which can be boiled down to "Don't worry, be happy."

Our descendants will look back in wonder at our short-sightedness, and we will never live down the shame of having spoiled a great planet.
hmmm... so, basically, by the time we have the the numbers for the charts, there really won't be anyone around to say 'we told you so'.
Any corpratist shills want to start the ant Dr. masters rants? Oh come on, Hannity and Limbaugh - ddi you already forget your pathetic marching orders, neocon pawns?
do i smell bourbon?
209. Daveg
Wow...snowboy, the author of the article I posted is a mechanical engineer, but the climate scientists quoted in the article are actual scientists.

Just because you don't like some of the info in the article, doesn't automatically make me or the scientists quoted in it "Right-wing nut jobs". Guess it makes you feel better to call names, etc....

I guess that makes all the alarmests "Left wing Socialist Quacks"?

I can dig up dozens more scientifically based articles, and not the non-science based dribble presented in Al Gore's "movie".

In any case, the best approach is steady work in the reduction in human CO2 emmisions (and other pollutants) through conservation, alternative fuels, etc. Not some mass panic based on inconclusive data ... and I mean inconclusive on BOTH SIDES of the argument.

However, it's late, and work tomorrow. Have fun freakin' out ...
no sleepy, the numbers are coming in from all sides and pointing ever more clearly at a spike in global temperatures:
- the warmest year on record globally (since we started keeping records) was 2005;
- 20 of the 21 warmest years experienced by this planet (since we started keeping records of land, atmosphere and water temperatures) occurred in the last 25 years;
- the mountain glaciers and the arctic sea ice are melting;
- record high temps are being set everywhere you look (if you look), very few record lows...

But by the time the last of the "anti-warming" camp have opened their eyes to what is happening around them, there may not be anyone left to apologize to..
DaveG~ How about digging out a peer approved scientific article for us?

For those that would like a baseline on what something to worry about would look like on the 850vort models check out the last few frames on today's 00Zcmc run, north of the leewards (Texas wouldn't really want that possible TD either). That's the 1st run showing anything like that & it's toward the end of the 144hr run...so don't freak out yet!!!
Daveg, please have a read through the section of mechanical engineer Harris' "Canadian Free Press" article dealing with the melting of the Arctic ice cap, and let me know if agree with his "don't worry, be happy" conclusions. And maybe while your at it, do some research about what is actually happening in the Arctic.

Notwithstanding all the propaganda that you can dig up from any number of mechanical engineers and other dubious sources, the arctic ice IS melting and is now projected by our northern scientists to be GONE (in the summer months) within as little as 15 years. We are looking at a summer-time ice-free Arctic within a generation, with all that that implies for weather, ecosystems, northern communities, shipping, naval warfare and more.

"Our descendants will look back in wonder at our short-sightedness, and we will never live down the shame of having spoiled a great planet."

How true,How true!
Say, Dr. Masters... How's about opening a seperate blog about global warming so that we can stay on topic about hurricane season? I'm getting sick of these global warming rants and counter-rants and it seems like they would be best channeled into a sperate thread...
Can anyone link me a few Models?
um Savannah, this was actually Dr. Masters' topic... and it is THE topic of discussion these days in the atmospheric science fields of meteorology, climatology. Probably ok for an occasional excursion for this blog (especially when our host leads us there), at least until we have a tropical system to focus on.
Snowboy, your last few posts are right on the mark. I've given up trying to convince the skeptics; it is like a religion for them.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is so much "inertia" in our fossil fuel-based economy, that we will surely miss the short window for action needed to avoid a large change in the Earth's climate. The issue has been politicized, not by Al Gore, but by the sold-out establishment politicians and their corporate masters. All we can hope to do is to keep pressing our point until the damage becomes so obvious that even the corporations and their holocaust-denying apologists are suffering the effects of their folly. The real frontier in global warming research is in risk mitigation and adaptation. There will be a battle of the elites that is already beginning, as large corporations such as banks and insurance companies are beginning to realize the large losses and damages they face if human society cannot adapt to a more sustainable economy in the long run. Until then, much damage will be done.
Every civilization has to learn. If we survive the disruption of earth's natural ballance, We'll figure out what not to do... And then in a few hundred years C02 will begin to cycle out.. and the oceans will begin to cool, Everyone's preasous Ice caps will come back. I just don't see why everyone is bickering. History shows that Humanity will either kill itself or learn from its mistakes, and it often takes deaths to teach our semi-inteligent race whats wrong and right.

If you think global warming is going to cause mass destruction, Take cover... If you Don't think it will destroy anything, then don't. But what we can all do is use cleaner fuels and efficient machinery. Because even if you don't think global warming is happening It's still economically benificial to use such technologies.
I think it is much more likely that the effects of global warming have been underestimated, and that there are positive feedback loops not yet fully recognized, such as carbon and methane release from permafrost regions, massive deforestation, and possible methane hydrate release from the oceans. The release of greenhouse gases by human activities may well affect the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years or more, possibly throwing us out of the geologically recent cycle of ice ages. Humans may be able to adapt and survive, but there will be great disruption, and civilization as we know it today will be irrevocably altered for the generations to come.
Just for the record, Mt. Kilimanjaro is in Tanzania, just south of border with Kenya. Tanzanians are sensitive to this as a pretty large proportion of tourists access Mt. Kilimanjaro from Kenya thus affecting where the income is generated.
GUYS GIVE IT A REST YOU ARE BEATING GLOBAL WARMING TO DEATH..THE AFRICAN DUST DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB ON THE WAVE OUT THERE..NOTHING WILL DEVELOP OUT IN THE OLD TROPICS UNTIL AFTER THE 4TH OF JULY...ITS GOING TO BE A SLOW HURRICANE SEASON GUYS DR GRAY WILL DROP HIS PREDICTIONS BECAUSE THE DUST IS BACK IN FULL FORCE AND THE WIND SHEAR IS REALLY STRONG......
STORMTOP what happened to a storm on May 23 or after? lol! That's what you said in May, then you said mid-june, then late-June, and now July?!?!?!? LOL! Gosh make up your mind son!

Good night all!
223. Alec
GUYS GIVE ME SOME HERMIT CRABS BECAUSE I BETTER YET JUST LIVE IN THE OCEAN AND NIBBLE ON SEAWEED FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AND SWIM WITH THE JELLY FISH AND RUN AN UNDERWATER CIRCUS IN THE LOOP CURRENT....THIS HAS BEEN AN UNOFFICIAL RANDOM RANTING BY GOOBER....LOL
LOL talk about giving it a rest!!!!
Hope your right this time though, slow season would be really good thing.
LMAO!!!!!!!!
LOL I have not heard about the circus in the loop current!!!!!!!!!!
luv dem seahorses......
LOL Alec! You're worse off then I thought tonight lol!
We, at our current societal standpoint, are far from solving Global Warming and many other issues that face our nation today. Communities must be formed as the various aspects in solving these issues can be spread and learned much easier when this is done.

We should feel blessed to have the means in first recognizing Global Warming, and secondly, having the ability to solve it. We are, or should be in an energy transitional period right now anyways, and the days of cheap oil are over. We must look for new ways to power our homes, cars and economy, not having to rely on expensive fossil fuels anymore to do the work.

For those of you who know the possible situation we are getting ourselves into, I cannot stress more gravely, the importance of education. I meet people everyday who know nothing about Global Warming and its affects on our daily living. We must rise ourselves out from this era of passive activism, and ensure a stable future for our children. Whether your cause be solving Global Warming or not, we find ourselves crossroads. Crossroads that will determine if our generation will carry the torch into the future, shedding the light of prosperity for generations to come, or we simply continue this passive nature, shoving the evergrowing burden on the next generation to set forth on this great land.

Community
Since Dr. Jeff set the tone of this blog by discussing climate change, I thought I would offer a cool link to those tired of discussing global warming. It is a BBC transcript on the "Snowball Earth" that is believed to have existed 600 million years ago.

It is an interesting read with interviews with scientists from several disciplines. One of the interviews is with the famous Russian atmospheric scientist Mikhail Budyko. I read one of Budyko's books in the early 1990's and was very impressed. One of his famous predictions was that, if approximately half the Earth was ever covered by ice, then the resulting albedo feedback would result in a permanent "iceball Earth" that would remain stable for nearly the lifetime of the solar system. An interesting part of the transcript linked above involves what he neglected in his calculations, and how the Earth did recover from the worldwide ice age 600 million years ago.

In his book, Budyko also made the prediction that the Earth was only a couple of million years away from a "carbon dioxide death"; becoming a permanent iceball due to the sequestration of carbon in the Earth's crust to the extent that CO2 levels would fall below the level necessary for the atmosphere to retain enough heat necessary to keep water in its liquid state at the Earths surface. His book was written before global warming became a recognized phenomenom, but it was still a very interesting read. So I'll leave here tonight with this link for anyone that loves learning about paleoclimatology.
Trouper415 - You are absolutely right that we need to try to overcome our apathy and (in my case) cynicism, and try to keep educating everyone to the dangers we face regarding climate change and our unsustainable economy as a whole. I hope I wake up tomorrow with a renewed energy and sense of purpose in doing my part, however large or samll that may be.

Good night to all!
Okay. So let's assume global warming is human-caused and all because of CO2 emissions. What do you want us to do about it?

"Any corpratist shills want to start the ant Dr. masters rants? Oh come on, Hannity and Limbaugh - ddi you already forget your pathetic marching orders, neocon pawns?"

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a liberal is automatically a mindless servant of the republican party? I can understand if you think partisan politics comes into it, but I would say that it does on both sides. Comments like that are really unnessessary and undermine your credibility and that of the point you're trying to make. Remember - most of the country still voted for Bush :)
(yawn) i am awake i am seeing what? dr masters blog? i am seeing right global warming hey guys a hacker entered this blog i can clearly see it!!!
guygee,

Its never easy for me to wake up in the morning, knowing that there is hard work ahead, education people about issues that face us today. However I always think of the results that will come about from all this hard, persistant work. Our generation can easily solve these huge issues simply by dedicating time in solving Global Warming. We will have ensured the United States and World economy stength for hundreds of years to come. Strong Communities will be formed spreading propserity to every man, woman, and child living here. We would have ensured our children as beautiful a land as we have experienced, by being more conciencious and efficient with the ways we live. And we would have layed the concrete foundation in battling Global Warming for generations to come, who will live with challenges posed.

As a whole, it is very hard to solve a problem such as Global Warming, simply because we have not faced an issue of such prospective magnitude, leaving us in doubt at times whether it is even worth the effort to solve it. However, the benefits of solving such a collosal problem are even larger than the problem itself. So get out there and start talking to your neighbors, because the two biggest building blocks are education and community!

Patrick
The article quoteded by Daveg was previously discussed at http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/14/209235

The article by Harris is a propaganda piece. He works for a PR organization that does considerable business with the energy industry. Also, the canadafreepress.com site is, at least by Canadian standards, a fringe operation.

Robert
235. IKE
SavannahStrom said..."Say, Dr. Masters... How's about opening a seperate blog about global warming so that we can stay on topic about hurricane season? I'm getting sick of these global warming rants and counter-rants and it seems like they would be best channeled into a sperate thread..."

AMEN!!!! Enough about it. Some believe...some don't. It just goes on and on and on and on.....
Stormtop!

I hope you are correct! We need a big break. These Insurance rates are hideious. What other business can simply try and recoup a bad period's earnings? If the Car Companies & McDonalds tried it we could just NOT BUY. Buy we have no choice with Insurance. The sad part is they had recod profits & totally forget about 20 years of no loss for a customer who paid for that long. 1 Loss & BAM goes the rates for the entire market!

Pray for a quiet season for our region!
radikalweather: (yawn) i am awake i am seeing what? dr masters blog? i am seeing right global warming hey guys a hacker entered this blog i can clearly see it!!!

LMAO!

Blame that Masters guy. He started it! Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not.
Okay. So let's assume global warming is human-caused and all because of CO2 emissions. What do you want us to do about it?

it's straightforward: long term we need to reduce emissions and consumptive behavior. that needs to be facilitated by (1) doing something about reducing energy consumption, including federal demands that miles-per-gallon on all vehicles be increased, (2) pushing towards alternative energy sources, including nuclear, but "forcibly" resolving long-standing roadblocks, including settling the nuclear waste disposal problem, (3) going after stuff like fuel cells with more than token research and development, and (4) replacing our federal income tax with a progressive consumption tax (like Japan's) or a VAT.

that's all, as i said, long term. it won't do anything to begin reducing the damage that's been done for 70-100 years.

short term, we need to act like the threat is as urgent as it actually is, seeing it as the threat to our national economy and security. it would be nice to cooperate internationally on this but, failing that, we need to see our own interests and work to reduce our exposure to the effects of coastal flooding and storms. we need to create federal disincentives for building near the coast, need to build more refineries for gas and oil but do so with strict federal guidance and away from concentrations of existing and away from high risk areas (including geophysical risks, BTW). this will all need cash.

accordingly, we need to reduce the budget of the Department of Defense, especially its weapons programs, mothballing space-based weapons and missile defense, reducing the size of the military, alerting allies they are more on their own for their own defense, and use the savings to make these changes.

i only say the latter because i am a fiscal conservative, and we can't spend what we need to spend to prepare for the consequences of warming without getting it from some where. defense is a pretty big pole in the tent. we can talk about a gasoline tax to help, but i don't like those.

239. IKE
yawn.......
snowboy-sorry, went to bed (sleepy and all, you know) - I understand it's getting hotter - all i was trying to say about the numbers is that, according to gore's chart, the average daily temperature here in detroit should be, oh, say, about 108 degrees based on the current CO2 levels... i am so not a scientist (obviously) - i am just a pathetic member of the general public trying to understand - i don't take to being spoonfed by people on either side of an issue - so please don't misunderstand and take me for a skeptic with an agenda - that said, please let me rephrase my last post, and i assume someone will let me know if it's incorrect:
hmmm... so, basically, [due to the lag time] by the time we have the the numbers for the charts [to show the proportional relationship between CO2 levels and temperature], there really won't be anyone around to say 'we told you so'.
Look at the Bahamas!
Some models are showing tropical formation at 25N 70W this weekend early next week. (CMC)
244. PBG00
Saw that model this mornin..little worrisome for us...but still early
Thanks ST, was just going to ask about that African dust when saw you post.
Yea 456, anyone got any surface winds on that?
I am surprised that the SPC does not have a high risk for tomorrow - there is a 60% chance of severe weather over a large area. Link
Getting a little saucy over there in the Bahama's.
they said that an upper level feature will form and a surface feature could form below it this weekend.

Sources:Accuweather and The Weather Channel


this is somehting
STORM TOP you are killing yourself again. That "African dust" was there throughout the whole season last year that didn't slow it down one bit.
It is still early for Cape Verde systems to form.
We should only see developement in the carib, and gulf this early in the season (you know that)which if you look in those places today you might not find a TD but some waves are mixing it up.(as previously noted). Shear changes daily and we have seen systems develop in unprescidented conditions this year and last. Just hold on little buddy season's only 20 days old and things could heat up pretty quick. According to the long range CMC we may have 2 tropical systems to watch as early as this weekend.
For those of us still learning the "lingo", could someone please tell me what the "CMC" is and where I can find it?

Thanks!!!
Whats the sheer like in the carib, and gulf these days??
The CMC is a model (Canadian); you can find it and more here.
Also, it did pretty well at forecasting the development of Alberto - it had a storm in the Gulf about 5-6 days before Alberto was even an Invest (invests are issued by NRL when there is something of interest).
THANK YOU Michael!!!! :)
257. WSI
The CMC's main page can be found here.

I have a lot of model links at weathercore.com in the weather model section.
Has any one looked at the 850MB 00Z run of the CMC at 132-144hr?

Interesting

Might have two to watch.

But alas..its all a farce..the models are still out to lunch and ST has advised us not to worry until after the 4th. Party is over everyone ;-(

Posted By: GulfScotsman at 12:27 PM CST on June 19, 2006.
See what I mean Mr. Houstonian. Blogging all over themselves to be first to "name" Beryl out of a rain storm.



Oh..and Gulf..not sure I have seen anyone predict anything from the TX blob..I think I have seen people talk about what kind of system it is, but not seen anyone say it is more than what it is. It is interesting to watch. But of course..its just a rain storm, right? Ask the people in Houston what they think right now about your "rain storm"



sayhuh - I don't look at vorticity unless something is shown on the SLP animation, since you can have a strong vort max (ULL, trough, etc) without a closed surface low (you are looking for a closed surface low when looking for development). That said, the CMC does have a surface low. Link
nice website SJ
Several models are hinting at development in the 120+ time frame. Will be something to watch for. That Bahama area is the most interesting area right now though. More wait and see.

SJ
Michael, we went over this slp thing last night. The 850mb max usually picks up on potential areas of interest first.

SJ

Thanks Thug:)
As far as I can tell, the CMC is the only model that shows any kind of surface low in the 6 day time frame (I do not look at longer rage models that much because things can change a lot and something that is shown withing 5-6 days has a much higher cahnce of actually occurring).
any predictions on where the bahama system may go? also still showing an area over Houston in the next few days?
I believe Micheal was pretty excited about the rain storm for awhile.

???

I was pretty excited? I don't think so... Maybe you are referring to the other "Michael" (the one that sometimes uses foul language as well). Well, it did have a surface low for awhile, but no models showd it developing; no model development = not interesting.
In any case, I think you should copy and paste my name instead of typing it because, like everybody else, you always reverse the "a" and "e". That said, Alec will probably see this...
I am currently in the Dominican Republic on a windsurfing trip till Sat. Conditions are looking better in the Bahamas for a tropical depression to form. What are your thoughts on this developing weather system and will the strong high in the central atlantic drive this system into Florida. I live in Southern FL. Pls let me know you thougths.
Thank you so much to everyone for the help and the website links for models and other sites (i.e., StormJunkie's, etc.). I find Dr. Master's Blog to be a great source of information for those of us who live in weather dominant areas (and anymore most everywhere falls under that umbrella). I also crave to learn more than I know (one meteorology class in college does NOT make me an expert...lol). While I have a natural interest in the weather, it seems important to expand my horizons for information. So quite naturally, Dr. Master's Blog is an excellent launching point. I bookmark all the links folks share and scour them when I have time. I can honestly say I haven't received one link that wasn't worthwhile.

As a true novice I can honestly say that in the spirit of learning, the MORE blogs & websites that USERS of this website can suggest (including their own personal websites), the better!

So again, thanks to everyone who gave me guidance and help. I'm sure that I'll be posting a bit more as the season progresses, especially as I call Orlando home. lol :)

Peace.
MichaelSTL...good feedback. I will look at the SLP to see how that works out ongoing.

Gulf, sorry to rant...I am not sure anyone was calling it a tropical cyclone. [did I miss it if they did?] I think folks were noticing s spin [obvious for any kind of low], but you are right..by defintion, certainly nothing of concern structurally..but a TON of rain!

I personally still think however that this L in TX was the original low from Alberto that got ejected and spun back out SW toward its current location. Again..just my opinion.
This system near the Bahamas can very well become Beryl in the upcoming days. I haven't seen anything this well organized since that wave that came off of the African coast a week ago. This will probably develop somewhere off the FLorida's East Coast and go into the Gulf of Mexico due to the Bermuda High's current status and strength. Just my opinion. I will update on the current severe thunderstorm threat later today.
Organized? I guess it's organized, in that all of the convection is to the north and east of the center. This thing is a long way from being a tropical cyclone.
280. IKE
The latest NAM model 12 UTC has that system in the Bahamas moving west and places it east of Florida in 84 hours as a closed low and is a little more aggressive with it compared to the last run. Maybe the conditions aren't favorable now and will become so in a couple of days.

Sure looks like something worth watching on the visible loop. Definitely a couple of spins there.
Speaking of severe thunderstorms, I think that the SPC should have a high risk for tomorrow; how often do you have a 60% risk of severe weather (I don't remember ever seeing anything higher than 45% last year; the first time I saw a 60% risk was a few months ago when I was right in the middle of one)?
Hey, guys... Is it normal for the pacific to cool down this time of year? Could la Nina return?
hey sleepy I salute your open-minded interest in the issue- you have the right idea in your post. Increasing CO2 levels will lead to significant warming, but there is a significant lag between the increase in CO2 levels and the resulting warming due to the inertia of a system as massive as the earth. We are just starting to see significant warming now, even though CO2 levels have been rising for 100 years. The problem is, that the same inertia applies when CO2 levels stop rising. So even if we really get our act together and manage to at least stop CO2 levels from rising further, global temperatures will continue to rise in a delayed response to the CO2 already up there. Put another way, we are already committed to a significant further rise in planetary temperatures due to our past CO2 emissions..

What is your problem 53rd?

Get a grip.

Take your attitude elsewhere or display it for some one that cares. I am not here just to promote my site. As for what happens with it we will see, and I have no intention of it ever replacing the great resource that we have in the Wunderground. That being said. Layoff.

SJ
WSI - Great website! Thanks.
StormJunkie - Also thanks for your link - great as well!
StL, I guess that with the 2-day forecast, they are not confident enough in specific areas to break out a "high risk"...I bet some of that area will be called high risk tomorrow.
287. F5
There's a great new posting on the CSU Climate science blog by Dr. Roger Pielke regarding bias in air surface temperatures at poorly located sites. There is a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, which is worth reading. I have stated in the past that IMO, temperature readings utilized to provide "evidence" of global warming may be misleading. This paper also indicates that there may be issues with these readings as well as ways to adjust for them.

Link
53rd... It is no crime to be enthusiastic enough about weather to build a site, when the effort is to benefit other people. And there is no need for any insults. You should go put up a site and have the dedication to maintain it and update it... I'm sure SJ takes pride in his work and he shouldn't be bashed for it.

Cool it. kay?
290. WSI
Thanks Otowngirl. I am glad some appreciate the work and see it as beneficial, LOL!

I am purposely ignoring the bait from another poster.
Good site SJ. =D
292. WSI
Might I remind people that if you find a post to be obscene, you can mark it as such. It has a way of going away if enough people mark it. Just a suggestion, LOL!
Thanks ya'll:)

Back to work before I get fired for playing on the internet. lol.

See ya this afternoon.
SJ
Until Beryl... here are Some Numbers

One billion two hundred million people living in 110 countries among the poorest in the world are threatened by the spreading of the desert, a planetary plague to which the United Nations is devoting the year 2006. The phenomenon affects directly more than 250 million people, this was underlined at an international conference on "the future of the arid grounds" this week in Tunis by the UNESCO.
Sixty million of them will be forced to give up the desert zones of sub-Saharan Africa to gain the north of the continent and Europe from now to 2020 or they will die, according to the forecasts and statistical studies' of the United Nations.

A third of the world population lives on arid grounds, which constitute approximately 41% of the surface of the sphere. Ten to twenty percent of these grounds are degraded or unproductive.
In Africa, where the population survives primarily from to the resources of the ground, the arid grounds covers two thirds of the continent and in 2025, two thirds of those arable lands will have disappeared.
The quarter of the Latin America and the Caribbean and more of the third of the United States are desert or arid. The plague strikes all the continents since southernmost Europe (southern of Spain, Italy and Portugal) are desertifing themselves. In Latin America, as in Asia, the arable lands will decrease by a third from now to about fifteen years.

Concerning water, in 19 countries of Africa and Asia, the quantity of water available, will be reduced by half by 2025. The agricultural losses are estimated at 42 billion dollars annually.

We will skip all the Species in danger

These are numbers from the U.N. not Al Gore!

Bye
D.
Eh, WSI... I prefer it when the jerks are put back in their place. If you ignore them they just come back for more.
FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..

A LARGE TROPICAL DISTURBANCE IS CENTERED ABOUT 800 MILES SOUTH OF
THE SOUTHERN TIP OF BAJA CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAR SOMEWHAT
FAVORABLE FOR A TROPICAL DEPRESSION TO DEVELOP DURING THE DAY OR
SOO AS THE DISTURBANCE MOVES WESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH.
F5, c'mon are you going to try to advance the argument that the planet overall isn't warmer now than it was 40 years ago? Because that what your casting doubt on temperature readings sure sounds like.

Why not just open your eyes and look at what we are actually SEEING from around the world:
- increased duration of frost free growing seasons;
- treelines advancing northwards across the Arctic and upwards in mountain areas;
- the melting Arctic sea ice;
- the retreat of virtually all of the planet's mountain glaciers;
- shorter warmer winters and longer hotter summers;
- etc, etc..

The evidence that the globe is warming is there (it's all around us), and no amount of distraction (eg. challenging protocols for temperature measurements) is going to make it disappear..


298. PBG00
just caught up..so what does the wave going toward Florida mean for S Fla..what are the chances of it actually being something other than a wave?
PBGOO... Doesn't it look like the wave is moving away from land? WV
That's a pretty little system in the east Pacific south of California - I wouldn't be surprised if it makes tropical depression later today. My kind of storm, moving AWAY from land thus we can admire the forces of nature without worrying about possible death/destruction ..
303. PBG00
WH I was referring to the cmc model spinning up a wave in a few days
I think some of the haters work for Accuweather. lol:)
Track is basically just a geuss until something actually forms Pb, and even then it can be dicey as we all know. The Bahamas will be an area to watch for development over the next several days as conditions improve.

SJ
I think the EPAC system will be designated as a TD soon. For some reason, though, people never get all that fired up about the EPAC systems...probably because they do tend to drift out to sea and dissipate.
308. PBG00
Thanks SJ
MichaelSTL...I hope we get the rain we so deserve!
I just wish it would stop raining in Houston.
per msnbc "MANAGUA, Nicaragua - A South Pacific storm on Tuesday sent sent destructive waves crashing onto shores along Central America, reportedly destroying structures and forcing evacuations.

Originating thousands of miles away in the South Pacific, the storm sent waves crashing into Central America, destroying at least 20 homes and a small hotel in Nicaragua and Guatemala, civil defense authorities said Tuesday.

The Hurricane Center in Miami said the waves were caused by a strong storm that was sending up 10 to 12-foot swells across the Pacific. "
Very interesting HSS.

No sweat PB, most of us are here to help each other learn.

SJ
Excerpt from NHC's EPAC 10:05 UTC tropical weather discussion

VERY BROAD ANTICYCLONIC CIRCULATION CENTERED 22N112W COVERS THE
AREA N OF 10N BETWEEN 100W AND 130W. UPPER LEVEL DIFFLUENT FLOW
S ANTICYCLONIC CIRCULATION IS ENHANCING CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY
ALONG THE ITCZ FROM 108W TO 118W.

LOW PRES 1010 MB 11N114W. SCATTERED MODERATE TO STRONG
CONVECTION FROM 10N TO 13N BETWEEN 115W AND 118W. THE CONVECTIVE
ACTIVITY HAS INCREASED OVER THE PAST FEW HOURS AND AS THE LOW
MOVES WWD CONDITIONS ALOFT MAY BECOME MORE FAVORABLE TROPICAL
CYCLONE DEVELOPMENT.
That little blob near Panama looks more organized than it ever did now. I'm more concerned with the Bahamas though. Oh, please stop bashing. I love this site, but when that crap starts, it stops people from posting. Be competitive not hateful please.
Afternoon Cajun.

Back to work for me. Will check back in a while.

SJ
Yo! SJ... Yea, I need to do some work too. This is like crack in a keyboard. Must stop blogging have to work.
317. Noise
For anyone interested... The cartoon used in 'An Inconvient Truth' to demonstrate global warming was created by Matt Groening's Futurama (4th Season). They did a wonderful episode on Global warming (incredibly subtle humor at times) which this cartoon peice comes from (Al Gore does have a voice appearance as himself, 1000 years in the future).
True stop with the bashing and global warming posts..
I live in Houston, and I have been watching the radar, trying to keep track of the low we just experienced. Is it just me, or does it look like the low might be tracking into the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks!
320. PBG00
I remember when people came here to talk about the weather...track a storm ect..what happened?
Wombat as much as I agree GW is here until the Doc updates the blog. Suprised he has not commented on the TX low as of yet.

I don't think it is 27. It may look that way because of where all the convection is, but I think the actual circulation is pretty well inland.

SJ
322. jeffB
F5 wrote:

There's a great new posting on the CSU Climate science blog by Dr. Roger Pielke regarding bias in air surface temperatures at poorly located sites. There is a link to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, which is worth reading. I have stated in the past that IMO, temperature readings utilized to provide "evidence" of global warming may be misleading. This paper also indicates that there may be issues with these readings as well as ways to adjust for them.

Hey, everybody, another isolated shred of evidence against global warning! ;-)

Seriously, thanks for the link. It's a shame the original paper is subscription-only. I don't understand at all how they're claiming that these problems could lead to a false long-term warming signal -- it seems like they'd lead to constant offsets, or at worst diurnally and seasonally cyclic ones. F5, can you clarify this?
jeffB, have you seen this post?


Posted By: snowboy at 3:21 PM GMT on June 20, 2006.
F5, c'mon are you going to try to advance the argument that the planet overall isn't warmer now than it was 40 years ago? Because that what your casting doubt on temperature readings sure sounds like.

Why not just open your eyes and look at what we are actually SEEING from around the world:
- increased duration of frost free growing seasons;
- treelines advancing northwards across the Arctic and upwards in mountain areas;
- the melting Arctic sea ice;
- the retreat of virtually all of the planet's mountain glaciers;
- shorter warmer winters and longer hotter summers;
- etc, etc..


The evidence that the globe is warming is there (it's all around us), and no amount of distraction (eg. challenging protocols for temperature measurements) is going to make it disappear.
yes it looks inland looks like it will stay over land. And by the way I like the site SJ nothing wrong with a little promotion gotta get the name out somehow..
this blog is, for today, about global warming, so it's perfectly on topic.

jeff b, i was able to get to a pdf of (what i think was)the paper at issue. i followed a link from one of the blog comments.
Thanks for the response SJ.

I guess I'm a little paranoid. Seems as if something like that would happen when we are thoroughly saturated.
327. F5
Snowboy,

First off, it matters very little whether "global" warming has occurred or not. The average ambient increase in global surface temperature is extremely small as it has been recorded so far. Of greater importance are the regional effects of first order climate forcings. For example, if temperatures rose in the polar regions 5 degrees and caused a significant melting of the polar ice caps and a corresponding rise in sea level, but temperatures decreased by .5 degree across the US, which one would be more significant. Thus, the entire debate about "global warming" completely focuses on the wrong aspects. The entire debate should be focused on climate change, and then from a regional perspective, not from a global view.

This study doesn't say that warming hasn't occurred. It's sole purpose is the discussion and resolution of potential bias. However, it may be true, if the study holds, that global ambient surface temperature has not increased, and that the "models" showing large scale temperature increases based on CO2 forcing are not accurate. They aren't likely accurate for a number of reasons, which I have spoken to in the past.

I'm sorry you view peer reviewed science that doesn't fit into your accepted viewpoint as a distraction. Isn't that the purpose of science? To discover...to challenge...to test? After all, the policies that may follow such research are important to all of us.

Of course, we are also left with the historical record, that shows that all the things you have mentioned have happened throughout the history of the planet, without the CO2 emissions of humans entering the atmosphere. The climate will continue to vary over time just as it has always done.

I refer to you several other research articles on the site which also discuss the complexity of glacial retreat and advance and Artic tree line and the polar front.

Link

You may disagree with their conclusions but they are hardly a distraction and merit serious discussion. Anything less would be a disservice to science and humans.
F5, wouldn't the bias in temperature measurements be a consistent bias...which does not affect the conclusion that temperature is increasing? To invalidate the notion of an increase in temperature, you'd have to show that the bias in the temperature measurements has increased over the last few decades.
329. F5
jeffB,

It's outside of my depth of knowledge (or lack thereof) to comment more fully on the subject. My opinion of the article is that there are ways to combat any inherent bias in such temperature readings. Either through enhanced site selection, or careful filtering of any such bias. For example, if you can conclude that the micro-climatology surrounding the record station includes a .2deg C bias, then you can either remove such bias from the reading, or ensure that over time, the bias does not change and then include the bias in the readings such that they are consistent over the long term.

My opinion is that due to land-use changes and the urbanization of our living areas, bias has crept into the current recordings that was not there previously. I have not read of any studies that have gone back and attempted to either remove the bias or adjust previous records to reflect a consistent record of temperatures at the recording stations.

I'm sure there a lot of people smarter than me who could provide greater insight into this.
THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS A WEATHER BLOG!!!!!!!!!!

The area 300 miles southeast of Miami is starting to look more circular........interesting..........
331. F5
rwdobson,

My opinion is that the bias would not be consistent, due to the micro-climatology effects of urbanization and land-use changes. However, I think the point of the article was simply to ensure that such readings either remove an inconsistent bias if it exists or to ensure that the bias is consistent over the long-term.
332. WSI
Umm.. Jeff updated his blog at thet top.. this is what he said...

"The tropics are quiet again today (Tuesday), and expected to remain so until at least Wednesday, so I'll leave this review up until then. I'll be sure to post an update if there's anything worth reporting on."

So I think he doesn't see much out there worth talking about, hence he left the review up. Therefore I think the GW talks can continue, LOL!
but how many stations have seen major land-use changes surrounding them? i guess that is the issue here.

in kansas city the official station went from the downtown airport to an airport well north of town, so that had an effect. however, that happened 35 years ago...and the area immediately surrounding the airport has not had any major changes....

This just in...global climate change falls under the heading of "weather"...and the only thing close to being a tropical cyclone is in the eastern pacific...
335. F5
rwdobson,

I can't answer that question. Franky, I'm not sure that it even has to be a major land-use change. From what I've read, even small, subtle changes can affect the local climate enough to introduce bias into the readings. In addition, even moving a monitoring station to a more remote area may not resolve any issues because of the changes that may be occurring even some distance away could have an impact. However, how much bias and any effects it might have had is outside my realm of knowledge.
I don't know, it just seems like fshead's blog was the one for Global Warming debates. We other bloggers used to enjoy using Dr. Master's blog for "weather" purposes. Also the global warming tends to spark many fights, which are not enjoyable at all. Nevertheless, this is the topic Dr. Masters posted, but please keep it down to a low roar, and realize that global warming gets very tiring to the other bloggers who like to use Dr. Master's blog for other subjects.
I guess this is one of the ones near Australia?? That storm is an incredible distance away.

15-Foot Waves Destroy Homes in Nicaragu

Big waves generated by a storm thousands of miles away


a meteorologist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the waves were caused by a powerful South Pacific storm

( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2098093 )
338. F5
Levi32,

I understand your sentiment. And I concur that there have been a number of times that the GW debate has crept into blog entries Dr. Master's has posted that were not centered around GW. However, he has posted a number of entries on GW and since this one includes a review of An Inconvenient Truth, which is about global warming, the posts seem to be on topic.
Yes F5 I understand that. I just want you all to understand when there are complaints posted here, they are well-founded, considering this blog never was a global-warming hive. The topic just seems to swallow everything else up that people try to post about. But I understand this is what Dr. Masters posted about so it is ok to discuss that.

But if I may ask something about the tropics:

Do any of you think there is an LLC forming in this loop? Or is it just an illusion? I can't tell. Link
F5, I think the confounding issues of land use are why a lot of researchers use satellite temperature measurements instead of local monitoring stations.

But it is confusing in Kansas City, because the records go back a long time, but all recent measurements are made in one place, while the older ones in another. The Downtown airport is in a low area, right on the Missouri River, so it tends to get colder on cold nights...but being downtown, it tends to be warmer on summer days.
why does that wave look to be moving northward to me?
Hmm... why are all the GW posts so long?
Folks is it just me or are the tropics really starting to cook - convection everywhere you look!
sign of things to come sb. what till the conditions are good..
Levi, I thought the wave in the Bahamas would shift NE as the trough on the east coast released the mess over Houston or dragged it into the gulf.

If you look at the water vapor this wave seems imbedded in the trough through a curve in the gulf. Its being sheared NE but moving W or perhaps SW?? The storm near Houston will go with the next front but this one will stay attached for the time being at least.

This is part of the blob storm that was near the Windward Islands a few days ago.

Thank you for mentioning it -- I like talking about daily and occasionally hourly developments because it is the only way you learn -- but each time you talk about something specifically and dont mention the glorious models or reference a preexisting FORECAST (caps intended for contextualizing the word), her, it seems, your only motivation can be that you are craving to be the first to name a destructive storm and capture the sparkling limelight of the Weather Underground!?!!. I think we miss a lot of the nuts and bolts of the process via that negation.

We evolved as visual creatures and ultimately all learning is, metaphorically, visually linked. Anyone in a teaching position of perceived authority needs to understand that learning needs to be visually cohesive or it will be disjoined and eventually lead to insurmountable complexity and error.

Thats a keeper. Give it a think.
349. Alec
umm 53rd...pardon me but that was a bit "self serving" of you to point them out in bold print
350. WSI
"Self serving commercialism "

First, its weathercore.com, and I make no money off that site, so commercialism is really the wrong word. You think hours on end given to that site with nothing in return is self serving? LOL!

Get some new material and quit showing your little green monster.

Sorry, I was baited, LOL! Stupidity will usually bring out a response from me though.
351. Alec
dont worry about it WSI....if people dont want to see your site then they should IGNORE it!!! I think pop up adds are much worse...
352. IKE
If Dr. M didn't think it was right to promote your website, I'm sure he would say something. I admit I get tired of the...come to..such and such website...but I also understand there are new people on here all of the time. This is tropical season and it's when folks will pay attention to this blog.

As far as global warming...I try to skip the posts. I've read enough on it. I believe it is true and that's all I need to read on the subject.
353. WSI
My last post must have flew into the vortex, LOL!

Anyway Alec, thanks.

53rd, your last rant was deleted from the blog. So tell me, who is posting messages that people don't want to see?
If people didn't want your posts with the links they can just mark them as spam, as this has not been dome means you are in a minority 53rd.
I find posts like yours and the one I'm writing now to be annoying, as they are neither on topic or concerning the weather.

come to my blog here, LOL:

Blog
come to my blog here, LOL:

Blog


It looks like cyclonebusted is HillsboroughBay in disguise... Or is that a trick (for whatever reason)?
357. Alec
q=mc(delta T)


and I dont know the thickness!


I really dont know but that's a formula I used in heat transfer problems in chemistry...
If I take an area of the ocean with SST of around 83 deg F - say 1 square mile. And I want to cool that area with subsurface water pumped up and dispersed over that area.

How much water do I need to pump at what temperature for what period of time, to cool the 1 sq mile area to 79 deg F?


Well, it will depend on the thickness of the 83 degree water; assume that it is 150 feet (~50 m) deep; this will give about 4,180,000,000 cubic feet of 83 degree water and if the cold water is at 60 degrees (23 degrees cooler), then you will need about 727,000,000 cubic feet of cool water to cool down the surface by 4 C (if I did this right) per square mile of water. The amount of time to do this would depend on the pumping capacity; 1,000 cubic feet per second = 727,000 seconds (about 8.4 days), about 20 hours for 10,000 CFS, etc.
That's not a simple heat transfer, though.
You can look at it this way: 1 gallon of 80 degree water + 1 gallon of 60 degree water = 2 gallons of 70 degree water.
Hey everyone.....If you go to the Colorado state link in the tropical department on here click on the floater and it will bring up the area over the bahamas. There appears to be twist of circulation trying to work. Check it out!


And for the people on here that do not want to acknowledge any disturbance without one of their big brothers assurance that something is there can just stay on here and debate global warming that no one has a definitive answer for anyways.
363. PBG00
Tornado warning..western Palm Beach County
364. AZ
I think it would be Linda Lovelace but I am not sure of her capacity.
365. WSI
"And for the people on here that do not want to acknowledge any disturbance without one of their big brothers assurance that something is there can just stay on here and debate global warming that no one has a definitive answer for anyways."

LOL! Well, if the NHC doesn't see it, and Dr. Masters doesn't see it, I would tend to think its not there. By all means though, forecast it, LOL!
366. IKE
Speaking of capacity..this is off topic..but is Jen Carfago on TWC pregnant???

God shes pretty.
There probably was a LLC there before the clouds illuminating it were blown apart by shear. Its on the Cuban radar loop. That tornado warning is probably, at least a part of, that system.
Actually as that center is moving behind the protection of the Bahaman islands its starting to flare up on the long range loop it looks like. South Florida should get some rain from it.
369. IKE
Looks like there is convection around the center of that Bahama low. Looks like it's moving NNE. I guess that trough is pulling it.
370. IKE
Latest CMC has a storm east of central Florida in 72 hours. GFS has it going into SC. NOGAPS has it cruising across the northern gulf. UKM has a storm going into SC in 6 days.
IKE....It does look like its trying to get its act together......There is some decent fanning in the upperlevels.....
Link this is interesting!
Easy WSI, we are here to talk about that stuff.

And do you really think that the NHC is not talking about it, or just not to the public yet?
The blobs near Nicaragua and the Bahamas look to be developing quite nicely now and could be developing outflow patterns. We could have a depression within these things within 36 hours and with support from the models the East Coast could be on alert. I know I will.
375. WSI
"Easy WSI, we are here to talk about that stuff."

Yeah I know that, and it wasn't directed at you. My post was directed at the person who so graciously said we apparently were missing something out there. :) However for those that don't see anything, it shouldn't be said that we are just listening to "big brother". Global warming was the blog topic, and global warming was being discussed, not some wave. :)

I am sure the NHC is talking about, but they also are not expecting much out of it at the moment, else they would have said something.

lol you be on alert all you want there will be nothing forming until after the 4th of july and that will give you guys a chance to spend some time with your wives and kids and quit watching those dam computers who have a storm forming everyday...gee get with the program here this is going to be a slow painful hurricane season....StormTop
"We evolved as visual creatures and ultimately all learning is, metaphorically, visually linked"

Yes, but your eyes can also deceive you. If you look hard enough at any flare up of t'showers, you'll eventually see a circulation, and the next tropical storm. You need to reference other information, from surface observations to expert analysis to computer models, to help you separate the real potential storms from the everyday rain showers.
378. WSI
ST, you ARE around. I thought you left or something, LOL!

To clarify my point SJ, I am just tired of every wave "developing". Gets a little overdone. Way overdone.

But what do I know. It may be a CAT 1 tomorrow, LOL!
A upper level low is in the west Atlantic, east of the northern Bahamas. This is enhancing clouds, showers and thunderstorms over the northern Bahamas. This complex weather system might have some chance to organize during the middle and latter part of this week as the strong shear relaxes over that region of the Atlantic. Some computer model output is suggesting there will be at least an upper-level system forming. If this happens and a surface feature can form underneath, we might have a developing tropical system toward the end of this week. But, this is highly uncertain at this point. Anything that does organize east of the Bahamas will be steered westward by the Bermuda high. That could lead to increased, unsettled weather over the northern Bahamas much of this week, then over Florida by this coming weekend.

rw I was talking about dependency and specialization. Im a visual artist, I dont care what anyone here thinks of me (as a meteorologist). I desire a more intuitive understanding of the weather and atmosphere. I dont care if things develop or not. It is important to get it right though.

Checking the models does nothing for me or most any one else I suspect. Its not that I believe them to be incorrect its just that I dont know how they work and there existence is an added layer of complexity to a situation that is already too complex. They take on an almost magical oracle-istic property here.

I wrote that in respect to the larger debate on global warming here. If ten years ago there would have been more effort to make a visually cohesive analogy that accurately described it wed be that much further along now. Instead people hid in the complexity of their respective disciplines and probably made an urgent situation worse.

Besides I would hate to think that for even a basic understanding of the weather just immediately around us we need an expert. If thats true were probably not going to make it.


Besides what rwdobson said, I don't think that we will see another F5 tornado again; the incidence of such violent tornadoes seems to be declining; this includes F4 tornadoes. In fact, every day that passes extends the "F5 tornado-free record" by another day. Link

I think that climate change may be the cause - warming in the polar regions reduces temperature contrasts and as a result the jetstream is weakened (the jetstream divides air with different temperatures).


It's unlikely that the lack of violent tornadoes is a result of climate change. Consideration of damage from the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado led to increased attention between paid to building construction in damage surveys. Other procedural changes have lessened the likelihood of a tornado being reported as violent. Non-meteorological factors are much more likely to be the cause, just as they were the cause of the greater number of tornadoes rated F2 and higher in the 1950-early 1970s part of the record.
384. Alec
53rd quit the cussing...WSI is a great person and doesn't degrade everyone the way you do sometimes.....and I dont believe every swirl or flareup will develop because we get like 1000's of flareups every storm season and only a handful of them do in fact develop.....
387. WSI
"I don't like you WSI"

LOL! Oh, did I do that again? LOL!

Anyway, ST and I converse through messages on here that you don't see, so why not keep your nose in your own business? You are the only person on here to level those accusations against me, so I highly doubt the "others" you speak of exist. You are not man enough to answer my e-mails to you, only choosing to act like a child publicly. You are just seeking an audience, and from here out, I deny you that on this blog (at least from me). Either answer my e-mails, or keep it inside. Either way, keep it off this blog.
Yes Michael. This system will be picked up by the trough and away from the Florida east coast. Unless it forms a low pressure center before the trough arrives, it has no chance of moving westward.
JFla, if you desire a more intuitive understanding of the weather, part of that is understanding forecast models and using them to guide your intuition. That's all I'm saying. They can help filter out what is or is not worth a closer look.
I tend to agree Michael and most of the models do not show it moving in to Fl, or moving west until late in the forecast period, which is highly uncertain. Most models do show some sort of development one way or another off of the E coast between 72 and 144 hrs. This tells me that this area should have a good environment for devlopment during that time frame. Due to this, I am going to continue watching this area very closely. As for track, I do not think we can even start to speculate until something forms although I do agree that it will move W, I do not think this says it will move in to Fla. Could be further up the coast, or we may have something develop in the Gulf after some sort of unorganized system moves in to the Gulf. Lots of scenarios as far as track goes.

I think the Bahamas and SW Atlantic in general should be monitored closely over the next week.

Just my 2 cents.

StormJunkie.com

SJ
You don't think it can move east Atmos?

I don't think it can go north due to the high. Everything I have seen shows the high building to the W blocking anything from moving N without atleast clipping the OBX?

SJ
53rd.. why would you expect anyone on here to care who you liked or did not like.. enough to give a public reason??.. all you do is come on here and cuss at people and act like your the only one (next to AZ) who has the right to express an opinon on a public blog.. grow up or ask AZ if his sandbox is big enough for 2 people to play in!!
West lower level movement actually now in the Bahamas. There is a system out near Puerto Rico that, considering current fronts/movement should be somewhere near there in 72 hrs I believe.

rw: I will try to research them.
I know there are a lot of doom and gloomers out there regarding climate change, and I have no idea whether it is real or not, but I do have some questions that I think are interesting.

1. Why are the majority of the high temperature that break records in the past lets say 10 years, all breaking records from the 30's, 40' s and 50's and not the 60'2 70's and 80's? Does this mean that there was no warming trend in the 60's through 80's or perhaps that these higher temperatures are cyclical and that in another 5-10 years we will start a moderating trend with temperatures and scientists and AL GORE will be saying its a new Ice Age? Of course he will have to invent the computing system neccessary to predict this trend first.

Secondly, Why as little as 2-3 years ago were we below average for tropical cyclone activity if we have had progressive increases in water temperature due to warming?

Take a look at this link and see how there is a trend as to the decades with increased or decreased tropical activity. Ignore the recording of the tropical energy index and just look for the trend.


Frankly, in my worthless opinion, AL Gore is a moron who has not had to work a day in his life and who eats drink and breaths politics. The only reason he will put any information out is to better his re-electability.Link
No, sorry SJ, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that it will not move westward because the trough will pick up the ULL. It can move eastward if it gets picked up, and in the short term, it will continue to meander North and Northwest.
Still nothing much from the mid levels. No signs of any development.

skeptik, there are cycles at work. but that doesn't mean that the cycles aren't being pushed in a certain direction. in other words, maybe the high parts and low parts of the cycle are both elevated compared to normal by climate change.
Viewing Comments 398

funny why dos that says 398 and on the blogs it only say 390
No no atmos, I am the one who misstated. I think it has to go W at some point.

Sorry. The trough will pinch it between the high and move it N, before the high builds towarrds the W?

I also think that whole area in general should be watched over the next week, to the point that the Bahama thing is not much of any thing right now, but the area seems ripe with all the moisture and the shear starts to die down a little.

SJ
rw,

The take away here is defining how long the cycle lasts. Is it a 20-30 year cycle or a 100-200 year cycle or so on. Because if it is a shorter cycle as this arrogant politician is relying on, then there seems to be elevating temperature, but if that 20-30 year snapshot is part of a 200 year cycle then we don't have reliable recordings for the starting point and therefore don't know what normal is.

I think we all get in a trap of stating normal as what is normal in our lifetime, with references to times when we were younger, but does the weather cycle coincide with that short of a time span?
yeah, skeptik, that's all true. that's why i am very very suspicious of any forecasts of what doom lies ahead.
Skeptik-

There was a plateau of solar activity starting in about 1950; this, along with a combination of multidecadal oscillations, halted the rise in temperature which had been gong on since before 1900. This situation persisted until about 1980. I reproduce here a graph from my February post by way of clarification.



It is important to realize that there are time delays involved; only the warming since 1980 is clearly attributable to greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere.
taking a look at it on the avn and rainbow versions of the NHC satellites it does appear to have a low level center, though its not fully closed/developed. However that upper level does not appear to be moving much. Am I to be correct that the bermuda high is in place towards the central atlantic?
JFLORIDA wrote~Checking the models does nothing for me or most any one else I suspect. Its not that I believe them to be incorrect its just that I dont know how they work and there existence is an added layer of complexity to a situation that is already too complex. They take on an almost magical oracle-istic property here.

Maybe for you they do but just because you haven't taken the time to learn, doesn't mean that most of us (at least the ones that comment on them) have not. Some models have some sort of link to better explain reading them. For more info as to what info is fed to what models & generally what each are good for go here. Early on last season, one of Dr Master's blogs has a bit of a crash course in them as well. Then, there is the experience of watching them & the satellite loops daily in an obsesive, compusive kind of way. Ask away about model stuff you don't understand, surely someone will answer.

As for spotting a warm core without the phase anaylisis...easy, it's like the satellite images...round storm, convection around center=warm core. If it's elonggated or the convection (yellow to red) isn't rapped tightly around the center=cold core. Though the phase anaylisis is nice to double check.

On the 850vort, pay attention to the flags if they don't form a circle around the convection you've got no closed circulation & no Tropical Depression or Storm, just rain... as for the check if your eye is tricking you on a satillite & you want to verify a swirl check the quikscat. If your lucky the last pass got a pic of it. Like now the Bahama thing. The flags form a V somewhat but no closed circulation (which would be a circle). It is showing it's 1st 30kt flag though. Read the directions at the top of the page as well as follow those links to learn about it.

Nice post Pony, so what is your take on the Bahama system and/or the system several models try to develop off the E coast?
I think Dr. Masters review of the movie was pretty good -- I'll give his review a B -- but some of his complaints are (I think) missing the point. Please allow me to critque them below:

"Excessive details on Al Gore's life" -- Since most viewers' past association with the speaker (Al Gore) was as a polititian, I think this was necessary to humanize the speaker, show his history and interconnection to global warming science, and show why he (citizen Gore) feels driven to mount this mission to enlighten his fellow citizens in this Republic.

"atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of carbon dioxide" -- I agree (being an engineer) that the statement is technically incorrect but, for the average viewer (I always think of how my mother would hear it), the word "thickened" probably adaquately conveys the intended message that IR radiation can't escape as easily.

"An Inconvenient Truth as a campaign ad - and - Gore working to uncover evidence of Republican shenanigans to alter or suppress climate change science" -- Well, as my grandmother would say, "sometimes you have to tell the truth and shame the devil!" The movie just showed these "elements" speaking on camera and their attempts to politically overide government scientists' statements so as to alter or change their findings that have been reported in the press. They and their actions speak for themselves and it's not a pretty picture but it is very relevant. Even the moderate Republican Christine Todd-Whitman was found with her hand in the cookie jar (from Wikipedia): "As head of the EPA, she made headlines for disavowing (with the President) the validity of a government-commissioned report suggesting a human contribution to global warming. It was later proven that Whitman cooperated with White House efforts to edit and rewrite the report to remove all references to global warming, and to replace an National Academy of Sciences study proving the human component of global warming with results from an American Petroleum Institute study that challenged the very existence of global warming." It is a shame that some elements of the Republican party have chosen to politicize this issue (as opposed to responsible Republicans like John McCain and many others who call for honestly addressing it) in a nasty way by calling Gore crazy and using other mean spirited invectives instead of engaging in honest debate with an examination of peer reviewed evidence and the opinions of our most respected scientists. But, contrary to Masters' assertion, nowhere did Gore make this a campaign ad for the Democratic party. This message was part of the whole message: you should vote for candidates who will address the issue and, if you can't find any, then run for office yourself!

Overall, I think Gore did a good thing by lending his well-know name to the cause of educating the public on what our technological abilities and the world population explosion are doing to affect the biosphere in regards to CO2 increases. Through technology, we now have powers our ansestors would have attributed only to the gods but we'er still in our old mindset that we can't really affect nature. I urge everyone to see the movie and judge it for yourself.
I have updated my blog. Everyone is welcome to come over and "talk tropics" LOL!
snowfire, thanks for that graph...... very interesting indeed! wonder why the variance in the last 20 yrs?

but certainly the 80 yrs before that seem to concide with solar activity, which was laughed at by some "know it all's" on the board...... and we seem to have alot! LOL

btw..... LOL is a good thing..... we need more humor and tolerance in this blog! :)
If you don't want to be scared silly and run screaming from the blog, do not click on this melting ice link. Just kidding!!!!

Has links to related stories that have aired.

I like the one titled "[Some] Evangelical Leaders Urge Action on Climate Change". (Why did they leave out the "Some"?) This story gives an example of the questions of priorities that I think are per se more important than scientific debate given the obvious evidence already at hand.

Land, along with Colson and Dobson, wrote a letter opposing the Evangelical Call to Action because, he says, there is not consensus about climate change among evangelicals. Land says the Bible makes clear that God expects human beings to take care of the earth. But "human beings come first in God's created order," he adds. "And that primacy must be given to human beings and for human betterment. If that means that other parts of nature take a back seat, well, then they take a back seat,

Land argues that slowing economic growth and development by overly strict environmental controls will harm human beings.


Dropping the political code words from the last sentence, one gets: "Land says it is well known that environmental controls are a bad idea because his constituency is afraid of them." (Fear = knowledge argument.)

I suppose that means they want to think they can do anything they [intensifier deleted] want! (I love irony.)
I think that this graph explains the past few decades pretty well:

Of course, the fear of global warming could produce the illusion of knowledge of its disastrous effects.

I just think it is a matter of common sense that what MichaelSTL's graph shows is not a good thing.
Thanks sky - nice. -john-
The graph is very pretty and all, I admit that. But the graph does not change the fact that the data used in the graph prior to the last 30-50 years or so is strictly suggested data on CO2 emmissions in the atmosphere.

That data comes from all sorts of different methods and once again, noone knows if those methods are correct in the way they measure those levels. So since King Komehameha did not take Air samples at the top of some mountain in Hawaii several hundred years ago, we are forced to assume that the way the gases are measured through plant and fossil records, carbon dating, and everything else was correct.

If you were following a medical protocol and it's procedures and data was based strictly on extrapolated data from rhesus monkeys and never a human trial, and the doctor told you due to this protocol, you would have to cut off your arm, to be healed, would you blindly do it even though the suggested evidence is not based on any substantiated fact in human medicine? No, I think you would try another protocol, one that has real human data that was conducted scientifically and thoroughly with real measures and controls.

But we are all supposed to jump blindly at any hint that industrialization is causing the end of the world when we don't even know what "normal" is. All this based on a politician's theory that he speaks about constantly while burning thousands of pounds of fossil fuels flying all over the world to keep himself in the limelight. He could have gotten the same message out using the Internet that he supposedly invented and E-mail. But, that is not how politicians work. They work on fear. Fear sells.

The reality is that science is a logical method of trial and error, all these CO2 numbers floating around out there are simply the best guess to date by a group of scientists that may or may not have a financial or political interest in the research and there is no way to know what reality is in regards to the importance of any of these measures. Follow the money and political leanings of these scientists that are promoting this global warming debate and look at where they are based Look at where their data is published. For example is "Nature" a globally accepted peer reviewed scientific journal or is it a commercial interest with subscriptions to the general public? How many regular everyday citizens outside of the medical field subscribe to the Lancet? or the Journal of the American Medical Association? These are true scientific medical journals.
One other point - regarding Dr. Masters' complaint about the movie suggesting hurricane and severe weather increases are without merit: I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this is a possibility.

A recent study by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which appears in the September 16, 2005 issue of Science magazine, revealed that "[t]he number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years" and that "[t]he shift occurred as global sea surface temperatures have increased over the same period." Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has conducted similar research, suggesting in the August 2005 issue of Nature magazine that current and future global warming may well increase the destructiveness of hurricanes. According to Emanuel, "The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime."
There are a thousand reasons why industrialization is destroying the planet, not just CO2 increase. If left unchecked the off-gassing from petroleum based products alone will eventually poison the atmosphere and kill us all. But we'll all lie dead before you'll ever see a public effort to reduce the plastic world.
Weather whatever, youv'e convinced me, Im going to go out and return my SUVs tommorrow and buy a wooden cart to haul around my organically grown produce that I hold in my paper sacks that take 60% more energy to make than polyethylene, oh wait, my cotton or better yet HEMP fiber reusable carry sacks.

My only question is what will I pay with, coins, no they are created through that nasty mining process, paper bills, oops cutting down trees and that terrible ink, I guess that leaves my credit card, which is made out of plastic...........

We are soooo screwed!
To skeptik:

According to your most enlightened and sophisticated argument and logic above, we can never know anything about anything for certain and should therefore just fold our tents and go home to wallow and dispare in our immutable ignorance. Heavens, how can we know that the satellite images presented on this weather site are really from satellites? Maybe they're just images drawn by rhesus monkeys or ancient paintings from the private collection of King Komehameha? One can never know.
Heavens, how can we know that the satellite images presented on this weather site are really from satellites?

LOL

Obviously, Katrina was not just something "drawn by rhesus monkeys"...
421. mobal
skeptik
When you are done with the hemp can I have it....LOL
424. IKE
I wonder if that low east of Florida doesn't loop back. Almost looks like it's moving ENE now.
do any of you think we'll have TD 3-E in the Pacific at 11:00?
Some years ago I read a letter to the editor of Photonics magazine regarding the fact that above a certain concentration the effect of CO2 on IR absorbtion ceased to increase at a significant rate. The writer further pointed out that that concentration had been reached. The effect of various gases in the atmosphere on the absorbtion of IR is non-linear.

A simple web search on IR absorbtion brings up this interesting fact: In the near infrared, water vapor is the primary molecular absorber, with many absorption lines to attenuate the signal. Above 2.0 μm, both water vapor and carbon dioxide play a large role. (http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=26141&rl=1).

CO2 concentration might be an indicator for other gases in the atmosphere like water vapor as the emission of H2O into the atmosphere is possibly a bigger contributor to the green house effect. See http://www.samspublishing.com/content/images/chap3_067232248x/elementLinks/03fig02.gif
No little mike,

The real facts are that reality is seen, felt, and experienced. The way these statistics are arrived at are educated guesses. They may be the very best guesses that are available and I don't fault the real Scientists that are trying their best to arrive at the facts. I will however never accept data that is not:

1. Reproducable or documented in a way that places them above doubt.

2. Unbiased or coming from individuals without a motiviation to explain things either one way or another.

3. Completely One sided without logical consideration of all options that exist for an Idea.

4. That are reported in a way that allows an open discussion from all points of view both the pros and a the cons.

My opinions are just that, opinions. And as you know probably better than any one else on this post, Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

And when real scientifically controlled data is pulished and it is above repute, I will fall in line behind all of you. But until then I will remain a "Skeptik."

Remember these headlines published in the last several years?

15 January 2002
Global Cooling In Antarctica
Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.

Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.

Is a New Ice Age Under Way?
by Laurence Hecht

Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you! With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931


12/5/02

CONTACT: Mark Shwartz, News Service: (650) 723-9296, mshwartz@stanford.edu

Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters -- at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster.

But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

Scientist have found that antartica is cooling, the glacier on Mt ranier is getting larger, and carbon dioxide may be bad for plants.

Too much is unknown about this entire topic to be freaked out about it, mildly concerned sure, I hate smog too, but I am not giving up my arm until the science is in concrete.
Hey mike, I live 28 miles north of New Orleans. I stayed the whole time and caught a tree on my house from it. I also own a small business that took a $15000 hit from it and was down for a month. So I understand what is at stake as much as anyone.

But the reality is that the problems in New Orleans were not Katrina's fault and in no way related to global warming. Ask the experts, Katrina was only a category 2 or 3 when it hit right? Thats what the Sea Foam told these "scientists" right?

I was in my house when the 80 foot pine tree flew 160 feet to land on the roof right over where my wife was napping. and 120 mph max winds did this correct? a 20 ton tree 160 feet like a lawn dart.

The cause of the problem was development in the wetlands and the subsequent erosion caused by men, canals that overtopped their levees dug by men, failed levees made by men and more politicians trying to get in the spotlight picking victems off the roof of their house rather than filling the breaches in the levees the first 3 days.

None of these issues were caused by global warming. It took scientists and engineers and politicians to cause every one of them. Now maybe you know why I am a SKEPTIK.
skeptik - Could it have been a tornado that passd over or touched down?
We have Bamboo planted about 10 feed thick on the north side of our house and it created a "bubble effect" leaving my house in an isolated pocket of air as the wind flowed over the bamboo.

I was standing in the doorway watching all the trees on my street falling like dominoes when Our tree hit.

I never saw or heard any loud noises, but with all the wind rushing by anything is possible.
I was asking because I think a lot of the most severe wind damage in some hurricanes comes from tornados. It's not like there are spotters out there looking for them during the storm.

The damage from Francis in the small barrier island town on the East Central FL coast where I live was concentrated in 2 corridors, one about a half miles south of me and another about a mile north. My house suffered little damage, but in those corridors the post office was severely damaged and many people lost their roofs. I don't think these were ever identified as tornados, but the fact that they were aligned with the wind direction (ENE) makes me suspicious. I often wonder if a lot of the anomalous localized severe damage and high wind reports in tropical cyclones are caused by tornados (like your 20 ton lawn dart).

Very glad that you and your family came through OK, it sounds like you had a very close call.

BTW, you make very good points about overdevelopment on wetlands and subsequent erosion, plus careless underfunding of the levees, being much more significant factors than any potential effect of global warming in the destruction caused by Katrina. This should be obvious to all. New Orleans was one of the great jewels of this country, and I am ashamed for my country that we neglected you and the other people there.
432. jeffB
skeptik wrote:

The reality is that science is a logical method of trial and error, all these CO2 numbers floating around out there are simply the best guess to date by a group of scientists that may or may not have a financial or political interest in the research and there is no way to know what reality is in regards to the importance of any of these measures. Follow the money and political leanings of these scientists that are promoting this global warming debate and look at where they are based Look at where their data is published. For example is "Nature" a globally accepted peer reviewed scientific journal or is it a commercial interest with subscriptions to the general public?

I honestly can't tell if you're serious, or if you're just leading us on. Nature is not only a globally accepted peer reviewed scientific journal, it's near the top of every list that ranks such journals by influence and importance.

Oh, and Nature requires every author of every paper to declare any relevant financial interests in their research.

In another post, skeptik wrote:

Remember these headlines published in the last several years?

15 January 2002
Global Cooling In Antarctica
Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.


You know, if I'd seen "Global Cooling In Antarctica as a headline, I think I would have remembered it. I also would have wondered what part of "unique among the Earth's continental landmasses" the headline writer failed to understand. :-)
433. MahFL
Thelmores, thats an intersesting web site regarding the Glaciers. No doubt about it Global Warming is happening. However I do think everybody is over reacting about it as remember the Artic Circle once had a Subtropical Climate, so changes are always going to be happening, some times quicker than may have happened in the past though.
MahFL - The subtropical Arctic is hardly a change along the lines of "stuff happens". It took place at the start of the Eocene epoch, about 56 million years ago. No one knows what caused it, but here is a brief description of the Eocene Thermal Maximum from Wikipedia:

"Marking the start of the Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid (in geologic terms) and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM or IETM). This was an episode of rapid and intense warming (up to 7C at high latitudes) that lasted less than 100,000 years. The Thermal Maximum provoked a sharp extinction event that distinguishes Eocene fauna from the ecosystems of the Paleocene."
Posted By: newt3d at 3:22 AM GMT on June 20, 2006.
ScienceCop,

I'm having trouble following your argument, for a lot of reasons.

1. There is an indisputable 35% increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since when? What are the relative ratios of man-made CO2 and naturally occuring CO2?


You know, you can inform yourself on a subject by actually reading some science books in your library, or consulting google before you ask questions whose answer is PROBABLY on Wikipedia before you even ask. I have a bookmark to Wikipedia, and a google toolbar on my browser, and often I can get links to facts-filled pages faster than I could type up a question in my mind.

According to Wikipedia (make sure you bookmark the pages if you intend to argue Global Warming or CO2 volumes) the pre-industrial revolution CO2 was about 280 ppmv and current Carbon dioxide (CO2)is 381 ppmv (1/280 x 381 = 1.36, or 36% increase). Natural background CO2 is 64% and man-made CO2 is 36%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Our open public satellites are quite good and the classified ones are said to be much better. If you post your home address I can look in your driveway on google maps satellite view and tell you the color of the car parked in your driveway. Most of the weather satellites use infrared energy to resolve details which are not detectable by visible spectra.



In this picture all the reds are thunderstorms with ample heat energy and the US Southwest and Mexico are purple from the noonday sun, June 19th, 2006, about 2:30 pm local time at picture center. We not only can see "invisible" infrared radiation, but we know a lot about it and how to use it to see things that are otherwise invisible. This is possible because of greenhouse gases, including water vapor and CO2, and their special radiative properties.


2. The physics are inescapable. There is an indisputable 35% increase in man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. No weather event can duck, bob and weave to avoid this 35% increase. The results are in EVERY weather event on Earth.

Disregarding my qualms with the 35% statement, I grant you this point, the CO2 does exist, and it is in the atmosphere. I'll ask you though, how does a 35% increase in man-made CO2 manifest itself? Quantitatively?


It manifests as 2 extra watts per meter of Earth Surface averaged globally. The Earth does not absorb radiation equally over a curved surface (hence the frozen polar regions), so more energy enters the tropics in a perpendicular manner through the thinnest portion of atmosphere. Astronomers know quite well the thickness of the atmosphere affects the objects they can view when the telescopes are aimed at an angle through thicker sections of atmosphere. You can see this with the naked eye as different coloring of the sky straight overhead and near the horizon during daylight hours, with particulates and water vapor making striking color displays through the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset.

The net effect is a drastic warming beginning from the tropics and spreading polewards. The clash line between hot and cold changes with the seasons. On June 19th the quantitative effects of this energy appeared as 10 inches of rain in Houston. Some people had to be rescued from their rooftops because of flooding, and there were fears that Houston would have it's second 500-year-flood since 2001. On the posted picture you can see a thin trail of moisture drifting north from the central Mexican Pacific Coast. A time lapse series of these pictures shows that red spot over Houston, flooding the place, came from that trail of moisture which curved back to the Gulf.

That's what 381 ppmv CO2 in the air can do, quantitatively. That's what two watts per meter means. In dramatic terms it means the enire nuclear arsenal of the USA, 7,000 nukes, going off every 20 minutes of the day and night every day of the year, quantitatively.



3. "Is the impact of 35% known increase in total CO2 having an impact on weather that can be proven by specific weather events?" The answer is YES. There is a major impact, very destructive severe events which can be demonstrated with evidence beyond reproach.

This is a bold statement to make. One cannot just show pretty pictures of events that they say support their claim -- you need more than that! Where's the actual science behind your argument? How does an increase in CO2 relate to ocean hot spots? How does CO2 relate to Tropical Depression 2E? How do you know the effects, if any, are statistically relevant?


It's called science, my boy, and the first 12 years of education in this country are completely free to every citizen. Is this a great country, or what? Most of what you need to understand the physics are taught in those first 12 years. City colleges and community colleges are a cheap way to get more education for low cost, and if budget is not a concern, we enjoy many fine universities in every state of the nation. There's one near you -- check it out. There are also free libraries, and bookmobiles touching every hamlet and backwater as well as in all the cities. Al Gore delivered on his promise to connect every school and every library in the country to the internet by the year 2000. You are using the internet, so we see you have that capability. Try google -- you'll like it, I promise.

4. What do politicians and conspiracy theories and corporations and tobacco companies have to do with scientifically proving your original point? What do they know about CO2 and global warming that the general scientific community does not?


The blog entry is a review of Al Gore's movie on Global Warming. Liars and crooks have been attacking Al Gore since he was Senator Gore, and crooks have been lying about Global Warming as far back as those 1989 memos grabbed from the crooks file cabinets. We know there were racketeers, liars and crooks, and we know their names. They are the only ones throwing mud at the Global Warming science today -- nobody else stands with them but known associates of career criminals. I think people ought to know the mud slingers have a crooked history when listening to their story. Once a guy is CAUGHT faking science, nobody can ever trust him again for life on science, just like that crook caught faking stem cell research in Korea will never be trusted again for life. The only punishment science has for hoaxers is to throw the bums out and forget everything about them -- it's harsh, but the price to be paid is known to everybody who goes down the crooked path of their own free will.

For having the name ScienceCop, you really do not argue scientifically. Quite often, your statements contain many truths, but usually digress from there with fautly logic. I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but I really felt that it had to be said.


It's only faulty logic to those who can't be bothered to look up the air they breath when they hear there "might" be a big problem with CO2. Since you admit that you don't know the science of CO2 and radiative forcing, you simply disqualified yourself to have any "informed opinion". Undoubtably you would be much educated by going to Gore's movie.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/
436. F5
This is a great article regarding Mann's flawed hockey stick.

Link

There's other good stuff on the site worth reading.

Another interesting article on the supposed hockey stick...
Link

And more...Link

There are many others out there as well. Given the importance the IPCC placed on the hockey stick, the repeated proclamations (incorrect as well) about the 1990's being the warmest decade in the past 1000 years, etc., and some of you wonder why the rest of us are skeptical about AGW due to CO2.

And to Snowboy, who wondered why I continue to question the so-called "settled science", I refer you to this from the National Academy of Science..."The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."

There are a bunch of great links and other articles on the main site...Link

Happy reading
437. F5
It's called a TUTT. They form quite frequently in the Gulf of Mexico. Cold core upper low. In this case, the upper level ridge has flattened a bit, leaving the prevailing westerlies further to the N. This has allowed the TUTT to just sit over the Houston area, drawing up significant Gulf moisture, which it then deposited on Houston. It has nothing to do with CO2, and I highly doubt you would find any reputable scientiest who believes in global warming would concur that elevated concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for the flooding in Houston.

Posted By: guygee at 6:09 AM GMT on June 20, 2006.
Snowboy, your last few posts are right on the mark. I've given up trying to convince the skeptics; it is like a religion for them.

The real frontier in global warming research is in risk mitigation and adaptation. There will be a battle of the elites that is already beginning, as large corporations such as banks and insurance companies are beginning to realize the large losses and damages they face if human society cannot adapt to a more sustainable economy in the long run. Until then, much damage will be done.


Sorry to tell you this, but the robber barons of the 19th century got rich and invested in banks and insurance companies. John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil, and his brother Wiiliam Rockefeller invested the ever growing pile of Standard Oil money in the National City Bank, which became known as Citibank and that was known as "Bill Rockefeller's Bank". Later John D. invested his share in Chase Manhattan Bank, later known as JP Morgan Chase. Chase was known as "John D's Bank".

Two of Bill Rockefeller's sons married two daughters of National City Bank founder Stillman, cementing the relationship. Bill's daughter Geraldine married into the Hartley-Dodge family and brought into the family Equitable Insurance Company and Remington Arms Company. The New York Times was founded on loans from the Equitable Insurance Company, so for a century the Times has been silent about Rockefeller malfeasances.

The Rockefeller Standard Oil was broken up into 28 seperate companies by Supreme Court order, and they evolved into Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, Arco, Amoco, Esso and some 20 others. The Rockefellers also were invested in coal, steel, ore, railroads, and when John D died his estate had stocks in 14 newspapers. He divested to his heirs before he died so we don't know all that was owned, but insurance and banking were definately big in there.

The mainstream news is owned by the same heirs of the New York 400 Families of High Society. They all marry each other's sons and daughters. The media, the insurance industry and the banks will not lift a finger against the Standard Oil heir group.

Rockefeller's invented the public relations business when John D. Rockefeller Junior needed to whitewash the Ludlow Massacre. He hired Ivy Lee, known as the "Father of Public Relations" to cleanse the blood off the image. Ivy Lee went on to be PR guy for the Nazis, importing tons of German propaganda "world without end", as he told a a congressional investigating committee. The Standard Oil heirs group still owns all that, plus important downtown Manhattan real estate, like the Rockefeller Center, and the twin towers of the famous WTC were named for David & Nelson Rockefeller.

They still use PR guys to whitewash their family business. Exxon alone has had millions of dollars traced to 200 think tanks and institutes who front for Exxon's position in Global Warming and lobbying congress.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=167

This page will introduce you to the Exxon connected front organizations.

You might want to look up the pictorial views of the Global Warming crooks and liars connected to the http://TobaccoDocuments.org racketeering court evidence.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=174
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=392
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=95

Or just read my blog, for facts about the people whitewashing the dirty pollution of the biggest crooks this world has ever known committing the biggest crime ever in history. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/show.html

Posted By: GulfScotsman at 6:28 PM GMT on June 20, 2006.
For the scientists and mathemeticians here help me out.

If I take an area of the ocean with SST of around 83 deg F - say 1 square mile. And I want to cool that area with subsurface water pumped up and dispersed over that area.

How much water do I need to pump at what temperature for what period of time, to cool the 1 sq mile area to 79 deg F?


To show you how hopeless the task would be, I volunteer to explain it.

Equilibrium is arrived at by mixing two volumes at unequal temperatures. The Loop Current that enters the Gulf of Mexico gets hot deep. Last year when Katrina passed over it and sprang into a 165 mph Category 5 hurricane the temperatures were hot to 500 meters (1640 feet) deep. Below that is where you need to go to get your cooler water.

If the initial temperature is 83 and you want a final temperature of 79F which is a 4 degree spread, you need a additive water four degrees cooler than the final temperature. That is one gallon of 83F mixed with one gallon of water at 75F would result in two gallons of 79F water.

Say the coolant water below was not 4 degrees cooler than 79, but only one degree cooler at 78? Then you would need four gallons of the 78F water to cool each gallon of 83F water to a final temperature of 79F for all five gallons.

Katrina was a substantial storm, which raised heat out of the waters up as water vapor to cool at -70C (-94F) at cloudtop heights far above where jetliners fly. Then the sleet fell back to turn into rain long before it reached the surface. By the time it had reached the surface it was warm rain again from contact with the heat energy below. To a certain extent you could say that ice supercooled to siberian winter temperatures was added to the track behind Katrina.

The cooling waters from rain often reduce the hurricane powering sea surface temperatures for a couple of weeks, but the Loop Current was hot so deep that it was warm again within 6 days after Katrina passed. Rita passed over that same track three weeks later it too became super-charged with heat energy and sprang into 180 mph category 5 hurricane even more powerful than Katrina.

The rainfall tells the story of the energy in the storm. The advisory for 10:00 pm Sept 21st had the tropical storm winds extended 185 miles from the center, or 370 miles wide. The rains were predicted to be 8" to 10" over that area. Think of Rita as an airborn puddle 370 miles by 9" (split the difference between 8" and 10" rain). The storm was covering 107,521 square miles at that moment in time. Each square miles has 27,878,400 square feet times 107521 square miles equals 2,997,190,883,400 square feet of surface waters. That times three-quaters of a foot of rain (9") equals 2,247,893,162,550 cubic feet of rain. Each cubic foot has 7.47 gallons of water in it, so multiply that and you get 16,791,761,924,248 gallons of water.

The storm was moving 9 miles per hour -- it took 20.5 hours for the passage from the first tropial force winds to the last to pass by. So each 20.5 hours it was dropping 16,791,761,924,248 gallons of water.

Here's the energy-math part, and I use metrics, so get used to it. each cc of water takes one calorie of energy to raise the temperature 1 degree C. From 29C (85F) to 100C (212F) requires 71 calories, but to go from liquid to vapor adds another 600 calories, for a total of 671 calories required per cc. There are 3785 CCs in one gallon of water, so it takes 671 times 3785 for a total of 2539735 calories to loft each gallon of water up to fall as rain later. The passage of Rita over a spot discharged 4.26466254706813e19 calories of heat each 20.5 hours.

That number is a little awkward, so translate to megawatt-hours equivilent makes it a more managable 49,598,030,000 MW/hrs. It's hard to think in megawatt hours, so translate to kilowatt-hours like is on your electric bill: 49,598,030,000,000 KWh. I use that much electricity powering my home every 16,532,676,667 years based on my current bill usage. The heat energy in Rita at peak strength would power 6 billion households like mine for 33 months based on energy accounting for the passage over one single point in 20.5 hours time.

Not only we can't do the diluting thing, but we shouldn't even be thinking about ways to avoid dealing with our energy thing that doesn't create problems to solve like this. A third hurricane hit the headwaters of the Loop Current in the Carribean, Wilma, and became the strongest ever measured in the Atlantic. It was bigger and meaner than Katrina and Rita, and it wiped out 60,000 of 70,000 hotel accomodations at Cancun and Cozumel. It dropped 50 inches of rain over western Cuba, and my calculater doesn't even go that high to figure out what kind of energy we are talking about.

As fast as ideas come in your head you need to give them the bum's rush right back out again, if they have anything to do with continuing carbon-based fuels and CO2 exhausts. 70% of the whole world is covered with dihydrogen-oxide, and the two parts of that is what NASA uses to launch the Space Shuttle. You need to grow some hair on your chest and face hydrogen like a man and accept it that you live on a planet covered with rocket fuel, and if you are ever going into space you will be flying fueled on that stuff, so get used to it. The "Hindenberg Syndrome Sissies" can go hide in the corner.

The power of the storms is solar power and anybody saying it's too diffuse to be used is missing things as big as Katrina, Rita and Wilma, who use that energy at rates of 2,419,416,097 megawatts per hour as we just figured out based on Rita. There's never going to be a shortage of Hydrogen or a shortage of Solar Power, so get your thinking onto the real solutions.

The same crooks and liars who are throwing mud at science about Global Warming have their networks spamming lies about H2-PV as well. They are paid high wages to steer you to the Exxon Station as the only choice allowed, and you are left trying to figure out how to fix their mess. Prosecute Exxon Stockholders for Global Warming Deaths and Destruction and you will see every rooftop in America covered in blue within 10 years. Not blue tarps, but blue solar cells made out of the same stuff as beer bottles (and just as cheap as beer bottles when you make as many solar cells as we make beer bottles). Put the Exxon Stockholders in jail and your Global Warming problem will be gone in a decade.
jeff,

I'm not criticizing "Nature" and if you noticed the second quote you pointed out came from that journal. Google it if you don't believe me. That info regarding antartica is also in the UN paper that Dr Masters pointed out. I am also not disputing the CO2 rise that may or may not be Man made, I am disputing the conclusions that are being drawn from data that may or may not be related or potentially could be coincidental. Every day new creatures are bing discovered around the world and new breakthroughs occur in our understanding of the world and our interactions with it, so why when even the UN paper cites the majority of causative factors in their projections and models as "Likely" to occur and not "Very Likely"(See the percentages in the UN report) should we close our minds and only accept this single theory?

My point about Nature is simply that it and this global warming debate is held to a different scientific standard than medical science and mathmatical science and that, I think, in itself is significant. I don't know what your background is so I don't know if you understand the statistical terms "p value" or "confidence interval" (basically, the chance of any of these findings occuring by coincidence, with 5% or less usually being the standard for acceptance), but for some reason, these values are never shown in relation to this debate, but are never left out of medical scientific literature. Why the difference?

To go back to my medical analogy, would you cut off an arm or a leg under a doctor's treatment if there was a 35% chance he was wrong about the needing too? Thats what "likely" means in the UN paper, a 65% chance the data is related?
Amazing how that convection keeps regenerating in the vicinity of the Bahamas. The convection from yesterday is completely sheared to the NE in the face of the approaching deep-layer trough exiting the coast, but more convection has blown up and the trough axis is passing the laititude of the Bahamas as a mid/uppser level high is moving in to the north. Here is the NWS Melbourne local forcast discussion on the feature from early this morning:

"PERSISTENT UPPER LOW (H5-H25) NEAR THE BAHAMAS IS FORECAST TO REMAIN NEARLY STATIONARY THEN SHIFT WESTWARD TO FL THIS WEEKEND. BOTH GFS AND NAM-WRF DEVELOP A SFC LOW NE OF THE BAHAMAS BY THU. THIS APPEARS REASONABLE GIVEN DEEP CONVECTION EXISTS THERE NOW...ON THE
DYNAMICALLY FAVORABLE EAST SIDE OF THE UPPER FEATURE. BOTH MODELS BRING THE SFC WAVE...A CLOSED SFC LOW...WEST TOWARD THE SE U.S. THIS WEEKEND. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE UKMET AND ECMWF ARE MUCH LESS BULLISH ON THIS SCENARIO...PREFERRING TO KEEP AN OPEN WAVE MOVING MORE QUICKLY (AND FARTHER SOUTH) ACROSS S FL. ITS TOO EARLY TO SAY IF THIS WILL DEVELOP INTO THE ATLANTIC BASINS "B" STORM (WHICH WOULD BE BERYL) BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO MONITOR. DEPENDING ON HOW VIGOROUS THE SFC LOW BECOMES...THERE COULD BE MORE SIGNIFICANT DRYING AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF THE LOW THAN WHAT THE OFFICIAL FORECAST IS INDICATING FOR FRI AND SAT."
SHORT TERM...PENDERGRAST
LONG TERM....KELLY
442. IKE
I think that morning blowup will be what has the potential to develop. Latest NAM run has it moving toward Florida's east coast or turning up toward the Carolina's. Also...it tries to develop something else around the Yucatan peninsula. The GFS is less bullish on the Bahamas blob...but I remember the NAM was on target with Alberto developing at least a day..maybe 2 before the GFS.

Maybe that Caribbean wave has a shot. Looks like a trough might be coming SE toward the end of this week. This could steer the Bahamas blob and the Caribbean wave.
Look in my blog - the CMC and GFS both show develoment is a couple days (the CMC more so).
444. IKE
The SW caribbean is getting a little more active....looking at satellite pictures.
my new blog is up...leave comments if you want to to know how to make the picture below.

By the way, I have the first heat advisory of the year today; what day is more appropriate than the first day of summer? Link
447. IKE
The CMC has been persistent with it forming and crossing Florida and paralleling the northern Gulf Coast. Could bring beneficial rains...we need it desperately here in the Florida panhandle.
448. IKE
It's hot as h*ll here. Heat indexes over 100 daily.

The gulf is turning into a steam bath, just waiting...
boy, sure glad I'm not an Exxon shareholder! LOL

hydrogen and solar energy are nice, but the real breakthrough in energy will be nuclear fusion.......

I love all the science, facts and figures, but sometimes the comments and attitudes that go with them I could do without.....

I used to think this blog was boring sometimes just talking about the next low, tropical model, or latest wave..... but now I can't wait to be bored again! :D
The CMC is good at forecasting development of a tropical storm but the forecasted path is not so sure from my understanding.
Good morning everyone.........

The area near the bahamas has interesting low level winds suggesting that a low is trying to form. If you go to the Colorado State site, it has some nice close ups. You can clearly see the southwest winds turning left into the thunderstorm complex. If that keeps up, we might here some recognition from the NHC.....
452. PBG00
mornin..be interesting to see what unfolds..the cmc was spinning something up as early as Sun..then stopped and is doing it again this morning..only difference is now some other models are leaning that way
I just noticed that the NAM is showing develoment as well (all the models showing development are linked in my blog at the bottom). That makes 3 models showing something develop near the Bahamas and take the same general path (landfall in Florida or Georgia as a tropical storm).
Mornin' ya'll!

Please, lay off the global warming topic for today. Let's discuss the tropics. I see something brewing in the Bahamas. It will be interesting to watch the next couple of days.

What do you think? Any thoughts if this could become our first lady Beryl?
456. PBG00
News here is gearing up as well..went from no expectation of development yesterday to closly watching and "starting to develop" this morning..the nam has it going up the coast..the cmc more aggressive and into Fla
The upper-level SW winds over the Bahamas Blob have been fierce, and have continually sheared away the deep convection that has tried to form. I can see the wave axis in the movement of the low-level clouds, with NE or ENE winds to the west and SE winds to the east (this on the GHCC visible close-up). If the surface feature makes progress to the east or NE, the upper-level winds are very much weaker...I think we might see it blowup at that point, but it will be at least a day. Maybe late tonight we will see the embryonic start of some real development.
i agree...this blog was full of global waming yesterday.

My Blog
If the low-level feature makes progress to the WEST or NW!!

(Edit feature now, please)
461. PBG00
I think by friday we will have something
462. PBG00
Lost the post..I think we will have something by friday
463. IKE
Almost looks like the Bahamas blob is now moving SE..maybe it loops back once the high builds in.
Spatial Dyslexia is a terrible disease for the amateur meteorologist...please forgive generously ;-(

I'll be back later to check in one everyone's thoughts on the Bahama Blob-Proto-Beryl; we might have something to worry about by then. Definitely too close for comfort for the whole SE coast.


465. PBG00
I think it it getting its act together
today te cmc is showing a fairly potent storm crosing florida and emerging into the gulf. i very well think thiis could be our next storm.
does anyone beleive that if berly forms before next friday that we might be loking at 2005 again.

Alberto ACE 2.51
Arlene ACE 2.56

Bret 2005 formed around June 28.
468. PBG00
I think we are in for another wild season even if beryl does not form by next friday...I think we may have beryl by this weekend
Another indicator of a bad season:

Arlene: 1 death (direct)
Alberto: 2 deaths (both indirect)
tropical weather outlook from June 21, 2005

TWOAT
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1030 PM EDT TUE JUN 21 2005

FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...

A TROPICAL WAVE IS PRODUCING CLOUDINESS...SCATTERED SHOWERS...AND
THUNDERSTORMS OVER MUCH OF THE NORTHEASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA AND
ADJACENT LAND AREAS. ALTHOUGH CONDITIONS REMAIN UNFAVORABLE FOR
TROPICAL CYCLONE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR...LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL AND
GUSTY WINDS MAY ACCOMPANY SOME OF THE STRONGER SHOWERS ACROSS
SOUTHERN HISPANIOLA AS THE SYSTEM MOVES WEST-NORTHWESTWARD AT 15 TO
20 MPH.

A DEEP UPPER-LEVEL TROUGH IS PRODUCING CLOUDINESS...SHOWERS...AND
SCATTERED THUNDERSTORMS FROM THE BAY OF CAMPECHE AND THE YUCATAN
PENINSULA NORTHEASTWARD ACROSS THE EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND THE
FLORIDA PENINSULA...AND INTO THE EXTREME WESTERN ATLANTIC
FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES. TROPICAL CYCLONE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT
EXPECTED...BUT PERIODS OF LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL MAY OCCUR ACROSS
PORTIONS OF THE FLORIDA PENINSULA FOR THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.

ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL STORM FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED THROUGH
THURSDAY.

FORECASTER STEWART
but the system in the bay of campeche fromed into bret........just goes to show....dont wait on the NHC to know something is brewing.
hey 456..... i agree, i just have a feeling that we will have more activity than forecasted....

as for this behama blob, nice to have some weather to talk about......tired of politics and gw....
hey 456..... i agree, i just have a feeling that we will have more activity than forecasted....

as for this behama blob, nice to have some weather to talk about......tired of politics and gw...
New blog up...
I was just looking through the NHC tropical weather outlook between June 1 and July 15. boy were they off....they only was sure on tropical storm Arlene and Hurricane Dennis...but poorly off on Bret (because of its proxmity to land) cindy the same and Emily they said upper level winds.

these were they most common words. Conditions dont appear favorable. Development is nor expected over the next 24 hours.

the word expected is like saying....I am not sure if something will form.

of course that is the way of things vague terms and such because they simply dont know ,it is what is called and educated guess simply no better than an uneducated guess lol
Here is the True Truth about an inconvenient truth!

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/07/07/an-inconvenient-truth.aspx

"Its all lies. As Ive already said, the biggest
falsehood in this film is about so-called climate
change. Climate change is what the liberals claim
is happening to this planet to scare good Christians
into voting for them. They say that the world is
getting hotter (the junk science technical term for
this is global warming) and say that if we dont do
something about it soon we will all be dead because of
rising sea levels. They also say that this climate
change is caused by pollution. Suspiciously enough,
they also claim that this pollution is caused by
people living the American way by driving nice cars
and not sitting in the dark at night. Thats right:
the very way of life that liberals hate!"
lol hi yall im from the future!