WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Category 3 Bingiza hits Madagascar

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 1:25 PM GMT on February 14, 2011

Tropical Cyclone Bingiza roared ashore over Northern Madagascar early today as a dangerous Category 3 hurricane with 115 mph winds. Recent microwave imagery from NASA's TRMM satellite shows that Bingza had a large region of heavy rains of 0.4 - 0.7 inches per hour in the eyewall and inner spiral bands at landfall. Rainfall amounts of up to 8 inches are being predicted along Bingza's path over northern Madagascar for the coming 24 hours by NOAA's automated tropical cyclone rainfall prediction system. Rains of this magnitude are capable of causing dangerous flooding in Madagascar, and the storm's winds and storm surge likely caused serious damage in the moderately populated area where the storm came ashore. Bingiza will weaken today as it traverses the island, but is expected to re-intensify once it emerges over the Mozambique Channel between Africa and Madagascar on Tuesday, where sea surface temperatures are about 0.4°C above average. As the storm skirts the western coast of Madagascar Tuesday and Wednesday, the island will receive additional very heavy rains on its mountainous slopes. Madagascar suffers from extensive deforestation, and a storm like Bingiza is capable of causing very dangerous floods.


Figure 1. True color satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Bingiza as it approached landfall in Madagascar at 07 UTC on February 13, 2011. Image credit: NASA.

Bingiza is just the second tropical cyclone in the Southwest Indian Ocean (west of 90E) during the 2010 - 2011 season; this is an unusually low amount of activity for the basin. The only other storm so far this season has been Tropical Cyclone Abele (29 Nov - 4 Dec 2010), a Category 1 storm that stayed out to sea. Bingiza is the 4th major (Category 3 or stronger) tropical cyclone world-wide this year.

Jeff Masters

Hurricane

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

Enhanced Infrared (IR) Imagery (4 km Mercator)




Time of Latest Image: 201102141300
When does the southern hurricane season poop out?
South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. It began on November 15, 2008, and officially ended on April 30, 2009, with the exception for Mauritius and the Seychelles, for which it ended on May 15, 2009. These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the basin, which is west of 90E and south of the Equator. Tropical cyclones in this basin were monitored by the Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre in Runion.
Tropical Cyclone BINGIZA: Prior wind affected areas:

South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. It began on November 15, 2008, and officially ended on April 30, 2009, with the exception for Mauritius and the Seychelles, for which it ended on May 15, 2009. These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the basin, which is west of 90E and south of the Equator. Tropical cyclones in this basin were monitored by the Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre in Reunion.
URGENT - FIRE WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI FL
313 AM EST MON FEB 14 2011

FLZ063-066-070-142300-
/O.UPG.KMFL.FW.A.0008.110214T1800Z-110214T2300Z/
/O.NEW.KMFL.FW.W.0007.110214T1700Z-110214T2300Z/
/O.NEW.KMFL.FW.A.0009.110215T1700Z-110215T2300Z/
GLADES-HENDRY-INLAND COLLIER-
313 AM EST MON FEB 14 2011

...RED FLAG WARNING IN EFFECT FROM NOON TODAY TO 6 PM EST THIS
EVENING...
...FIRE WEATHER WATCH IN EFFECT TUESDAY AFTERNOON...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MIAMI HAS ISSUED A RED FLAG
WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM NOON TODAY TO 6 PM EST THIS
EVENING. A FIRE WEATHER WATCH HAS ALSO BEEN ISSUED. THIS FIRE
WEATHER WATCH IS IN EFFECT TUESDAY AFTERNOON.

RELATIVE HUMIDITIES WILL FALL TO LESS THAN 35 PERCENT FOR 4 OR
MORE CONSECUTIVE HOURS ACROSS GLADES, HENDRY, AND INLAND COLLIER
COUNTIES THIS AFTERNOON. LOWEST VALUES ARE FORECAST TO BE BETWEEN
28 AND 32 PERCENT.

DRY AIR WILL LINGER ON TUESDAY...WITH LOWEST AFTERNOON HUMIDITY
VALUES OF 28 TO 32 PERCENT STILL POSSIBLE OVER MUCH OF GLADES,
HENDRY, AND INLAND COLLIER COUNTIES.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A RED FLAG WARNING MEANS THAT CRITICAL FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS
ARE EITHER OCCURRING NOW...OR WILL SHORTLY. A COMBINATION OF
STRONG WINDS...LOW RELATIVE HUMIDITY...AND WARM TEMPERATURES WILL
CREATE EXPLOSIVE FIRE GROWTH POTENTIAL.

A FIRE WEATHER WATCH MEANS THAT CRITICAL FIRE WEATHER CONDITIONS
ARE FORECAST TO OCCUR. LISTEN FOR LATER FORECASTS AND POSSIBLE
RED FLAG WARNINGS.
8-10 inches of rain with Bingiza.
Good Morning! Another Sunny but cool day in the keys. Currently 65 degrees here in the keys but looking to be a pleasant mid 70's. Have a great day everyone.
Morning, everyone!

Quoting Ylee:
When does the southern hurricane season poop out?


I would expect that Southern May = Northern November
Complete Update





Storm Relative 1km Geostationary Visible Imagery



presidents day snowstorm for the NE per accuweather forecast,still a week a way,hang'n on to hope!
is expected to re-intensify once it emerges over the Mozambique Channel between Africa and Madagascar on Tuesday

Southern Africa is having flooding problems already. That is not good news.
Well we should be in for quite a warm up on the GoM states.
Thanks for the update Dr Masters & happy V-day!



MIT
Morning,

Glad the eyewall has a chunk missing now.

Which charities are reforestation focused?

NO more frost in North Florida!...at least this week
Oh wow they are thinking more of a southerly route now?


The ENSO update today should be interesting.
HPC Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts for the next 48 hours puts Northern CA in the zone for 4-5 inches of precip.

Anyway, for those who missed this, and perhaps were fixated on the misinformation, here we see a demonstration of water failing to be significantly heated by direct exposure to the sunlight, even as a background target is burned by the beam after it has passed through water (and glass).

Focused Fresnel Burns wood through an Aquarium: Water Not Heated

I finally found this, for anyone who cares to know the truth.



And here we have the controversial "Spontaneous combustion submerged in water".

Saturated wood and submerged leaves burn in the pressence of water.


In both cases, the water fails to absorb any significant portion of radiation, maybe a few watts, but insignificant compared to the amount of energy involved.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Oh wow they are thinking more of a southerly route now?


The ENSO update today should be interesting.


It's out.. you can kiss that La Nia goodbye. How about that warm bit to the south (barely pictured here)..

Water is transparent to everything BUT IR which is most significantly blocked by the atmosphere, and the surface of the water.

Also:


Spontaneous combustion is a type of combustion which occurs without an external ignition source. It is usually a slow process that can take several hours of decomposition/oxidation with heat building up to a point of ignition.


So that is not spontaneous combustion either.
Produce prices skyrocket with freeze in Mexico, Southwest

PORTLAND -- Get ready to pay double or even triple the price for fresh produce in the coming weeks after the worst freeze in 60 years damaged and wiped out entire crops in northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S.

The problem started less than a week ago, when our nation was focusing on the Superbowl and sheets of ice falling from Texas Stadium.

Farmers throughout northern Mexico and the Southwest experienced unprecedented crop losses. Now devastation that seemed so far away, is hitting us in the pocketbooks.

"We've had to double and triple some prices and consumers come in and it's quite a shock to them," said Rusty Peake, GM of Food4Less in Southeast Portland.

"Increase, increase, increase," said produce manager Troy Winterhalter as he watched urgent messages coming across his laptop computer. "Peppers, zucchini, cucumbers, asparagus, the entire asparagus crop was wiped out," said Winterhalter.

Roma tomatoes have more than doubled in price since Thursday and very soon they may not be available at all.

About the only produce not impacted by the freeze in the coming weeks are things grown right here in the Northwest like potatoes, onions and apples.

The situation is so dire, some stores can't honor certain advertised prices, which were ordered in local newspapers long before the freeze.

"Now I'm in a tough situation where I can't really support ads and I try to do the best I can letting the consumers know what's going on in the markets," said Peake.

He said this is the worst produce situation he's seen in 25 years in the business.

Next week, lettuce and spinach prices are expected to rise. Normal prices likely won't return until new crops in Mexico start producing again in late March and early April.
SOFIA Overview

NASA is developing the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy - or SOFIA - as a world-class airborne observatory that will complement the Hubble, Spitzer, Herschel and James Webb space telescopes.

Studying the Hidden Universe

The heat that we feel from our Sun or from a fireplace is infrared radiation (thermal energy). Even objects that we think of as being very cold, such as ice cubes, emit thermal energy. Measuring the infrared energy from astronomical objects is difficult because most of it is blocked by Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, most infrared astronomers use space telescopes to study the thermal emission from celestial objects.
SQUAWK!!!!!

:)

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!!!!!!!
Interestingly the water in that utube is a good loose metaphor for the atmosphere - higher energy frequencies pass through it and it warms the bottom first where the light is focused. If you kept it there you would have a heat build up and increased convection.

If you painted the bottom white like ice it would reflect a lot of the high energy and it would take much more radiation to warm it the same amount.

So when we have have cold down in Mexico and extreme warmth in the arctic we are losing ice volume that in the summer months would be reflecting energy.

So we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system this summer as a result of the climate system that made it cold down in Mexico.
If you had more heat at the bottom and assuming resulting convection (or not) what would be some of the mechanisms that would come into play that could suppress symptoms of extreme convection i.e. Hurricanes (if they are actually being suppressed)?

What else would they mean?
AMY!!!!!!!

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY TO YOU!!!!!!!
Wow, some rather disjointed posts in here this morning...few or no referents (I would have to assume that these are carry overs from the last blog)...

Happy Valentine's Day, by the way, to those of you to whom it has any meaning...LOL
Happy Valentines Day to everyone in Wunderland and my Daughter who turns 20 today.

Happy B-day Sammy Jo
Happy V-Day Jerry, to you and Mrs. Flood!!!

:)
21 I think so. I also think this has potential to be a rather severe season for the US.
Atlantic SSTs are still only slightly below where they were last year at this time--but the differences between 2009 and 2011 are pretty dramatic:

2009 (click for larger image):

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.



2011 (click for larger image):

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.
Next week, lettuce and spinach prices are expected to rise. Normal prices likely won't return until new crops in Mexico start producing again in late March and early April.

luckily, I grow so much in my little flower beds, that I can gather 1-2 laundrybaskets full every week. AND I get to give lots of it away, AND they say it's the best lettuce and spinach ever.

Quit worryin'- GROW SOMETHING
Quoting aquak9:
Next week, lettuce and spinach prices are expected to rise. Normal prices likely won't return until new crops in Mexico start producing again in late March and early April.

luckily, I grow so much in my little flower beds, that I can gather 1-2 laundrybaskets full every week. AND I get to give lots of it away, AND they say it's the best lettuce and spinach ever.

Quit worryin'- GROW SOMETHING


Planted collards, lettuce, spinach, turnips and beets last week hoping to get a late crop in if the cool weather holds. Tomatoes are up in flats too!

It should be a few months at least before food prices ease.
Quoting aquak9:
Next week, lettuce and spinach prices are expected to rise. Normal prices likely won't return until new crops in Mexico start producing again in late March and early April.

luckily, I grow so much in my little flower beds, that I can gather 1-2 laundrybaskets full every week. AND I get to give lots of it away, AND they say it's the best lettuce and spinach ever.

Quit worryin'- GROW SOMETHING


Good advice WaterDoggie. Only problem is that some of us live where we can't do that. I don't think that lettuce would do well in 2 feet of snow. LOL

But, then, maybe I could build a greenhouse. I might just look into that.

Or - go on the Atkin's diet and not do veggies at all. Yeah - there ya go - no veggies, just meat and potatoes. I think I like it.

Oh, wait, potatoes aren't on the Atkins diet. Drat! Now what do I do. Got it! Irish diet - Meat and potatoes.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Interestingly the water in that utube is a good loose metaphor for the atmosphere - higher energy frequencies pass through it and it warms the bottom first where the light is focused. If you kept it there you would have a heat build up and increased convection.

If you painted the bottom white like ice it would reflect a lot of the high energy and it would take much more radiation to warm it the same amount.

So when we have have cold down in Mexico and extreme warmth in the arctic we are losing ice volume that in the summer months would be reflecting energy.

So we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system this summer as a result of the climate system that made it cold down in Mexico.


This is a flawed statement. Heat is the process of energy being transfered between objects that are in thermal contact with each other due to a thermal gradient. Radiation is a method of transferring energy. If you take away more arctic sea ice then more heat is going to be added to the system through increased absorption of solar radiation.

You cannot have more energy added to the system than the amount of heat gained if the work done by the system is positive. That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that the change in the amount of internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. The Earth's atmospheric-oceanic system is always doing more work as it warms up and gains energy. Thus, according to the equation of the 1st law, Q must always be greater than Delta-E.
Jflorida:

Water is transparent to everything BUT IR which is most significantly blocked by the atmosphere, and the surface of the water.

Also:


Ok, here we have to be sure we aren't mixing up terms, because "atmosphere" broadly refers to both "air" and "clouds" and "water vapor".

A "cloud" contains lots of things: air, water vapor, water droplets, ice crystals, dust particles, etc. It has the properties of it's contaminants, which are not rightly applied to "air" or "water" or "water vapor".

The majority of the Earth's albedo is produced by "clouds" deflecting light back into space via refraction from water droplets and reflection from contaminants or ice crystals, which is why visible and microwave imagery satellites work.

Now the "air" can't be blocking or absorbing too much radiation, else IR satellites wouldn't work for spotting "clouds". During the summer time, at just the right time of day, IR satellites even pick up hot spots on the surface, which are red and violet patches on the "hot" end of the scale, opposite of what the cold cloud tops are. If the "air" was absorbing IR, then these hot spots would not be visible, as they are "hot" but still "cooler" than the incident sunlight, but they manage to go all the way back up into space through the atmosphere, plus application of the inverse squared law, and still be above ambient.

The IR satellite also shows us that the "clouds" are not "absorbing" very much IR light either, they are actually reflecting and refracting it. After all, even in the full noon sun "clouds" are colder than the surface of the dark side of the earth.




This photo is a bit offset from the one I'd like to show, but I don't think the site allows it.

These cloud tops are actually COLDER than the mean surface temperature of Mars. A couple of the cold spots in Yasi were off the scale at one point, colder than the MINIMUM surface temperature of Mars.

Seeing as how these clouds are 12 to 16km above the surface, even above much of the mass of the "atmosphere", if they were absorbing any significant radiation, they "should" be hotter than the surface, since they would then be receiving the energy directly, and the surface wouldn't be receiving energy.

So the fact that the "clouds" composed of mostly air and water vapor, don't absorb much radiation at all is what makes the heat engine in a cyclone work, as it is a "nearly isolated" heat sink for the purposes of convection. Which is to say, very little energy input is coming from anything other than convection.

If clouds absorbed a significant portion of the sun's energy, then hurricanes should hit a full stop and just flat die out during the day time, because there would be no cold reservior for the heat engine to work. Yet we've seen storms rapidly intensify in the middle of the day.

Spontaneous combustion is a type of combustion which occurs without an external ignition source. It is usually a slow process that can take several hours of decomposition/oxidation with heat building up to a point of ignition.


So that is not spontaneous combustion either.


Well, it isn't flash boiling either. It's some form of combustion. Spontaneous may be the wrong word, but there isn't any other good fit either.

Pyrolysis would ordinarily be the next candidate, but pyrolysis is an anoxic process, which is typically observed in a sealed container after the oxygen is consumed.

Water has oxygen in it obviously for fish and other life. City tap water often has chlorine and flouride salts, both of which have combustion reactions with carbon and hydrogen.


Anyway, this response went on longer than I intended.
Levi, with La Nina seemingly gone what can we expect for this hurricane season? A Neutral year with no Nino/Nina or something like what we all feared back in 2005? Trying to get a base idea as to what we are looking at for SST´s, the placement of the Bermuda High and such. I know that anything right now will be just assumptions, but any information is welcome.
Actually levi you are incorrect again. Its called reflection.

Absorption on the surface is at wavelengths other than but including IR. Re emission is almost predominantly at IR.

In the Earth system conduction is not an issue from the sun being as space is a vacuum.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Actually levi you are incorrect again. Its called reflection.

Absorption on the surface is at wavelengths other than but including IR. Re emission is almost predominantly at IR.

In the Earth system conduction is not an issue from the sum being as space is a vacuum.


It doesn't matter where the spectrum falls with incoming and outgoing radiation, but the sum total of the heat gained by the system. Reflection reduces the amount of heat gained. A reduction in reflection increases the heat gained.
Energy in radiant energy - heat in the system.

It doesn't matter where the spectrum falls with incoming and outgoing radiation


Um thats the entire greenhouse effect - if we are frozen solid or not it doesn't matter?? That lag in transfer is GW.
Quoting plywoodstatenative:
Levi, with La Nina seemingly gone what can we expect for this hurricane season? A Neutral year with no Nino/Nina or something like what we all feared back in 2005? Trying to get a base idea as to what we are looking at for SST´s, the placement of the Bermuda High and such. I know that anything right now will be just assumptions, but any information is welcome.


One thing to keep in mind is that La Nina is not necessarily just going to go away, despite the ominous warm tongue showing up in the eastern Pacific. I show this in a video I'm putting up in a few minutes.

With the winter pattern finally flipping just now at the tail-end of the season, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to the Atlantic SST pattern, as it is currently in an abnormal state. We won't know a whole lot until we see how it evolves over the next couple months. One thing I am watching for is whether the waters west of Africa cool but the Caribbean warms.
.."Wait one Houston,,I'll get the flight plan and check dat"..
Well I dont think La Nina looks to be holding out for season considering.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Energy in radiant energy - heat in the system.

It doesn't matter where the spectrum falls with incoming and outgoing radiation


Um thats the entire greenhouse effect - if we are frozen solid or not it doesn't matter?? That lag in transfer is GW.


Yes, but don't address the spectrum of radiation hitting the surface and being re-emitted as if it matters in terms of reflection, which is what we were talking about. The greenhouse effect is another matter which is tied to the re-emission wavelength.
The blanket of UV and vis transparent yet IR absorbing GG around the planet is the "greenhouse."
Reflection is not emission or absorption. When its reflected back at the same wavelengths it passes back to space mostly unless it is reflected towards something that absorbs it.

Reflection
is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated. Common examples include the reflection of light, sound and water waves. The law of reflection says that for specular reflection the angle at which the wave is incident on the surface equals the angle at which it is reflected. Mirrors exhibit specular reflection.

Albedo or reflection coefficient, is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.


In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way by which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed to other forms of energy for example, to heat.


The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.

Each element's emission spectrum is unique.
Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. Similarly, the emission spectra of molecules can be used in chemical analysis of substances.

Am I the only one who reads that as "Bazinga" every time? ;)
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Well I dont think La Nina looks to be holding out for season considering.


Some modeling might not agree. But a neutral year is likely for 2011 imo.

Now a more compact version of the observation.

The fact that you can see "something" in a particular spectra is evidence that the "something" is not absorbing that spectra at all.

It is, in reality, either reflecting (refraction) that spectra, or emitting that spectra.

On a visible satellite, clouds are white because they are reflecting and refracting all visible spectra.

On an non-color enhanced infrared satellite, clouds are also "white" relatively speaking, because they are again reflecting and refracting almost everthing in the entire spectral range. If the clouds absorbed more infrared than they refract, reflect, or emitt, then, they would be invisible or nearly invisible in the IR spectra.

The shortwave IR satellite imagery improves at night time because you don't have all the "noise" caused by the sunlight being reflected. The IR you "see" on the imagery is what is radiating out of the cloud, not what the cloud allegedly absorbs from other radiation inputs. Again, you wouldn't "see" absorbtion. You "see" reflection, refraction, and emission.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Reflection is not emission or absorption. When its reflected back at the same wavelengths it passes back to space mostly unless it is reflected towards something that absorbs it.

Reflection
is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated. Common examples include the reflection of light, sound and water waves. The law of reflection says that for specular reflection the angle at which the wave is incident on the surface equals the angle at which it is reflected. Mirrors exhibit specular reflection.

Albedo or reflection coefficient, is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.


In physics, absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way by which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed to other forms of energy for example, to heat.


This I all know quite well. It was your wording that seemed contradictory earlier that I was mentioning, and your statement about more energy than heat being added is still wrong.
On an atomic/molecular level? - well yes and none of this really works like a "greenhouse" and within even "convection" there are sever factors simultaneously working.

Isnt that a bit petty especially considering the the statement and level it was in answer too?
Quoting JFLORIDA:
is expected to re-intensify once it emerges over the Mozambique Channel between Africa and Madagascar on Tuesday

Southern Africa is having flooding problems already. That is not good news.


Southern Madagascar was still suffering from a 2-year drought as of December 2010. Some tropical rains will most likely be welcomed to help break the drought, although I acknowledge that it can be too much of a good thing sometimes. The dry season is approaching and any rain right now is better than none.
Quoting CybrTeddy:


Some modeling might not agree. But a neutral year is likely for 2011 imo.



True - haven't looked in a bit. But not for all of them at last glance. I go with the model consensus for safety. But neutral still isn't la Nina.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
On an atomic/molecular level? - well yes and none of this really works like a "greenhouse" and within even "convection" there are sever factors simultaneously working.

Isnt that a bit petty especially considering the the statement and level it was in answer too?


You were speaking of the Earth system on the large scale. You were talking about reduction in reflection due to sea ice loss and you threw Mexico in there somehow. You then said that the result would be more energy than heat being put into the system this summer.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If you had more heat at the bottom and assuming resulting convection (or not) what would be some of the mechanisms that would come into play that could suppress symptoms of extreme convection i.e. Hurricanes (if they are actually being suppressed)?

What else would they mean?



I don't understand the question.

Are you refering to artificial, unnatural, or catastrophic heating of the ocean environment via something like a nuke, meteor, or volcano?


I have seen fire tornados in real life, and on youtube in fields. They can be truly feirsome sights! There are also lava tornados and steam tornados associated with volcanic islands.

These tend to be very small scale, a few dozen to a few hundred feet tall.

Small fire tornado:

youtube.com/watch?v=ssn2kmNf0ME

Big fire tornado:

youtube.com/watch?v=cGvTgYyANy8

this one is so huge it both has the flame in a tornado, and has the entire surrounding environment behaving much like a wedge cloud.


Or are you refering to a "small scale" heat-driven vortex in a tank or chamber?


Just took a look at Levi's video. It defiantly looks possible that La Nina will maintain.

Note how the La Nina reaches all the way up to -0.5C on the ENSO scale then begins to drop back down as Hurricane season progresses. This has been shown on this particular model for the last 2 months or so.
Quoting Levi32:


You were speaking of the Earth system on the large scale. You were talking about reduction in reflection due to sea ice loss and you threw Mexico in there somehow. You then said that the result would be more energy than heat being put into the system this summer.


Actually that was entirely correct.
Quoting CybrTeddy:
Just took a look at Levi's video. It defiantly looks possible that La Nina will maintain.

Note how the La Nina reaches all the way up to -0.5C on the ENSO scale then begins to drop back down as Hurricane season progresses. This has been shown on this particular model for the last 2 months or so.


Though to be fair, the CFS has a massive continuity bias, as we saw with the El Nino last winter.

However, the ECMWF, a more reliable ENSO model, is hinting at a leveling off and/or renewal as well.

Quoting JFLORIDA:


Actually that was entirely correct.


No it is not, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.
I hope levi didn't use models they are not acceptable especially when direct observation is available. According to him.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
I hope levi didn't use models they are not acceptable especially when direct observation is available. According to him.


Yet another person deciding to deliberately misunderstand what I said.
Quoting PcolaDan:
Am I the only one who reads that as "Bazinga" every time? ;)


Dan! Bazinga indeed...
It is not a closed system. More heat is trapped in and it is expressed in many forms.
Quoting Levi32:


Yet another person deciding to deliberately misunderstand what I said.



No I didn't also you disparaged paleoclimatology and proxies in general when in actually a proxies can be more valuable to climate than any singular direct measurement for a location.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
It is not a closed system. More heat is trapped in it expressed in many forms.


Aha, so you are talking about the greenhouse effect. I figured as much. You are still wrong. The amount of heat gained is greater than the change in total internal energy of the system. Why? The radiation of the Earth reflected back to the surface by the atmosphere is no different than radiation incoming from the sun, in the sense that they are both forms of energy adding heat to the system. You are considering that "back-radiation" as energy that was already in the system, instead of more heat added. That's where you are incorrect. Again, because the work done in this situation is always positive, the 1st Law says that Q is always greater than Delta-E.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
On an atomic/molecular level? - well yes and none of this really works like a "greenhouse" and within even "convection" there are sever factors simultaneously working.

Isnt that a bit petty especially considering the the statement and level it was in answer too?



Ok, i can agree with this statement, because I find that the definitions of terms like "conduction" and "convection" are meaningless or identical on the quantum scale.

They are "classical" terms which unfortunately are not even correct according to QM.

For example, at the quantum level, all convection is conduction, even though they are distinguished and defined as different in classical physics. If you have two molecules in space they do not transfer heat between one another unless they come into contact, or unless radiation carries energy from one to the other. If the two molecules never touch one another, and the emission spectra of one molecule does not exactly match what the other absorbs, then no energy transfer happens. The one molecule may lose energy to "space" via radiation, but the other won't gain energy.

*sigh*

And now we're back to why vaccum insulated water boils in sunlight without a lens, but only in a non-transparent container...
JFLORIDA,

It may just be me, but it seems that you are trolling for a fight. Calling someone out like that is rather trollish, don't you think?
Your words on proxies which are VAST independent climate datasets:

I personally can't wait for an independent data set to compare. I have no doubt there will be some warming shown in the 20th century, but I will be interested to see how it compares with other major data sets.






On climate models:

Hurricane models are tools to be used as an aid to forecasting, but they are horribly wrong a good deal of the time. Climate models are no different, and given the massive scale which they are asked to predict, they must be taken with scrutiny and grains of salt when it comes to century time-scale predictions.


The comparison was between IPCC projections and the XTRAP hurricane model, which is nothing more than trend continuation. That is exactly what the IPCC models look like as well with the various CO2 scenarios; a trend extrapolation. They don't look very dynamic, and do still lack the capability to properly model some of the major natural climate forcings.

Quoting jeffs713:
JFLORIDA,

It may just be me, but it seems that you are trolling for a fight. Calling someone out like that is rather trollish, don't you think?


hen he came and nitpick a answer but avoided the entire discussion.

Its you. Why do you comment when the entire issue was avoided to harass on a level of detail.

I think you are trolling.
Quoting Levi32:


Aha, so you are talking about the greenhouse effect. I figured as much. You are still wrong. The amount of heat gained is greater than the change in total internal energy of the system. Why? The radiation of the Earth reflected back to the surface by the atmosphere is no different than radiation incoming from the sun, in the sense that they are both forms of energy adding heat to the system. You are considering that "back-radiation" as energy that was already in the system, instead of more heat added. That's where you are incorrect. Again, because the work done in this situation is always positive, the 1st Law says that Q is always greater than Delta-E.


That is totally incorrect on the larger scale. Right, that is what we are discussing.

Reflected energy leaves the system at or near its incident spreed.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Your words on proxies which are VAST independent climate datasets:

I personally can't wait for an independent data set to compare. I have no doubt there will be some warming shown in the 20th century, but I will be interested to see how it compares with other major data sets.






On climate models:

Hurricane models are tools to be used as an aid to forecasting, but they are horribly wrong a good deal of the time. Climate models are no different, and given the massive scale which they are asked to predict, they must be taken with scrutiny and grains of salt when it comes to century time-scale predictions.


The comparison was between IPCC projections and the XTRAP hurricane model, which is nothing more than trend continuation. That is exactly what the IPCC models look like as well with the various CO2 scenarios; a trend extrapolation. They don't look very dynamic, and do still lack the capability to properly model some of the major natural climate forcings.



Yeah, so? I never suggested that models and proxies need to be thrown away entirely, or that they aren't useful or worthy endeavors to continue improving on.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


That is totally incorrect on the larger scale. Right, that is what we are discussing.

Reflected energy leaves the system at or near its incident spreed.


No it isn't. Radiation whether it is coming from the sun or being reflected towards the Earth by its atmosphere is transferring energy to the Earth.

Are you going to disprove the 1st Law? You must realize that Q isn't made up of just the radiation from the sun, but the radiation from the Earth as well, since it is relevant and gets reflected back to us to some degree, as well as absorbed by the atmosphere.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


hen he came and nitpick a answer but avoided the entire discussion.

Its you. Why do you comment when the entire issue was avoided to harass on a level of detail.

I think you are trolling.


It was hardly nitpicking, and was entirely relevant to your statement.
Quoting Levi32:


No it isn't. Radiation whether it is coming from the sun or being reflected towards the Earth by its atmosphere is transferring energy to the Earth.

Are you going to disprove the 1st Law? You must realize that Q isn't made up of just the radiation from the sun, but the radiation from the Earth as well, since it is relevant and gets reflected back to us to some degree.


It isn't reflected by the atmosphere to a large degree. And I dont know the refection coefficient of clouds for IR but all energy is not the same.

Thats not the greenhouse effect.
dashboard cowman!

:)
Quoting JFLORIDA:


It isn't reflected by the atmosphere to a large degree. And I dont know the refection coefficient of clouds for IR but all energy is not the same.

Thats not the greenhouse effect.


You're still avoiding the main point.

And yes it is reflected, and absorbed, to some extent. Both occur. And yes it is the greenhouse effect. It is the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and/or reflect some of the longwave IR radiation from the Earth, both of which result in an additional transfer of energy to the system which results in a warmer Earth than if the planet was without an atmosphere.
Are you talking about clouds at night or something?
Amyyyyy
:)
Quoting Levi32:


You're still avoiding the main point.

And yes it is reflected, and absorbed, to some extent. Both occur. And yes it is the greenhouse effect. It is the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and/or reflect some of the longwave IR radiation from the Earth, both of which result in an additional transfer of energy to the system which results in a warmer Earth than if the planet was without an atmosphere.


Greenhouse gases don't reflect light to any large extent that I know of. They absorb and emit IR.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If you had more heat at the bottom and assuming resulting convection (or not) what would be some of the mechanisms that would come into play that could suppress symptoms of extreme convection i.e. Hurricanes (if they are actually being suppressed)?

What else would they mean?



I guess if you are talking about natural causes suppression would be the same old stuff: Shear, dry air, and lack of heat sink/ventilation in the system.

We've seen that the anti-cyclone can be just as important to the engine as the surface conditions. After all, Wilma happened in October in water that had already been disturbed several times during the season. Before the Florida landfall, it even rapidly intensified AGAIN as it passed back over the same regions all the other strong hurricanes had passed in the SE gulf.

From NOAA website.


So there is some truth to the upwelling theory, but there is a lot more variability in the atmosphere than there is in the ocean surface conditions.


To me, shear and dry air are the most important factors. If there is no shear and no dry air, the storms tend to just run right on up to the max intensity predictor.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Greenhouse gases don't reflect light to any large extent that I know of.


Perhaps not a large extent, but they do. Everything does. There is no such thing as a perfect blackbody.

Now who's being picky? You still haven't explained how the 1st Law isn't violated.
Yea but that is not how it works - they absorb IR radiation. If there is a small percentage reflected then it is absorbed by the next GG molecule it encounters. LARGE wavelength remember.
Quoting JFLORIDA:

Greenhouse gases don't reflect light to any large extent that I know of.



Hmmmm...something don't seem right about that...
Quoting RecordSeason:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If you had more heat at the bottom and assuming resulting convection (or not) what would be some of the mechanisms that would come into play that could suppress symptoms of extreme convection i.e. Hurricanes (if they are actually being suppressed)?

What else would they mean?



I guess if you are talking about natural causes suppression would be the same old stuff: Shear, dry air, and lack of heat sink/ventilation in the system.

We've seen that the anti-cyclone can be just as important to the engine as the surface conditions. After all, Wilma happened in October in water that had already been disturbed several times during the season. Before the Florida landfall, it even rapidly intensified AGAIN as it passed back over the same regions all the other strong hurricanes had passed in the SE gulf.

From NOAA website.


So there is some truth to the upwelling theory, but there is a lot more variability in the atmosphere than there is in the ocean surface conditions.


To me, shear and dry air are the most important factors. If there is no shear and no dry air, the storms tend to just run right on up to the max intensity predictor.


In terms of the Earth as a whole, though, the most important depressor (over time) of convection is the convection itself. Convection mixes the fluid that it takes place in and acts to thermally stabilize it. This is why the weather is very calm behind hurricanes, and why we don't see more hurricanes per year than we do.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Yea but that is not how it works - they absorb IR radiation. If there is a small percentage reflected then it is absorbed by the next GG molecule it encounters. LARGE wavelength remember.


Both absorption and reflection contribute. Granted absorption is the greater majority. Are we ready to explain the 1st Law yet? I have to go to breakfast but I look forward to anything you have to add later.
still arguing???,I swear this blog use to have more adult posters?,apparently its mostly middle school kids now......talk of any storms for the contiguous on the horizon???....presidents day???
Heat and photons are the same exact thing. Greenhouse gases have multiple effects on heat equilibrium. For example, such gas can absorb a higher energy photon; and then emit multiple lower energy photons (in the IR region). So in essence, the more greenhouse gas, the more of the suns spectrum is being converted into the IR spectrum.

Second, photons in the IR range are not taken up in the electronic states of atoms. They are converted to vibrational and rotational energies, and lattices vibrations in certain solids. Regardless, greenhouse gases modify the net flux by multiple methods. Assuming that the concentrations and pressure are larger at the surface; they trap geothermal heat more effectively. So besides the added IR influx, and additionally trapped geothermal heat; all greenhouse gases do is act like a medium for trapping heat.
Maybe try a Long range forecast site Like Unysis or your area's scientific discussion stillwaiting.
Lots of news coming from the Great Barrier Reef, none of it good.

Still, the main threat to coral reefs remains climate change. Because
weak cyclones are a regular feature of coral reef systems, it’s the
increase in intensity rather than frequency that is cause for concern,
says Katharina Fabricius, principal research scientist with the
Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS).
Between 1970 and 2005 Australia’s Great Barrier Reef saw 116 cyclones
cross its path, none of which were category five. Since 2006, three
cyclones — Larry, Hamish, and now Yasi – have tackled the coastline with
category-five strength, dislodging large coral heads, the older corals
in the reef.
“Reefs take 10 years in the most favorable conditions, and up to 50
years in deeper water to recover, so the presently high frequency of
disturbance doesn’t give the reefs sufficient time to recover, and
consequently coral cover is declining,” Fabricius told Discovery News.
http://news.discovery.com/ earth/ great-barrier-reef-in-jeopardy-110214.html


Quoting JFLORIDA:
Yea but that is not how it works - they absorb IR radiation. If there is a small percentage reflected then it is absorbed by the next GG molecule it encounters. LARGE wavelength remember.


That's not right.

The reason "actual" greenhouses are constructed is because air, even humid air, is not very good at all for absorbing the spectra of light.

The glass or plastic act as both an insulating barrier AND an additional surface for radiation to become trapped by. Due to refraction, a certain portion of the radiation doesn't make it into the GH.

The same percentage that would have been reflected back out without the glass or plastic attempts to escape, but some of it is again deflected back towards the plants and other solid surfaces, where it has another chance to be absorbed. The air and water vapor are being heated by contact with the hot surfaces.

In warmer climates, greenhouses are made more to protect from pests and weather extremes, rather than heating. In cooler climates they serve all purposes simultaneously.

Now if you make the mistake of making a greenhouse out of double pane glass you will fry your plants, because double pane glass is too highly insulated, either by vacuum or by a noble gas.




We can also demonstrate this with a solar hot water heater, in which we see that the "air" plays no significant part in the absorption on which the solar hot water heater is based.



Solar Water Heater


The air absorbs almost nothing from EM. Air is heated due to contact with the water tank inside. The insulation, including double pane glass, prevents the hot air from mixing with cold air outside, which would carry away the heat through convection. In this case, the water tank is not vacuum insulated, but the entire system is highly insulated, as least as far as preventing convection.

To prove that "air" does not contribute to the absorbtion of the EM radiation involved, we simply look at an actual vacuum tube boiler.


This is how hot the surface would be in daylight without atmospheric COOLING by convection

Scientists at AIMS have investigated several long coral cores from
the Great Barrier Reef and that has allowed them to reconstruct
northeast Queensland summer rainfall back to the late 17th century,
providing more than 300 years of records to examine past climate
variability and change.Dr Lough said the research showed the 1973-1974 summer

wet season, when Brisbane experienced its previous major flood, was the
wettest in at least the past three centuries.She said extreme wet and dry events had always occurred

in Queensland, but the cores provided evidence that they are happening
more frequently now than they did in earlier centuries.
Here

Quoting jeffs713:
JFLORIDA,

It may just be me, but it seems that you are trolling for a fight. Calling someone out like that is rather trollish, don't you think?


It's not just you. He's done the same to me.
canes....word.....

;)
Maybe study a tad about the Venetian Atmosphere and Co2 as it relates to IR absorption...and other.





Atmospheriic Dynamiics of Venus and Earth

G.. Schubert1 and C.. Covey2
1Department of Earth anInstiitute of Geophysiics and Pllanetary Physiics
UCLA
2Lawrence Liivermore Natiionall Laboratory
VEXAG Venus-Earth Clliimate Workshop
November 4-5,, 2007
Greenbellt,, MD
Supported by the NASA Pllanetary Atmospheres Program (Grant NNX07AF27G to UCLA)
and the Offiice of Sciience,, US Department of Energy (Contract to LLNS LLC)..
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #23
DEPRESSION SUR TERRE, FORMER BINGIZA (05-20102011)
22:00 PM Reunion February 14 2011
=====================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Overland Depression, Former Bingiza (990 hPa) located at 16.2S 47.2E has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 60 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving west southwest at 14 knots.

Gale Force Winds
===============

Near Gale Force Winds
======================

Dvorak Intensity: OVERLAND

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 16.9S 45.3E - (Depression sur Terre)
24 HRS: 17.7S 44.1E - (Depression sur Terre)
48 HRS: 19.4S 43.1E - 30 knots (DEPRESSION Tropicale)
72 HRS: 21.3S 43.1E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)

Additional Information
======================

Former Tropical Cyclone Bingiza is weakening as it penetrates further inland but heavy rain activity should gradually expend all over the northern part of Malagasy and also organize into peripherical bands over the Mozambique channel. System is expected to go across Madagascar and come back oversea on the Mozambique channel on and after 24 hours, between Besalampy and Morondava. Environmental condition should then been favorable for re-intensification. Further forecast intensity is strongly linked to the duration overseas and to and eventual new landfall and current uncertainity remains high. Some available numerical weather prediction models forecast a mainly to totally overland track and other available ones forecast a mainly oversea track. Current forecast track result of a compromise between these scenarios.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Service will be issued at 0:30 AM UTC..
Just to add some insight into #96. Air does not absorb IR because it is composed of non-polar molecules (N2, O2, ECT) N - N or O - O. But when you get a polar molecule (CO2, H2O, CH4, ECT) C - O - C or H - O - H, the bonds can begin to vibrate, stretch and undergo other motions; which is how IR radiation is absorbed. The physical process involves the transfer of a photons momentum to an orbiting electron, but that would involve a lot of QED to explain. Therefore air is not a medium which traps heat, it allows photons to pass closer to the nucleus without undergoing interactions. Greenhouse gases trap IR radiation because the atoms themselves are capable of storing the energy.
Records from the past week for continental U.S.

Record Events for Mon Feb 7, 2011 through Sun Feb 13, 2011
Total Records: 2279
Rainfall: 285
Snowfall: 574
High Temperatures: 95
Low Temperatures: 657
Lowest Max Temperatures: 591
Highest Min Temperatures: 77
Quoting NRAamy:
canes....word.....

;)


Haha ;)
Quoting Levi32:


Both absorption and reflection contribute. Granted absorption is the greater majority. Are we ready to explain the 1st Law yet? I have to go to breakfast but I look forward to anything you have to add later.


No they are both not really factors in Global warming. That is not how it works. The first law is obeyed and more heat is transfered within the system.


Frankly I would think you would had at least took the time to understand something correctly before disparaging those studying it.


It also tells me that half this board cant accurately say why the earth is not a frozen ball right now or at least didn't become one permanently in its past.


After all the complaining. Thats just sad.



Ok now for the issues.


Common usage in the south "heat" is synonymous with temperature. "This heat is unbearable."

Now in thermodynamics heat is something else.

I am certainly looking forward to you correcting everyone on this matter. And I will point it out from here on out.



The BBC's Nick Ravenscroft in Seoul says that although winters are colder than anywhere else at its latitude, with frequent frost and snow, this year has been different.

January was the coldest since the 1960s.

Link
Moving along:

Specifically with respect to thermodynamics heat is related to conduction. It is conduction for that matter.

So what is your point here on the relationship with GW?



The first law of thermodynamics is an expression of the principle of conservation of energy.

The law expresses that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work performed by the system on its surrounding

the amount of heat supplied to the system - Hmm thats interesting isn't it?

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in china as I cant imagine a situation where it would not be conserved - (open systems obviously but its transfered out.)
Quoting RecordSeason:
Now a more compact version of the observation.

The fact that you can see "something" in a particular spectra is evidence that the "something" is not absorbing that spectra at all.

It is, in reality, either reflecting (refraction) that spectra, or emitting that spectra.

On a visible satellite, clouds are white because they are reflecting and refracting all visible spectra.




Correct. Due to the optical properties of water droplets, the visible spectrum gets scattered. Hence the white color.

On an non-color enhanced infrared satellite, clouds are also "white" relatively speaking, because they are again reflecting and refracting almost everthing in the entire spectral range.


INCORRECT.

Clouds in unenhanced IR images are white because they are absorbing IR radiaiton, occluding the IR emissions of the ground. If they didn't block and absorb IR, then you'd be able to see the ground level emissions, i.e. the clouds would be transparent.


If the clouds absorbed more infrared than they refract, reflect, or emitt, then, they would be invisible or nearly invisible in the IR spectra.



No they wouldn't. They would only be invisible in IR if they allowed IR radiation to pass through them, or if the clouds emitted IR radiation themselves. But they don't, which is why they show up on IR images.


The shortwave IR satellite imagery improves at night time because you don't have all the "noise" caused by the sunlight being reflected.


Nonsense. Long and shortwave IR satellites work just fine during both day and night operations. For a clear demonstration of this feel free to visit NHC's satellite imagery page. Clouds absorb IR so it doesn't matter whether radiation is coming from above or from the ground. Clouds are opaque in IR, and show up cold against the surface of the Earth.


The IR you "see" on the imagery is what is radiating out of the cloud, not what the cloud allegedly absorbs from other radiation inputs. Again, you wouldn't "see" absorbtion. You "see" reflection, refraction, and emission.


Again, nonsense. You can see absorption if the occluding object is amongst non-occluding objects. The atmosphere without clouds occludes less IR than the atmosphere with clouds, hence the clouds show up as occlusions on IR satellite images.

The IR you "see" on imagery is what is radiating from the planet. The clouds are not emitting IR, they are absorbing it. Hence they show up as blotches on an otherwise "bright" Earth.

Unusual rainfall and thunderstorms in Chile’s central zone have surprised the country, but there are yet to be any reports of damaged crops for the fruit industry. Sources close to FreshFruitPortal.com have said there is unlikely to be relevant damage to fruit crops due to the irregularity of the rainfall and because its intesity was different in various parts of the country. Daniel Torres from the Meteorological Directorate of Chile said that recent weather events could be explained as the result of a cold core high, which happens from time to time. “For this date it is unusual but it is cyclical behaviour,” he said. The rainfall comes after announcements from the Chilean government that it will introduce measures to help farmers amid the drought that persists in parts of the country, while declaring certain agricultural areas disaster zones.
South Korean soldiers were digging out cars and searching for trapped residents Monday as areas along its eastern coast tried to recover from the biggest snowfall in 100 years. More than 39 inches (1 meter) of snow blanketed the area over the weekend. The city of Gangneung got more than 30 inches (77.7 centimeters) on Friday alone, the most ever recorded since record-keeping began in 1911. And more is likely to come. More than 19 inches (50 centimeters) was forecast to fall Monday. The Gangwon provincial government reported $4.3 million in property damage from the snow, Yonhap said. More than 300 people were trapped in their homes in isolated mountain areas. Authorities had dispatched 22,000 workers and 1,750 snowplows to the area to clear the snow, it said.
Space Weather Alert

Pinged the inbox a few minutes ago

Space Weather Message Code: WARK05
Serial Number: 677
Issue Time: 2011 Feb 14 1921 UTC

WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected
Valid From: 2011 Feb 14 1922 UTC
Valid To: 2011 Feb 14 2359 UTC
Warning Condition: Onset
NOAA Scale: G1 - Minor


Thats not k index thats x ray flux.
Thats interesting Xyrus2000, I need to update my knowledge as to the absorption of clouds and water vapor comparatively.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Thats interesting Xyrus2000, I need to update my knowledge as to the absorption of clouds and water vapor comparatively.


Water vapor can be modeled as individual molecules of water (H2O), so the spectrum is dependent on temperature, pressure, impurities, ect; but won't vary to drastically.

Clouds are much more complex because there is a nuclei which water molecules bond to. Depending on what the nuclei is and all of the other properties which affect water vapor alone, cloud absorption spectrum's will vary drastically.
Quoting Xyrus2000:
The clouds are not emitting IR, they are absorbing it. Hence they show up as blotches on an otherwise "bright" Earth.

??? Everything above absolute zero (or -273.15 C, or -459.67 F ) emits IR all the time.

Yes, clouds are absorbing IR...and emitting it in all directions.

On satellite plots, clouds are emitting IR at a lower wavelength than the surface (due to lesser temperature) and below the bottom of the plotting limits, if set that way, that's all.
Quoting RecordSeason:


That's not right.

The reason "actual" greenhouses are constructed is because air, even humid air, is not very good at all for absorbing the spectra of light.


You are being deliberately dense.

Air, even humid air, is sparse even at the surface. It has nowhere near the density glass or plastic.

However, if you have a sheet of liquid water, it will work just as good as glass or plastic. Create a sealed window with two pieces of IR transparent material and then fill the center with water. Or if it's a cold enough day, make a sheet of nice clear ice and place it over a box (make sure it blocks out the air) with a thermometer inside.


...More comparitive nonesense between greenhouses and green house gases deleted...


Green houses work by trapping thermal radiation. This is done by using materials that reflect and/or absorb thermal radiation once inside the greenhouse.

Green house gases work the same way, only the atmosphere is not nearly as dense as the panes used on a greenhouse.

If you increase the atmospheric density, more heat will be trapped. The planet Venus has an atmosphere 92 times as dense as Earth's, comprised almost entirely of green house gases. At that density, any heat reaching the surface becomes trapped and cannot escape, turning the entire planet (even the dark side and the poles) into a broiling oven.
Here's something fun

== PRELIMINARY EARTHQUAKE REPORT ==

***This event has been revised.

Region: MT. ST. HELENS AREA, WASHINGTON
Geographic coordinates: 46.279N, 122.214W
Magnitude: 4.3 Md
Depth: 5 km
Universal Time (UTC): 14 Feb 2011 18:35:25
Time near the Epicenter: 14 Feb 2011 10:35:25
Local standard time in your area: 14 Feb 2011 13:35:25

Location with respect to nearby cities:
9 km (6 miles) NNW (344 degrees) of Mount St. Helens Volcano, WA
31 km (20 miles) S (171 degrees) of Morton, WA
35 km (22 miles) SE (143 degrees) of Mossyrock, WA
78 km (48 miles) NNE (23 degrees) of Vancouver, WA


ADDITIONAL EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS
________________________________
event ID : UW 02141835

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist For subsequent updates, maps, and technical information, see:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/Q uakes/uw02141835.php
Venus is in isothermal equilibruim, which means that there is almost no temerature change from any one location to any other at the same altitude. It emitts radiation exactly as quickly as it recieves it from the sun.


Everyone likes to use Venus as an example, but it's a poor example, because Earth could never reach a similar temperature no matter how bad an alleged greenhouse effect became here.

The equilibrium temperature would be only half that of Venus, even if we did somehow have a runaway greenhouse effect.


Venus's atmosphere is 93 times more surface pressure than earth. This is somewhere around 1300psi.

This is the equivalent of being under 937 meters of water on earth.

This is also equivalent t the entire weight of a compact automobile being balanced on a one inch square rod...for every square inch of the planet.

Since the surface gravity is about 10% less than earth, this means the mass of the atmosphere is around 100 times greater than that of earth.

If venus was a cold planet, oh say, about where Mars is, then it would be covered in a half kilometer of dry ice!!

So Venus atmosphere is 96.5% Carbon Dioxide vs 0.038% Carbon Dioxide for the earth.

Since Venus' atmosphere is 100 times as massive as Earth's atmosphere, this means that Venus atmosphere has around:

E atmosphere = 5.27E18kg

V atmosphere = ~5.27E20kg

96.5% of ~5.27E20kg = 5.08E20kg CO2.


so Venus has 96.5 times as much CO2 as the mass of the earth's entire atmosphere, or 2539 times as much CO2 as the earth's atmosphere contains, or about as much mass as the top 250 meters of the earth's crust.

The comparison is really pointless, because you'd need to vaporize all of the earth's water in order to get to similar surface pressures. Even then the temperatures would not get anywhere near as high as Venus because of the inversed squared law. Earth gets half as much energy per square meter.

Earth's Isothermal equilibrium temperature would never go above about half that of Venus, which is about 367K, or 94.5C, which is less than the boiling point of water.


Not that I'd care to be here long before things ever got that bad, but the point is, things would never, ever get that bad anyway. It isn't even physically possible for that to happen.
jwh250 had to put ya on ignore in order for the page to work
gotta fix post 116 or remove it
sorry bro
KOTG, I would but I can't modify that comment for some reason?
Quoting atmoaggie:
??? Everything above absolute zero (or -273.15 C, or -459.67 F ) emits IR all the time.

Yes, clouds are absorbing IR...and emitting it in all directions.

On satellite plots, clouds are emitting IR at a lower wavelength than the surface (due to lesser temperature) and below the bottom of the plotting limits, if set that way, that's all.


I think you know what I meant atmo. I KNOW everything above absolute 0 has an IR signature.
123. jwh250 8:19 PM GMT on February 14, 2011
KOTG, I would but I can't modify that comment for some reason?
Action: Quote | Ignore User


can not post to the page unless i put ya on ignore the blog stops at your post 116
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
jwh250 had to put ya on ignore in order for the page to work
gotta fix post 116 or remove it
sorry bro


Its not causing a problem on FF KOG
119. Neapolitan 8:01 PM GMT on February 14, 2011

I don't mind it rumbling... its when it decides it has a tummy ache that it bothers us.

I can do without all the Ash this time.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Its not causing a problem on FF KOG
iam using IE if i un-ignore him the posts end at 116 and you can go no further put on ignore and everything is fine
If you want to get in and fix it and Firefox and IE dont work use chrome. It always has worked for me.
The modify comment and quote buttons are not there, neither are the (+)(-)(!) buttons. Otherwise I'd ask everyone to go ahead and flag it to get rid of it.
Quoting Xyrus2000:


I think you know what I meant atmo. I KNOW everything above absolute 0 has an IR signature.
hokey, dokey.

And, no, wasn't following closely enough to know what you meant...
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If you want to get in and fix it and Firefox and IE dont work use chrome. It always has worked for me.


Since I switched to FF, I have never had a problem.
IE is suppose to be coming out with something new in the next few weeks.. and "apparently" its much smother and cleaner then the previous versions. It will also "supposedly" clean out all of the older versions.

That being said... it will only run on Win 7
Quoting Orcasystems:


Since I switched to FF, I have never had a problem.
IE is suppose to be coming out with something new in the next few weeks.. and "apparently" its much smother and cleaner then the previous versions. It will also "supposedly" clean out all of the older versions.
You mean that "Inept Explorer" might no longer be it's most appropriate name? Maybe?
yea the new IE is a lot better in compatibility tests. You can try the beta. I still have problems on edits in rich text and occasional weird stuff like the button stuff in Firefox. Usually the really weird stuff has to do with a div tag it seems like.
yup. Internet Explorer 9 is only for Windows 7.
Quoting atmoaggie:
You mean that "Inept Explorer" might no longer be it's most appropriate name? Maybe?


I will stay in the wait and see mode :)
Quoting JFLORIDA:
If you want to get in and fix it and Firefox and IE dont work use chrome. It always has worked for me.


Shouldn't have to, that's the point...
Here's a tip: freshman physics and basic chemistry thermo classes barely scratch the surface. If this is as far as you people have gotten, be quiet. You don't really know what you're talking about even if by blind luck you happen to be correct every now and then.
I never did get where all the complaints about IE came from; never really had any major issues with it and I've done a great deal of web development
Quoting shakaka:
Here's a tip: freshman physics and basic chemistry thermo classes barely scratch the surface. If this is as far as you people have gotten, be quiet. You don't really know what you're talking about even if by blind luck you happen to be correct every now and then.


Please, by all means, enlighten us; we're always willing to learn (well, some of us are)...include the math, if you would
Identifying Large Hurricanes Through Seismology


ScienceDaily, February 11, 2011 — Storm-generated seismic signals may allow seismologists to detect large hurricanes at sea and track their intensity, adding useful data to the discussion of whether anthropogenic global warming has increased the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms, including ones that don't reach land.



Ambient noise, or microseisms, is the pervasive background signal bathing the surface of Earth and is not produced by earthquakes. These surface waves generated by ocean storms are detected even in continental interiors far from source regions.
Researchers at Northwestern University demonstrate that the August 1992 category 5 Hurricane Andrew can be detected using microseisms recorded at the Harvard, Massachusetts seismic station, even while the storm is as far as 1200 miles away at sea. When applied to decades of existing analog seismograms, this methodology could yield a seismically identified hurricane record for comparison to the pre-aircraft and pre-satellite observational record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/1102 10184415.htm
Quoting Levi32:
Tropical Tidbit for Monday, February 14th


Thanks, Levi!

Do you have any links for info on the PDO and how in affects the weather in the US?
Floodman 9:02 PM GMT on February 14, 2011
I never did get where all the complaints about IE came from; never really had any major issues with it and I've done a great deal of web development


That post with the Office Space movie file does mess up the page with Internet Explorer 9 though.
I always hear about how some youtube video always messes up the page.

I've never had the page once mess up or lag on Safari.

But I never hear of people using Safari.
Quoting Floodman:


Please, by all means, enlighten us; we're always willing to learn (well, some of us are)...include the math, if you would


bad man.. bad man...
Stop encouraging them
Quoting HaloReachFan:
I always hear about how some youtube video always messes up the page.

I've never had the page once mess up or lag on Safari.

But I never hear of people using Safari.


I have it, and I use it on the Ipad.
Quoting RecordSeason:
Venus is in isothermal equilibruim, which means that there is almost no temerature change from any one location to any other at the same altitude. It emitts radiation exactly as quickly as it recieves it from the sun.


Everyone likes to use Venus as an example, but it's a poor example, because Earth could never reach a similar temperature no matter how bad an alleged greenhouse effect became here.

The equilibrium temperature would be only half that of Venus, even if we did somehow have a runaway greenhouse effect.


Venus's atmosphere is 93 times more surface pressure than earth. This is somewhere around 1300psi.

This is the equivalent of being under 937 meters of water on earth.

This is also equivalent t the entire weight of a compact automobile being balanced on a one inch square rod...for every square inch of the planet.

Since the surface gravity is about 10% less than earth, this means the mass of the atmosphere is around 100 times greater than that of earth.

If venus was a cold planet, oh say, about where Mars is, then it would be covered in a half kilometer of dry ice!!

So Venus atmosphere is 96.5% Carbon Dioxide vs 0.038% Carbon Dioxide for the earth.

Since Venus' atmosphere is 100 times as massive as Earth's atmosphere, this means that Venus atmosphere has around:

E atmosphere = 5.27E18kg

V atmosphere = ~5.27E20kg

96.5% of ~5.27E20kg = 5.08E20kg CO2.


so Venus has 96.5 times as much CO2 as the mass of the earth's entire atmosphere, or 2539 times as much CO2 as the earth's atmosphere contains, or about as much mass as the top 250 meters of the earth's crust.

The comparison is really pointless, because you'd need to vaporize all of the earth's water in order to get to similar surface pressures. Even then the temperatures would not get anywhere near as high as Venus because of the inversed squared law. Earth gets half as much energy per square meter.

Earth's Isothermal equilibrium temperature would never go above about half that of Venus, which is about 367K, or 94.5C, which is less than the boiling point of water.


Not that I'd care to be here long before things ever got that bad, but the point is, things would never, ever get that bad anyway. It isn't even physically possible for that to happen.
On Earth all that carbon is trapped as limestone. Presumably it was the same on Venus until it's oceans boiled away. Then it got hot enough for limestone to spontaneously decompose into CaO2 and CO2, which is why Venus now has 90 bars of CO2 in it's atmosphere. Earth will suffer a similar fate in about 3 billion years.
Quoting Orcasystems:


I have it, and I use it on the Ipad.


I meant nobody hear uses it.

Never had a problem on any site with Safari.

Don't know where it ranks overall though.
GOP Proposes $1.6 Billion Cut to EPA Budget, Defends $4 Billion in Oil Subsidies

Republicans unveiled a budget plan on Wednesday that proposed a $1.6 billion cut [1] to the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency whose authority they have sought to curtail, while business trade groups [2] have complained about the burden placed on them by agency regulations. Politico also reported that the GOP's proposal would hit the Energy Department hard [3], with a proposal to cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in half...more here
Quoting HadesGodWyvern:


That post with the Office Space movie file does mess up the page with Internet Explorer 9 though.


LOL...being an experienced user of Microsoft products (and for a long while one of their beta-testers) I have learned that no Microsoft software is safe to use until it's got a minimum of 5 updates available...

How you doing, HGW?
Quoting Orcasystems:


bad man.. bad man...
Stop encouraging them


We are, all of us, evil men in the service of a vengeful God, Orca...
ThinkProgress has learned that a law firm representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the big business trade association representing ExxonMobil, AIG, and other major international corporations, is working with set of “private security” companies and lobbying firms to undermine their political opponents, including ThinkProgress, with a surreptitious sabotage campaign.

Quoting Skyepony:
ThinkProgress has learned that a law firm representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the big business trade association representing ExxonMobil, AIG, and other major international corporations, is working with set of “private security” companies and lobbying firms to undermine their political opponents, including ThinkProgress, with a surreptitious sabotage campaign.



More evil men in the service of a vengeful god
Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet
Tyche may be bigger than Jupiter and orbit at the outer edge of the solar system
Quoting shakaka:
Here's a tip: freshman physics and basic chemistry thermo classes barely scratch the surface. If this is as far as you people have gotten, be quiet. You don't really know what you're talking about even if by blind luck you happen to be correct every now and then.


I didn't know you had to have a degree in math or science to discuss the weather here. This blog used to be fun........it's like a big pissing contest now......sigh...
re:116
Movieclips is NOT a YouTube,,

A Embed YouTube or Link can in no way break the thread here.

If one has a problem with a Browser with a post,just use the HIDE feature and it will disappear.

Or "Das Poof" it.
.
Quoting swampdawg:


I didn't know you had to have a degree in math or science to discuss the weather here. This blog used to be fun........it's like a big pissing contest now......sigh...


You just have to know how to deal with puffed up little popinjays, hon
I just yell SQUAWK at 'em....

:)
LOL, Amy...
I get a degree every day.

Usually the "Third" degree though,,
A Quick Look At 2011 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Posted: Feb 14, 2011 1:49 PM by Natalie Noah
Updated: Feb 14, 2011 2:01




It is a good time to start thinking about the coming 2011 Atlantic hurricane season. The season will officially start June 1st and end on November 30th. The 2010 estimates were correctly projected, a busy season, and forecasters are calling for an above-active one for 2011.

While El Nino conditions are unlikely this year, La Nina conditions in the equatorial Pacific are generally conducive toward an active hurricane season. Uncertainties whether La Niña conditions or neutral conditions are more likely for this hurricane season. Sea-surface temperatures in the far North Atlantic remain at record warm levels, which is an indication that we are in a active period during 2011 Atlantic hurricane season.

Ocean temperatures in the Atlantic are expected to be above normal and wind shear is predicted to be favorable for storm formation. Models are calling for an increased chance of U.S. landfall in this year, especially for the western Gulf states.

Forecasters across the country are predicting an above average season. Seventeen named storms, nine hurricanes, and five major hurricanes. A normal season has nine to twelve named storms, of which five to seven reach hurricane strength and one to three become major hurricanes. For now from expert predictions, expect another active round of storms for this upcoming 2011 hurricane season.

National Hurricane Center (NHC) 2011 Tropical Cyclone Names



http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml



Some people get a degree to show how much they know, other get a degree and realize how little they know.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


No they are both not really factors in Global warming. That is not how it works. The first law is obeyed and more heat is transfered within the system.


Frankly I would think you would had at least took the time to understand something correctly before disparaging those studying it.


It also tells me that half this board cant accurately say why the earth is not a frozen ball right now or at least didn't become one permanently in its past.


After all the complaining. Thats just sad.



Ok now for the issues.


Common usage in the south "heat" is synonymous with temperature. "This heat is unbearable."

Now in thermodynamics heat is something else.

I am certainly looking forward to you correcting everyone on this matter. And I will point it out from here on out.


I like how you came out guns flying when you knew I wasn't coming back.

Here's what you guys love posting from Wiki on almost a daily basis:

"The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]
This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]
"


This is a simple concept, and one that I understand perfectly well. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the Earth and re-radiate it, thereby "trapping" a certain amount of solar radiation that allows the planet to be warmer than a standard blackbody heated only by direct solar radiation.

You said this earlier today:

Quoting JFLORIDA:
So when we have have cold down in Mexico and extreme warmth in the arctic we are losing ice volume that in the summer months would be reflecting energy.

So we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system this summer as a result of the climate system that made it cold down in Mexico.


This is the statement I had a beef with. To which I responded:

Quoting Levi32:


This is a flawed statement. Heat is the process of energy being transfered between objects that are in thermal contact with each other due to a thermal gradient. Radiation is a method of transferring energy. If you take away more arctic sea ice then more heat is going to be added to the system through increased absorption of solar radiation.

You cannot have more energy added to the system than the amount of heat gained if the work done by the system is positive. That violates the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that the change in the amount of internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. The Earth's atmospheric-oceanic system is always doing more work as it warms up and gains energy. Thus, according to the equation of the 1st law, Q must always be greater than Delta-E.


Q is the net amount of heat absorbed by the system, which includes re-radiated heat from greenhouse gases. The first law must hold here, but your statement contradicted it. You have yet to explain yourself on this point. I don't see the need to personally attack me here, yet again. Can you not simply have a scientific discussion with me? I hope you realize that I wasn't even debating AGW with you that whole time. Just simple physics.
2011 Atlantic Hurricane names

Arlene
Bret
Cindy
Don
Emily
Franklin
Gert
Harvey
Irene
Jose
Katia
Lee
Maria
Nate
Ophelia
Philippe
Rina
Sean
Tammy
Vince
Whitney

Meteorology scares me a bit, I feel smart when my friends don't know what the North Atlantic Oscillation is, but than I realize I don't really know what it is either. I spose that's what college will be for
Quoting TaylorSelseth:
On Earth all that carbon is trapped as limestone. Presumably it was the same on Venus until it's oceans boiled away. Then it got hot enough for limestone to spontaneously decompose into CaO2 and CO2, which is why Venus now has 90 bars of CO2 in it's atmosphere. Earth will suffer a similar fate in about 3 billion years.


What you are talking about has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. You are referring to the mainstream stellar model, which claims that the sun is going to expand into a red giant and incinerate the planet.

That has nothing to do with greenhouse effect or even Venus.

==

Under normal conditions, by the inverse square law, Earth's maximum temperature is half that of Venus, and this number, at least the mean temperature, is actually below the boiling point of water, because the atmosphere cools the earth by carry heat away from the hot side.

If there were no atmosphere, the day side would be hotter than the surface of the moon, since the Albedo of the Earth's surface (neglecting atmosphere,) is less than that of the moon.
NOAA aint Wiki..last I checked.

I thought "Q" was that Alien on Star Trek the Next Generation as well.





Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center



Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming.

It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
lol. yea.

No you said reflected IR was a part of it - and its not and something incoherent about the first law of thermodynamics.

You know I dont know everything I dont mind being wrong. Perhaps you should learn a little humility when criticizing people working at this a lot longer then you. And Anthony Watts.

Energy that would be reflected by ice is now in the system.

And so I didn't contradict it you were incorrect.

And also its not "trapped solar energy" by then its re radiated IR so, there again. Terminology. Since it is so important.
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


Thanks, Levi!

Do you have any links for info on the PDO and how in affects the weather in the US?


You can learn some more about the PDO here, and from here you can view the average effects of the PDO on temperature and precipitation over North America.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
lol. yea.

No you said reflected IR was a part of it - and its not and something incoherent about the first law of thermodynamics.

You know I dont know everything I dont mind being wrong. Perhaps you should learn a little humility when criticizing people working at this a lot longer then you. And Anthony Watts.



I think you do.

"No you said reflected IR was a part of it"

I said greenhouse gases both absorb and reflect IR radiation. From what I have been taught, there is no such thing as a perfect blackbody.

You still haven't justified your statement that "we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system."
If this format sucks, I apologize.

I wrote this a while ago while I was waiting for the site to be fixed. Since it wasn't fixed, I got pissed off and downloaded another browser. Hopefully nothing breaks this time.


this is a response to Xyrus2000:

No they wouldn't. They would only be invisible in IR if they allowed IR radiation to pass through them, or if the clouds emitted IR radiation themselves. But they don't, which is why they show up on IR images.


By your logic, the sun would be invisible in the visible spectrum because it emitts visible light...

That doesn't even make sense any way you spin it.

Things have color because they either reflect or emitt that color more than most, regardless of the band.


A blue glass is blue because that is the color it does NOT absorb.

Black is black because it absorbs everything.

White is white because it absorbs nothing.*

*On your computer monitor it is a special case because it is using a concept called "pointilism" to re-construct "white" using primary colors.




Nonsense. Long and shortwave IR satellites work just fine during both day and night operations.


I never said otherwise. Quit misreprenting what I wrote.

They work much better at night, however.


For a clear demonstration of this feel free to visit NHC's satellite imagery page.
Clouds absorb IR so it doesn't matter whether radiation is coming from above or from the ground. Clouds are opaque in IR, and show up cold against the surface of the Earth.


I watch infrared all the time.

The clarity of short wave infrared most certainly improves at night time, which I shall be glad to demonstrate to you at any time, particularly during this season, as the systems for most of the other basins are annoyingly slow at updating, I cannot be bothered to do so at this time.

That doesn't make it useless during the day, which you tried to make a strawman argument and imply I said something I didn't say. It just means there's less "noise" at night.

And you are wrong anyway. Clouds ARE cold. They don't just "show up" as cold. They ARE cold because they do not absorb radiation.

If they were warm, as they would be had they absorbed radiation, then a hurricane would not form.

Hurricane is based off of a heat engine between the surface and atmosphere.

Hurricanes require extremely cold cloud tops in sub-zero temperatures. If the clouds were absorbing infrared this would not be possible.

The clouds are not emitting IR, they are absorbing it. Hence they show up as blotches on an otherwise "bright" Earth.



That is ridiculous.

When A cloud passes over your head outside, you experience "shade", not because of any absorbtion, but because the clouds REFLECT 30% of EM.

See "Albedo" article in Wikipedia or a textbook.

If clouds absorbed this radiation, then you would actually get hotter, because the clouds would function as a manifold and heat the surrounding air by convection/wind, even in the "shade".

But what we observe in reality is that when a cloud moves into the area, especially a strong storm, temperatures in the entire region drop.

Rain temperatuers are much lower than surface temperatures, because the water vapor and water droplets have not absorbed any radiation.

As the precipitations fall, they heat up because they are moving through much warmer air which has been heated by the surface.


The CLOUDS reflect more EM radiation than the surface of the earth, thankfully, and represent the majority of the earth's albedo. Otherwise, we'd be baked to a crisp by now.

If CLOUDS absorbed EM radiation then the earth would be about 20% to 30% hotter than it is.

If clouds absorbed EM radiation hurricanes could never form because they wouldn't have a cold reservoir and the cloud tops would be hotter than the surface temperatures.


I don't care about some insignificant number like 1 watt per meter, or one specific frequency in the entire band which makes up a relatively insignificant fraction of the total energy, so don't be ridiculous.


I hope you also know that IR radiation is not the same thing as "temperature".

You can increase "Temperature" in a lot of ways that have little to nothing to do with radiation, but may or may not produce radiation later as a side effect.

Friction
Impacts
conduction (physical contact)
Convection
Also the first law applies to isolated systems. So either way you are incorrect as the earth, sun atmosphere is NOT.
Quoting swampdawg:


I didn't know you had to have a degree in math or science to discuss the weather here. This blog used to be fun........it's like a big pissing contest now......sigh...
that no one will ever win
Quoting Levi32:


I think you do.

"No you said reflected IR was a part of it"

I said greenhouse gases both absorb and reflect IR radiation. From what I have been taught, there is no such thing as a perfect blackbody.

You still haven't justified your statement that "we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system."


No they do not they absorb and emit IR. That is the greenhouse effect.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Also the first law applies to isolated systems. So either way you are incorrect as the earth, sun atmosphere is NOT.


I didn't understand that fragmented sentence.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No they do not the absorb and emit. That is the greenhouse effect.


They absorb, re-emit, and reflect. The greenhouse effect is primarily from re-radiation. I don't understand what your issue is with this.
In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with an open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.

Isolated system

See also: Thermodynamic system
Give me an example of a greenhouse gas reflecting.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with an open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.

Isolated system

See also: Thermodynamic system


Yeah that basically follows my Physics textbook definition:

A closed system is a system into or out of which thermal energy can be transferred but from which no constituents can escape and to which no additional constituents are added.

From the University of Wisconsin:

The Earth system as a whole is a closed system. The boundary of the Earth system is the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually no mass is exchanged between the Earth system and the rest of the universe (except for an occasional meteorite). However, energy in the form of solar radiation passes from the Sun, through the atmosphere to the surface. The Earth in turn emits radiation back out to space across the system boundary. Hence, energy passes across the Earth's system boundary, but not mass, making it a closed system.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with an open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.

Isolated system

See also: Thermodynamic system



True isolated systems don't exist.

Hypothetical textbook physics is ok for introducing concepts, but beyond that is largely pointless


We can get better insulation through things like vacuum or reflectivity, however.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Give me an example of a greenhouse gas reflecting.


It is my current understanding that every material that is not a perfect blackbody reflects some of the radiation that hits it, as well as letting some pass through it.

Perhaps somebody with a more advanced background in physics can confirm or deny that statement I just made.
Anyone who cant hold their Cussing tongue here is relegated to the recycle bin Immediately.

Reason and logic never open with a potty mouth.

So yer dismissed.


The WunderBlogs are a forum for our members to express their opinions and ideas about weather, the outdoors, and nearly everything. Some blogs, such as Dr. Masters' Blog, have special community standards that apply only to them. For the blogs at large, as well as special or featured blogs, our Terms of Service apply. Please remain within the bounds of the Terms of Service. This document will strive to provide pointers for operating within the Wunderground community.

Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
2. Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
3. Foul language is not allowed.
4. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
5. Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
6. No spam.
184. Levi32 11:04 PM GMT on February 14, 2011

You must really be bored... you have been tweaking their tails all day, they have even been trying to double team you.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Give me an example of a greenhouse gas reflecting.


See the clouds in the visual satellite video below that post.

I can do better than that though.

Have you ever...seen...smoke or even sublimating CO2?

It's white when it is relatively dense (unless there are impurities in it.) When it spreads out it becomes "transparent".

This experiment works even in climate controlled conditions, such as low humidity.

Not my video, but watch how the CO2 gas is white. There may be some condensation involved in this, but if there is, the water is immediately evaporating again.

Dry Ice

Dry Ice Bubble

Neglecting the film of detergent and water, we have a... white... cloud of CO2.
Me tinks the author is a "they" as well here.

So anyone who agrees with published known data and peer-reviewed material accepted by the Scientific Community,,Globally, is a they?


Fascinating

Quoting Levi32:


It is my current understanding that every material that is not a perfect blackbody reflects some of the radiation that hits it, as well as letting some pass through it.

Perhaps somebody with a more advanced background in physics can confirm or deny that statement I just made.


I dont even know if that would matter with gases in a atmosphere. Its not part of the "greenhouse effect" but might be some kind of feedback someone is working on if it exists.
Quoting Levi32:


Yeah that basically follows my Physics textbook definition:

A closed system is a system into or out of which thermal energy can be transferred but from which no constituents can escape and to which no additional constituents are added.

From the University of Wisconsin:

The Earth system as a whole is a closed system. The boundary of the Earth system is the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually no mass is exchanged between the Earth system and the rest of the universe (except for an occasional meteorite). However, energy in the form of solar radiation passes from the Sun, through the atmosphere to the surface. The Earth in turn emits radiation back out to space across the system boundary. Hence, energy passes across the Earth's system boundary, but not mass, making it a closed system.


Which is fine but the whole discussion is about that energy. So then energy is conserved. Did I say it was not?

I can see their point though. Photons are thought of as massless.

Perhaps that is why so many have people have trouble is there are little exceptions.

Isolated systems are completely isolated from their environment. They do not exchange heat, work or matter with their environment.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


I dont even know if that would matter with gases in a atmosphere. Its not part of the "greenhouse effect" but might be some kind of feedback someone is working on if it exists.

Which is fine but the whole discussion is about that energy. So then energy is conserved. Did I say it was not?


Yup.

Quoting JFLORIDA:
So when we have have cold down in Mexico and extreme warmth in the arctic we are losing ice volume that in the summer months would be reflecting energy.

So we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system this summer as a result of the climate system that made it cold down in Mexico.




Oldest to newest relating to the earlier subject matter, to one degree or another, from the old dusty paper bin and one recent related discussion paper. OK, they were the first few in that directory in that folder, LOL :)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960ApJ...132..473 G


http://langley.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/D ocuments_1980/Stephens_JAS_Cirrus_1980.pdf


http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/_docs/Stephens_a nd_Tsay_%281990%29.pdf


http://www.mdpi.org/sensors/papers/s8031832.pdf


http://www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/4/33/2011/ amtd-4-33-2011.pdf
Quoting Levi32:


Yup.







+1
Can we define and quantify,"yup" ?

I dont think its happening personally.

Maybe "they" do.



wattsupwithdat


Quoting Patrap:
Me tinks the author is a "they" as well here.

So anyone who agrees with published known data and peer-reviewed material accepted by the Scientific Community,,Globally, is a they?


Fascinating




"They"
Quoting Levi32:


Yup.







Well done grasshopper :)
Quoting RecordSeason:



"They"


No, its THEM !! ~~ LOL

Draw your own inference :)
Quoting swampdawg:


I didn't know you had to have a degree in math or science to discuss the weather here. This blog used to be fun........it's like a big pissing contest now......sigh...


I repeat myself, however there are a lot of people on here educated far beyond their intelligence.
No I did not.

I should say the result is less work is performed by the system. thermodynamically. Or less crosses the boundary.

I don't think that is a very clear way to state that.

Its really not good to use strict thermodynamics to explain that system - because technically it is open.

Also the energy reflected exits instantaneously.
Quoting twincomanche:


I repeat myself, however there are a lot of people on here educated far beyond their intelligence.


Actually the entire discussion was very interesting... I spent a fair amount of time looking things up on google. Their combined knowledge on the subject was well above my pay grade.

I was very impressed with how Levi presented his information and his choice of words and he stayed away from the low road.

It was like a well played Chess Match.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No I did not.

I should say the result is less work is performed by the system. thermodynamically. Or less crosses the boundary.

I don't think that is a very clear way to state that.

Its really not good to use strict thermodynamics to explain that system - because technically it is open.


Well at long last you finally respond to what I have been trying to address for half the day.

My impression has been that you were referring to the global climate system, and my impression was solidified when you didn't correct me on which "system" you were referring to, but rather led me on a goose chase for however long it was around the subject, though it was interesting to discuss.

Now if you were only talking about the arctic ocean, then that is a different matter. However, you didn't immediately jump to tell me that like I would have expected you to.
Thermodynamics is more for studying mechanical work. Its a bit crude as is for exotic energy transfer.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Actually the entire discussion was very interesting... I spent a fair amount of time looking things up on google. Their combined knowledge on the subject was well above my pay grade.

I was very impressed with how Levi presented his information and his choice of words and he stayed away from the low road.

It was like a well played Chess Match.


I agree, I just wish that some here could develop some social skills.
Quoting Levi32:


Well at long last you finally respond to what I have been trying to address for half the day.

My impression has been that you were referring to the global climate system, and my impression was solidified when you didn't correct me on which "system" you were referring to, but rather led me on a goose chase for however long it was around the subject, though it was interesting to discuss.

Now if you were only talking about the arctic ocean, then that is a different matter. However, you didn't immediately jump to tell me that like I would have expected you to.


No its part of the global energy balance. Classical Thermodynamics is mainly just the conservation of energy and mass in a mechanical system.

Atmospheric thermodynamics is used in met but it is still going to lead to difficult explanations.
.moving on,



Tropical Cyclone BINGIZA, RAAMB page




Time of Latest Image: 201102142300




Quoting JFLORIDA:
Thermodynamics is more for studying mechanical work. Its a bit crude as is for exotic energy transfer.


What else is the flow of our atmospheric system but mechanical work?
Quoting JFLORIDA:


No its part of the global energy balance. Classical Thermodynamics is mainly just the conservation of energy and mass in a mechanical system.

Atmospheric thermodynamics is used in met but it is still going to lead to difficult explanations.


So were you or were you not referring to the global system? Or were you referring only to the system containing the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere directly above it?
Oh well guess there is no other way. So be it. Lets do it right.

Remember you asked for it.

So how would a situation of less ice be addressed in that system correctly with respect to energy as it is encounter now?

Use correct terminology
The albedo of polar regions varies from that of open water (0.05) to that of new snow (0.90). Ice occurring in between but more towards snow.

We will neglect horizontal differences in floating ice shelves and open ocean.
You two!!

Really???

Still???

wow
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Oh well guess there is no other way. So be it. Lets do it right.

Remember you asked for it.

So how would a situation of less ice be addressed in that system correctly with respect to energy as it is encounter now?

Use correct terminology


I would appreciate an answer to the question in #212, otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.
This January saw the lowest observed ice ever for that month. Of course its winter in the northern hemisphere. But still we are near or past historic global ice lows.
Ha ha!.You can tell when the pattern around here is changing.Becuase everytime it does It gets very windy around here.For an exsample when we were going into a warm pattern,on Saturday it was very wind.Now that were going into a cold pattern again it is also windy.Weather...you just gotta love WEO tornadoes,hurricanes,and blizzards.
That arctic exchanges mass thats not even close to a thermodynamic system.

We are talking global always.

Ummmmm,

That cant be good.




Quoting JFLORIDA:
That arctic exchanges mass thats not even close to a thermodynamic system.

We are talking global always.



Ok, so my issue with your statement "So we can expect more energy then heat to be put into the system" remains.

Explain how that doesn't violate the first law. I already stated my case multiple times.
216. PcolaDan 4:15 PM PST on February 14, 2011
You two!!

Really???

Still???

wow


yeah...pretty much....

;)
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Oh well guess there is no other way. So be it. Lets do it right.

Remember you asked for it.

So how would a situation of less ice be addressed in that system correctly with respect to energy as it is encounter now?

Use correct terminology


Honest Question

I have to ask JFLORIDA, the last few times I have seen that term used was during Exams and/or Labs... are you a Professor or Teacher by chance?

Your knowledge on a few subjects is quite impressive.
Can a Brotha get a "Hmmmmmmmmmmm"?

Quoting JFLORIDA:
That arctic exchanges mass thats not even close to a thermodynamic system.

We are talking global always.



Wait, what? Concise terminology, please...remember, I got my degree in 1983, so go S-L-O-W
Now you can access your favorite Cryosphere Today images from the middle of the pack ice, provided you have a nearby cell tower and/or wifi node. Visit our custom Cryosphere Today mobile web application created specifically for the iPod touch and iPhone handheld devices.

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/
Quoting Floodman:


Wait, what? Concise terminology, please...remember, I got my degree in 1983, so go S-L-O-W


Forget it Flood.. we were still doing tubes back then.
Quoting Orcasystems:


Forget it Flood.. we were still doing tubes back then.


Maybe in Canada, brother...we've been solid state since 1968..LOL
Quoting Patrap:
Can a Brotha get a "Hmmmmmmmmmmm"?



It means little until we also observe ice extent during a period where the thermohaline circulation isn't pumping abnormally warm water into the arctic region. That won't occur for another 15-20 years.
Quoting Floodman:


Maybe in Canada, brother...we've been solid state since 1968..LOL


True... Canadian Navy was still using tubes in some of our Radars till 83 (BTW, so was the US).
You know, I have an image of the two of them, feverishly researching the arcane bits, 6 or 7 browser windows open with myriad tabs, all frantically searching and presenting data...LOL

It's a duel, right? We used to do this in my Physics study group (28 years ago)...this just has considerably less math apparent
Quoting Floodman:
You know, I have an image of the two of them, feverishly researching the arcane bits, 6 or 7 browser windows open with myriad tabs, all frantically searching and presenting data...LOL

It's a duel, right? We used to do this in my Physics study group (28 years ago)...this just has considerably less math apparent


The initial duel is over, Levi shot him with one of his own posts. I think the question has now been massaged so that the presented data can be made to fit.

Quoting Floodman:
You know, I have an image of the two of them, feverishly researching the arcane bits, 6 or 7 browser windows open with myriad tabs, all frantically searching and presenting data...LOL

It's a duel, right? We used to do this in my Physics study group (28 years ago)...this just has considerably less math apparent
Dont ya mean 28,00 years ago?
Quoting Orcasystems:


True... Canadian Navy was still using tubes in some of our Radars till 83 (BTW, so was the US).


LOL...got me...though that was the DEW line...all inside Canada and well, I guess tubes were what they had to deal with...

Don't get me wrong; some of my best friends are Canadians...LOL

Disclaimer: Any disparaging remarks about Canada or Canadians are tongue-in-cheek and meant solely for entertainment purposes. Please note that no Canadians were injured in the writing of this post, though some have been lightly bruised.
We may need a Beck style chalkboard medley of three,with wheels..and lotsa eraser's.

Bottled water.

Genny in case we lose powa.

Caffiene.

Air Cards.

MRE's

Quoting Orcasystems:


The initial duel is over, Levi shot him with one of his own posts. I think the question has now been massaged so that the presented data can be made to fit.



Ahhh...the ignominy...hoist' on his own petard

LOL
Quoting hydrus:
Dont ya mean 28,00 years ago?


Shhhh...I'm trying to be relevant...LOL

Quoting Floodman:


LOL...got me...though that was the DEW line...all inside Canada and well, I guess tubes were what they had to deal with...

Don't get me wrong; some of my best friends are Canadians...LOL

Disclaimer: Any disparaging remarks about Canada or Canadians are tongue-in-cheek and meant solely for entertainment purposes. Please note that no Canadians were injured in the writing of this post, though some have been lightly bruised.


Thats priceless... I want to use it... I will change the country to protect the innocent.
Quoting Orcasystems:



Thats priceless... I want to use it... I will change the country to protect the innocent.


Well, of course! All my comments, phrases and filthy limericks are in the public domain and may be used, though if used for monetary gain I require a writing credit
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #24
DEPRESSION SUR TERRE, FORMER BINGIZA (05-20102011)
4:00 AM Reunion February 15 2011
=====================================

At 0:00 AM UTC, Overland Depression, Former Bingiza (997 hPa) located at 16.4S 45.6E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gusts of 40 knots. The disturbance is reported as moving west southwest at 17 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: OVERLAND

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 16.9S 43.7E - 25 knots (PERTURBATION Tropicale)
24 HRS: 17.9S 42.7E - 30 knots (DEPRESSION Tropicale)
48 HRS: 19.6S 42.2E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 21.4S 43.0E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)

Additional Information
======================

Former BINGIZA has accelerated and should be back over the Mozambique Channel earlier than forecast. It should be back oversea within the next 6 to 12 hours near Besalampy. It is then expected to recurve southwestward then and southward and regularly intensify undergoing favorable environmental conditions. Further forecast intensity is strongly linked to the duration oversea and to an eventually new landfall.

Current uncertainity remains high, some available numerical weather prediction models forecast a mainly to totally overland track and other available ones forecast a mainly to totally oversea track. Current forecast track results of a compromise between these scenarios.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 6:30 AM UTC..
Quoting Floodman:


Shhhh...I'm trying to be relevant...LOL
Yoo is relavent. We are having some great weather here on the plateau. Did lots of yard work today. It was actually a pleasure to do it .
Spacecraft Hour From Comet Encounter


NASA plays Cupid within the Hour

PASADENA, Calif. -- As of today, Feb. 14, at 9:21 a.m. PST (12:21 p.m. EST), NASA's Stardust-NExT mission spacecraft is within a quarter-million miles (402,336 kilometers) of its quarry, comet Tempel 1, which it will fly by tonight. The spacecraft is cutting the distance with the comet at a rate of about 10.9 kilometers per second (6.77 miles per second or 24,000 mph).

The flyby of Tempel 1 will give scientists an opportunity to look for changes on the comet's surface since it was visited by NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft in July 2005. Since then, Tempel 1 has completed one orbit of the sun, and scientists are looking forward to discovering any differences in the comet.

The closest approach is expected tonight at approximately 8:40 p.m. PST (11:40 p.m. EST).

During the encounter phase, the spacecraft will carry out many important milestones in short order and automatically, as the spacecraft is too far away to receive timely updates from Earth. These milestones include turning the spacecraft to point its protective shields between it and the anticipated direction from which cometary particles would approach. Another milestone will occur at about four minutes to closest approach, when the spacecraft will begin science imaging of the comet's nucleus.

The nominal imaging sequence will run for about eight minutes. The spacecraft's onboard memory is limited to 72 high-resolution images, so the imaging will be most closely spaced around the time of closest approach for best-resolution coverage of Tempel 1's nucleus. At the time of closest encounter, the spacecraft is expected to be approximately 200 kilometers (124 miles) from the comet's nucleus.

The mission team expects to begin receiving images on the ground starting at around midnight PST (3 a.m. on Feb. 15 EST). Transmission of each image will take about 15 minutes. It will take about 10 hours to complete the transmission of all images and science data aboard the spacecraft.

Live coverage on NASA TV and via the Internet begins at 8:30 p.m. PST (11:30 p.m. EST) from mission control at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Coverage also will include segments from the Lockheed Martin Space System's mission support area in Denver. A post-flyby news conference is planned on Feb. 15 at 10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EST).

For NASA TV streaming video, scheduling and downlink information, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv .

The live coverage and news conference will also be carried on one of JPL's Ustream channels. During events, viewers can take part in a real-time chat and submit questions to the Stardust-NExT team at: http://www.ustream.tv/user/NASAJPL2 .

During its 12 years in space, Stardust became the first spacecraft to collect samples of a comet (Wild 2 in 2004), which were delivered to Earth in 2006 for study. The Stardust-NExT mission is managed by JPL for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver built the spacecraft and manages day-to-day mission operations.

A press kit and other detailed information about Stardust-NExT is online at: http://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov .







Quoting hydrus:
Yoo is relavent. We are having some great weather here on the plateau. Did lots of yard work today. It was actually a pleasure to do it .


Been nice here too...warm (ish) and clear skies
Quoting Levi32:


It means little until we also observe ice extent during a period where the thermohaline circulation isn't pumping abnormally warm water into the arctic region. That won't occur for another 15-20 years.


Eh? Which cycle are you referring to? And what is the periodicity?

We have satellite data going back to 1979, and before then we have ice extent maps from military subs and other naval vessels (not as accurate, but give a general idea).

Beyond that, proxies (temperature as well as sedimentary and organism deposits such as diatoms) give general approximation of arctic ice extent.

The end result is that the arctic sea ice hasn't been as low as it has in quite some time.

That's not to say circulation patterns aren't playing a role. A coworker of mine just finished a Ph. D thesis on multi-decadal and longer circulation oscillations and their impacts. But if sea ice extent is primarily the result of warm water influxes, then we should see something similar within the relatively recent record if you're talking about a sub-century oscillation.

---EDIT---
Also, if the ice continues to decline at the current rate then in 15-20 years there won't be much multi-year ice left. That certainly would have been noticed over at least the past couple of centuries.
Levi and JF have been fighting for the past several hours. Nothing new.

Move along, move along....
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Eh? Which cycle are you referring to? And what is the periodicity?

We have satellite data going back to 1979, and before then we have ice extent maps from military subs and other naval vessels (not as accurate, but give a general idea).

Beyond that, proxies (temperature as well as sedimentary and organism deposits such as diatoms) give general approximation of arctic ice extent.

The end result is that the arctic sea ice hasn't been as low as it has in quite some time.

That's not to say circulation patterns aren't playing a role. A coworker of mine just finished a Ph. D thesis on multi-decadal and longer circulation oscillations and their impacts. But if sea ice extent is primarily the result of warm water influxes, then we should see something similar within the relatively recent record if you're talking about a sub-century oscillation


I speak mainly of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). It has been sending abnormally warm water into the arctic ocean since 1995 when it flipped to its positive phase (the AMO has a period of ~60-80 years). One could argue that the significant decline in arctic sea ice extent did not begin in earnest until after 1995. There is a very slight decline before that between 1979 and 1995, but one must remember that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was in its positive phase during that time, helping global temperature rise, though it doesn't contribute nearly as much to arctic sea ice melt in a direct oceanic fashion as the AMO since the Pacific Ocean is nearly closed off from the Arctic Ocean.

_____!!!.I see the debate is still going on.Anyway the trees once again will be blooming early this year.Thats not good with a person who has bad allergies(me).The buds on some trees you can see far away.So in the D.C area spring will be making a come back in the coming few weeks.However if your a snow lover like me in my region then you can almost kiss that last chance of a snow storm good bye....
Largest planet in the solar system could be about to be discovered - and it's up to four times the size of Jupiter

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 9:52 AM on 14th February 2011

  • Comments (56)
  • Add to My Stories

Scientists believe they may have found a new planet in the far reaches of the solar system, up to four times the mass of Jupiter.

Its orbit would be thousands of times further from the Sun than the Earth's - which could explain why it has so far remained undiscovered.

Data which could prove the existence of Tyche, a gas giant in the outer Oort Cloud, is set to be released later this year - although some believe proof has already been garnered by Nasa with its pace telescope, Wise, and is waiting to be pored over.

A new world? Astronomers believe a huge gas giant may be within the remote Oort Cloud region

A new world? Astronomers believe a huge gas giant may be within the remote Oort Cloud region

Prof Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette believes the data may prove Tyche's existence within two years.

He told the Independent: 'If it does, [fellow astrophysicist Prof John Matese] and I will be doing cartwheels. And that's not easy at our age.'

 

More...
  • Radiation particles will sterilize any baby girl being conceived in deep space, say scientists

He added he believes it will mainly be made of hydrogen and helium, with an atmosphere like Jupiter's, with spots and rings and clouds, adding: 'You'd also expect it to have moons. All the outer planets have them.'

He believes the planet is so huge, it will ahve a raised temperature left from its formation that will make it far higher than others, such as Pluto, at -73C, as 'it takes an object this size a long time to cool off'.

Isolated: The Oort Cloud, where Tyche is believed to be, is a sphere with a radius of one light year

Isolated: The Oort Cloud, where Tyche is believed to be, is a sphere with a radius of one light year

He and Prof Matese first suggested Tyche existed because of the angle comets were arriving, with a fifth of the expected number since 1898 entering higher than expected.

However, Tyche - if it exists - should also dislodge comets closer to home, from the  inner Oort Cloud, but they have not been seen.

If confirmed, the status and name of the new planet - which would become the ninth and potentially the largest - would then have to be agreed by the International Astronomical Union. 

Currently named Tyche, from the Greek goddess that governed the destiny of a city, its name may have to change, as it originated from a theory which has now been largely abandoned.

Quoting caneswatch:
Levi and JF fighting for the past several hours. Nothing new.

Move along, move along....



America Today
Quoting Floodman:


Been nice here too...warm (ish) and clear skies
I checked a few of the long range forecasts. Maybe one more Arctic blast with some severe weather ...It should be interesting to watch.
Quoting Levi32:


I speak mainly of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). It has been sending abnormally warm water into the arctic ocean since 1995 when it flipped to its positive phase (the AMO has a period of ~60-80 years). One could argue that the significant decline in arctic sea ice extent did not begin in earnest until after 1995. There is a very slight decline before that between 1979 and 1995, but one must remember that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was in its positive phase during that time, helping global temperature rise, though it doesn't contribute nearly as much to arctic sea ice melt in a direct oceanic fashion as the AMO since the Pacific Ocean is nearly closed off from the Arctic Ocean.

One could say, in a relative sense, that the AMO has been sending increasingly warmer water into the Arctic since about 1977, just before the first satellite data on the matter. Up until about 2 years ago...
Yeah you see that picture in the Doc's post?.Yeah we sould see that this year however spinning the other way around.And may I add while I'm at it Bingiza looks like a backwards Fred from 2009?
Darwin Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #1
TROPICAL LOW 16U
9:00 AM CST February 15 2011
===============================================

At 6:30 AM CST, Tropical Low, (1002 hPa) located over the western Top End near 13.2S,130.7E, or about 40 km west southwest of Batchelor is reported as moving north northwest at 2 knots. The low is expected to remain slow moving near the northwest Top End coast during today and Wednesday.

GALES are not expected in coastal areas within the next 24 hours, however gales could develop later.

The Territory Controller advises communities under Cyclone Watch that now is the time to put together your emergency kit, clear your yards and balconies, and commence home shelter preparations.

Residents of Darwin and the Rural Area are advised that if you DO NOT have accommodation constructed to the Building Code or are unsure of your present accommodation you should determine which public emergency shelter to use. This advice is issued to allow you sufficient time in which to take the necessary precautions before winds reach a dangerous level.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
==================================
A Cyclone WATCH has been declared for a developing tropical low for coastal areas from Daly River Mouth to Goulburn Island, including Darwin, Croker Island and the Tiwi Islands.

The next tropical cyclone advice will be issued at around 7:00 AM UTC..

This should scare all of us: US ATC (Air Traffic Control) is still the largest consumer of vacuum tubes in the world for radars and control towers. Yes, the equipment in many installations is that old.)



Quoting Orcasystems:


True... Canadian Navy was still using tubes in some of our Radars till 83 (BTW, so was the US).


Quoting caneswatch:
Levi and JF have been fighting for the past several hours. Nothing new.

Move along, move along....
Best fight we've had in the last 7 days... like skilled swordsmen with rapiers / foils and no protective guard.... good stuff for a change. [claps politely from sidelines]....
Quoting BahaHurican:
Best fight we've had in the last 7 days... like skilled swordsmen with rapiers / foils and no protective guard.... good stuff for a change. [claps politely from sidelines]....


Howdy, Baha!



Of course on Anthony Watts site he says its wrong because it doesn't look like the blink images.

Of course those are related to AREA!!!!
Quoting Floodman:


Howdy, Baha!
Hey, Flood.... thought I saw ur wit in here.... lol

Almost as rapier sharp by itself as the earlier "debate".... lol
I wouldn't be surprised if AMO didn't have something to do with the record breaking temps / storms / etc of the 1920s and '30s.... that being the last time we've seen some of the anomalies we've seen in the last year or so.

Still doesn't explain the ice shift / reduction, but certainly something else to consider.... and definitely something else to consider as we look at the upcoming ATL season.....
How can there be a planet in our own solar system 4x the size of Jupiter and it not have been discovered yet?
I think we can put the mysterious cycle to bed forever. And if its still breathing in the morning a pillow is convenient.

The calvary isn't coming. It wont come. Like you made clear Levi the heat or work is cumulative. Its retention by CO2 and things like ocean saturation and arctic ice feedbacks show its accelerating.

We lost Ice through your positive and negative AMO BY YOUR GRAPH.
Quoting CAbear:
This should scare all of us: US ATC (Air Traffic Control) is still the largest consumer of vacuum tubes in the world for radars and control towers. Yes, the equipment in many installations is that old.)






That should not scare you, vacuum tubes can do things digital cannot. Simplified: using Vacuum tubes you get a "true" representation of the information.. as there are NO data cuts (digital) of the available data. Its hard to explain in a quick note.

Musicians prefer to listen to their music on a "tubed" amplifier vice a digital amplifier... its the only way to get the "true" representation. Just like a record gives the true sound, vice a digital CD.
Quoting CAbear:
This should scare all of us: US ATC (Air Traffic Control) is still the largest consumer of vacuum tubes in the world for radars and control towers. Yes, the equipment in many installations is that old.)





My understanding is that vacuum tubes are less susceptible to electro magnetic pulse. I remember a story some years back when EMP was first publicized. It was about US technicians taking apart a MIG donated by a disgruntled North Korean and at first being surprised by the quaint electronics inside. Then someone thought, "Oh, that's actually a good idea."
Quoting Orcasystems:


That should not scare you, vacuum tubes can do things digital cannot. Simplified: using Vacuum tubes you get a "true" representation of the information.. as there are NO data cuts (digital) of the available data. Its hard to explain in a quick note.

Musicians prefer to listen to their music on a "tubed" amplified vice a digital amplifier... its the only way to get the "true" representation. Just like a record gives the true sound, vice a digital CD.

Yes, a tube is better for that reason, too.
Quoting jwh250:
How can there be a planet in our own solar system 4x the size of Jupiter and it not have been discovered yet?


It would explain why comets from the Oort Cloud approach the sun. Kicked off from the large gravity from Tyche.

This is the same with why NEO's approach Earth, asteroids knocked off from the asteroid belt by Jupiter.

This Tyche could also have an extremely high inclination orbit, and difficult to track if it is in the Oort Cloud because we have yet to even see a single comet(s) in the Oort Cloud so we're not able to confirm its existence (though its very likely to be there)
Quoting bappit:

My understanding is that vacuum tubes are less susceptible to electro magnetic pulse. I remember a story some years back when EMP was first publicized. It was about US technicians taking apart a MIG donated by a disgruntled North Korean and at first being surprised by the quaint electronics inside. Then someone thought, "Oh, that's actually a good idea."


When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees Celsius.

The Russians used a pencil

Disclaimer: Any disparaging remarks about USA or Americans are tongue-in-cheek and meant solely for entertainment purposes. Please note that no Americans were injured in the writing of this post, though some have been lightly bruised

Credit: Floodman
Phunny fer sure,..
But

the Russians have never left Earth orbit ,,pencil included.

Ack.....!


As You Remember It: The Lift-Off of APOLLO 11

"WUnderground one..we copy ya down..

....over ?"




Tropical Low Seventeen forecast track for the next 3 days.
Thanks, CyberTed - O.K. I see now that this planet has been hypothesized 28 years ago. I thought this was breaking news, wrong again: http://nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis

Nemesis, the Sun's companion star, 1983-present

Suppose our Sun was not alone but had a companion star. Suppose that this companion star moved in an elliptical orbit, its solar distance varying between 90,000 a.u. (1.4 light years) and 20,000 a.u., with a period of 30 million years. Also suppose this star is dark or at least very faint, and because of that we haven't noticed it yet.

This would mean that once every 30 million years that hypothetical companion star of the Sun would pass through the Oort cloud (a hypothetical cloud of proto-comets at a great distance from the Sun). During such a passage, the proto-comets in the Oort cloud would be stirred around. Some tens of thousands of years later, here on Earth we would notice a dramatic increase in the the number of comets passing the inner solar system. If the number of comets increases dramatically, so does the risk of the Earth colliding with the nucleus of one of those comets.

When examining the Earth's geological record, it appears that about once every 30 million years a mass extinction of life on Earth has occurred. The most well-known of those mass extinctions is of course the dinosaur extinction some 65 million years ago. About 25 million years from now it's time for the next mass extinction, according to this hypothesis.

This hypothetical "death companion" of the Sun was suggested in 1985 by Daniel P. Whitmire and John J. Matese, Univ of Southern Louisiana. It has even received a name: Nemesis. One awkward fact of the Nemesis hypothesis is that there is no evidence whatever of a companion star of the Sun. It need not be very bright or very massive, a star much smaller and dimmer than the Sun would suffice, even a brown or a black dwarf (a planet-like body insufficiently massive to start "burning hydrogen" like a star). It is possible that this star already exists in one of the catalogues of dim stars without anyone having noted something peculiar, namely the enormous apparent motion of that star against the background of more distant stars (i.e. its parallax). If it should be found, few will doubt that it is the primary cause of periodic mass extinctions on Earth
.
Quoting Levi32:


I speak mainly of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). It has been sending abnormally warm water into the arctic ocean since 1995 when it flipped to its positive phase (the AMO has a period of ~60-80 years). One could argue that the significant decline in arctic sea ice extent did not begin in earnest until after 1995. There is a very slight decline before that between 1979 and 1995, but one must remember that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was in its positive phase during that time, helping global temperature rise, though it doesn't contribute nearly as much to arctic sea ice melt in a direct oceanic fashion as the AMO since the Pacific Ocean is nearly closed off from the Arctic Ocean.



I figured it was the AMO, but I wanted to be sure that was what you were talking about.

If the AMO is indeed the primary driver for ice extents, then given the periodicity we should see similar declines over the past century or so. Satellite records go back to 1979, however detailed naval records go back to 1950. The data before 1950 isn't as reliable, so we'll leave that out.

Cryosphere Today has a decent graph that shows arctic ice extents have been dropping since around 1950, with a much quicker decline happening over recent decades. This time period contains a negative AMO, which lasted from around the mid '60's to the mid '90's. During that time period sea ice extent continued to decline.

This would seem to argue against the premise that the AMO is the main determining factor in the ice decline.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't play a role. Like any other climatological phenomena, it does have impacts to be sure. It just doesn't appear to be the main driver in this instance.

Skeptical science as a short article in regards to this topic, where they link to several peer reviewed papers that go into more depth.

Of course, if you're still skeptical then you'll have your answer in 15-20 years, barring some planetary catastrophe or superhuman global effort to change things.





Just a quick chime in on Tubes verses Solid State amps...

Agree on the superior sound quality of tube amps, have always preferred them, however the newest generation of solid state modeling amps are incredibly versatile! It's there, finally...

Check out this "Fender Mustang IV Amp Demo from 2011 Winter NAMM Show" and the delicious tone achieved (and one heckuva talented guitarist)...

Looking a lot more appealing, esp with the lighter weight / greater capabilities, than wagging around my old 100+ lb Ampeg tube back-breaker, if was still gigging, lol...
Quoting BahaHurican:
I wouldn't be surprised if AMO didn't have something to do with the record breaking temps / storms / etc of the 1920s and '30s.... that being the last time we've seen some of the anomalies we've seen in the last year or so.

Still doesn't explain the ice shift / reduction, but certainly something else to consider.... and definitely something else to consider as we look at the upcoming ATL season.....


You're forgetting that there was also a positive anomaly during the 50's and 60's.
Quoting iceagecoming:



The BBC's Nick Ravenscroft in Seoul says that although winters are colder than anywhere else at its latitude, with frequent frost and snow, this year has been different.

January was the coldest since the 1960s.

Link


And according to the Central England Temperature Record, December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C - just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890 and the Second Coldest December Temperature in the entire record (352 years).

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CETDECEMBER.jpg"

(Full CET data here)
Quoting hcubed:


And according to the Central England Temperature Record, December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C - just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890 and the Second Coldest December Temperature in the entire record (352 years).

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CETDECEMBER.jpg"

(Full CET data here)

Makes it even more amazing that for the planet as a whole, December 2010 was still the 17th warmest on record, doesn't it? I guess that's why they call it "global" warming, huh? ;-)
A good handtruck is a roadies best friend.

Almost



X class!
Quoting Orcasystems:


That should not scare you, vacuum tubes can do things digital cannot. Simplified: using Vacuum tubes you get a "true" representation of the information.. as there are NO data cuts (digital) of the available data. Its hard to explain in a quick note.

Musicians prefer to listen to their music on a "tubed" amplifier vice a digital amplifier... its the only way to get the "true" representation. Just like a record gives the true sound, vice a digital CD.


Tubes are analog, so they can represent the true waveform. Digital components can only simulate a true waveform. For most applications, you can make them practically indistinguishable as long as you are digitally sampling at twice the Nyquist frequency or higher Link.

So, mathematically speaking, if you wanted to replicate the spectrum of human hearing (0 to about 22,050 KHz), you need to sample the waveform at 44,100 KHz. If you've ever pulled tracks in from a CD into an editing program, this number should look familiar. :)
Quoting Orcasystems:


When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees Celsius.

The Russians used a pencil

Disclaimer: Any disparaging remarks about USA or Americans are tongue-in-cheek and meant solely for entertainment purposes. Please note that no Americans were injured in the writing of this post, though some have been lightly bruised

Credit: Floodman

Funny--if only true. Both Russia and the U.S used pencils until they realized they're flammable. Fisher developed the Space Pen on its own, then the governments of both countries started using it.

But we are appreciative of the Canadarm. ;-)
Space Weather Message Code: SUMX01
Serial Number: 68
Issue Time: 2011 Feb 15 0246 UTC

SUMMARY: X-ray Event exceeded X1
Begin Time: 2011 Feb 15 0144 UTC
Maximum Time: 2011 Feb 15 0156 UTC
End Time: 2011 Feb 15 0206 UTC
X-ray Class: X2.2
Location: S20W15
NOAA Scale: R3 - Strong

Jheez when do they get the astronauts into a safe room at the ISS?

Also the particles from the last flare are getting ready to arrive.





GEOS BBQ !
Quoting bappit:

My understanding is that vacuum tubes are less susceptible to electro magnetic pulse. I remember a story some years back when EMP was first publicized. It was about US technicians taking apart a MIG donated by a disgruntled North Korean and at first being surprised by the quaint electronics inside. Then someone thought, "Oh, that's actually a good idea."


Good point on the EMF.

My bad for being unclear, new tubes are OK (when they are available which has been problematical), but the scary part is the 1950s equipment they run installed on. Also, the programming is from the same era and that they do not have many programmers left alive that understand it. This may be seen in the number of times ATC goes down and affects an entire area.

And yes Russia is the source for most of the tubes, maybe because of all those MIGs... :-{)
Quoting RecordSeason:


What you are talking about has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. You are referring to the mainstream stellar model, which claims that the sun is going to expand into a red giant and incinerate the planet.

That has nothing to do with greenhouse effect or even Venus.

==

Under normal conditions, by the inverse square law, Earth's maximum temperature is half that of Venus, and this number, at least the mean temperature, is actually below the boiling point of water, because the atmosphere cools the earth by carry heat away from the hot side.

If there were no atmosphere, the day side would be hotter than the surface of the moon, since the Albedo of the Earth's surface (neglecting atmosphere,) is less than that of the moon.


Main sequence stars also slowly get brighter throughout their hydrogen-fusing time span. 4 billion years ago the sun was 30% dimmer than now, 4 billion years from now it will 30% brighter. This is because as a star fuses hydrogen to helium the helium builds up in the stellar core, making the core smaller and denser, and therefor hotter.

The inner edge of the Habitable Zone, defined as where on an earth-like planet the carbonate cycle reduces CO2 levels to levels too low for photosynthesis, is now not too far inside Earth's Orbit, a billion years from now CO2 levels, dropping as they compensate for the ever-brightening Sun, will reach 0. When that happens the planetary thermostat quits working, eventually the oceans will boil away and a runaway greenhouse will begin.

By the time the Sun starts to become a red giant Earth will already be like Venus.
Looks like its directed at earth too. from the same general area as the last. Moved over a bit.
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/beacon/

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

Remember, some in these links have data delay, but some parts within them don't.
Quoting CybrTeddy:


It would explain why comets from the Oort Cloud approach the sun. Kicked off from the large gravity from Tyche.

This is the same with why NEO's approach Earth, asteroids knocked off from the asteroid belt by Jupiter.

This Tyche could also have an extremely high inclination orbit, and difficult to track if it is in the Oort Cloud because we have yet to even see a single comet(s) in the Oort Cloud so we're not able to confirm its existence (though its very likely to be there)


A planet 4 times the size of Jupiter would have been spotted by now. Sky surveys would have picked up the IR signature of something that large, even if it were out by the Oort cloud (something that large would generate it's own heat).

And that's just one issue with a planet that large hanging out in the Oort cloud. There are many problems with validating the hypothesis of a massive dark companion that far out from the sun, including how it got there in the first place (there would not be enough mass that far away from the proto-sun for it to form).

Quoting Levi32:


You can learn some more about the PDO here, and from here you can view the average effects of the PDO on temperature and precipitation over North America.


Thanks, Levi!
Quoting CAbear:
This should scare all of us: US ATC (Air Traffic Control) is still the largest consumer of vacuum tubes in the world for radars and control towers. Yes, the equipment in many installations is that old.)







I should know, was a ground radar tech for the AF from 72-96 (and taught the courses).

Solid state just couldn't get the power needed for transmission. The processing of the return signal was handled by solid state, though.
Quoting Orcasystems:


When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ballpoint pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, underwater, on almost any surface, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 degrees Celsius.

The Russians used a pencil

Disclaimer: Any disparaging remarks about USA or Americans are tongue-in-cheek and meant solely for entertainment purposes. Please note that no Americans were injured in the writing of this post, though some have been lightly bruised

Credit: Floodman


Urban legend, and not true. A surprisingly old and enduring urban legend though.
Link

Link

Using a regular pencil in space is actually a big no no. Normal pencils create debris and particulate matter which can cause all sorts of issues if not careful. Grease pencils are okay though.
Below is the total incident radiation on the earth.


Total Irradiance






The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) measures the total solar irradiance (TSI), a measure of the absolute intensity of solar radiation, integrated over the entire solar irradiance spectrum. To construct this product, high time cadence measurements (approximately every 50 seconds during sunlit portions of the SORCE spacecraft orbit) from the TIM instrument are combined to produce representative daily and 6-hourly values of the Total Solar Irradiance. Four TIM channels track on-orbit degradation in the primary channel and additionally provide a limited degree of redundancy. Shuttered operation of the instrument corrects for thermal background, and state-of-the-art phase sensitive detection algorithms applied to the data at the shutter fundamental reduce noise and sensitivity to drifts. The TIM shutter period is 100 seconds; four such cycles are weighted to give a single irradiance measurement at a cadence of 50 seconds. These so-called Level data are averaged over an entire day as well as over each 6-hour interval to formulate the two primary SORCE TSI data products that are released to the GES DISC. The TSI value and the time stamp reported are means of the TSI measurements acquired during the interval.
Pic from 2006 and a the link to the source. I would say unequivocally, our Sun has not met expectations/predictions recently. Its worth keeping an eye on our personal Star, and we are! :)



Link
Quoting Xyrus2000:


A planet 4 times the size of Jupiter would have been spotted by now. Sky surveys would have picked up the IR signature of something that large, even if it were out by the Oort cloud (something that large would generate it's own heat).

And that's just one issue with a planet that large hanging out in the Oort cloud. There are many problems with validating the hypothesis of a massive dark companion that far out from the sun, including how it got there in the first place (there would not be enough mass that far away from the proto-sun for it to form).



Plus the hypothesis that a planet in the Oort cloud causes mass extinctions on earth is considered debunked by most paleontologists and historical geologists, except for a few cranky holdouts like Mike Rampino. There is no statistically significant evidence of any periodicity to mass extinction events, and the evidence is increasing that the K/T extinction is the only one in which an impact event played a major role, mainly because the impactor hit at the worst possible time (ecosystem stress from mass-vulcanism in India) at the worst possible place (sulfate and carbonate sediments).
PASADENA, Calif. -- As of today, Feb. 14, at 9:21 a.m. PST (12:21 p.m. EST), NASA's Stardust-NExT mission spacecraft is within a quarter-million miles (402,336 kilometers) of its quarry, comet Tempel 1, which it will fly by tonight. The spacecraft is cutting the distance with the comet at a rate of about 10.9 kilometers per second (6.77 miles per second or 24,000 mph).

The flyby of Tempel 1 will give scientists an opportunity to look for changes on the comet's surface since it was visited by NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft in July 2005. Since then, Tempel 1 has completed one orbit of the sun, and scientists are looking forward to discovering any differences in the comet.

The closest approach is expected tonight at approximately 8:40 p.m. PST (11:40 p.m. EST).


This composite image was taken by NASA's Stardust spacecraft 42 hours before its encounter with comet Tempel 1. It is the last image by the spacecraft's navigation camera before its encounter in the evening hours of Feb. 14, 2011. The image is a composite of four, five-second exposures.


In chocolate no less!
Recent observations:

An M4.3 earthquake struck the Mount St. Helens region this morning, 14 February 2011, at 10:35 a.m. PST (18:35 UTC) and was felt widely through southwestern Washington and Northwestern Oregon (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/event s/uw/02141835/us/index.html). Its exact magnitude may change by a few tenths from this value as records are further analyzed. The earthquake was followed by several aftershocks up to M2.8 over the next few hours (http://www.pnsn.org/recenteqs/latest.htm), the three largest of which were also reported felt. All of the earthquakes are located in an area about 8 kilometers (5 miles) north of the crater of Mount St. Helens, near the Johnston Ridge Observatory, at a depth of about 4 to 6 kilometers (2.5 to 4 miles).

Source: Link



Today's earthquakes are in the same place as a small swarm that took place about two weeks earlier, on 29 January. These earthquakes are reminiscent of a swarm that took place about 30 years ago, when a swarm of small earthquakes began in August 1980, a few miles northwest of today's activity. The 1980-1981 sequence climaxed with an M5.5 earthquake on 14 February 1981. Analysis of the 1981 events suggested that they occurred along existing faults in the Mount St. Helens seismic zone, a northwest to southeast trending system of faults in which Mount St. Helens lies. The Mount St. Helens seismic zone exhibits strike-slip motion, with the southwestern rocks slipping horizontally northwest relative to the rocks northeast of the fault zone. The fault zone likely exerts control on the location of Mount St. Helens volcano. Studies following the 1980 eruption suggested that the magma removed during the May 1980 eruption and subsequent lava-dome building caused faults along the seismic zone to slip in response to the magma withdrawal. Similar interaction of volcanic activity and tectonic fault movement is possible in the case of today's earthquakes, but at present there appears to be no signs of unrest in the volcanic system.
Badabingiza...
Quoting hcubed:


I should know, was a ground radar tech for the AF from 72-96 (and taught the courses).

Solid state just couldn't get the power needed for transmission. The processing of the return signal was handled by solid state, though.


Radar Tech 76-98
Summary

Southerly winds with gusts to 90 km/h are expected to ease this evening. This is a warning that potentially damaging winds are expected or occurring in these regions. Monitor weather conditions..Listen for updated statements.

Details

An intense Pacific frontal system over the British Columbia south coast has brought significant precipitation to parts of the south coast regions today. Additional rainfall amounts of 20 to 30 mm are expected over the north shore mountains and Howe Sound and additional snowfall amounts of 10 to 15 cm are forecast for Whistler tonight. Meanwhile, ahead of the front strong southeast winds of 50 to 70 km/h gusting to 90 have developed over most of the south coast regions. The strong winds will shift to south to southwest this evening and affect areas near Vancouver Island including alberni inlet and the Lower Mainland in the wake of the front. The winds will abate later this evening and precipitation will ease late tonight as the frontal system moves inland and weakens.
Cyclone Bingiza - Madagascar SITREP 1 via ReliefWeb:


From the information gathered so far, the district of Northern Mananara, which is the most densely populated (150 to 300 hab/km) has been the most affected one. According to unofficial source, 80% of the houses in this city have been damaged. With regard to the districts of Sainte Marie Soanierana Ivongo, which were both hit by the cyclone in the early hours of today, very limited damages have been recorded.


Really haven't seen much else.



142100z position near 16.1s 47.3e. Tropical cyclone (tc) 13s
(bingiza),
located approximately 180 nm north-northeast of antana-
narivo, Madagascar, has tracked just south of westward at 11 knots
over the past six hours. Animated infrared satellite imagery shows
the system has lost over 75 percent of its convection as it dragged
across the Island's mountainous terrain. The initial position is
based on the above animation depicting a clear area over the low
level circulation center. This is supported by a 141652z ssmis
microwave imagery. The initial intensity is extrapolated from nearby
surface observations. Upper level analysis indicates tc 13s is just
to the north of a ridge axis in an area of low vertical wind shear
(vws) and divergence. The cyclone is tracking along the northern
periphery of a mid-level subtropical ridge (str) to the south. It is
expected to begin tracking more southwestward over the next 12-24
hours as the str adjusts to the east in response to a mid-latitude
trough approaching from the southwest. Tc 13s will emerge over the
Mozambique Channel by tau 36 and momentarily intensify, fueled by the
warm waters and enhanced by favorable upper level conditions.
However, by tau 72, the aforementioned trough will steer the system
southeastward back into the island. Tc bingiza will dissipate by tau
96, due to interaction with madagascar's rugged terrain and exposure
to strong westerly vws. The available numeric guidance are in overall
good agreement with this track forecast with ECMWF on the right of
and GFS on the left of the track envelope. The former anticipates the
steering str to remain strong all through the forecast period while
the latter unrealistically tracks the vortex directly into the ridge.
This track is to the right of consensus.
Next warnings at 150900z and 152100z.//


This series of infrared satellite imagery from the AIRS instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite shows the progression of Tropical Cyclone Bingiza over the weekend of Feb. 12-13. On February 12 at 21:35 UTC, Bingiza's center was still at sea, and an eye was visible. On Feb. 13 at 0947 UTC, AIRS noticed the western edge of Bingiza over northeastern Madagascar and the storm appears to be expanding. On Feb. 13 at 22:17 UTC, Bingiza's center was on the northeastern coastline and it was making landfall.
credit NASA/JPL
Not to be overly critical, but satellite rainfall rates are B.S. Convection in tropical cyclones frequently average rainfall rates between 2 and 4 inches per hour. The eye wall of a major hurricane will almost always produce rainfall rates greater than 5 inches per hour. Down here in Florida and points south into the tropics, 1 inch per hour rainfall rates aren't even a big deal at all. That being said, 0.4 to 0.7 isn't even heavy rain really. That's like stratiform heavy rain.


I don't know, I mean its a cool product to understand convective structure that normal satellite can't see. But come on, lets face it, satellites just aren't good at rainfall intensity at all yet.
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


Plus the hypothesis that a planet in the Oort cloud causes mass extinctions on earth is considered debunked by most paleontologists and historical geologists, except for a few cranky holdouts like Mike Rampino. There is no statistically significant evidence of any periodicity to mass extinction events, and the evidence is increasing that the K/T extinction is the only one in which an impact event played a major role, mainly because the impactor hit at the worst possible time (ecosystem stress from mass-vulcanism in India) at the worst possible place (sulfate and carbonate sediments).


you guys just love that word debunked don't you? lol
Post 116, I think it was locked the blog from my work computer today. anyone else?
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


Main sequence stars also slowly get brighter throughout their hydrogen-fusing time span. 4 billion years ago the sun was 30% dimmer than now, 4 billion years from now it will 30% brighter. This is because as a star fuses hydrogen to helium the helium builds up in the stellar core, making the core smaller and denser, and therefor hotter.

The inner edge of the Habitable Zone, defined as where on an earth-like planet the carbonate cycle reduces CO2 levels to levels too low for photosynthesis, is now not too far inside Earth's Orbit, a billion years from now CO2 levels, dropping as they compensate for the ever-brightening Sun, will reach 0. When that happens the planetary thermostat quits working, eventually the oceans will boil away and a runaway greenhouse will begin.

By the time the Sun starts to become a red giant Earth will already be like Venus.


We really don't know how old the sun is, or how old it will last, we can really just make scientific estimates which probably overall aren't that accurate, but you gotta have a basis for something. Same goes with the earth. I don't care if you are captain perfect Calculus, even if your math is right, some things in science are semi-unknown and a few of these always will be. That part of science is always the most fun though, like trying to determine what really goes on in the planet Jupiter below that massive thick gaseous atmosphere, or wondering what lies on Neptune's surface, or about other planets in solar systems sustaining life. Thank God stars take one heck of a time to run out of fuel.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to be on a planet during a sudden expansion of a star to a red giant, to watch it grow and cook everything alive. What a freaky thought, I better stop talking about it, might give me nightmares.
Quoting Jedkins01:


We really have no idea how old the sun is, or how old it will last for sure, thank God stars take one heck of a time to run out of fuel.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to be on a planet during a sudden expansion of a star to a red giant, to watch it grow and cook everything alive. What a freaky thought, I better stop talking about it, might give me nightmares.


Of course we do, it's 4.5 billion years old, based on isotopic data from condritic meteorites.
The way I see it with Climate Change, it would be a whole better to all do what we can to improve the environment, otherwise you might as well just suck it up and deal with it. Cause the climate does change on this planet called earth!

BTW I'm not dismissing further research by any means, in fact I plan on doing some research on it some day as a professional. However my point is to just settle the fighting over subject and remove and biases.

Indeed, some may convey responses along the lines of "we got the evidence, and we already KNOW everything there is to know".

I'm really not concerned with that though, I'm done with irrational thinking. Indeed, I'd like to see more balance and moderation. Something that lacks heavily in our civilization.
Quoting TaylorSelseth:


Of course we do, it's 4.5 billion years old, based on isotopic data from condritic meteorites.


"sigh"

people these days and being so sure of everything.

Scientists based on what we know, believe it to be 4.5 billion years old. But if you think there's anyway of being absolutely sure, You've forgotten the core of science itself.

You have a lot to learn about life.

I do believe the earth is very, very old, based on the evidence I have seen.

Catch my drift?

If you don't, oh well, I tried :)

Quoting Jedkins01:
The way I see it with Climate Change, it would be a whole better to all do what we can to improve the environment, otherwise you might as well just suck it up and deal with it. Cause the climate does change on this planet called earth!

BTW I'm not dismissing further research by any means, in fact I plan on doing some research on it some day as a professional. However my point is to just settle the fighting over subject and remove and biases.

Indeed, some may convey responses along the lines of "we got the evidence, and we already KNOW everything there is to know".

I'm really not concerned with that though, I'm done with irrational thinking. Indeed, I'd like to see more balance and moderation. Something that lacks heavily in our civilization.


Balance between the incorrect and correct is still incorrect. Right?

What is balance in a scientific argument?
this "we don't know" is really you don't know. If you know how much fuel is burned and how much you have obviously you can make an educated guess as to the age of the campfire.

Yea Kids these days. I do get that part.
you guys just love that word debunked don't you? lol

Not as much as Deniers obviously like being Debunked. Right

What has it been:

No warming, Ice is increasing, Its the sun, its volcanoes, its cycles, its the weather stations, its a vast conspiracy, Al Gore, etc...

All just another opportunity for a much anticipated and relished debunking I am beginning to believe.

I am more tired of debunking you guys than you can ever believe. I cant imagine what its like to be a professional in the climate science field. I assume they are about debunked out.
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Balance between the incorrect and correct is still incorrect. Right?

What is balance in a scientific argument?



I'm talking about a balance between extremes.

Seriously man, do you even read peoples posts before posting?

You obviously didn't read mine I can see.
Quoting Jedkins01:



I'm talking about a balance between extremes.

Seriously man, do you even read peoples posts before posting?

You obviously didn't read mine I can see.


"Extremes" what does that mean in science? There is correct and incorrect. There is probability of correctness which is the closest thing to a gray area that is by no means arbitrary.
Quoting JFLORIDA:
this "we don't know" is really you don't know. If you know how much fuel is burned and how much you have obviously you can make an educated guess as to the age of the campfire.

Yea Kids these days. I do get that part.


Sir, you really are a hopeless egotist. You aren't very intellectual either as much as you'd like to think.


respond to me when you stop being irrational and start thinking things through a little more instead of assuming you already have it all figured out.

Good bye, I'm done.
Really I am not challenging the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. I am not unable to admit I am wrong. I believe you must make a valid argument as has been the mechanics and tradition in science for over 300 years now.

And I am the egotist.

I dont even think you know what an egotist is.
Quoting jwh250:
Altruism=evil  Egotism=good - Ayn Rand


Sorry but both of them are equally disturbing, and often, both traits occur in a person at the same time.
And Rand - exactly - a political activist.

Do you know why no politicians ever become scientists? There is is a very simple reason. Scientists become political quite often too.

Im not a Rand fan obviously but probably not for the reason you would think. .
Quoting JFLORIDA:
You know what you cannot make a single valid argument so you disparage others motivations to compensate.

Ok so im an egotist - You are better and not egotistical so you are right.

Scientists are in it for the money. Ok fine - still no viable challenges to climate science.

That doesn't even work. Its invalid.


Yep scientists are in for the money, right, because I said that?

I am working my butt off to become a scientist, and science is what drives my passion.

You just proved me right in trying to belittle me, great job dude.

By the way, take a hint, Ive never encountered anyone with a haughty attitude like you at college since I've been a college student. The professors and students are smart, and at times disagree with me on many things. But they are enjoyable because they understand what you obviously are too blind to see about yourself.

It seems to be a disease that has infected some other bloggers here too. There is yet to be a cure for stubborn human pride, just as there is yet to be a cure for cancer.

Keep on dreaming about your superior intellect.
Well in the arts we are a bit more critical I guess.

But I highly doubt that.

Do you talk the same way as here. Do you disparage climate science there? Do you pick an answer for its moderation on a test? Do you stand up in the middle of the class to say something accusatory to the instructor or any one when you disagree. Is conspiracy a valid argument there?


Sorry I switched handles and computers its still egotistical me.

327 is outstanding BTW.


Keep on dreaming about your superior intellect.

Feign humility? LOL that works I guess but still its invalid argument.
Quoting jwh250:
Weather History:Did you know that...
It was a white St. Valentine's Day along the Gulf Coast in 1895. Rayne, La. received 22 inches of snow to set a state record for the most snowfall ever. Records were also set in Houston, Texas (2 inches); Galveston, Texas (15.4 inches); Brownsville, Texas (6 inches); and Mobile, Ala. (6 inches).

It's hard to fathom that the state record for snowfall in Louisiana was set in a town that today is on the I-10 corridor in S. LA at nearly 2 feet. Somewhere in N. LA would be more believable but 22 in in Rayne,Acadia Parish, LA, 10 miles west of Lafayette? Are we sure that the coonasses in S LA in1895 knew how to accurately measure snowfall, they probably measured a drift! VALIDITY SCORE: 0


Absolutely accurate...
The Great Gulf Blizzard of Feb 14-15 1895 has been well documented in the historical record.. BTW, that was 20" in Houston, with reports up to 30" in Beaumont, 22"in Lake Charles, and the 24" at Rayne, remains the all-time LA state record snowfall... And that's correct - all coastal locations of Louisiana have far heavier snowfall records than Cen or N LA (and other locations farther north that typically get snowfall), from this incredible storm, incl mine in SE LA as Houma had 16-18"...

A casual check of snowfall "records" may or not include these totals, depending on the base period of record provided, with a lot of sources only showing data from 1930 on, for example...
All of that is Ad hominem jed. It works on the lesser of our species but it isn't reasonable. Reason defines humanity. Its part of the search for truth; which is everything we've been and where we are most collectively going.

It doesn't even offend me that much anymore because its a fallacy. Its incorrect and invalid out of the gate.

Ok Im an evil egotist, well here we are. I must say evil egotist is not very fun or profitable. Perhaps there are better ways to do it.

But you still cant make a valid challenge to climate science.


The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters (etching by Goya, c. 1799)

I love that one. Pleasant surprise to see it in the reason entry.
If you still feel there is a diabolical force behind it all Completely read Dr Roods latest entry on the matter.
Seychelles Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #25
DEPRESSION SUR TERRE, FORMER BINGIZA (05-20102011)
10:00 AM Reunion February 15 2011
=====================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Overland Depression, Former Bingiza (995 hPa) located at 16.5S 45.7E has 10 minute sustained winds of 20 knots with gusts of 35 knots. The disturbance is reported as moving west southwest at 9 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: OVERLAND

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 17.7S 43.3E - 25 knots (PERTURBATION Tropicale)
24 HRS: 18.4S 42.3E - 30 knots (DEPRESSION Tropicale)
48 HRS: 20.2S 41.8E - 50 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)
72 HRS: 22.8S 43.0E - 60 knots (Forte Tempête Tropicale)

Additional Information
======================

It is difficult to locate Former BINGIZA residual low level circulation center. Fix a 0:00 AM UTC was probably too much west. Former BINGIZA is tracking west southwest at 9 knots. Convection overland is weak, but it is intensifying over sea in the northern semi-circle with a good monsoon inflow.

Actual forecast estimates a come back over water today around 15:00 PM UTC in the vicinity of Basalampy. By 36 hours, the system should track progressively southwestward, under the influence of the subtropical anticyclone. Beyond 48 hours, it should recurve southeastward, along the southwestern coast of Madagascar, a mid-tropospheric near equatorial ridge becoming the main pilot of the system steering flow. Actual forecast is more west than the previous one, and according to that, system shouldn't make another landfall on the southwestern coast of Madagascar, but this track after 72 hours is rather uncertain.

Overwater, system will encounter favorable environmental conditions for regeneration: good low levels inflow equatorward and poleward, Sea surface temperature is greater than 30C, but upper level vertical wind shear should be a limitant factor for rapid regeneration by 24 hours. Beyond 24 hours and through Friday, system is expected to intensify up to severe tropical storm stage. After Friday environmental conditions should deteriorate (weakening of the low level equatorial inflow, strengthening of the upper level vertical wind shear ahead of an upper tropospheric trough.

The next tropical cyclone advisory from Seychelles Meteorological Services will be issued at 12:30 PM UTC..
Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #1
TROPICAL LOW 16U
3:00 PM WST February 15 2011
==========================================

At 2:00 pm WST, Tropical Low (995 hPa) located at 19.1S 112.7E or about 350 km north northwest of Exmouth has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The low is reported as moving west southwest at 12 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: T2.0/2.0/D0.5/12HRS

The low is expected to develop into a tropical cyclone on Wednesday well off the northwest coast. Should it take a more southerly track on Thursday, GALES with gusts to 100 kilometres per hour may develop in coastal areas later Thursday or on Friday.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
================================
A Cyclone WATCH has been declared for a developing tropical low for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay.

Forecast and Intensity
======================
12 HRS: 19.6S 111.3E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 19.9S 110.6E - 50 knots (CAT 2)
48 HRS: 20.6S 109.9E - 85 knots (CAT 3)
72 HRS: 22.4S 109.1E - 90 knots (CAT 4)

Additional Information
=======================
The low has developed quickly in the last 24 hours with deep convection persisting near the centre and showing improving curvature on recent images. Ascat shows a symmetric system with winds to 25 knots. Dvorak intensity estimated at 2.0 based on curved band wrap of about 0.4.

The broadscale environment is favourable for further development with low to moderate easterly wind shear of about 15 knots, strong poleward upper outflow ocean temperatures above 28C through the next 36 hours. The consensus of model guidance suggests rapid intensification to a severe cyclone within 48 hours peaking early on Friday [18 Feb]. This pattern is similiar to what happened during Bianca three weeks ago. Weakening should then occur owing to movement over cooler waters.

A mid-level ridge to the south over continental Australia is steering the system to the west southwest currently at 13 knots. Motion should slow in the next 12 to 18 hours as the ridge weakens. Subsequently the system should remain in a light steering pattern and models show a number of scenarios.

While it is most likely the system will remain off the coast, there is some chance the system may take a more southerly or even southeasterly track that will take it close enough to the coast to cause gales from Onslow to Coral Bay later on Thursday or on Friday.

The next tropical cyclone advice will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
Darwin Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #2
TROPICAL LOW 17U
5:00 PM CST February 15 2011
===============================================

At 3:30 pm CST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa) located at 13.0S 139.4E, overland or about 85 km southwest of Darwin and 70 km west of Batchelor has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The low is reported as moving northwest at 4 knots.

The low is expected to move into the Beagle Gulf and may develop into a tropical cyclone during Wednesday.

Dvorak Intensity: OVERLAND

GALES with gusts to 110 kilometres per hour are expected to develop between Daly River Mouth and Point Stuart, including Darwin and the Tiwi Islands, during Wednesday. DESTRUCTIVE WINDS with gusts to 130 kilometres per hour may develop over the Tiwi Islands late Thursday if the cyclone continues to intensify.

HEAVY RAIN may cause widespread flooding in the northern Darwin-Daly District.

The Territory Controller advises residents from Daly River Mouth to Point Stuart including the Tiwi Islands that now is the time to make final preparations to your home shelter or identify which public emergency shelter to use.

Residents of Darwin and the Rural Area are advised that if you DO NOT have accommodation constructed to the Building Code or are unsure of your present accommodation you should decide which public emergency shelter to use. You should now have your emergency kit complete and ready. DO NOT PROCEED TO PUBLIC EMERGENCY SHELTERS UNTIL ADVISED TO DO SO.

The Territory Controller advises communities under Cyclone Watch that now is the time to put together your emergency kit, clear your yards and balconies, and commence home shelter preparations.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
====================================
A Cyclone WARNING has been declared for coastal areas from Daly River Mouth to Point Stuart, including Darwin and the Tiwi Islands.

A Cyclone WATCH is now current for coastal areas from Port Keats to Daly River Mouth and Point Stuart to Cape Don.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 12.4S 130.5E - 30 knots (Tropical Low)
24 HRS: 11.9S 130.4E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 11.7S 129.9E - 45 knots (CAT 1)
72 HRS: 12.0S 129.3E - 50 knots (CAT 2)

Additional Information
========================
The tropical low has intensified during the day, with improved rain band curvature evident on radar. Good position based on surface observations and radar animation. 0600UTC pilot data from Darwin Airport indicates NW 50kt below 7000ft with surface winds reaching 30kt with 45 kt in squalls. Convective structure slowly improving with 0.4 wrap of deep convection in northern semicircle, yielding DT=2.0. FT based on PAT=MET=2.5.

A well-developed circulation is evident to 500hPa, displaced slightly to the or NW in middle levels. Deep convection limited to northern semicircle. Strongly divergent 200hPa flow over the system ahead of a weak upper trough to the south; good outflow in northern sectors.

The consensus of numerical guidance suggests a slow northward progression towards the Tiwi Islands during the next 24 to 48 hours, under the influence of a strengthening low-level subtropical ridge to the south. Standard development rate forecast after the system moves over water.

The next tropical cyclone advice on Tropical Low 17U will be issued at 9:00 AM UTC..
Fiji Meteorological Services
Tropical Disturbance Summary
TROPICAL DISTURBANCE 11F
18:00 PM FST February 15 2011
=============================================

At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Disturbance 11F (1005 hPa) located at 17.9S 169.4E is reported as moving slowly. Position poor based on multispectral infrared with animation and peripheral observations. Sea surface temperature is around 29C.

Organization remains poor. Convection has not changed much in the last 12 hours. Cyclonic circulation extends up to 500 HPA. System lies under an upper ridge in a moderately sheared environment.

Global models have picked up the system and gradually moves it west southwestward with slight intensification.

The potential for this disturbance to form into a tropical cyclone within the next 24 to 48 hours is LOW
Darwin Tropical Cyclone Warning Center
Tropical Cyclone Advice #3
TROPICAL LOW 17U
8:00 PM CST February 15 2011
===============================================

At 6:30 pm CST, Tropical Low (1000 hPa), over land located at 12.9S 130.4E or about 75 km southwest of Darwin and 70 km west northwest of Batchelor has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The low is reported as moving north northwest at 3 knots.

The low may develop into a tropical cyclone during Wednesday.

LOCALLY DAMAGING wind gusts up to 90 kilometres per hour are expected with squally showers and storms in the northwest Darwin-Daly District and the Tiwi Islands.

GALES with gusts to 110 kilometres per hour are expected to develop between Daly River Mouth and Point Stuart, including Darwin and the Tiwi Islands, during Wednesday.

DESTRUCTIVE WINDS with gusts to 130 kilometres per hour may develop over the Tiwi Islands late Thursday if the cyclone continues to intensify.

HEAVY RAIN may cause widespread flooding in the northern Darwin-Daly District.

Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
====================================
A Cyclone WARNING is now current for coastal areas from Daly River Mouth to Point Stuart, including Darwin and the Tiwi Islands.

A Cyclone WATCH is now current for coastal areas from Port Keats to Daly River Mouth and Point Stuart to Goulburn Island.

The next tropical cyclone advice from Darwin Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on Tropical Low 17U will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..
While we're having fun debunking things, let's see what we can do with this one.

Quoting 268. Orcasystems 2:07 AM GMT on February 15, 2011:


That should not scare you, vacuum tubes can do things digital cannot. Simplified: using Vacuum tubes you get a "true" representation of the information.. as there are NO data cuts (digital) of the available data. Its hard to explain in a quick note.

Musicians prefer to listen to their music on a "tubed" amplifier vice a digital amplifier... its the only way to get the "true" representation. Just like a record gives the true sound, vice a digital CD.


There seems to be some fundamental confusion here, and in several other user's postings, along the lines of:
Vacuum Tube == Analog
Solid State == Digital

Wrong on both counts. Vacuum Tubes can do digital, and Solid State can (and does) do analog. Whether a circuit is analog or digital depends on how it is designed, not on what kind of active device it uses.

What do you think those pre-WW2 computers were made with? You know, before transistors were invented by Shockley, et.al. in 1947? Vacuum Tubes -- a whole room full of them. Which was why computers were mostly impractical curiosities until the invention of transistors, and later, integrated circuits.

Vacuum Tubes can do most anything that Solid State devices can do in the digital realm. They're just not as efficient, reliable, small or fast.

And with the exception of class D (switch-mode) amplifiers, most Solid State amplifiers are not digital. They are class A or class AB linear amplifiers, just like the Vacuum Tube amplifiers. Which means that the output from a Solid State amplifier is just as much a continuous analog signal as the output from a Vacuum Tube amplifier. There are no "cuts" in the output signal from a linear-mode Solid State amplifier.

Even CD players produce a continuous analog output, albeit one derived from a digital representation of the signal, which is what is recorded on the CD media. There are no "cuts" in the output signal from good CD players, either. Given a sufficiently-high sampling rate and good anti-aliasing filtering at both ends of the conversion process, i.e. before the analog-to-digital conversion of the input signal and after the digital-to-analog conversion of the output signal, then the result is a complete, faithful and true copy of the original input signal. Only in the case of some cheap CD players that leave out the anti-aliasing filtering should you ever see a "chopped" or "stair-step" output signal.

Furthermore, Solid State amplifiers are better than Vacuum Tube amplifiers. They have a much more linear transfer function, which means they produce far less Harmonic distortion (higher-frequency multiples of the fundamental frequencies in the original signal) and lower Inter-modulation distortion (sum and difference combinations of the frequencies in the original signal). Solid State amplifiers also produce lower frequency-dependent phase delay (time shifting of the frequency components of the input signal relative to one another). And they have much better transient response (ability to handle fast signal amplitude changes). Consequently, a good Solid State amplifier will always produce a more-faithful representation of the input signal than even the best Vacuum Tube amplifier.

So why do many guitarists "prefer" Vacuum Tube amplifier sound? If you ask, they'll tell you that Vacuum Tube amplifiers produce a rounder, mellower, more "natural" sound, whereas Solid State amplifiers produce a harsher, crisper, more "artificial" sound. Setting aside the question of what an electric guitar is "supposed" to sound like, why is that?

First, Solid State amplifiers "hard-limit" when overdriven (i.e. when given too much signal input), whereas Vacuum Tube amplifiers "soft-limit". In other words, Solid State amplifiers clip the tops off a signal that is too strong, whereas Vacuum Tube amplifiers merely compress the signal peaks but do not chop them off or flatten them completely. This mainly affects the attack, when the string is first plucked. (For those in the know, "hard-limiting" of an overdriven input signal is one way to produce the "fuzz guitar" sound.)

Second, a Vacuum Tube amplifier is a high-impedance driver, and therefore it requires an impedance-matching transformer in order to transfer power efficiently to a speaker, which is a low-impedance load. It is very hard (and expensive) to build a good, linear, high-power transformer, and so the output transformer causes most of the distortion in a Vacuum Tube amplifier. However, a Solid State amplifier is a low-impedance driver, and therefore it can couple directly to a speaker without the need for an impedance-matching transformer.

It is these two characteristics, "soft-limiting" and transformer-coupled output, combined with a poor transient response, that gives a Vacuum Tube amplifier that fabled "mellow sound" so prized by "electric guitarists of a certain age". ;-)

In conclusion, both Vacuum Tube and Solid State amplifiers produce distortion. However, for some applications, one kind of distortion is "preferred" over the other, even when said distortion is measurably worse. That's a choice based on psychophysics and personal taste, not on device physics and electronic design.

Finally, a snide comment... Anyone who thinks "a [vinyl] record gives the true[er] sound, vice a digital CD" seriously needs to have their hearing tested. ;-) As a "drummer of a certain age", I can state categorically that jazz traps, particularly cymbals, never sounded as good on vinyl as they do remastered from the original tapes onto CD.
Quoting EstherD:
While we're having fun debunking things, let's see what we can do with this one.



There seems to be some fundamental confusion her.........I can state categorically that jazz traps, particularly cymbals, never sounded as good on vinyl as they do remastered from the original tapes onto CD.


Ok, that settled that i think. Any chance of a comment on AGW?
Quoting greentortuloni:


Ok, that settled that i think. Any chance of a comment on AGW?


Not much chance of that! I learned my lesson the hard way shortly after joining up about a year ago.

Besides, AGW, climate and meteorology aren't directly within any of the areas in which I can claim a certain amount of expertise: computers, electronics, auditory physiology, and physics (mainly solid state, with a smattering of astronomy and geology). I might also take a shot at certain topics in chemistry and biology, but that's about it.
February Thaw Ends Unusual Streak of Cold

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
507 PM CST SUN FEB 13 2011 /607 PM EST SUN FEB 13 2011/

...CASES OF SPRING FEVER ON THE RISE ALONG WITH THE TEMPERATURES...

TEMPERATURES OFFICIALLY CRACKED THE 40 DEGREE MARK AT BOTH CHICAGO
AND ROCKFORD THIS AFTERNOON. THROUGH 4 PM...THE HIGH IN ROCKFORD
HAS BEEN 44 DEGREES AND OFFICIALLY AT CHICAGO OHARE INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT THE HIGH HAS BEEN 45 DEGREES. TODAYS 40 DEGREE HIGH
TEMPERATURES PUT AN END TO AN UNUSUALLY LONG STREAK OF CONSECUTIVE DAYS
WITH TEMPERATURES FAILING TO REACH THE 40 DEGREE MARK.

THE LAST TIME THE MERCURY CLIMBED ABOVE 40 DEGREES IN CHICAGO WAS
ON JANUARY 1ST...SO TODAY CAPPED OFF A STREAK OF 42 CONSECUTIVE
DAYS BELOW 40 DEGREES. THIS IS THE 20TH LONGEST STREAK EVER IN
CHICAGO OF SUB-40 DEGREE TEMPERATURES. IN FACT...ONLY TWICE IN THE
PAST 25 YEARS HAS THERE BEEN A STREAK LONGER...45 DAYS IN JAN/FEB
OF 2004 AND 61 DAYS IN DEC/JAN OF 2000/2001. THE LONGEST STREAK
EVER OF SUB 40 DEGREE DAYS IN CHICAGO WAS 69 DAYS FROM DEC 1981
THROUGH FEB 1982.

IN ROCKFORD...THE LAST TIME THE MERCURY CLIMBED TO 40 DEGREES WAS
ON DECEMBER 31ST...SO TODAY CAPPED OFF A STREAK OF 43 CONSECUTIVE
DAYS BELOW 40 DEGREES. THIS IS THE 22ND LONGEST SUCH STREAK IN
ROCKFORD HISTORY. ONLY ONCE IN THE PAST 25 YEARS HAS THERE BEEN A
LONGER STREAK AND THAT WAS BACK IN DEC-FEB 2000-2001 WHEN ROCKFORD
WENT 71 DAYS WITHOUT REACHING 40 DEGREES. THE LONGEST STRETCH OF
CONSECUTIVE DAYS FAILING TO REACH 40 DEGREES WAS BACK IN DEC-MAR
1978-1979 WHEN ROCKFORD WENT 104 DAYS WITHOUT HITTING 40.

INTERESTINGLY...SO FAR THIS WINTER SEASON CHICAGO HAS SEEN 55 DAYS
WITH HIGH TEMPERATURES BELOW FREEZING. ON AVERAGE...CHICAGO WILL
SEE AROUND 42 DAYS WITH HIGHS BELOW FREEZING DURING A WINTER
SEASON. IN ROCKFORD...THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN 55 DAYS WITH HIGHS
BELOW FREEZING. IN ROCKFORD...THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF SUB-FREEZING
DAYS IS 46 FOR AN ENTIRE WINTER SEASON. WITH ANOTHER MONTH OR SO
OF WINTER LEFT IT IS LIKELY THAT THESE TOTALS OF 55 DAYS WILL GO
UP.

Arctic sea ice was at its lowest extent in January compared with any other time in the last 32 years, according to a new report by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

This winter has been cold and snowy in North America, but farther north, temperatures have been unusually warm. Data collected by NASA's Aqua satellite shows that ice was low in Canada's Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait and the Davis Strait between Canada and Greenland. Normally these areas are frozen over by late November, the NSIDC reported. This winter, they didn't free until mid-January 2011. The Labrador Sea was similarly ice-free.

Arctic ice monitoring began in 1979. The previous record low for January ice was set in 2006; at a coverage of 5.23 million square miles (13.55 million square kilometers), this January beat that record by 19,300 square miles (50,000 square km). This January's ice cover was also 490,000 square miles (1.27 million square km) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

In October, NSIDC reported an unusual late-season decline in Arctic sea ice.
HPC Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts Days 1-3.

Northern CA feeling the brunt of that system.

15 February 2011 Last updated at 04:32 ET




Stardust spacecraft makes comet flyby



Nasa's Stardust spacecraft has swept past the comet Tempel 1.

The encounter early on Tuesday (GMT) will give scientists unique information on how these great balls of ice and dust change over time.

Tempel 1 was visited by another probe back in 2005. It fired a projectile at the body to disturb the surface.

Stardust's images will reveal the extent of the impact crater and any other alterations that may have occurred on the 7.5km-wide object.

The spacecraft got to about 180km (110 miles) of the comet nucleus.

It was commanded to take more than 70 high-resolution images; its dust analysis instruments will also have investigated the environment around the object.

The images were being beamed back to Earth over a period of hours. Scientists had hoped the pictures taken at closest approach (0437 GMT) would be among the first to come down.

However, the spacecraft, for reasons unknown, started by downlinking images in the sequence they were acquired, not in the order commanded by the project team. The first returns therefore showed merely a small dot in the frame of view.

Scientists say this is not a concern. Engineering data suggests all the pictures were captured correctly and are properly centred; it will just take longer to get the best of them back on Earth.

The flyby event occurred at an enormous distance from Earth - approximately 336 million km (209 million miles) away. Radio messages take many minutes to travel this kind of distance.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
wow. roatan island has been under a stationery front since sunday morning. rain totals probably near 5-6" sunday, 7-8" yesterday and today it has been pouring since around 4am when i was awakened by thunder and lightning. never in my 24 years in honduras have i seen this in february. never. its like a tropical storm. anyone with any insight as to what is going on and when we should expect this to lift. also, power keeps going on and off due to trees down everywhere and mud slides. info please... roatan gardener
Quoting Jedkins01:


"sigh"

people these days and being so sure of everything.

Scientists based on what we know, believe it to be 4.5 billion years old. But if you think there's anyway of being absolutely sure, You've forgotten the core of science itself.

You have a lot to learn about life.

I do believe the earth is very, very old, based on the evidence I have seen.

Catch my drift?

If you don't, oh well, I tried :)



Sorry, I thought you were spouting creationist nonsense, my bad!
Quoting roatangardener:
wow. roatan island has been under a stationery front since sunday morning. rain totals probably near 5-6" sunday, 7-8" yesterday and today it has been pouring since around 4am when i was awakened by thunder and lightning. never in my 24 years in honduras have i seen this in february. never. its like a tropical storm. anyone with any insight as to what is going on and when we should expect this to lift. also, power keeps going on and off due to trees down everywhere and mud slides. info please... roatan gardener

Wow. 12-14 inches of precip. That's tropical weather-like stuff for you folks.

Stay dry! Hope there aren't any widespread flooding issues.
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030
  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article
Nice little soaking for Northern California:

Quoting Jedkins01:


"sigh"

people these days and being so sure of everything.

Scientists based on what we know, believe it to be 4.5 billion years old. But if you think there's anyway of being absolutely sure, You've forgotten the core of science itself.

You have a lot to learn about life.

I do believe the earth is very, very old, based on the evidence I have seen.

Catch my drift?

If you don't, oh well, I tried :)



This may not be word for word accurate:
"What's dangerous about a man isn't what he doesn't know but what he thinks he knows that he doesn't."
Mark Twain
Quoting twincomanche:


This may not be word for word accurate:
"What's dangerous about a man isn't what he doesn't know but what he thinks he knows that he doesn't."
Mark Twain

I like that.
Another arctic outbreak end of the month?

Quoting cat5hurricane:

I like that.


Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Mark Twain
354:

Lol.

I love how they painted the levees orange, as if they wouldn't be undercut and washed away by a few years worth of wave action somewhere around 1 or 1.5 meters...

Don't worry. I'm sure in the 25th and 26th century "they" will have fusion rockets and stuff. They'll be living on mars and crap, and be getting back the first return signals from interstellar probes to stars within a 50ly or so. Global Warming won't even matter.


The nice thing about this is there is a lot of "worthless" land which will suddenly become "priceless" beach front property. It sounds like the plot from a super hero movie.

Venice, Italy has been flooded for centuries and people still live there, and still treat it like it's a resort.
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC

Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


Very Very well said, and of course, by the way, I agree.
But still, very well said.
Quoting RecordSeason:
354:

Lol.

I love how they painted the levees orange, as if they wouldn't be undercut and washed away by a few years worth of wave action somewhere around 1 or 1.5 meters...

Don't worry. I'm sure in the 25th and 26th century "they" will have fusion rockets and stuff. They'll be living on mars and crap, and be getting back the first return signals from interstellar probes to stars within a 50ly or so. Global Warming won't even matter.


The nice thing about this is there is a lot of "worthless" land which will suddenly become "priceless" beach front property. It sounds like the plot from a super hero movie.

Venice, Italy has been flooded for centuries and people still live there, and still treat it like it's a resort.

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Quoting Ossqss:
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC


Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...
No but a political retort/label to a member may be in the offing soon.

If one checks the archive.

pfffth
The orange along the Miss river is the Levee "Higher" elevation..but the scientific approach you use in the description iz noted.






Quoting Neapolitan:

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.

I AM laughing, not at you, but the study of 8 degree global temp increases by 2100.

Excuse me for a moment while a wipe the coffee I spit all over my keyboard.
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
Quoting Jedkins01:
Not to be overly critical, but satellite rainfall rates are B.S. Convection in tropical cyclones frequently average rainfall rates between 2 and 4 inches per hour. The eye wall of a major hurricane will almost always produce rainfall rates greater than 5 inches per hour. Down here in Florida and points south into the tropics, 1 inch per hour rainfall rates aren't even a big deal at all. That being said, 0.4 to 0.7 isn't even heavy rain really. That's like stratiform heavy rain.


I don't know, I mean its a cool product to understand convective structure that normal satellite can't see. But come on, lets face it, satellites just aren't good at rainfall intensity at all yet.
They aren't bad with the typical mid-latitude cyclone, but the algorithms are based on cloud top temperature. In TCs, they tend to under represent rainfall rates mostly due to the warm core and less cold cloud tops.
Quoting Neapolitan:

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Shhhhhhh.....quiet Neapolitan. You must be quiet and not say such things as you and EstherD did in your observations. I agree with both of you, but I work with a large group of AGW's here in the office, and I can not withstand another discussion to convince my coworkers to pull their heads out of the sand!
That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations.


Everything has always been "kicked down the road to future generations". What do you think social security and medicaid are?

WE certainly aren't going to see that 6.5% they remove to support the bankrupt institution.

So this makes you and I and everyone near or below our age group as 6.5% slaves to our "elders", even though slavery is illegal...

The public retirement for government employees at many states, i.e. California, are impossible to maintain, and they are also "legally" impossible for the government to get out of. So guess what? Every person who works for the California State Government gets to own slaves for the rest of their lives, by proxy, because they will get to retire with almost full pay after just 30 years or so, while everyone else will pay increased taxes to foot their bills.


Global Warming is the least of our concerns.
Lordy,...


I feel a tad psychic.

Governments across the globe are gonna bankrupt including yes, the good ol USA, if you're heavily invested in stock I'd pull out and sell ASAP
Quoting Neapolitan:

Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...


Take your pick,,,,, out>>>

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index.html



Dont worry,,we can use the "Carolina" Dollar soon.

All is well.

American Idol and The Jersey Shore are safe for now.


South Carolina Lawmaker Seeks to Ban Federal Currency
Posted by Brian Montopoli 439 comments


Future research of GW will not happen, were on our own folks
Quoting RitaEvac:
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
The GFS has a stormy pattern coming back. One moderate outbreak of colder air around March 1...Link
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Complete Update





..."Those are not the Graphs your Looking for,"..

Should have one more radiational freeze along the gulf coast before winter is up
383. mnsky
wow!!labels=1 labels=1 labels=1:)
Quoting hurricanejunky:


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Jedi Mind Trick....sort of like Nazi/Gestapo/Himmler and Germany. Repeat the lie often enough and you get the masses to belive the lie eventually. Faux News(et al) are well versed in doing so (i.e. 2000 thru 2009 especially).
Quoting cat5hurricane:

I am laughing, not at you, but the study of 8 degree global temp increases by 2100.

Excuse me for a moment while a wipe the coffee I spit all over my keyboard.


Is that what they are up to claiming now? Wow.

Statistically, NOLA is going to have 3 or 4 more Katrina, Camille, Betsy, and 1915 style hurricanes between now and 2100, which is to say, 3 or 4 direct hits or "near misses" from category 3 or more storms.

It looks like "investors" should stay out of NOLA.

It should be illegal to have a 20 or 30 year loan in a location where the probability of being destroyed by a hurricane within that time frame is near unity.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
Quoting wunderkidcayman:
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks


Quoting RitaEvac:




sh*##
SQUAWK!!!!!
Brilliant post

Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
NOLA been round a tad long time now...and I dont see us moving Mardi Gras to Fargo soon either.


And dat Big Cold ditch has to exit somewhere,..

LOL

Google is your friend.

Maybe note the date.

Some things like Rivers and "Culcha",take a while to dry up, freeze or drown.


So the NAS Belle Chase.. The New Federal City and 4 Marine Div Headquarters,NASA, the Port and all the industries will hang investment futures on that info found exclusively here on he wunderground.

Where we gonna Move the Saints ?

Who gets the Trophy?

Okay Jim.

But can we keep the Chiquita Banana Port in Gulfport, Miss ?

A lady in Boca wants to know in FB chat."

To hide this long entry,, click "HIDE"


Maybe note the date,

New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize
September 01, 2005 22 30 GMT

By George Friedman

The American political system was founded in Philadelphia, but the American nation was built on the vast farmlands that stretch from the Alleghenies to the Rockies. That farmland produced the wealth that funded American industrialization: It permitted the formation of a class of small landholders who, amazingly, could produce more than they could consume. They could sell their excess crops in the east and in Europe and save that money, which eventually became the founding capital of American industry.

But it was not the extraordinary land nor the farmers and ranchers who alone set the process in motion. Rather, it was geography -- the extraordinary system of rivers that flowed through the Midwest and allowed them to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of the rivers flowed into one -- the Mississippi -- and the Mississippi flowed to the ports in and around one city: New Orleans. It was in New Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargos stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. Until last Sunday, New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy.

For that reason, the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 was a key moment in American history. Even though the battle occurred after the War of 1812 was over, had the British taken New Orleans, we suspect they wouldn't have given it back. Without New Orleans, the entire Louisiana Purchase would have been valueless to the United States. Or, to state it more precisely, the British would control the region because, at the end of the day, the value of the Purchase was the land and the rivers - which all converged on the Mississippi and the ultimate port of New Orleans. The hero of the battle was Andrew Jackson, and when he became president, his obsession with Texas had much to do with keeping the Mexicans away from New Orleans.

During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the prize.

Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, and it was not clear that it could recover.

The Ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, POSL is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products -- corn, soybeans and so on. A large proportion of U.S. agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 17 million tons, comes in through the port -- including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on.

A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the U.S. auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if U.S. corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.

The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have low value-to-weight ratios. The U.S. transport system was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities -- assuming for the moment that the economics could be managed, which they can't be.

The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of about 15 percent of U.S.-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport of these other commodities.

There is clearly good news as information comes in. By all accounts, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which services supertankers in the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of extraction operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable. The status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though not trivial -- is manageable.

The news on the river is also far better than would have been expected on Sunday. The river has not changed its course. No major levees containing the river have burst. The Mississippi apparently has not silted up to such an extent that massive dredging would be required to render it navigable. Even the port facilities, although apparently damaged in many places and destroyed in few, are still there. The river, as transport corridor, has not been lost.

What has been lost is the city of New Orleans and many of the residential suburban areas around it. The population has fled, leaving behind a relatively small number of people in desperate straits. Some are dead, others are dying, and the magnitude of the situation dwarfs the resources required to ameliorate their condition. But it is not the population that is trapped in New Orleans that is of geopolitical significance: It is the population that has left and has nowhere to return to.

The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it -- and that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time.

It is possible to jury-rig around this problem for a short time. But the fact is that those who have left the area have gone to live with relatives and friends. Those who had the ability to leave also had networks of relationships and resources to manage their exile. But those resources are not infinite -- and as it becomes apparent that these people will not be returning to New Orleans any time soon, they will be enrolling their children in new schools, finding new jobs, finding new accommodations. If they have any insurance money coming, they will collect it. If they have none, then -- whatever emotional connections they may have to their home -- their economic connection to it has been severed. In a very short time, these people will be making decisions that will start to reshape population and workforce patterns in the region.

A city is a complex and ongoing process - one that requires physical infrastructure to support the people who live in it and people to operate that physical infrastructure. We don't simply mean power plants or sewage treatment facilities, although they are critical. Someone has to be able to sell a bottle of milk or a new shirt. Someone has to be able to repair a car or do surgery. And the people who do those things, along with the infrastructure that supports them, are gone -- and they are not coming back anytime soon.

It is in this sense, then, that it seems almost as if a nuclear weapon went off in New Orleans. The people mostly have fled rather than died, but they are gone. Not all of the facilities are destroyed, but most are. It appears to us that New Orleans and its environs have passed the point of recoverability. The area can recover, to be sure, but only with the commitment of massive resources from outside -- and those resources would always be at risk to another Katrina.

The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States.

Let's go back to the beginning. The United States historically has depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. Barges navigate the river. Ships go on the ocean. The barges must offload to the ships and vice versa. There must be a facility to empower this exchange. It is also the facility where goods are stored in transit. Without this port, the river can't be used. Protecting that port has been, from the time of the Louisiana Purchase, a fundamental national security issue for the United States.

Katrina has taken out the port -- not by destroying the facilities, but by rendering the area uninhabited and potentially uninhabitable. That means that even if the Mississippi remains navigable, the absence of a port near the mouth of the river makes the Mississippi enormously less useful than it was. For these reasons, the United States has lost not only its biggest port complex, but also the utility of its river transport system -- the foundation of the entire American transport system. There are some substitutes, but none with sufficient capacity to solve the problem.

It follows from this that the port will have to be revived and, one would assume, the city as well. The ports around New Orleans are located as far north as they can be and still be accessed by ocean-going vessels. The need for ships to be able to pass each other in the waterways, which narrow to the north, adds to the problem. Besides, the Highway 190 bridge in Baton Rouge blocks the river going north. New Orleans is where it is for a reason: The United States needs a city right there.

New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating. The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the city will return because it has to.

Geopolitics is the stuff of permanent geographical realities and the way they interact with political life. Geopolitics created New Orleans. Geopolitics caused American presidents to obsess over its safety. And geopolitics will force the city's resurrection, even if it is in the worst imaginable place.




Quoting Neapolitan:
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030

  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article


You do realize, (and the article doesn't mention), that for some areas (and New Orleans in particular) there has been more of a threat from SINKING land in the recent past.

Even if the seas don't rise, parts of New Orleans will be under water because of subsidence (the natural sinking of land).

"...The upshot is that New Orleans has been sinking as much as 3 ft. a century. That's bad news for a city that is already an average of 8 ft. below sea level. Making things worse: sea levels worldwide are rising as much as 3 ft. a century on account of global warming. The lower New Orleans plunges, the worse it will be when the big one hits..."

Link
It is OK, they will gain it back when she freezes over
again. As it has 6 times in the past.