WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Landmark 2013 IPCC Report: 95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 10:50 AM GMT on September 27, 2013

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased." Thus opens the landmark 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued today. Working without pay, hundreds of our most dedicated and talented climate experts have collaborated over a six-year period to create the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific document on climate change ever crafted. The first 31 pages of what will be a 4,000-page tome was released this morning after an all-night approval session that stretched until 6:30 this morning in Stockholm, Sweden. This "Summary For Policymakers" lays out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that will limit the damage.

Q: How much has the planet warmed, and what has caused the warming?
The report documents that Earth's surface temperature warmed by 0.85°C (1.5°F) between 1880 - 2012. Two-thirds of this warming (0.6°C, 1.1°F) came after 1950. Human-emitted heat-trapping gases likely were responsible for 0.5 - 1.3°C of this post-1950 warming, while human-emitted aerosol particles reflected away sunlight and likely caused cooling (-0.6° - 0.1°C change in temperature.) Climate change due to variations in solar energy, volcanic dust, and natural sources of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were likely responsible for a small -0.1° - 0.1°C change in temperature since 1950. The sun was in a cool phase between 1978 - 2011, and the report estimates that lower solar output cooled Earth's climate slightly during this period. The influence of cosmic rays on climate over the past century was to weak to be detected, they said. In short, the report shows little support for a significant natural component to global warming since 1950. In fact, natural effects may well have made Earth cooler than it otherwise would have been. The report says that "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period." In other words, close to 100% of the observed warming is due to humans.


Figure 1. The changing view of the IPCC's assessment reports on the human contribution to climate change.

Q: How have the IPCC reports changed through time?
1990: The report did not quantify the human contribution to global warming.

1995: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."

2001: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are likely (67-90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2007: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are very likely (at least 90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951.

2013: Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth's temperature increase since 1951. This is the same confidence that scientists have in the age of the universe, or that cigarettes are deadly, according to an excellent AP article published this week by Seth Borenstein.

Q: Did the new report change the plausible range of global warming?
A. Yes. The "climate sensitivity" is defined as how much the planet would warm if the amount of atmospheric CO2 doubled. A variety of studies have arrived at very different estimates of the exact CO2 sensitivity of the climate, and the 2007 IPCC report gave a range of the most plausible values: 2 to 4.5ºC, with 3ºC deemed the most likely value. Recent research indicates that a sensitivity as low as 1.5ºC may be possible, so the IPCC widened the range of the most plausible values: 1.5 to 4.5ºC. The new lower limit of 1.5ºC is a best-case scenario that appears no more likely than the high end of 4.5ºC. Furthermore, even the lowest sensitivity scenario would not negate the need for emissions reductions. Current trends show that emissions are on track to increase far beyond doubling, which would create dangerous temperature rise even in a low-sensitivity climate. (Note that they give a small but worrisome possibility--0 to 10% chance--that the climate could warm by more than 6ºC for a doubling of CO2.)


Figure 2. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

Q: What does the IPCC say about the "speed bump" in surface global warming over the past 10 - 15 years?
Much attention has been given in the press to the fact that the rate of surface warming over the past fifteen years has been slower than during previous decades. The report notes that due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) of 0.05 °C per decade, which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 of 0.12 °C per decade. However, the recent slow-down in surface warming is likely to be a mere "speed bump" on the highway of global warming, caused by natural variability. We have seen such "speed bumps" before, as well as short, sharp downhill stretches where surface warming speeds up. For example, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf writes at realclimate.org that "the warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be." Physics demands that the massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide humans have dumped into the atmosphere must cause significant warming, but the chaotic complexity of the system is expected to obscure the magnitude of the long-term trend on time scales of a few years to a decade. The attention being to this latest "speed bump" on the highway of global warming is a direct result of a well-funded PR effort by the fossil fuel industry. One has to look at the total warming of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice to judge the true progress of global warming, not just the surface temperature. There has been no slowdown in total global warming when we regard this entire system, as I argued in a post earlier this year. More than 90% of the energy of global warming goes into the oceans, and the reason for the relative lack of surface warming this decade is that more heat than usual is being stored in the oceans. That heat will be released to the atmosphere at some point, removing the "speed bump".

The new IPCC report says that there is medium confidence that the "speed bump" in surface warming is due in roughly equal measure to natural multi-year unpredictable variability in the weather, and to changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. Most of the climate models do not reproduce this lower surface warming rate during the past 10 - 15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is due to natural climate variability that is impossible to predict (for example, the El Niño/La Niña cycle), with possible contributions from the models' inadequate handling of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output, and changes in light-reflecting aerosol particles, and, in some models, a too-strong response to heat-trapping gases. For an explanation of why arguments about the global warming “slowdown” are misleading and should not offer any consolation, see this explainer from Skeptical Science and this one from the Union for Concerned Scientists.

Q: What does the IPCC say about drought?
A: Drought and reduction in water availability due to decreased mountain snow and ice is the greatest threat civilization faces from climate change, since it attacks the two things we need to live--water and food. Unfortunately, the report makes no mention of drought in the text, and we will have to wait for the March 2014 release of the "impacts" portion of the report to hear more about the threat drought poses to society. Today's report does mention drought in one of their two tables, giving “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have already observed a human-caused increase in the intensity and/or duration of drought in some parts of the world. This is a reduction in confidence from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) However, the forecast for the future is the same as in the 2007 report: we are likely to see dry areas get dryer due to human-caused climate change by 2100. In particular, there is high confidence (80%) in likely surface drying in the Mediterranean, Southwest U.S., and Southern Africa by 2100 in the high-end emissions scenario (RCP8.5), in association with expected increases in surface temperatures and a shift in the atmospheric circulation that will expand the region of sinking air that creates the world's greatest deserts.

Q: What does the IPCC say about sea level rise?
A: Global average sea level has risen 7.5" (19 cm) since 1901. Sea level has accelerated to 1.5" (3.2 cm) per decade over the past 20 years--nearly double the rate of rise during the 20th century. The report projects that sea level will rise by an extra 0.9 - 3.2' (26 to 98 cm) by 2100. While the maximum sea level rise expected has gone up since the 2007 report, when the IPCC did not even consider melt from Greenland and Antarctica because of the primitive state of glacier science then, the new upper bound (3.2') is still is a very conservative number. IPCC decided not to include estimates from at least five published studies that had higher numbers, including two studies with rises of 2 meters (6.6 feet.) This is in contradiction to NOAA's December 2012 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, which has 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) as its worst-case sea level rise scenario for 2100. Even this number may be too low; at a presentation Thursday in New York City for Climate Week, glaciologist Dr. Jason Box, who knows as much about Greenland's ice sheets as any person alive, explained that Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise doubled over the past ten years. If Greenland's melt rate continues to double every ten years until 2100, Greenland alone will contribute 4.6' (1.4 meters) of global sea level rise, he said. If the doubling time becomes every nine years, then Greenland will cause 16.4' (5 meters) of sea level rise by 2100. His best-guess number for global sea level rise by 2100 is 4.7' (1.5 meters), but warns that our models used to predict melting of ice of Greenland have large unknowns.

Long-term sea level rise is expected to be much greater. The IPCC report states with "very high confidence" that 119,000 - 126,000 years ago, during the period before the most recent ice age, sea levels were 16 - 33 feet (5 - 10 meters) higher than at present. Melting of Greenland "very likely" contributed 1.4 - 4.3 meters of this rise, with additional contributions coming from Antarctica. Temperatures at that time weren't more than 2°C warmer than "pre-industrial" levels during that period. Two of the four scenarios used for the report project we will exceed 2°C of warming by 2100, with "high confidence", raising the possibility that we could see sea level rises of many meters over time scales of 1,000 years or so. The report expects sea level rise reach 3.3 - 9.8' (1 - 3 meters) by 2300, assuming CO2 levels rise above 700 ppm (close to what the higher-end RCP6.0 scenario prescribes.)

Q: What does the IPCC say about ocean acidity?
A: The world's oceans have seen a 26% increase in acidity since the Industrial Revolution, as the average pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. Under all report scenarios, the acidification of the world's oceans will increase, with the pH falling by another 0.06 - 0.32 units. According to a 2012 study in Science, the current acidification rate is likely the fastest in 300 million years, and "may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems."

Q: How about hurricanes?
A: The new report gives “low confidence”--a 20% chance--that we have observed a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes in some parts of the world. This is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said that it was more likely than not (greater than 50% chance.) The IPCC likely took note of a landmark 2010 review paper, "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", authored by ten top hurricane scientists, which concluded that the U.S. has not seen any long-term increase in landfalling tropical storms and hurricanes, and that "it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes." The 2013 IPCC report predicts that there is a greater than 50% chance (more likely than not) that we will see a human-caused increase in intense hurricanes by 2100 in some regions; this is a reduction from the 2007 report, which said this would be likely (66% chance or higher.)

Q: How about extreme weather events?
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights have decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia, and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe." The report made no mention of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, since the uncertainties of how they have behaved in the past and how climate change might affect them in the future are too great.

Q: What does the IPCC say about a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario?
A: In the disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)--the ocean current system of which the Gulf Stream Current is a part of--collapses, causing a rapid and extreme change in climate. A collapse of the AMOC is very unlikely (0 - 10% chance) before 2100 according to the report, but cannot be ruled out beyond the 21st century. A weakening of the AMOC by about 11 - 34% by 2100 is expected in the moderate RCP4.5 scenario, where CO2 levels reach 538 ppm in 2100. However, these odds assume that Greenland will dump a relatively modest amount of fresh water into the North Atlantic by 2100. If the higher-end sea level rise estimates that the IPCC did not consider as plausible come true, the AMOC will likely slow down much more, with a higher chance of collapse this century. No slow-down in the AMOC has been observed yet, according to the report.

Commentary
As I read though the report, digesting the exhaustive list of changes to Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and ice that have occurred over the past few decades, I was struck by how the IPCC report reads like lab results from a sick hospital patient. The natural systems that civilization depends upon to thrive have been profoundly disturbed, and the forecast for the future reads like a medical diagnosis for an overweight smoker with a heart condition: unless the patient makes major lifestyle changes, the illness will grow far worse, with severe debilitation or death distinct possibilities. We can and we must make the huge effort to turn things around. Oil and natural gas are the energy technologies of the 20th century. Coal is the energy technology of the 19th century. We have countless innovative and dedicated people ready to move us to the energy technology of the 21st century; I heard three of them speak last night at the Climate Week event I am at, and they really gave me some needed hope that we can turn things around. We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!

Jeff Masters

Climate Change

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

2501. GatorWX
Quoting 2494. Sfloridacat5:


The truth in my world is
The people I know (friends and co-workers) don't even think about GW or Clmate Change. They are too busy with all the other problems they have in their lives (medical, paying bills, etc).


Very true. I guess I was referring specifically to those who have a strong opinion or think they do.

"Run, run rabbit run
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one"

...the next part of the song, lol. Fitting. :)
2502. LargoFl
ok I see GW in here again...see ya.............
Quoting 2487. GatorWX:


lol, seriously?


Correcting peoples spelling in a weather blog is a little crazy, especially when you have second language learners.

Some of the smartest people I know (knowledge in the field of meteorology) have horrible spelling.
2504. Broward
Global cooling deniers will never give up.
2505. FOREX
Quoting 2502. LargoFl:
ok I see GW in here again...see ya.............


And it doesn't help when a moderator continues talking about it. jmo
The tropics seem to be getting more active...but so are the westerlies. Baroclinic equivalent of a Cat-1 for southwestern British Columbia this eve...influenced in part by ex-Pabuk

Quoting 2501. GatorWX:


Very true. I guess I was referring specifically to those who have a strong opinion or think they do.

"Run, run rabbit run
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one"

...the next part of the song, lol. Fitting. :)


Okay, I got you.
And this forum has plenty of them.

I live a 24 ft above sea level. I'm estimating how many years it's going to take before I have beach front property.
Quoting FOREX:


hard to locate a center.


No real defind llc still very broad. I'd say development if any should occur in 1-2 days or so with CCKW passage.
Quoting 2507. Sfloridacat5:


Quoted myself - mistake
2510. GatorWX
Sea Height Anomaly:

97L Click to see loop. Firing from the surface in the last frame.
2512. hydrus
Quoting 2473. PensacolaDoug:
Hypothetical question for the AGW proponents here. If at this time next year the Artic ice cap has recovered still more (as it has this year) and is approaching its 30 year mean, would that instill any doubt in your minds in the AGW theory?
Good morning Doug. There are people here that have studied the climate and Earth for many years.They know how dynamic the oceans and atmosphere can be. And your a right, things could change drastically to alter the current warming phase from something that we were not aware of. One problem is Greenland is melting so fast, that it would take a monumental event just to stop it, nevermind reverse it. Over 90% of glaciers are receding, trees and other plant life indigenous to southern regions are migrating north. Insects, birds, and other wildlife that lived at lower elevations are moving into higher regions because of warmer conditions up high. I dont make this stuff up, I checked it myself and its real. I have no agenda, and I do not lie. One way or another, it shouldnt be ignored. Some day they will pin down precisely what is happening, but why wait when some things can be done today and help our environment in the process. We will have to make changes in the near future anyway when fossil fuels begin to run out, the more ground we cover now, will be beneficial for generations to come..jmo
Quoting 2485. Naga5000:


Both 2000 and 2001 saw increases over 1999, 2003 and 2004 saw increases over 2002. Two back to back years doesn't mean much. We would need to see a discernible upward trend over a much longer time frame. AGW theory is not based on Arctic sea ice, but rather the measured energy imbalance and the known absorption spectrum of GHG's.

Natural variability, especially regional, still comes in to play.


AGW, doesn't necessarily have to include any melting of the Arctic which is unprecedented, only the general background warming which will be injurious to the future existence of a species in their natural environment.
Any warming's which cause imbalance in any area will have to be included in the files of suspect, even if some deserts get colder and some wind patterns change!
Quoting 2505. FOREX:


And it doesn't help when a moderator continues talking about it. jmo


It's the topic of the blog. Tropical weather isn't. I could be all snarky and tell you to stay on-topic, but that would be cruel. Besides, what do you have against AGW/CC?
2515. VR46L
Quoting 2513. PlazaRed:

AGW, doesn't necessarily have to include any melting of the Arctic which is unprecedented, only the general background warming which will be injurious to the future existence of a species in their natural environment.
Any warming's which cause imbalance in any area will have to be included in the files of suspect, even if some deserts get colder and some wind patterns change!


Hiya Plaza !

I haven't seen ya in ages , hope life is treating you well.
Quoting 2504. Broward:
Global cooling deniers will never give up.
"Global cooling deniers"? Hmmm. Isn't that a little like "Easter Bunny deniers"? "Santa Claus deniers"? "Tooth Fairy deniers"? "Fire-breathing dragon deniers"? I only ask as it appears to me there's as much evidence in support of those mythical beings--perhaps even more--as there is behind "global cooling". If/when you get a chance, please post your evidence. Thanks!
2517. FOREX
Quoting 2514. Astrometeor:


It's the topic of the blog. Tropical weather isn't. I could be all snarky and tell you to stay on-topic, but that would be cruel. Besides, what do you have against AGW/CC?


Well, I didn't want to directly insult Dr. Masters,so I made the comment towards the moderator. I for one believe global warming is a huge problem, just tired of reading about it on a tropical weather blog.
For 97L I see it at 13.8N 77W.
2519. VR46L
Quoting 2514. Astrometeor:


It's the topic of the blog. Tropical weather isn't. I could be all snarky and tell you to stay on-topic, but that would be cruel. Besides, what do you have against AGW/CC?


Astro according to the blog rules tropics weather is always allowed

When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself.
2520. Broward
ok so lets get rid of the cruise ships,carbonated beverages,limos and private jets.
Quoting 2518. Skyepony:
For 97L I see it at 13.8N 77W.

I say just about right
Lol, Michael anyone?

"AN UPPER-LEVEL LOW JUST TO THE
NORTHWEST OF THE DEPRESSION CONTINUES TO IMPART SOUTHWESTERLY
SHEAR...AND THE GLOBAL MODELS SUGGEST THAT THIS REGIME SHOULD
CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT 12-24 HOURS. LATER ON...THE DYNAMICAL
GUIDANCE INDICATES SOME RELAXATION OF THE SHEAR SO SOME
STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST IN A DAY OR SO. THE LATEST GFS RUN DOES
NOT SHOW THE SYSTEM WEAKENING IN THE LATTER PART OF THE FORECAST
PERIOD...AND THE NEW OFFICIAL FORECAST CALLS FOR THE CYCLONE TO
MAINTAIN ITSELF FOR THE NEXT 5 DAYS. THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO THE
LATEST INTENSITY MODEL CONSENSUS."
2523. Broward
I drive a camry hybrid because I don't want to give my money to the Arabs and it pollutes less..not flying a private jet around like Al Gore.I like clean water and food..
2524. fire635

Quoting 2508. hurricane23:


No real defind llc still very broad. I'd say development if any should occur in 1-2 days or so with CCKW passage.


To me... it looks like the center (or future center) is northwest of the majority of the convection. It looks like that spin is barely moving... maybe just a tad... WNW
Quoting 2489. Naga5000:
By the way, here is the NSIDC's awesome interactive sea ice extent chart. Very cool thing to play around with. Link


Remember after the big plunge 2007(extent), 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all higher than 2007, in 2012 another
plunge, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see smething similar happen.

Table 1. Previous minimum Arctic sea ice extents
YEAR MINIMUM ICE EXTENT DATE
IN MILLIONS OF SQUARE KILOMETERS IN MILLIONS OF SQUARE MILES
2007 4.17 1.61 September 18
2008 4.59 1.77 September 20
2009 5.13 1.98 September 13
2010 4.63 1.79 September 21
2011 4.33 1.67 September 11
2012 3.41 1.32 September 16
2013 5.10 1.97 September 13
1979 to 2000 average 6.70 2.59 September 13
1981 to 2010 average 6.22 2.40 September 15
* According to near-real-time data, this year’s minimum extent is slightly lower than 2009. However, the ranking between 2009 and 2013 is close, and may change once the final version of the data are processed. See our Frequently Asked Questions: Do your data undergo quality control? for more information about near-real-time data.

** Note that the dates and extents of the minimums have been re-calculated from what we posted in previous years; see our Frequently Asked Questions for more information.

Quoting 2524. fire635:



To me... it looks like the center (or future center) is northwest of the majority of the convection. It looks like that spin is barely moving... maybe just a tad... WNW

...nah...
post 2516 you have WU mail
Quoting 2496. Autistic2:


This an open question. I just quoted PT because he stated it so well.

Granted Gasoline and its dirivites are hurting us. Coal is hurting us. How much is still a question in my mind.

I made a quite and perfect solar oven...but it wont run a Mcdonalds.

My friend has solar panels and a wind turbine on his boat but it wont run a city.

Atomic can due this but just look at the potential environment damage (and it only takes seconds to do it).

A relative in the A/C made a Freon based solar generator that will run a 60 watt light bulb.

I read a lot about HY but the storage and safety issues boggle the mind. Think BOOM.

Now the question. Is there any one tech or combo of tech that can meet the current energy needs of the world in a timely manner?
If you're asking for a one-size-fits-all solution, the answer is "probably not" (though the hypothetical "cold fusion" would certainly come close). No, it's not going to take a single Silver Bullet, but a whole magazine-full of them. That is, not just wind, or just solar, but a smart combination of solar, and wind, and hydro, and hydrogen, and biofuels, and geothermal, and fission, and even kind of out-there alternatives such as lightning, plus some things that for now exist only in some researcher's imagination. (And it's likely there always be niche uses for fossil fuels.) It's also going to take a new generation of visionary and realistic policymakers not beholden to fossil fuel interests.
The Greenland ice sheet is less stable than expected in the last report. In the Eemian (the last interglacial period 120,000 years ago, when the global temperature was higher by 1-2 °C) global sea level was 5-10 meters higher than today (in the 4th IPCC report this was thought to be just 4-6 meters). Due to better data very ​​high confidence is assigned to this. Since a total loss of the Greenland ice sheet corresponds to a 7 meters rise in sea level, this may indicate ice loss from Antarctica in the Eemian.

In the new IPCC report the critical temperature limit at which a total loss of the Greenland ice sheet will occur is estimated as 1 to 4°C of warming above preindustrial temperature. In the previous report that was still 1.9 to 4.6 °C – and that was one of the reasons why international climate policy has agreed to limit global warming to below 2 degrees.

With unabated emissions (RCP8.5) the Arctic Ocean will likely become virtually ice-free in summer before the middle of the century (see figure). In the last report, this was not expected until near the end of the century.





Figure 4 The ice cover on the Arctic Ocean in the 2-degree world (left) and the 4-degree world (right).
Quoting 2499. FOREX:


hard to locate a center.


I have the center near 14N/78W


Another wet pattern arriving yet again for Central Florida.
Are the denialists out in full force? Don't feel like reading through hundreds of pages of intelligent people trying to convince not-so-intelligent people that facts are facts and science is science....
NAM wants a sombrero for 97l.
2534. barbamz
Quoting 2418. Hurricane614:


That wave coming off of Africa looks very healthy IMO


Hello over there, and I agree (and it's already a low):



I find it amusing that some of the same "scientists" who claim to have 95% confidence in human induced global warming and can reliably predict continuation of this trend and its effects 100 years out are, at the very same time, demonstrably inaccurate in their ability to predict the severity of hurricane seasons six months in advance.

These scientists have a deeply vested interest in there actually being a crisis (that can be averted if only we act now) as it justifies their continued funding. Clearly this is a conflict of interest and one that deeply clouds their judgement.

But who am I to question the religion of anthropogenic global warming…the lives of my children are at risk if we don’t act now. Oh my!
@#2496

Have a look at Seattle's Carbon Neutral Plan by 2050. These are real steps that may work on a large city level. Link
Quoting 2530. stormpetrol:


I have the center near 14N/78W

nah I say your position is too far W I say its closer to 76W/77W
Quoting 2535. scuba123:
I find it amusing that some of the same "scientists" who claim to have 95% confidence in human induced global warming and can reliably predict continuation of this trend and its effects 100 years out are, at the very same time, demonstrably inaccurate in their ability to predict the severity of hurricane seasons six months in advance.

These scientists have a deeply vested interest in there actually being a crisis (that can be averted if only we act now) as it justifies their continued funding. Clearly this is a conflict of interest and one that deeply clouds their judgement.

But who am I to question the religion of anthropogenic global warming…the lives of my children are at risk if we don’t act now. Oh my!


Weather is not climate...fyi.
2539. FOREX
.LONG TERM [Tuesday Night through Saturday]...From Tallahassee NWS.
The main uncertainty in the extended forecast is related to any
tropical cyclone development in the NW Caribbean or SE Gulf of
Mexico. As of the 2 AM outlook, NHC gives a 20% probability of
development in the next 48 hours, with the odds increasing to 40%
in the next five days. The global models are showing varying
degrees of development at this point, so confidence in any one
solution is low. Putting that aside, the consensus of the ECMWF
and GFS places much of the eastern Gulf coast region in weak S-SW
flow in the 700-300mb layer with increasing deep moisture. We
should be situated between a weak mid-upper level low near the
Louisiana coast, and a ridge in the same layer near the Bahamas.
This should keep scattered showers and thunderstorms in the
forecast through much of the period with near-normal temps.

Quoting 2535. scuba123:
I find it amusing that some of the same "scientists" who claim to have 95% confidence in human induced global warming and can reliably predict continuation of this trend and its effects 100 years out are, at the very same time, demonstrably inaccurate in their ability to predict the severity of hurricane seasons six months in advance.

These scientists have a deeply vested interest in there actually being a crisis (that can be averted if only we act now) as it justifies their continued funding. Clearly this is a conflict of interest and one that deeply clouds their judgement.

But who am I to question the religion of anthropogenic global warming…the lives of my children are at risk if we don’t act now. Oh my!


Didn't even have to look back through 100s of pages to find the denialist attitude. 2nd post after visiting the board today and here we go with a doozy of one!

I'm interested in the results you've found from your scientific research. What kind of scientific evidence has your research shown that leads you to believe humans are not responsible for climate change? ..... or do you just refuse to believe those who actually did the research, well, just, because?

Quoting 2536. Naga5000:
@#2496

Have a look at Seattle's Carbon Neutral Plan by 2050. These are real steps that may work on a large city level. Link


Will read, thank you
With the models showing an upper-level low in the western Gulf as 97L enters, and with an abundance of dry air across the region, if 97L develops...and that's a big if...it should be nothing more than a weak, sheared tropical storm.

I will agree that the Earth is showing miniscule signs of warming-- that answers the "what," I am not satisfied that scientists have answered the "why?"-- in other words, over history there have been variations in the weather going back to the Ice Age, obviously human interaction with the environment contributed zero to this. And really, what is the solution? Most would say "renewable resources,wind and solar." Perhaps one of the more astute member would calculate acres per mega watt output-- in other words, what is required in a fossil fuel plant, acreage wise vs how many acres are required to provide a mega watt from wind or solar. The
obvious solution is nuclear power, however most liberal's eyes glaze over and blood pressure spikes at the mention. Giving up air conditioned homes and cars would go a long way-- trading bicycles for autos would help--- cutting cattle herds by 50% would reduce cow flatulance,-- but what impact would all the draconian suggestions have--- well, it would make Al Gore the first "Green" billionaire, but I doubt all of the above would have one iota effect on the Earth's temp--
Quoting 2473. PensacolaDoug:
Hypothetical question for the AGW proponents here. If at this time next year the Artic ice cap has recovered still more (as it has this year) and is approaching its 30 year mean, would that instill any doubt in your minds in the AGW theory?

Ignoring the fact that "recovery" is a very very poor term to use to describe the sea ice in the arctic, as it is still outside of virtually all climate model ranges and far below values seen just a few decades ago, there are some things to look for that would provide contradiction to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

One aspect of the climate system acting somewhat contrary to the main theory of anthropogenic global warming, however, would not be enough to doubt the theory as a whole. There could be numerous reasons why the rate of heat energy gain (hypothetically, per Doug's question) could slow in one part of the climate system (such as the sea ice) and increase somewhere else. Heat could move toward increased atmospheric temperatures, or perhaps melting of land ice.

Although we have strong evidence telling us what the global temperature will be under different forcings, our understanding on how it will get there is not as strong. It likely wont be linear, because of the complex nature of numerous interactions. Just look at how the earth responds to the gradual, cycle change in energy known to us as seasons?

If all of the main heat stores begin to show signs of heat loss over timescales relevant to climate - that is, more than a few years where measurement uncertainty and internal variability are large - then certain questions would definitely need to be addressed.
Quoting 2540. CarolinaHurricanes87:


Didn't even have to look back through 100s of pages to find the denialist attitude. 2nd post after visiting the board today and here we go with a doozy of one!

I'm interested in the results you've found from your scientific research. What kind of scientific evidence has your research shown that leads you to believe humans are not responsible for climate change? ..... or do you just refuse to believe those who actually did the research, well, just, because?



Do you want to know why people shrug AGW off on this blog? To me it is because I have yet to see a civilized debate on this EVER on here. I am tired of coming on here and having people be so nasty to each other just because they have a different opinion. That can happen during the tropical weather discussion, but it is not all the time. AGW brings it out every single time and I think some of us are tired of it.
Quoting 2535:
I find it amusing that some of the same "scientists" who claim to have 95% confidence in human induced global warming and can reliably predict continuation of this trend and its effects 100 years out are, at the very same time, demonstrably inaccurate in their ability to predict the severity of hurricane seasons six months in advance.

These scientists have a deeply vested interest in there actually being a crisis (that can be averted if only we act now) as it justifies their continued funding. Clearly this is a conflict of interest and one that deeply clouds their judgement.

But who am I to question the religion of anthropogenic global warming…the lives of my children are at risk if we don’t act now. Oh my!
I myself find it amusing that so many people who chime in on the subject still--in spite of the millions of words written in patient explanation--don't understand the difference between climate and weather.

Anyway, this comment's contrarian buzzword summary:

"Scientists" (in quotes) (ad hominem)
"Deeply-vested interest" (conspiracy theory)
"Justifies their continued funding" (conspiracy theory)
"Conflict of interest" (ad hominem)
"Religion" (conspiracy theory)

IPCC

So here's your chance: can you try again, this time attempting to refute climate change theory with scientific evidence rather than emotional rhetoric and logical fallacies? Thanks!
2547. Broward
scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before 1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no warming over the last 13 years.
2548. Broward
The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.”
Quoting 2545. Hurricanes101:


Do you want to know why people shrug AGW off on this blog? To me it is because I have yet to see a civilized debate on this EVER on here. I am tired of coming on here and having people be so nasty to each other just because they have a different opinion. That can happen during the tropical weather discussion, but it is not all the time. AGW brings it out every single time and I think some of us are tired of it.


The scientists have done the research proving AGW.... it is up to the denialists to come to the debate with their own scientific research, or give up the debate. Denialists who come here to simply disagree and argue with absolutely ZERO scientific research of their own is the problem. Until then, I view those people as nothing more than trolls
2550. Dakster
Quoting 2547. Broward:
scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940. Note that the warming before 1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no warming over the last 13 years.


Can you please provide a link to this?
Quoting 2535. scuba123:
I find it amusing that some of the same "scientists" who claim to have 95% confidence in human induced global warming and can reliably predict continuation of this trend and its effects 100 years out are, at the very same time, demonstrably inaccurate in their ability to predict the severity of hurricane seasons six months in advance.

These scientists have a deeply vested interest in there actually being a crisis (that can be averted if only we act now) as it justifies their continued funding. Clearly this is a conflict of interest and one that deeply clouds their judgement.

But who am I to question the religion of anthropogenic global warming…the lives of my children are at risk if we don’t act now. Oh my!

Quoting 2543. Svfortuna:
I will agree that the Earth is showing miniscule signs of warming-- that answers the "what," I am not satisfied that scientists have answered the "why?"-- in other words, over history there have been variations in the weather going back to the Ice Age, obviously human interaction with the environment contributed zero to this. And really, what is the solution? [Irrelevant political implications]
[Irrelevant reference to Al Gore]

"Climate has changed before" is not a logical step toward answering why today's climate is changing anymore than saying "lung cancer has happened before" when addressing smoking.

Climate changes when there is a change to the equilibrium energy balance in the climate system. Over very long time scales, changes to the earth's orbital characteristics kicked off changes to the climate that involved numerous positive and negative feedbacks. Today, over a much shorter timescale, humans have sped up the natural carbon cycle and have produced a climatic warming trend while the previously-described natural cycles would be causing a stable or cooling climate.
Climate does not just change because it wants to, it changes through an actual physical mechanism; the physics doesn't care about the trigger.
Quoting 2549. CarolinaHurricanes87:


The scientists have done the research proving AGW.... it is up to the denialists to come to the debate with their own scientific research, or give up the debate. Denialists who come here to simply disagree and argue with absolutely ZERO scientific research of their own is the problem. Until then, I view those people as nothing more than trolls


Then maybe you should do what we are told to do with trolls and IGNORE THEM AND MOVE ON
2554. Broward
land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. established temperature authorities today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.
Quoting 2549. CarolinaHurricanes87:


The scientists have done the research proving AGW.... it is up to the denialists to come to the debate with their own scientific research, or give up the debate. Denialists who come here to simply disagree and argue with absolutely ZERO scientific research of their own is the problem. Until then, I view those people as nothing more than trolls


I'd even accept a cite from the peer-reviewed literature, the usual suspects of septic blogs don't count.
2556. FOREX
Quoting 2554. Broward:
land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. established temperature authorities today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.


Ignored.
2557. Broward
again name calling ..typical response
Quoting 2553. Hurricanes101:


Then maybe you should do what we are told to do with trolls and IGNORE THEM AND MOVE ON


I'd rather attempt to convince them to listen to the research that is out there, or do their own research to validate the (currently invalid) points they attempt to make. This specific blog's topic IS global warming, so attempting to lead the trolls to clarity on the subject seems okay. I doubt they'll listen- most people are in denial for a reason- but it's worth a shot.
The Whackos come in waves it seems...
2557. Broward 3:31 PM GMT on September 29, 2013

site your work and maybe they will stop. That is all I will say about this
Quoting 2543:
I will agree that the Earth is showing miniscule signs of warming-- that answers the "what," I am not satisfied that scientists have answered the "why?"-- in other words, over history there have been variations in the weather going back to the Ice Age, obviously human interaction with the environment contributed zero to this. And really, what is the solution? Most would say "renewable resources,wind and solar." Perhaps one of the more astute member would calculate acres per mega watt output-- in other words, what is required in a fossil fuel plant, acreage wise vs how many acres are required to provide a mega watt from wind or solar. The
obvious solution is nuclear power, however most liberal's eyes glaze over and blood pressure spikes at the mention. Giving up air conditioned homes and cars would go a long way-- trading bicycles for autos would help--- cutting cattle herds by 50% would reduce cow flatulance,-- but what impact would all the draconian suggestions have--- well, it would make Al Gore the first "Green" billionaire, but I doubt all of the above would have one iota effect on the Earth's temp--
Yet again, no attempt at scientific refutation of the facts; instead just more denialist nonsense. Contrarian buzzword summary:

"Miniscule signs of warming" (denying data)
"Liberal's" (ad hominem)
"Giving up air-conditioned homes and cars" (conspiracy theory)
"Cow flatulence" (Casting doubt on evidence)
"Al Gore" (ad hominem)

IPCC
2562. Broward

Ignored so much its in your post
Quoting 2548. Broward:
The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.” He adds that, “The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.”

Temperature trends of stations cited "best" by Mr. Watt's surface stations project show the exact same temperature trend as the well-sited stations. The thermometer temperature trends match trends from satellite-derived temperature datasets (not subject to urban heat island effects or "poor siting"), and are consistent with other measurements of sea level rise and land ice loss.
2564. Broward
again name calling ..typical response
2565. FOREX
Quoting 2561. Neapolitan:
Yet again, no attempt at scientific refutation of the facts; instead just more denialist nonsense. Contrarian buzzword summary:

"Miniscule signs of warming" (denying data)
"Liberal's" (ad hominem)
"Giving up air-conditioned homes and cars" (conspiracy theory)
"Cow flatulence" (Casting doubt on evidence)
"Al Gore" (ad hominem)

IPCC

ignored.
2566. Broward
chart shows started out at zero ended at zero and ends in 2008
2567. Broward
ignored would be not posting lol..later... been fun
Quoting 2564. Broward:
again name calling ..typical response


Bring your own scientific evidence to the table, or stop denying the scientific evidence provided to you.

I feel like the typical response from you is similar to a response you'd receive from a rock when trying to teach it english.
2569. hydrus
Quoting 2559. CaicosRetiredSailor:
The Whackos come in waves it seems...
Everything comes in waves..jmo :)
Dr. Master's current blog is extremely controversial.

My opinion...the AGW theorists are holding a losing hand.

95% sure...are they?

Well, having played enough hands of poker to know...the river can turn the tables on that 95%.

Many things influence climate. The Earth is replete with liquid water. A stable star provides heat. Land masses and great oceans interact with the atmosphere.

The atmosphere itself is mostly nitrogen with copious amounts of other gases, two of which are most important...oxygen and CO2.

Without CO2, plants would not exist. Plants provide oxygen. Most living creatures on Earth require it for life.

What amazes me is that CO2 comprises only 4 parts per 10,000 units...and that it is enough of a concentration for abundant plant life world wide.
2571. VR46L
First decent looking wave in a couple of weeks ....

Quoting 2567. Broward:
ignored would be not posting lol..later... been fun

When you return, be sure to ask when you are having difficulty with a particular climate science related topic. There are numerous persons with climate science literacy that would volunteer their time to help with you climate science topics or point you in the right direction.

It is much better for your character to approach the topic in that way, and it wouldn't give off the impression of gish-gallop troll bombing of the thread.
2573. drs2008
Quoting 2569. hydrus:
Everything comes in waves..jmo :)
both waves and particles. Quantum mechanics.
2574. Kyon5

Quoting 2571. VR46L:
First decent looking wave in a couple of weeks ....

Let's see if it can manage to survive.
2575. barbamz
Little side glance to southern Europe: After calm weeks a lot of severe and damaging storms with excessive rainfall, lightning and at least one tornado hit Italy (and southern France) today.


Source



Fotos of tornado damage from this morning in Massa / coast of Tuscany (where I've spent my vacations one year ago) here.




Bucine
2576. mrmombq


SYNOPSIS 2013092900

P43L (NHC: 20%-48h, 40%-120h)
15N, 75W
700 hPa


ECMWF: As P43L tracks to the northwest, the semi-permanent South Caribbean gyre remains to the south. OW slowly rises for 96 hours, but OW never gets high.

GFS: Story is fairly similar to yesterday's GFS. Tracks to the northwest crossing western Cuba. OW remains steady at a moderate level.

UKMET: Big shift from a westward, Nicaragua landfall in yesterday's forecast to one that is now similar to GFS, heading for a Pensacola-area landfall not long after 120 hours.

NAVGEM: Continues its story of a westward track, with only a slight shift to the north (Yucatan) compared with yesterday (Belize).

HWRF-GEN: Tracks to the north and farther east than the other models. Crosses Jamaica and central Cuba, ending up just east of Miami at 96 hours and then turning to the NNE.

ECMWF -2.9 v700 120h
GFS -2.2 v700 120h
UKMET -2.6 v700 120h
NAVGEM -3.0 v700 96h
HWGEN -1.0 v700 120h
2577. Broward
now I have changed my view on many people I previously respected.should be a separate blog for tropical..
Can any of this be explained by the use heat attracting constructive materials vs natural material such as mud?
Quoting 2577. Broward:
site was so much better before that jumped on the alarmist band wagon .


There is a great amount of money...AND...many careers at stake.

Defending in the face of a severe shortage of "LONG TERM DATA," in support a what is obviously a hoax, is understandable.
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
Dr. Master's current blog is extremely controversial.

My opinion...the AGW theorists are holding a losing hand.

95% sure...are they?

Well, having played enough hands of poker to know...the river can turn the tables on that 95%.

Many things influence climate. The Earth is replete with liquid water. A stable star provides heat. Land masses and great oceans interact with the atmosphere.

The atmosphere itself is mostly nitrogen with copious amounts of other gases, two of which are most important...oxygen and CO2.

Without CO2, plants would not exist. Plants provide oxygen. Most living creatures on Earth require it for life.

What amazes me is that CO2 comprises only 4 parts per 10,000 units...and that it is enough of a concentration for abundant plant life world wide.
Controverisal, perhaps, but only to those who can't or won't understand what's going on.

So far as your poker analogy, well, it's a poor one, if you ask me. Yes, the river card can turn the tables. But it's been well-established that the climatological deck is stacked, so scientists know what that last card is.; they don't expect any sudden surprises.

Yes, CO2 is important for life. So is water. People drown in water. Too much water is, therefore, a bad thing, just as is too much CO2. We have too much CO2.

It is amazing that CO2 can keep plants healthy around the globe, isn't it? I see you have acknowledged that it is, indeed, a very powerful molecule even in relatively small concentrations. That's a good start...
Quoting 2580. Neapolitan:
Controverisal, perhaps, but only to those who can't or won't understand what's going on.

So far as your poker analogy, well, it's a poor one, if you ask me. Yes, the river card can turn the tables. But it's been well-established that the climatological deck is stacked, so scientists know what that last card is.; they don't expect any sudden surprises.

Yes, CO2 is important for life. So is water. People drown in water. Too much water is, therefore, a bad thing, just as is too much CO2. We have too much CO2.

It is amazing that CO2 can keep plants healthy around the globe, isn't it? I see you have acknowledged that it is, indeed, a very powerful molecule even in relatively small concentrations. That's a good start...


No offense, but your analogy about too much water is poor, just as mine was. :)
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
Dr. Master's current blog is extremely controversial.


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:
The atmosphere itself is mostly nitrogen with copious amounts of other gases, two of which are most important...oxygen and CO2.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.
Quoting 2570. CycloneOz:Without CO2, plants would not exist. Plants provide oxygen. Most living creatures on Earth require it for life.

What amazes me is that CO2 comprises only 4 parts per 10,000 units...and that it is enough of a concentration for abundant plant life world wide.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.
Quoting 2576. mrmombq:


SYNOPSIS 2013092900

P43L (NHC: 20%-48h, 40%-120h)
15N, 75W
700 hPa


ECMWF: As P43L tracks to the northwest, the semi-permanent South Caribbean gyre remains to the south. OW slowly rises for 96 hours, but OW never gets high.

GFS: Story is fairly similar to yesterday's GFS. Tracks to the northwest crossing western Cuba. OW remains steady at a moderate level.

UKMET: Big shift from a westward, Nicaragua landfall in yesterday's forecast to one that is now similar to GFS, heading for a Pensacola-area landfall not long after 120 hours.

NAVGEM: Continues its story of a westward track, with only a slight shift to the north (Yucatan) compared with yesterday (Belize).

HWRF-GEN: Tracks to the north and farther east than the other models. Crosses Jamaica and central Cuba, ending up just east of Miami at 96 hours and then turning to the NNE.

ECMWF -2.9 v700 120h
GFS -2.2 v700 120h
UKMET -2.6 v700 120h
NAVGEM -3.0 v700 96h
HWGEN -1.0 v700 120h
As usual, up in the air till there is a definite system.
2584. FOREX
Quoting 2582. ScottLincoln:


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.


ignored.
2585. VR46L
Quoting 2574. Kyon5:

Let's see if it can manage to survive.


That is the interesting question ?
I dont know !

Dust wize it has a chance



Quoting 2582. ScottLincoln:


Perhaps to you, not to climate scientists. Dr. Masters is a scientist. This is his blog. Whether or not the science topics he chooses to blog about are controversial to you is rather irrelevant.

Of course H20 should also be on your list.

"CO2 is plant food" is not a logical reasoning to contradict the other physical properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That's the part you missed... although essential for plant life because they use CO2 for photosynthesis, it is also essential for all life as we know it, because it keeps temperatures much higher than we would otherwise have in its absence. Increasing the level of the greenhouse gases would thus increase this effect.
Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-ba sic.htm

The small concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric is also not a logical reason to contradict its physical properties.


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere DWARF concentrations of CO2.

So what method do you people propose to control water vapor levels?

It is a serious question! After all...HAARP exists.
Seems to be more trolls this year then last.. or maybe last year we were all busy tracking storm after storm so we just ignored all of them :p

I think 97L has potential. The gulf coast should keep and eye on it just in case.

How is everyone's weather today? Its very nice where I am
2588. Broward
now I have changed my view on many people I previously respected.should be a separate blog for tropical..
Quoting 2584. FOREX:


ignored.

It's ok for you to just ignore people without telling each and every one of them that you are ignoring them.

It serves no rational purpose to make your actions known to others in that way.
2590. Broward
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?
2591. barbamz
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...
2592. Broward
great.. wish everyone success in our great country now start a tropics blog
Quoting 2586. CycloneOz:


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere DWARF concentrations of CO2.

So what method do you people propose to control water vapor levels?

Your original comment was in regards to the most important gases in the atmosphere for plants, and thus, life in general. Without H20 in the atmosphere, there would be no rainfall. Without rainfall, there would be no surface freshwater.

Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, but its lifetime in the atmosphere is much much less than CO2. It's concentration is closely correlated with temperature. There is an equilibrium level of water molecules leaving and returning to the surface of liquid droplets which is tied to the temperature. Look up saturation vapor pressure.

Increased temperatures (in recent decades due to human activities) increases atmospheric water vapor, which further increases warming. This is a power positive feedback in the climate system.
Quoting 2591. barbamz:
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably write a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?
Latest GFS has 97l weak and passing between w cuba and mexico into gom.
Quoting 2590. Broward:
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?

Dr. Masters' blog is not the only source for tropical information on the internet, nor the only tropical weather blog. It was your personal choice to type this URL into your browser's address bar. It was your personal choice to read Dr. Masters' blog entry. It was your personal choice to use your mouse to scroll down to the bottom and read comments to Dr. Masters' climate science related blog posts. It was your personal choice to comment on the blog.

It seems as if your concerns could be addressed most easily if you broke a piece of the chain listed above.
2597. FOREX
Quoting 2594. Doppler22:

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably right a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?


Hopefully.
2598. Thrawst
11L gon' be a hurricane, watch. lol
Quoting 2594. Doppler22:

Haha yes, although I think Dr. Masters will probably right a new entry soon. Most likely tomorrow about TD11 and 97L. Do you think he might crank out a blog today?


It's posssible, but he usually posts a new blog around 10-11am on most days.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
2601. Thrawst
Quoting 2587. Doppler22:
Seems to be more trolls this year then last.. or maybe last year we were all busy tracking storm after storm so we just ignored all of them :p

I think 97L has potential. The gulf coast should keep and eye on it just in case.

How is everyone's weather today? Its very nice where I am


Coral Gables is currently about to get a big downpour. Other than that looks nice!!
2602. VR46L
Quoting 2591. barbamz:
BTW, the entry of our doc was plussed 121 times until now :) I cannot remember such an amount of plusses with any other post ...


It would make me wonder was lots of handles made up to try and convince the Doc that AGW is the direction his blog should go in !
Good morning from Central OK,

A beautiful fall day here. A a good amount of rain from the front that came through. Definitely will help us out in the long run.

See the tropics are a bit more active. Was surprised to see that the TD had not graduated to Jerry yet. That ULL still disrupting any further strengthening.

I hope you all have a fantastic day.

Quoting 2579. CycloneOz:


There is a great amount of money...AND...many careers at stake.

Defending in the face of a severe shortage of "LONG TERM DATA," in support a what is obviously a hoax, is understandable.
You are correct; there is a great deal of money. Here, have a look at this list of American billionaires who made most or all of their fortunes by extracting, processing, or distributing oil, gas, or coal (From Forbes'The 400 Richest People In America):
  • Charles Koch
  • David Koch
  • George Kaiser
  • Len Blavatnik
  • Harold Hamm
  • Richard Kinder
  • Jeff Hildebrand
  • Robert Rowling
  • Ray Lee Hunt
  • William Koch
  • Robert Bass
  • Trevor Rees-JonesDannine Avara
  • Scott Duncan
  • Milane Frantz
  • Randa Williams
  • Terrence Pegula
  • Lynn Schusterman
  • Rodney Lewis
  • Timothy Headington
  • Robert Holding
  • David Rockefeller
  • Christopher Cline
  • George Mitchell
  • Lee Bass
  • Sid Bass
  • John Catsimatidis
  • Gordon Getty
  • Kelcy Warren
  • Edward Bass
  • T. Boone Pickens
  • Ray Davis
  • Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler
  • Dan Wilks
  • Farris Wilks
  • Joseph Craft
  • William Macaulay
  • Aubrey McClendon
  • William Moncrief
  • Jim Justice
Foreign billionaires who made most or all of their fortunes by extracting, processing, or distributing oil, gas, or coal (From Forbes' The World's Billionaires)
  • Eike Batista
  • Mukesh Ambani
  • Vagit Alekperov
  • Mikhail Fridman
  • Mohammed Al Amoudi
  • Viktor Vekselberg
  • Leonid Mikhelson
  • Andrey Melnichenko
  • Gennady Timchenko
  • German Khan
  • Mikhail Gutseriev
  • Alexei Kuzmichev
  • Leonid Fedun
  • Carlos and Alejandro Bulgheroni
  • Pyotr Aven
  • Low Tuck Kwong
  • Clayton Riddell
  • Vladimir Bogdanov
  • Rubens Ometto
  • Silveira Mello
  • Aloys Wobben
  • Ajay Kalsi
  • Jean Claude Gandur
  • Vladimir Gridin
  • Zdenek Bakala
  • Alexander Dzhaparidze
  • Ayman Asfari
  • Anatoly Skurov
  • Kiki Barki
  • N. Murray Edwards
  • Igor Makarov
  • Sit Kwong Lam
  • Edwin Soeryadjaya
  • Mikhail Abyzov
  • Ali Metin Kazanci
  • Chris Wallin
  • Andrei Kosogov
  • Garibaldi Thohir
  • Antonio Jose Carneiro
  • Theodore Rachmat
  • Fan Zhaoxia
  • Alisher Usmanov
  • Viktor Nusenkis
  • Dinu Patriciu
Billionaires who made most or all of their fortune by practicing climate science:
2605. Bielle
Quoting 2602. VR46L:


It would make me wonder was lots of handles made up to try and convince the Doc that AGW is the direction his blog should go in !


Check the "join" dates. That will tell you a lot. If they are new in the past few days, then you will know.
2606. Broward
ScottLincoln...actually it was a bookmark didn’t need to type or post and I agree with you on atmospheric water vapor
2607. pottery
Quoting Broward:
land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias. established temperature authorities today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.


Interesting comment, that.

Would it be more accurate (assuming that your point is correct, which I dont think it is) to locate all the temperature recorders in ''cool'' places such as forests and green parks?

The point you seem to be missing, is that we are indeed a major contributor to GW, and Cities, Pavements, Deforestation etc etc etc are part of that.
It would seem ridiculous to me to NOT include those hot areas in any Temp. Graph.

Oh, and humans built the Cities and so on......
Quoting 2590. Broward:
well when u put a hotly debated blog topic where people want to read about the tropics what do you expect..if you disagree with their opinion just insult them and call them trolls.. who is the intellectual now?



If you want to read about the tropics, there is a place for that. This blog has "global warming is human-caused" directly in its title.... if you disagree with the scientifically backed evidence, provide your own scientific evidence. Don't just yell that people are insulting you and run with your tail between your legs- if you truly believe in your position, do the research and prove it. If not- stop trolling
2609. Broward
later ..Jeff created a new tropical blog..
Quoting 2605. Bielle:


Check the "join" dates. That will tell you a lot. If they are new in the past few days, then you will know.


And you don't have to make a post to + a comment.

Lots of people veiw the blog, but only a small percentage of them actually make posts.
I believe (could be wrong) most the people who fequent the blog on a dialy basis (and make posts) would prefer to discuss the topics.

But the tropics haven't been overly exciting this season for the U.S.
2611. Broward
I haven't seen any proof that man caused any warming and a .8c change in temp is around the inaccuracy of the calibration of the temperature rtds..troll this..lol
Money equals power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I'm not counting on the next generation, as the consolidation of money in relatively fewer and fewer hands means more control of media and politicians.
My hope and I see it in my children is, thru the internet and online education and self instruction they already know more about what is going on then our generation.I'm sure will see pressure in the future on this freedom. For all we've got now is blogs like this and other individuals who care enough to speak their mind. Probably at their own economic peril. Bottom line if you don't like the blog, I believe there are others to blog on.I'm kind of thinking your well thought discourses won't be missed. Lastly the person who created drink the Kool aid idea was someone who thought he knew the gospels better than most.I haven't heard the Doc. comment on his personal beliefs, he doesn't need to, his action speak louder than his words. He doesn't have a flock here just people that are interested in weather. It mostly about the tropics assuming there is anything in the tropics to discuss.So check your local weather first, if it mentions something tropical tune in, otherwise do yourself a favor and tune out. I'm done peeing in the wind, but fell better.
2613. Broward
I don’t insult people for their opinions.I just don’t feel the last 50 years of data shows a trend representative of the human influence causing a .8 temperature rise .What caused the 3-5 c drop of the mini ice age?..we have ocean air and surface temp differences..even if all the ice melts the gulf stream would stop and it would refreeze and the earth survives with less humans.we will kill ourselves before the oceans rise.It would be better served to have everyone cut back on their personal pollution and consumption using clean food and water as a reason then GW
Quoting 2613. Broward:
I don’t insult people for their opinions.I just don’t feel the last 50 years of data shows a trend representative of the human influence causing a .8 temperature rise .What caused the 3-5 c drop of the mini ice age?..we have ocean air and surface temp differences..even if all the ice melts the gulf stream would stop and it would refreeze and the earth survives with less humans.we will kill ourselves before the oceans rise.It would be better served to have everyone cut back on their personal pollution and consumption using clean food and water as a reason then GW


But your statements are disingenuous. You realy think that in two generations we "will kill ourselves". If you live in Broward, you should be particularly concerned. Talk to engineers and their concerns with the rise in the oceans, and the impact it already is having there. Find how much money is being spent, and will have to be spent, to keep as they are.

The science has been done, and will continue to be done. All signs are that temperatures, ocean levels, and the costs to mitigate the impacts are going up - and will continue to go up, if we do not take steps to minimize it. In 10-20 years, SoFL will be feeling the reality - and much sooner than others.
2615. Broward
the earth is always changing I just dont agree that its caused by humans except for deforestations and polluting the land and water.I am an engineer I calibrate temperature probes and other electronic equipment
2616. Broward
95% Chance Most of Global Warming is Human-Caused


so what is most ? 51% ? .
Quoting 2615. Broward:
the earth is always changing I just don%u2019t agree that its caused by humans except for deforestations and polluting the land and water.I am an engineer I calibrate temperature probes and other electronic equipment


Then talk to your civil engineer counterparts. The costs and steps that they have to take to mitigate saltwater intrusion due to the rise in ocean levels. Whether or not you wish to accept why it is happening, is irrelevent. It is happening. And in 20 years, SOFL will be having to cope with it, one way or the other. The IPCC is designed to allow for governments to plan accordingly - and many are doing so. But it would be better to address the problem head on, then try to "adapt".
2618. Broward
the fact that continual predictions about climate change are just not happening. The IPCC said global temperatures would rise by up to 0.2C [0.36F] a decade and this is not happening.
Time to start a GW blog.

The GW Billboard. Where beachin and insults are welcome.
2620. GatorWX
"I'll tell you this
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn"


Arctic Sea Ice Minimum in 2013 is Sixth Lowest on Record

This year's minimum was reached September 13th.

Last year, we saw a record low minimum. Keep that in mind, 2012, when referring to this year's marginal recovery. It's still a downward trend, even with the slight recovery from the year prior and a recovery we've witnessed before.
2621. Broward
533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013



Quoting 2621. Broward:
533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013





You know this blog ended this morning?
2623. Broward
so why are you here then?
lol....to tell you...you are on the wrong blog...community activity shows you.
2625. Broward
LOL ..ok I just didnt want to interrupt the flow in the tropical blog..this does take posts though..nice outside tonight
Warmed since mid 20th century? Obviously. Unprecidented? Not so much.



One panel shows the global temperature anomalies from 1895-1946. The other shows the anomalies from 1957-2008. Both cover 52 years. Both are plotted to an identical scale. Richard Lindzen (MIT, lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report) asks his audiences whether they can tell which panel covers which period. It is not at all easy to tell.
2627. yoboi
Quoting 2626. OKJunkie:
Warmed since mid 20th century? Obviously. Unprecidented? Not so much.



One panel shows the global temperature anomalies from 1895-1946. The other shows the anomalies from 1957-2008. Both cover 52 years. Both are plotted to an identical scale. Richard Lindzen (MIT, lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report) asks his audiences whether they can tell which panel covers which period. It is not at all easy to tell.



there is a new blog....
2628. UPF7
We could have hoped for a more balanced discussion of climate change from Dr. Masters. From today's news:

Yet, NBC called for “drastic” changes in carbon emissions. Anne Thompson interviewed Jeff Masters of Weather Underground. Regarding CO2 emissions, she asked him “How much longer can we go?”

“We’ve got about 30 or 40 years before we have to completely stop and go to zero,” Masters replied.
"Much attention has been given in the press to the fact that the rate of surface warming over the past fifteen years has been slower than during previous decades."
This statement does not include the point of some of the stories from the media that the US government and others were lobbying the IPCC to soften this statement. It makes you wonder what the real truth is. Also, discounting data can be dangerous: Apollo 13 and Pan Am 759 crash come to mind (low altitude warning ignored, if I remember correctly).