WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

The Top Ten Reasons to be Hopeful on Climate Change

By: Jeff Masters 5:57 AM GMT on December 16, 2015

Bob Henson and I are in San Francisco this week for the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the world’s largest climate science conference. Over five thousand of the world’s top climate scientists are here, giving a staggering 10,000 talks and poster presentations. It’s total information overload, and Bob and I will only be able to offer a small sample of the incredible amount of science being presented here.

My favorite talk today: “Barrier Busting: Leapfrogging Zombie Science Arguments to Get to Solutions," by my favorite communications expert, Susan Hassol of climatecommunication.org. She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies. But people are very supportive of actions to take action on climate change, regardless of their views on the science. For example, 72% of Republicans and 68% of conservative Republicans support efforts to develop clean energy, even though far fewer than half of them believe that the climate is warming and humans are responsible.

Susan presented her top list of reasons to be hopeful about climate change:

10) President Obama has put climate change at the top of his agenda.

9) The Pope has framed climate change as a moral issue.

8) China has become highly motivated and engaged, and naysayers can no longer claim that we shouldn’t do anything because China is not.

7) Emissions and the economy are decoupling: for the first time, we had a year where the economy grew, but emissions of greenhouse gases did not.

6) The cost of solar power is falling fast.

5) Solar energy capacity is growing rapidly.

4) Wind energy capacity is growing rapidly.

3) Half of all new power resources coming on-line globally are in renewable energy, and that percentage is near 70% in the U.S.

2) Businesses are engaging in promoting climate change action.

1) The Paris Accord! The nations of the world have now dedicated themselves to decarbonizing the world economy.

Climate change solution resources
Susan recommended four websites with resources that help people understand potential solutions to climate change issues (all are all linked at https://www.climatecommunication.org/resources/#websites):

1) Climate Interactive, which develops simplified yet scientifically rigorous models that can help people see the climate impacts of various policy choices and emissions pathways.

2) The Solutions Project, which lays out how we can accelerate the transition to 100% clean renewable energy. They’ve created renewable energy plans for all 50 U.S. states and many countries.

3) The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, a global collaboration of energy research teams across 16 countries that charts practical pathways to deeply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

4) Energy Innovation, which seeks to accelerate progress on clean energy by identifying and supporting policies that most effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions using research and analysis.



Video 1. Emphasizing the solutions to climate change rather than talking about the science is a better way to communicate to the public on the subject, argues my favorite communications expert, Susan Hassol of climatecommunication.org, in her 2015 TEDx talk “ClimateTalk: Science and Solutions.”

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

Into the future we go.

Will we have the where to all to reverse the predicament we find ourselves in from burning fossil fuels knowing what we know today?

I hope so, as our descendents will judge us all accordingly.



Quoting 1. Patrap:

Into the future we go.

Will we have the where to all to reverse the predicament we find ourselves in from burning fossil fuels knowing what we know today?

I hope so, as our descendents will judge us all accordingly.


And we'll be wearing shorts.
Crab Season in Jeopardy from Toxic Algal Blooms
Published:
2 days 26 min ago
By James Crugnale
weather.com


The Pacific Northwest's commercial crab fishing season remains at a standstill from the toxic crab crisis where the crustaceans are still testing high with domoic acid, a known neurotoxin. California, Oregon and Washington have all delayed their crab fishing seasons this year to avoid a consumer health scare.

The domoic acid in the crabs is a result of a massive toxic bloom known as pseudo-nitzschia, which was fed by the big blob of warm water this summer.

"The 'big blob' or 'warm blob' is a large area of unusually warm water over a large part of the Northeast Pacific Ocean," said Nick Wiltgen, Senior Digital Meteorologist at weather.com. "It started in earnest during the spring and summer of 2013 (some 2 1/2 years ago) near the Gulf of Alaska and has expanded to cover most of the northeastern Pacific Ocean since 2014. Several hypotheses have been offered on why the blob has formed and persisted. It could be that persistent but ultimately 'chance' weather patterns are responsible, but it's also possible that some yet-undiscovered cyclical pattern or mechanism is at work."

The warm blob created the largest toxic algal bloom ever recorded off the West Coast.
"The algae is always there to a degree, but the temperature was very favorable to this type of algae to take off," said Michael Milstein, public affairs officer of NOAA Fisheries.

Clamming on much of the west coast has been shut down as well, Milstein noted.

"It's affected clams, and mussels, all these shellfish that help filter the water," he said. "It doesn't (hurt) them, but it accumulates in their tissue and potentially poisons people who eat it."

(MORE: Toxic Algae Plagues West Coast, Causes Millions in Revenue Loss)

"This has been a bit of a surprise for us," Daniel Ayres, a Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist told weather.com. "This is the first time the entire Washington coast has been closed for crab fisheries."

Ayres said that crab was an iconic part of the culture and economy on the West Coast. The Dungeness crab industry brought in $170 million last year.

"It's a big holiday item; it's common to serve it for Christmas," Ayres said. "We'll have to find another thing to have for our Christmas dinner."

Milstein noted that algae levels themselves have reduced, but it's not yet known how long it will take the concentrations in the crab to dissipate. "Dungeness crab is the biggest fishery by value in Oregon and Washington and second biggest in California, so the closures have a significant economic impact," he said.

Ayres said he's optimistic that the situation will improve soon that they'll be able to open crab fishing in January.

MORE ON WEATHER.COM: Lake Erie Algae (PHOTOS)

Thanks for the late/early (depends, lol) blog, doc. I concurr that there are at least a lot of signposts in the right direction, and world's inert mass starts moving.

Meanwhile distressing news from the Philippines:

9 Killed As Storm Causes Chaos In Central Philippines
World | Reuters | Updated: December 16, 2015 11:07 IST
MANILA: Nine people were killed and hundreds spent the night huddled on their roofs in the central Philippines as floods generated by a powerful typhoon inundated villages, disaster officials said on Wednesday.
Typhoon Melor had paralysed the capital, Manila, by late Tuesday, with floodwaters chest-deep in some areas disrupting train services and causing traffic gridlock on major roads. Five people were listed as missing.
The typhoon, known locally as Nona, was about 150 km (95 miles) northwest of Mindoro island, just to the south of Manila, with winds at its centre of 130 kph (80 mph).
Mindoro Governor Alfonso Umali said in a radio interview four people were killed in what he described as one of the strongest typhoons to hit the province in years.
Another five people were killed in Northern Samar, where Melor first made landfall further south. About 90 percent of the province was affected, said disaster official Jonathan Baldo.
"Many people will spend Christmas in evacuation centres without power and potable water," Baldo said.
Thousands of lightly constructed houses had been reduced to "matchsticks", he said.
"It may take three to four months to restore power in the province after power lines and electricity posts were toppled by strong winds," Baldo said.
Five fishermen were missing in Albay gulf on the heavily populated main island of Luzon, officials there said. ...


Edit: Death toll rising to 13



Hmm, where is Melor/Nona going? I'd say it's on a little detour to the north as shown by some models below:

Burning the midnight oil again!
Oops, that might lead to global warming.

Thanks for the early mourning post!
Arctic Gets Check-Up: Temperature Highest on Record
Climate Central, Published: December 15th, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO — The Arctic has just received its yearly checkup from a group of international scientists, and the patient isn’t looking well.
The region continues to be one of the fastest warming on the planet. From October 2014 to September 2015, it had the warmest average temperature on record going back to 1900, as the planet heads toward its warmest year on record. That accelerated warming has repercussions in the form of downward-spiraling sea ice coverage, melting of the massive Greenland Ice Sheet, and reduced summer snow cover. ....

More see link above.

KILLJOY version 1.2, ACTIVATED!

10) President Obama has put climate change at the top of his agenda.


That's nice, but anyone who has been paying attention the past few years knows this doesn't mean much. With a openly hostile Republican congress I'm surprised they let the White House buy toilet paper without decrying how communist it is, how it hurts business, and why we should increase taxes on the poor. :P

9) The Pope has framed climate change as a moral issue.


Again, that's nice. But since when has greed been impeded by such foibles as morality?

8) China has become highly motivated and engaged, and naysayers can no longer claim that we shouldn’t do anything because China is not.


Motivated to move pollution away from it's cities as there won't be much of a China left if half the population dies from black lung. But they'r still burning coal like there's no tomorrow, which ironically could be the case if they keep burning coal. :P

7) Emissions and the economy are decoupling: for the first time, we had a year where the economy grew, but emissions of greenhouse gases did not.


Whose economy? I'm less concerned about the developed world as the developing world. Their economies grow at a much faster pace, and they're going to be looking to the cheapest fuels to power that growth. If we can't incentivize them to use clean alternatives, then there just going to be where we are now, just a few more decades into the future.

But I wen't and said the "I" word. You'll have every conservative in every country crawling out of the woodwork saying we should help pay for these countries to adopt cleaner methods. "No one gave us money to clean up our pollution back in my day! We did it ourselves! Uphill! In the snow! Both ways! And we drank sulfuric acid and we liked it!".

6) The cost of solar power is falling fast.


Yes it has. But cost of the panels was only factor preventing rapid adoption. And those other factors are still present.

5) Solar energy capacity is growing rapidly.


Okay, but...

4) Wind energy capacity is growing rapidly.


That's good too, however...

3) Half of all new power resources coming on-line globally are in renewable energy, and that percentage is near 70% in the U.S.


Yes, that's great and everything but there are two issues here that are being glossed over. First, that's only NEW power sources, not the terawatts of old dirty power that make up the bulk of global power production. Second, while percentages can sound impressive they don't paint an accurate picture. For example, I could bring 4 new power stations online. Three of them could be 100MW solar plants, and the last one could be a 1.5 GW coal fired plant. I can now claim 75% of my new power plants are based on renewable energy. Marketing would have a field day with that, and while not blatantly lying it's not exactly the truth.

2) Businesses are engaging in promoting climate change action.


That's because their paid FUD campaigns have reached saturation and aren't worth spending the money on anymore. The same thing happened when the tobacco companies, leaded gasoline, etc. companies began losing significant credibility. They pulled up stakes, grudgingly admitted to the problems, threw some money at it, then went and sat in the corner mumbling to themselves about how unfair the world is. Just take a look at the about face Exxon has done recently. It wasn't because they had a sudden revelation or inspiration to become a good global steward.

1) The Paris Accord! The nations of the world have now dedicated themselves to decarbonizing the world economy.


A non-binding agreement with no teeth and goals that aren't even based in reality? Please. This was a glad handing publicity stunt. Some countries that aren't anti-intelligence may take some unilateral actions, but here in the good ol' US we have wonderful "leaders" like Frontal Lobotomy Lamar Smith, Snowball Inhofe, and Crazy Cruz actively working to infect any climate motion/bill/whatever with the equivalent of a congressional herpes.

Call me skeptical. Call me cynical. But given the crap that's taken place over the past 30+ years I find little reason to be optimistic. It's going to take some next level "OMGWTF?" events to really drive the perils of climate change home.

Or maybe I'm just being a little storm cloud because I'm tired and cranky from long hours at work lately. Let's see what happens in 10 years. :P
Lots of damage and destruction and one fatality in Tahiti (French Polynesia, Pacific) on Saturday due to exessive rains and flash floods. News available only in French. Here a photo gallery of the aftermath.

Tornado rips roofs off homes as record winds lash Sydney
BBC, 1 hour ago
A tornado has ripped through Sydney, with one weather station recording the fastest ever wind speeds in the state of New South Wales.
Destructive winds of 213km/h hit Kurnell, on the southern headland of Botany Bay, Wednesday morning.
Two people have been taken to hospital, one suffering head injuries and another suffering shock, a NSW Ambulance spokesperson told the BBC. ...




Another one.
Quoting 7. Xyrus2000:
[snip] Or maybe I'm just being a little storm cloud because I'm tired and cranky from long hours at work lately. Let's see what happens in 10 years. :P

May I just quote swflurker, lol:
Quoting 5. swflurker:
Thanks for the early mourning post!

Nevertheless, have a good day everyone! :-)
Quoting 7. Xyrus2000:

Call me skeptical. Call me cynical. But given the crap that's taken place over the past 30+ years I find little reason to be optimistic. It's going to take some next level "OMGWTF?" events to really drive the perils of climate change home.

Or maybe I'm just being a little storm cloud because I'm tired and cranky from long hours at work lately. Let's see what happens in 10 years. :P


I mostly agree with your view. I also like being wrong. My guess is that ten years from now the whole "by 2100" will not be the measuring stick anymore. Until then we can look forward to storm clouds, long hours at work, and being cynical.
For the near term I am looking forward to this:
Thanks, Doc.

"...emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies. But people are very supportive of actions..."

Can I get an Amen?
Maybe Dr. masters could give a talk on why you have to have a base power generation capacity, using fossil fuels, that is equal to the maximum usage requirements of a utilities customers for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Unless of course you want rolling blackouts during peak periods during the summer cooling periods and the winter heating periods.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear is the only way to go.
Death total might be 13 in the Philippines but during the same period 5000 babies were born ?
Quoting 15. rjsenterp:

Just because Obama and the Pope say it, it doesn't make it so. Neither understand anything about science.


So you know these two gentlemen personally ?
Quoting 18. cRRKampen:


I should flag this a comment deriding dr. Masters. Do you really think the scientific world and e.g. dr. Masters get their climate info from Obama and the Pope?


Obama taught my intro to meteorology course with guest lectures from the pope!
Good Morning Folks: here is the Conus forecast for today, jet stream position (separating the cooler Polar air mass over the mid-section of Conus from the warmer flow to the South), and max temp forecast:


Graphic Forecast of Temperatures Across the US from the National Digital Forecast Database

Quoting 15. rjsenterp:

Just because Obama and the Pope say it, it doesn't make it so. Neither understand anything about science.


The Pope has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.
Will note from the current flow pattern (below) that the low trajectory "cold" lows that normally traverse across the Gulf states during a normal El Nino winter (and morph into Nor' Easters and Winter Storms moving into the Atlantic Seaboard Region) has not fallen into place yet.

Note that the very strong El Nino has created very warm temps in the E-Pac and that the current flow pattern (which has actually been in place for almost two months now) is still flowing warm E-Pac air across the Baha Peninsula/Mexico Region into AZ, NM, and TX.

That current Gulf low straddling the Northern Gulf coast is a rather warm one for this time of the year as a result. During Patricia and other E-Pac storms that impacted Texas, it was a warm/wet flow that included remnants that contributed to the rain and flooding in parts of Texas.

In the absence of any E-Pac storms, the current flow into the Central Gulf region of the US is a warm and dry flow from the E-Pac.



Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. She was part of a team that invented soft-serve ice cream.

Here's a little story about that from 1983
Speaking of Science; a new study of interest on the Greenland Ice Sheet: http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2015/12/greenlan d-was-once-ice-free


SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA—As the Arctic warms, Greenland’s fringe of glaciers is thinning and melting—but the future of the Greenland ice sheet remains a giant question mark. Until recently, that was also true of the ice sheet’s past: Scientists have long debated whether it might have shrunk away to nothing during Earth’s warmest periods. Now, a new study suggests that Greenland was entirely ice free at some point in the last 1.25 million years.

“We should be worried about the Greenland Ice Sheet,” says Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, and lead author of the findings, presented yesterday at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting here.

Scientists have been keeping a wary eye on Greenland’s ice sheet, which holds in its frozen waters the equivalent of 7.4 meters of sea level rise. Many of the glaciers that jut out into the ocean are thinning, but whether the ice sheet itself has remained stable and intact, even during warm interglacial periods, is a matter of considerable debate. So scientists are keen to learn more about the icy island’s past. One period of particular interest is a warm, wet interglacial stage known as the Eemian that occurred from 124,000 to 119,000 years ago, featuring average global temperatures about 2°C warmer than today.

Hopefully some of us (including myself) are starting to connect the dots as related to the Paris Conference numbers (tying to keep warming below a certain degree threshold by reducing carbon emissions). Assuming that the study below may be correct (2 degree average warmer temps than currently resulted in an almost ice-free Greenland along with concurrent sea level rise as the result of the melting phase), then 1 to 2 degrees actually makes a huge difference in terms of the impact of a global warming phase........................Just Sayin.
More than 2/3 of the way to 1.5C

Quoting 24. TheBigBanana:

Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. She was part of a team that invented soft-serve ice cream.


It may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs.
Margaret Thatcher

Quoting 1. Patrap:

Into the future we go.

Will we have the where to all to reverse the predicament we find ourselves in from burning fossil fuels knowing what we know today?

I hope so, as our descendents will judge us all accordingly.




From 315 to 415 ppm in 65 years....That should increase wildly from here on out...Mark my words, once the rest of the perma frost speeds out and the ocean gets a belly full.....
Quoting 2. aquak9:

And we'll be wearing shorts.


As long as I can be inside in the AC...

Kinda sad that this summer, portable and window AC units were sold out all over Anchorage because of the summer heat. Just before winter ended I saw a few pallets of window units at my local wal mart, Home Depot, and Lowes. Decided we were going to get one when heat advisories were issued as the house we are in doesn't have any AC units. and I couldn't find one... All sold out.
Quoting 22. PressureDrop:



The Pope has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.
The Pope is a intelligent man..Earning a Masters Degree in Chemistry is a great achievement...jmo
Quoting 16. MahFL:

Death total might be 13 in the Philippines but during the same period 5000 babies were born ?
Birth rate there is 24.25 per 1000 and infant mortality rate is 17.5 per 1000.
33. vis0
i wonder how webbers (highly respected wxu member) charts would look in this 3D-ish like format?...would save "space" on compu'r? & in physical presentations?
https://youtu.be/3cCllq2ko_E


Watch on YouTube 1280x800

Now that you are here if you haven't read Dr. Masters Blog Topic go ahead, its fun to learn about more things, just as it was fun to learn as to 3D mats.




Quoting 34. nrtiwlnvragn:








Patrap posted a similar image yesterday of the gravity wave in the similar location. I wonder if it's the same image re-posted this morning? Or the condition still exists with a gravity wave in the same location?
Quoting 22. PressureDrop:



The Pope has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.


The Pope does not have a master's degree in chemistry or any other science for that matter. It doesn't diminish his message, but the assertion is inaccurate.
Quoting 22. PressureDrop:



The Pope has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires.
No, he doesn't. He has a certification, as explained here:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/does-pope-fr ancis-have-masters-degree-chemistry

And also at Snopes. The certification is a significant credential and achievement in its own right, but it is not a masters degree. As the article explains, at the time Francis was receiving his education, university was pretty much out of reach for someone of his (then) socio-economic background.

it's important IMO to be accurate; this does not detract from this Pope's accomplishments
Quoting 35. Sfloridacat5:



Patrap posted a similar image yesterday of the gravity wave in the similar location. I wonder if it's the same image re-posted this morning? Or the condition still exists with a gravity wave in the same location?


What's a gravity wave?
Quoting 8. barbamz:

Lots of damage and destruction and one fatality in Tahiti (French Polynesia, Pacific) on Saturday due to exessive rains and flash floods. News available only in French. Here a photo gallery of the aftermath.

Tornado rips roofs off homes as record winds lash Sydney
BBC, 1 hour ago
A tornado has ripped through Sydney, with one weather station recording the fastest ever wind speeds in the state of New South Wales.
Destructive winds of 213km/h hit Kurnell, on the southern headland of Botany Bay, Wednesday morning.
Two people have been taken to hospital, one suffering head injuries and another suffering shock, a NSW Ambulance spokesperson told the BBC. ...




Another one.


Those are some powerful winds.
Paris Accord == blue on black.
Re #7 - Xyrus2000 -

Actually I think I would just call you a realist.
Quoting 36. Greg01:



The Pope does not have a master's degree in chemistry or any other science for that matter. It doesn't diminish his message, but the assertion is inaccurate.

After a little further research, it appears that you are correct. Thanks.
Arctic is going to melt, will reach the point of rapid collapse and then it's climate game changed in a way we can only imagine. This accord will work, countries are motivated, but we've likely already gone too far to stop the Arctic from collapsing. This conference dealt with stopping this from getting worse, but we're going to be responding to climate change as much as preventing it for likely multiple generations. The Republican response, some day when they realize we've already gone too far, is going to be priceless. Full story will be out and the Cruz, Trump, and other outright loon deniers will look like the fools of history that they are.
Quoting 36. Greg01:



The Pope does not have a master's degree in chemistry or any other science for that matter. It doesn't diminish his message, but the assertion is inaccurate.
Indeed..I went to Wiki to see if it was true..I find nothing except that he worked briefly as a Chemical Technologist and a bouncer.. So we have a Pope that can scrap as well as be merciful..Interesting combo..:)
Quoting 35. Sfloridacat5:



Patrap posted a similar image yesterday of the gravity wave in the similar location. I wonder if it's the same image re-posted this morning? Or the condition still exists with a gravity wave in the same location?


Image is from yesterday.
Quoting 38. Famoguy1234:



What's a gravity wave?


From NOAA
GRAVITY WAVES

These gravity waves act much like the waves you see after tossing a rock into a pool. Air is also a fluid; and gravity waves are actually quite common in the atmosphere. They don't often show up this well, though. In this case, over the Gulf of Mexico, there was enough moisture in the layer containing the waves, and enough lift along the front of each wave, to form cloud material. Then, on the back of each wave, the air sunk and dried, destroying the clouds. This process repeated many times as more waves followed. Over land, only the first wave was consistently strong enough to form a cloud arc. The cause of the waves in this case is unknown. Link



Long time lurker here. I work for an oil company. Reason #2 is the most exciting. Even oil companies are beginning to realize lower emissions (GHGs included) will lead to more profit, or at least higher company valuation (stock price).

This wasn't always the case. BP shut down their alternative energy program years ago because it was sucking up money and not impressing investors.


This is the best sign of a changing tide. It may mot be as quick as some would like, but the world of fossil fuel dependence is definitely fading.
How bout we sum it up for the public in one simple question. Can we stop the Arctic from collapsing? This year's an example of stark proportion. Seems to be the largest overarching question that leads to how bad things will be if that happens and to get people to say, "Oh that'd be bad."
Quoting 28. beell:



It may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs.
Margaret Thatcher




There were parties in the streets in the UK the day Maggie Thatcher died, she was hated in many parts of the UK.
Quoting 43. DeepSeaRising:

Arctic is going to melt...


Parts of the Arctic 55m years ago were Sub Tropical, so it's not unprecedented.
Sorry, doc. Too little, too late IMO. We are committed to 2-3C of warming in the coming decades no matter what we do. Positive feedback loops will kick in leading to catastrophic warming of 5-6C.
Quoting 51. ClimateChange:

Sorry, doc. Too little, too late IMO. We are committed to 2-3C of warming in the coming decades no matter what we do. Positive feedback loops will kick in leading to catastrophic warming of 5-6C.

Am of same opinion.
Quoting 51. ClimateChange:

Sorry, doc. Too little, too late IMO. We are committed to 2-3C of warming in the coming decades no matter what we do. Positive feedback loops will kick in leading to catastrophic warming of 5-6C.
Quitting smoking now greatly reduces ones risk of getting cancer...The same applies to Earth...Your right, it is very late to get things headed in the right direction, but it is something we as a race should do. If everyone does there part, the results would be profound.
Quoting 50. MahFL:



Parts of the Arctic 55m years ago were Sub Tropical, so it's not unprecedented.

Even the first primate existed back then. It weighed about 25 grams.
But, so what?
Not unprecedented that planets burn up in red giant phases of stars so when it's earth's turn rest assured, it ain't unprecedented?
Quoting 53. hydrus:

Quitting smoking now greatly reduces ones risk of getting cancer...The same applies to Earth...Your right, it is very late to get things headed in the right direction, but it is something we as a race should do. If everyone does there part, the results would be profound.

To this, too, I subscribe. Anything done now to check atmospheric composition can only have huge, if unknown, benefits in the longer run (say, grandchildren).
Quoting 53. hydrus:

Quitting smoking now greatly reduces ones risk of getting cancer...The same applies to Earth...Your right, it is very late to get things headed in the right direction, but it is something we as a race should do. If everyone does there part, the results would be profound.


Except we already have a cancer diagnosis here. And this is the equivalent of cutting back from 3 packs a day to 2.
This warmth is just unbelievable. New York City hasn't even been below freezing yet this fall/winter. Florida and particularly Central and Southern FL must be having the warmest October - December so far on record. Even so, many locations in the FL Panhandle have had at least one freeze over the past month, unlike NYC, over 1,000 miles to the north.

Our extended forecast for Christmas Day here, 86F. Yuck.
Limiting climate change to 1.5 C. Some simple arithmetic

By Robert Wilson

I am an old fashioned scientist more interested in numbers than in diplomatic agreements or parsing diplomatic language. So I have no real view of whether the Paris climate change agreement is a historical triumph or a fraud.

But as a long time observer, and sometime contributor, to debates over whether we can limit temperature rises to 2 C above pre-industrial levels, I am rather perplexed by the unexpected inclusion in the agreement of the aspiration to keep temperature rises to 1.5 C.

Here is what the agreement says:

Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. [my emphasis]

Let me state some simple facts that show this is an act of cynicism, wishful thinking, or delusion.
Each year existing fossil fuel infrastructure emits approximately 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is what is now happening, but what will obviously need to change to get anywhere close to 1.5 C.

Now, some undiluted fantasy.

Let’s imagine that tomorrow we stopped building any new fossil fuel infrastructure and simply retired the existing stuff when we expected to.

How much CO2 would it emit?

Fortunately, this has already been estimated by the important work of Steve Davis and others. In a paper in Science in 2010 they calculated that future fossil fuel emissions from existing infrastructure would increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 430 ppm and would increase temperatures by 1.3 C above pre-industrial levels.

That paper was published 5 years ago. Since then atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by around 10 ppm, and the rapid construction of long lasting coal power plants in China means we have actually increased the level of “committed” CO2 from existing infrastructure.

So, existing fossil fuel infrastructure has more or less locked us into 1.5 C. And as Glen Peters points out we will probably eat up a 1.5 C carbon budget by 2020.

That’s the fantasy. What is the reality? Here are some more simple facts:

Fossil fuels continue to dominate new energy infrastructure. Maersk is not unveiling solar powered container ships. Boeing and Airbus appear content with the age of kerosene. Steel makers are sticking with coal. 20 million new cars are added to China’s roads each year. Electric cars remain marginal everywhere: in Germany, where they wanted 1 million of them on the roads by 2020 and in America where Obama spoke of 1 million being on the roads by 2015. Despite what you may read, China is still opening roughly one new coal power plant each week. India plans to double its coal production by 2020. Green Germany just opened a new coal power plant last month. Britain announced a phaseout of coal power plants, but plans to build a new fleet of gas power plants. Despite what most EU policy-makers believed we now appear to be entering an era of cheap oil and natural gas.

I can go on.

This leaves us with an obvious conclusion. The 1.5 C barrier will be breached, regardless of what the countries of the world ostensibly aspire towards. With one deus ex machina: we figure out a way to suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere each year.

That’s what simple arithmetic tells us will be needed. And that is not something any of the world’s leaders appear to want to discuss.
Bill that may pass to fund the government has a good package for wind and solar but also more exporting of US oil which will likely increase fracking. Those oil trains with Canadian gold won't stop anytime soon either. Talk is good, but where's the train really going? I mean, come on, it so sad what's happening in China. To wreck the environment to that extent and to have so many have to endure it. AGW is a runaway train many of us can see from our own windows. There's a lot that sounds great coming from this historic conference. The test will be, what's really happening? How fast can we get CO2 levels to stop increasing? In that regard, there does seem to be a lot of potential to reach those goals. It's a battle that continues, but anyone who's ever battled greed knows he's tough and really likes to stay in power. And hates the truth if it's going to financially hurt him in the short term.
60. vis0

Quoting 7. Xyrus2000:

KILLJOY version 1.2, ACTIVATED!
(i vis0 edited out the juicy part)
Go to pg1 (or scroll up if this is pg1 you're reading) to read THE FULL post #7. 

i agree with 90% but got a feeling after reading the entire comment that we should give up or just be skeptical without using that skepticism to think of new ideas.  i think that was not Xyrus2000's message, or is it? i bring this up because the comment is so strong in correctly explaining past / recent human behavior BUT i HOPE THIS DOES NOT LEAD SOME (particularly younger minds) TO GIVE UP.  Apology in advance to Xyrus2000 (i'm sorry) for stirring this up, just want to clear things up.

Under the paraphrasing of "don't catch the fish, but teach how to fish" here this::
Youngsters reading comment 7 keep imagining up new solutions
JUST AS GOING across large bodies of water (now called oceans) to OTHER COUNTRIES HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO WAS IMAGINED then done, or going into space was a kids dream then achieved. So maybe imagine how chemicals react to sounds, to the point that extreme sounds (deep or high) will create a chemical reaction not possible in other ways (mixing physically) introduce these bass(ed) chemicals at specific angles to each other via output angle forcing containers in where the container holding the chemical does not react to the deep bass sounds.)

Do not GIVE UP
in helping your fellow man ( [inside humor]ncstorms too[inside humor] ) as long as you're alive or as i like to say "till you "see" your body below to the left of what was your left ear and on the side that was your right ear a encircling light always turning towards your right"...means you've expired and are leaving Earth's crystal-mag-gravitational (spirit-soul-self) pull.

TMI? that's my style, knowledge is everywhere, one has to seek it to use it, so seek and ya shall receive.

As to comment#7 of this blogbyte allow Xyrus200 to reply, others Lets stay on topic and discuss ways to lower pollutants, even if you have posted a useful idea before share it again,  if one is going to post something let it be useful to humanity, not to tabloids.
61. vis0
Quoting 56. ClimateChange:



Except we already have a cancer diagnosis here. And this is the equivalent of cutting back from 3 packs a day to 2.
...you forgot to add WHAT IF then a discovery that ONLY helps those that recently ONLY smoke less than 3 packs a day is made

For those that said "wha da heck, i'll stay at 3 packs" will then sadly be suffering even more.

When as a baby you took a step and fell, another step and fell, another step and fell , another step and fell                         , another step and fell           , another step and fell
          , another step and fell              , another step and fell   did you stop???

So lets start yesterday so tomorrow we don't say its too late for today.
10) President Obama has put climate change at the top of his agenda.

At the top of what agenda? His plans for his remaining time in office? I'm not sure if this is completely accurate, especially given the recent terrorist attacks. Even if this is accurate, that is not much of a reason to be hopeful with a GOP majority in Congress that is dead set on opposing anything Obama does.
Quoting 14. rjsenterp:

Maybe Dr. masters could give a talk on why you have to have a base power generation capacity, using fossil fuels, that is equal to the maximum usage requirements of a utilities customers for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Unless of course you want rolling blackouts during peak periods during the summer cooling periods and the winter heating periods.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear is the only way to go.


The solution has to be a mix of technologies. Nuclear plants cannot cycle fast enough to adjust to variations in demand (the same applies geothermal plants). Hydo is not really suited to that type of cycling either. As you say, neither wind- nor solar- can provide base-load capacity as they are not reliable enough, so we need a certain level of capacity that can be cycled rapidly and is not dependent on weather conditions. Storage systems are certainly an option, but currently the only widely available technology that we have that can cycle rapidly and is not weather-dependent is gas-fired turbines, which could be run on biofuel, though very few are today. In countries with a large wind- or solar- fleet (Germany & Denmark for example), many gas turbine plants that were built to run base load are now being used primarily to cover spikes in demand (so called peakers) today, and I don't see that changing.
Ah, but it's Christmas time, one thing history has always taught us; hope rings eternal. So far, we've answered the call of the world through tough times. At the end of the day there's nothing we can't overcome. But it's always come at high costs.


Surge in the jet stream across the Pacific coming in the next few days.
She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies.

Amen! I have been making this same point to many folks on here for a while, and usually bashed for it.

Another intense low forecast for the North Pacific, bombing off Kamchatka, backed by a strengthening jet, and yanking frigid air out of Siberia.
Quoting 66. tampabaymatt:

She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies.

Amen! I have been making this same point to many folks on here for a while, and usually bashed for it.


Interesting that if you provide a solution here you get banned..hence my article on cutting down on computer use to avoid adding to high C02 levels or providing a link to start climate change marches or attend rallies in their area was turned into a full fest internet WWE match..

Its okay to discuss the science but at the same time there are those who don't want to hear about their own daily contribution to the crisis when solutions are offered here and well the famous flagged and banned message comes across my screen..

By the way everyone have a safe and Merry Christmas :)

My Panthers are 13-0!!

Folks the GFS is just going banana's lately for its next week forecast. This just looks downright scary!

Those in FL that are saying where are the El-Nino rains well it appears its coming all at once.
Quoting 49. MahFL:



There were parties in the streets in the UK the day Maggie Thatcher died, she was hated in many parts of the UK.


What's your point?
Quoting 66. tampabaymatt:

She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies.

Amen! I have been making this same point to many folks on here for a while, and usually bashed for it.


So, I know we're doing poorly in Science in America, but don't explain the science? The truth of what's happening? It's all about the solutions, but people believing the truth is paramount of real action. Keeping a Republican House and Senate will dead end any action to slow fossil usage. We need solutions, the Republican candidates don't want solutions. Cruz, Trump, and on down their lines, will fight the steps we're trying to take now. And for what? We don't have the time.
Quoting 69. StormTrackerScott:

Folks the GFS is just going banana's lately for its next week forecast. This just looks downright scary!




Too far out to say right now though. Yesterday's washing out front with virtually nothing was depicted to be a major rain maker by the GFS for Central and north Florida about 10 days ago or so.

There have been other cases to the past several weeks, so given that I wouldn't get too excited yet. Hopefully we'll see some decent rainfall Thursday night into Friday AM.
Quoting 71. Jedkins01:



What's your point?


Hey jed you seeing these model trends the last 2 days. Just incredible what some of the models are showing. If and I mean if the GFS verifies watch the flip out as there could be a severe weather event coming Christmas week like we have never seen in December. Very warm air, high dewpoints, PWAT's well over 2", and one heck of a jet streak showing up on the GFS across the Eastern Gulf.



Damm!!
Quoting 73. Jedkins01:



Too far out to say right now though. Yesterday's washing out front with virtually nothing was depicted to be a major rain maker by the GFS for Central and north Florida about 10 days ago or so.

There have been other cases to the past several weeks, so given that I wouldn't get too excited yet. Hopefully we'll see some decent rainfall Thursday night into Friday AM.


Starts Monday but really gets cranking on Tuesday per GFS. Difference from this week to next week is all the jet dynamics the models are showing across the Gulf and SE US.
2015, the Year the Global Climate struck back.





This is a classic negative tilted trough. This means severe weather likely strong tornadoes maybe long track ones across the SE US.

Dr. Masters lists 10 rational reasons to be hopeful about progress on climate change. The current US presidential election campaign shows that appeals to reason don't necessarily get you to the top of the polls. Recent "hearings" in the US Congress on the topic of climate change show that appeals to reason can fall on ears that are not only deaf to reason but overtly hostile to it, and these ears belong to individuals in high places. For many in the US, the issue of climate change has become folded in not only with politics but also with religion. Those who have had little or no exposure to religion in the vast Bible Belt of the US may have a hard time appreciating the intensity with which perceived threats to the ethos of the Bible Belt are rejected, and the US electoral system gives disproportionate power to the Bible Belt. In short, I am not at all sure that the institutions of the US, public and private, are up to the task of dealing successfully with AGW.
Quoting 47. BFG308:

Long time lurker here. I work for an oil company. Reason #2 is the most exciting. Even oil companies are beginning to realize lower emissions (GHGs included) will lead to more profit, or at least higher company valuation (stock price).

This wasn't always the case. BP shut down their alternative energy program years ago because it was sucking up money and not impressing investors.


This is the best sign of a changing tide. It may mot be as quick as some would like, but the world of fossil fuel dependence is definitely fading.


If folks (and special interests tried to the fossil fuel - big profit model) actually pay attention to the science, and the growing public concern over global warming issues, there is money to be made. If companies start making the transition to eco-friendly products with lower emissions (whether fuels, fuel alternatives, vehicles/cars, and other low carbon impact products across the board), eco-conscious consumers will follow.

My 23 year old daughter opted for a Prius as her first car after college graduation last year and if the right, and reasonably priced, solar energy solutions for homes come along in the next decade, my Wife and I are committed to upgrading the house to incorporate solar energy.

Instead of being in the denial camp, you can get onboard, move in the right direction, and make profits in the long term moving away from the fossil fuel dependency age (the Chinese are already there leading technology in the solar and wind farm areas.............With several wind farms "off-line" because the transmission lines-infrastructure to siphon the electricity away to the local/regional cities have not been built yet).
According to the modelling this looks like a 3 day event starting in earnest Tuesday going thru Thursday.
Quoting 77. StormTrackerScott:

This is a classic negative tilted trough. This means severe weather likely strong tornadoes maybe long track ones across the SE US.


yep....no bueno senor
Disturbance south of DR in the Caribbean if anyone is looking
Until the driving force of this Planet becomes something other than the gathering of wealth by Men and Nations, nothing will change.

Esp the driving force of all economies currently, Oil & coal.

It is the "crack pipe" of economies globally.



Quoting 83. Patrap:

Until the driving force of this Planet becomes something other than the gathering of wealth by Men and Nations, nothing will change.

Esp the driving force of all economies currently, Oil & coal.

It is the "crack pipe" of economies globally.






It is all about the $
Quoting 56. ClimateChange:



Except we already have a cancer diagnosis here. And this is the equivalent of cutting back from 3 packs a day to 2.
True miracles are rare, but do happen..I believe we should try..The good Earth is without doubt worth the effort.
Here's the 12C Canadian run. Tremendous streak on these models. Notice the v shape patterns on these thunderstorms across FL mid next week.


Warmest Christmas in Living Memory Possible as 'Blowtorch' Weather Pattern Likely in the East
Published:
4 hours 47 min ago
weather.com




Quoting 81. hydrus:

yep....no bueno senor


Some of the biggest severe weather outbreaks in this Country have had this kind of set up and i am concerned as there is plenty of heat energy for these storms to really take off. The heat ongoing across the East has never been seen before in December and to get this type of dynamics spreading across this type of atmosphere firmly in place means there could be some trouble next week.
Quoting 87. Grothar:


Warmest Christmas in Living Memory Possible as 'Blowtorch' Weather Pattern Likely in the East
Published:
4 hours 47 min ago
weather.com







Were having a Seafood Xmas here as the Crawfish are already in Season. Plus, we going to get some Redfish and speckled trout as well from the GOM.

Im also sure the Global cooling will kick in this coming year.

: p

This Is How Climate Change Deniers Are Tricking You
National Review tweeted out an impressive-looking graph on Tuesday. Don't be fooled.

The Washington Post summed it up best: "It's akin to suggesting that Shaquille O'Neal and Mini-Me (aka Verne Troyer) are the same height because they're both tiny compared to the planet Jupiter."

Link
Quoting 72. DeepSeaRising:



So, I know we're doing poorly in Science in America, but don't explain the science? The truth of what's happening? It's all about the solutions, but people believing the truth is paramount of real action. Keeping a Republican House and Senate will dead end any action to slow fossil usage. We need solutions, the Republican candidates don't want solutions. Cruz, Trump, and on down their lines, will fight the steps we're trying to take now. And for what? We don't have the time.


I'm not sure if you watched the debate last night, but Kasich made a point to bash the fact that world leaders met to discuss climate change, and implied they should have spent the time to discuss ISIS instead. There is zero chance of any climate change legislation getting through Congress right now with the Republicans holding the majority. It's a shame.
I mean just look at what this next rough is running into next week.

Temp anomalies


PWAT anomalies of 3 to 6 standard deviations across some in the Eastern US is just insane!
Yes, those are hopeful signs.. but only promises came out of the Paris treaty, and promises made by politicians are as ephemeral as snowflakes falling on warm ground. The U.S. Congress is poised to reverse its ban on exporting oil and gas, and the TPP (favored by President Obama) is a Trojan Horse that would allow tribunals to overturn any nation's efforts to limit GHG emissions. We are, at the time the ink dried on the Paris accords, destined for a 2 C degree rise, even IF the signatories do keep their pledges. Past precedent (Kyoto et al) would not suggest anything more than window-dressing compliance with the Paris accords. Yes, my view is "glass-half-empty", and I hope I'm wrong... but when the profit-motive still predominates, and is the puppet-master to the world's political "leaders".... The "captains" of the "world-ship" are so busy congratulating themselves on the bridge that they're not even looking at the navigational charts....

Quoting 89. Patrap:



Were having a Seafood Xmas here as the Crawfish are already in Season. Plus, we going to get some Redfish and speckled trout as well from the GOM.

Im also sure the Global cooling will kick in this coming year.

: p




It's just a cycle.
A warmer & wetter atmosphere does dat Scott.

Remember, a 1F rise in Global Avg Temps impart a 7-10 % increase in Water Vapor.

It matters greatly as every rain event can create more precip, from the new,warmer & wetter Atmosphere.
U.S. on verge of lifting 40-year oil export ban

Climate agreement? What climate agreement?

Guess I'll file this under "Reasons to be cynical and despair for the survival of humanity."
A congrats and shout out to Bob Henson who is quoted in the USA Today article here.


Climate change impacts will last for decades despite global agreement
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 7:16 p.m. EST December 15, 2015


Many of the harmful effects of global warming will continue to influence Earth's atmosphere and oceans for decades despite the landmark climate agreement nearly 200 countries reached in Paris this weekend.

No matter how much emissions are reduced in the years ahead, temperatures will continue to climb, sea levels will continue to rise and oceans will become more acidic around the world over the next several decades, if not centuries, according to analysts.

"Much of the carbon dioxide we have put into the atmosphere will be there for hundreds of years, some of it for a thousand years or longer," Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann said. "We’ve committed already to a substantial increase in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels for many centuries."

With future heating already locked into the climate system, it's likely global average temperatures — measured as a combination of land and ocean temperatures — will rise as much as 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, Niklas Höhne of the NewClimate Institute said at a Monday news conference.

However, that increase will be even more pronounced on land, he added. "Temperature increase over land is roughly twice the value than global average," Höhne told USA TODAY. "If we gave 3.6 degrees globally, it is roughly 7.2 degrees over land."

As for global sea levels, a 31-inch rise is projected by the end of the century and the ocean will continue to rise for centuries beyond that, Höhne said.

"There is increasing evidence we’ve now set in motion the unstoppable collapse of a large part of the west Antarctic ice sheet, enough to give us 10-14 feet of global sea level rise," though that could take centuries, Mann said.

Another impact that's locked in: All of the world's coral reefs will be in danger of dying out this century as a result of increasing ocean acidification, Höhne said.

While many of these climate impacts will continue for decades, the degree to which they affect the globe remains to be seen. "A great deal will depend on whether countries meet their pledges, and even on the rates at which those targets are reached," meteorologist Robert Henson of Weather Underground said.



With adoption of the agreement, the process moves toward getting national legislatures to approve the agreement. Ratification requires approval of at least 55 countries representing 55% of the world’s emissions to sign on before 2020.

"It is the long-term commitment that makes acting on climate change now so critical — the decisions we are making today will determine the climate we leave behind for many future generations to come," Mann said.
Just making one comment on the politics (which can relate to climate change issues downstream) at the National/Federal Level. What many folks do not realize is that the US President has very little impact-say so on domestic affairs-domestic policy; these are controlled by Congress and the President "cheer leads" the policies he would like to see done/passed but if Congress does not compromise then no-go; the President is powerless to create law (unless they go the Executive Order route).

The President has the most power-impact on US Foreign Affairs which includes Commander in Chief and Executive Orders-Mandates, in conjunction with CIA-Military Intel, to authorize covert action abroad and/or commit US troops or resources to foreign conflicts......................This also includes world diplomatic relations and treaties (whether the current Paris one or past ones related to nuclear issues like the joint US-Soviet Salt Treaties).

Point being (regardless of your party affiliation) that you have to choose your Congress-members wisely in terms of domestic issues and chose your President wisely because of the foreign policy implications.

I am not personally impressed with any of the current Presidential candidates on either side of the isle (which includes current members of Congress) in term of their positions relative to domestic and foreign affairs but will lean at the end of the day towards voting for those that share my personal belief that global warming is a serious issue with foreign affairs a strong second in terms of my personal preferences/personal vote..........
We really do need some more interesting weather to happen....
Doc sneaked in a little vacation time at Yosemite Valley prior to the meeting he is attending.


Quoting 104. washingtonian115:

We really do need some more interesting weather to happen....


We just have to wait 372hrs for it.

Expert: Economics will help fight climate change
Aimée Christensen founded Sun Valley Institute for Resilience


The recently concluded climate-change deal in Paris has received mixed reviews, with optimists calling it a historic turning point and pessimists noting its nonbinding nature.
At the conference, 195 nations agreed to one major goal: to limit average global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures and to aim for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), if possible.

Ketchum-based alternative-energy consultant Aimée Christensen is among the optimists. The CEO of Christensen Global Strategies and founder of the Sun Valley Institute for Resilience believes that the economic opportunities associated with the need to reduce greenhouse gases will propel the world into a clean-energy future.
Christensen traveled to Paris in early December to help organize two events—a forum for investors called “Climate and Capital” and an informational event for the general public hosted by the UN Foundation called “Earth to Paris.”
She said 140 wealthy individuals and institutional investors, with a combined net worth of more than $1 trillion, attended the first event Dec. 9. Presentations there were intended to help them restructure their portfolios to both help reduce global warming and make them money.
“It’s a really exciting momentum,” she said. “You have a lot of investors who want to do more with their money than just make money.”

The New York Times noted that “Paris was swarming with corporate chieftains and Silicon Valley heavyweights.”
Christensen said the economic opportunities are quickly expanding as the cost of solar power plummets and business models are created to reduce upfront costs. She said the price of solar panels has dropped 80 percent in the past five years.
“We’re getting a signal that we need to do this, and people are getting focused on doing it,” she said. “From just a few people working on solving an environmental challenge, we now have millions of people working to solve the greatest environmental challenge and the greatest economic opportunity of our time.”

She pointed to a Tanzania-based company called Off-Grid Electric as one example. The firm has combined innovations from the electric car industry and large-scale solar to create power systems for rural homeowners. Collecting payments through the M-Pesa mobile-phone money-transfer system, Off-Grid Electric allows its customers to have clean solar power at a price equal to or less than the long-term cost of kerosene lamps, the company states on its website. The company says it is providing solar power to 50,000 new homes each month, and expects to sign up 1 million customers within the next couple of years.

“It’s really the economics that are creating the momentum,” Christensen said. “More and more companies are realizing that this isn’t just green ethics—it’s their bottom line. They see clean energy as an opportunity, and they want to be there early.”
She said fossil-fuel companies that don’t diversify into cleaner energy will be left behind. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies echoes that prediction, noting that the average stock price of the top 10 coal companies in the U.S. dropped from $51 per share in 2010 to $14 per share in August 2015.

Christensen said managers of real-estate investment funds also attended the informational forum in Paris, concerned about the potential for sea-level rise and the associated increase in insurance costs for coastal properties.
She said companies are asking governments to make concrete rules about efforts to reverse climate change so that they can better chart their own futures.

“These business people have been getting more and more frustrated by the lack of government clarity,” she said.
At the 2014 UN Climate Summit, 74 countries and more than 1,000 companies created the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, urging that carbon emissions be paid at their source. This past October, World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde launched the Carbon Pricing Panel with several heads of government to support that effort.

Christensen said she will now be involved in facilitating contacts among the people who attended the Paris forum to accelerate the momentum created by the climate-change deal.
“I wanted to make sure I helped make Paris a launch pad and not an end point,” she said.
Email the writer: gmoore@mtexpress.com

The GFS 12z at least wants to make it cool Christmas morning with temps in the upper 30s and lower 40s. The ECMWF 00z on the other hand is a complete torch.

GFS 12z:

Philip Klotzbach ‏@philklotzbach 2 hhace 2 horas Ver traducción
About 80% of ECMWF ensemble forecast members have ENSO neutral or La Nina conditions by next June.
110. MahFL
Quoting 109. Gearsts:

Philip Klotzbach ‏@philklotzbach 2 hhace 2 horas Ver traducción
About 80% of ECMWF ensemble forecast members have ENSO neutral or La Nina conditions by next June.


Anything will be better than a strong El Nino...
Maybe the US will get hit by a massive Cat 3.
111. beell
Quoting 105. nrtiwlnvragn:

Doc sneaked in a little vacation time at Yosemite Valley prior to the meeting he is attending.





That snowman has to be at least 700' tall!
Quoting 106. Drakoen:



We just have to wait 372hrs for it.


Sure GFS..the same model that made it look like a snow event was possible two days from now...
Quoting 91. tampabaymatt:



I'm not sure if you watched the debate last night, but Kasich made a point to bash the fact that world leaders met to discuss climate change, and implied they should have spent the time to discuss ISIS instead. There is zero chance of any climate change legislation getting through Congress right now with the Republicans holding the majority. It's a shame.


In my opinion, ISIS and AGW are of equal importance as both could do/have already done a toll on the world.. I wouldn't blame one's priorities being on ISIS over AGW (as long as that certain one's priorities exist on AGW, in other words they care; sadly as we know, the Republican Candidates at the top do not.) as ISIS is more short term/imminent. Like I said though, both are important, as we SHOULD know.

I'm no Naga, Patrap, Neo, Xyrus, or whoever else.. but I guess it's an opinion.. probably one of less importance. lol.
Quoting 85. hydrus:

True miracles are rare, but do happen..I believe we should try..The good Earth is without doubt worth the effort.

Seems daunting with fire ants swarming in December but agree, it's not all lost yet. The ozone hole situation looked pretty doom there for a while and even though it was advertised we were all going to have to live without AC, some still don't think it is chemically/atmospherically a problem & we will live with some consequences for some generations, the overall outlook is much less doom. That was a small economic revolution that happened to save us. This one is larger with more opportunity, it is happening now that renewable energy is out competing fossil fuels..

Something else that was a good to come out of that meeting was the attention to the mayors, locals, small countries and smaller scale efforts and benefits. Smaller efforts that fit local geography are proving effective at meeting energy needs and expanding local economies where they used to have to pay dearly to pipe a dirty source in.

Small nations, renewable giants


Uruguay gets 94.5% of its electricity from renewables. In addition to old hydropower plants, a hefty investment in wind, biomass and solar in recent years has raised the share of these sources in the total energy mix to 55%, compared with a global average of 12%, and about 20% in Europe.

Costa Rica went a record 94 consecutive days earlier this year without using fossil fuel for electricity, thanks to a mix of about 78% hydropower, 12% geothermal and 10% wind. The government has set a target of 100% renewable energy by 2021. But transport remains dirty.

Iceland has the advantage of being a nation of volcanoes, which has allowed it to tap geothermal sources of 85% of its heating and – with the assistance of hydropower – 100% of its electricity. This has made it the world’s largest green energy producer per capita.

Paraguay has one huge hydropower dam at Itaipu, which supplies 90% of the country’s electricity.

Lesotho gets 100% of its electricity from a cascade of dams that have enough spare capacity to export power to South Africa.

Bhutan’s abundant hydropower resources generate a surplus of electricity that accounts for more than 40% of the country’s export earnings. But over-reliance on one source can be a problem. In the dry season, it has to import power from India.


Quoting 90. ColoradoBob1:

This Is How Climate Change Deniers Are Tricking You
National Review tweeted out an impressive-looking graph on Tuesday. Don't be fooled.

The Washington Post summed it up best: "It's akin to suggesting that Shaquille O'Neal and Mini-Me (aka Verne Troyer) are the same height because they're both tiny compared to the planet Jupiter."

Link


Dr. Inferno at Denial Depot exposed the National Review's lie years ago.

How To Cook A Graph
Quoting 114. Skyepony:


Seems daunting with fire ants swarming in December but agree, it's not all lost yet. The ozone hole situation looked pretty doom there for a while and even though it was advertised we were all going to have to live without AC, some still don't think it is chemically/atmospherically a problem & we will live with some consequences for some generations, the overall outlook is much less doom. That was a small economic revolution that happened to save us. This one is larger with more opportunity, it is happening now that renewable energy is out competing fossil fuels..

Something else that was a good to come out of that meeting was the attention to the mayors, locals, small countries and smaller scale efforts and benefits. Smaller efforts that fit local geography are proving effective at meeting energy needs and expanding local economies where they used to have to pay dearly to pipe a dirty source in.

Small nations, renewable giants


Uruguay gets 94.5% of its electricity from renewables. In addition to old hydropower plants, a hefty investment in wind, biomass and solar in recent years has raised the share of these sources in the total energy mix to 55%, compared with a global average of 12%, and about 20% in Europe.

Costa Rica went a record 94 consecutive days earlier this year without using fossil fuel for electricity, thanks to a mix of about 78% hydropower, 12% geothermal and 10% wind. The government has set a target of 100% renewable energy by 2021. But transport remains dirty.

Iceland has the advantage of being a nation of volcanoes, which has allowed it to tap geothermal sources of 85% of its heating and – with the assistance of hydropower – 100% of its electricity. This has made it the world’s largest green energy producer per capita.

Paraguay has one huge hydropower dam at Itaipu, which supplies 90% of the country’s electricity.

Lesotho gets 100% of its electricity from a cascade of dams that have enough spare capacity to export power to South Africa.

Bhutan’s abundant hydropower resources generate a surplus of electricity that accounts for more than 40% of the country’s export earnings. But over-reliance on one source can be a problem. In the dry season, it has to import power from India.



Good afternoon Skye..There is no doubt in my mind doing something now would make a difference. The Earth is a miracle unto itself and very resilient. We know through science and math that it will get worse before it gets better, but changes now will produce huge benefits, and in many ways, make the world safer for humans and the creatures that inhabit the land and the oceans. The Earth is a priceless gem. A thing of infinite beauty. Being good to Earth will please the creator and we will be rewarded..:)...
Quoting 110. MahFL:



Anything will be better than a strong El Nino...
Maybe the US will get hit by a massive Cat 3.
Yeah because getting hit by a cat 3 is great.
Quoting 89. Patrap:



Were having a Seafood Xmas here as the Crawfish are already in Season. Plus, we going to get some Redfish and speckled trout as well from the GOM.

Im also sure the Global cooling will kick in this coming year.

: p



headed to NOLA from Naptown 12/25. Where are you seeing crawfish? I could use 10lbs or so...
Thought I might drop these by...

Server weather in Australia with winds gusting to 130mph (cat 4 range which is impressive)
Link

Second spring is currently ongoing in D.C at this moment and here is the article
Link
Merry Torchmas from the ECMWF:




80s along the Gulf Coast, 70s into southern Michigan, 60s and 50s into southern Canada. And yes, that's 45F above average in northern Indiana.
I know that there are many other things being discussed here, but is anyone's interest piqued by what seems to be spinning up in the Carribean? Looked like more of a blob yesterday and looks more like it's trying to be something more than that today. What do you all think?
Tiny phytoplankton have big influence on climate change

As nations across the globe negotiate how to reduce their contributions to climate change, researchers at Penn are investigating just how the coming changes will impact the planet. What's clear is that the effect extends beyond simple warming. Indeed, the very physics and chemistry of the oceans are also shifting, and are forecast to change even more in the coming decades.

Read more at: Link
Quoting 124. LostTomorrows:

I know that there are many other things being discussed here, but is anyone's interest piqued by what seems to be spinning up in the Carribean? Looked like more of a blob yesterday and looks more like it's trying to be something more than that today. What do you all think?


It is an interesting feature. Climatology says no. However, we are not in normal times. If it were Aug/Sept it would really catch my eye.
Quoting 121. washingtonian115:

Thought I might drop these by...

Server weather in Australia with winds gusting to 130mph (cat 4 range which is impressive)
Link

Second spring is currently ongoing in D.C at this moment and here is the article
Link

Well Washi, you said you were going to Texas, so Texas might have sent you a bit of the type of weather you can expect there.
Its not just you area its all over the place, makes me wonder what is going to happen in the real spring and we are not even into winter yet, still 5 days short for that
Earlier this year in January I saw wasps about, which is something I have never seen in the winter, we have bees all over the place in a time they are normally dormant and of course we have a big drought in our area. 23/C today which is about 74/F.
Morduhsaym. But there's still January and February...



The problem is towns like this one in NC. US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u s-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-u p-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html. A retired "science" teacher said the solar farm would stop photosynthesis in the areas near the panels and that it might cause cancer. This type of know nothing science is not helping.
Quoting 128. PlazaRed:


Well Washi, you said you were going to Texas, so Texas might have sent you a bit of the type of weather you can expect there.
Its not just you area its all over the place, makes me wonder what is going to happen in the real spring and we are not even into winter yet, still 5 days short for that
Earlier this year in January I saw wasps about, which is something I have never seen in the winter, we have bees all over the place in a time they are normally dormant and of course we have a big drought in our area. 23/C today which is about 74/F.
We get tornados in the mid-atlantic but down there in Texas is like dealing with a new animal.
I don't know if anyone's posted this, but the NASA figure for the November global temperature anomaly is just in, and it's a doozie, at 1.05 C degrees above the 1951-80 average. That's just 0.01 C behind the all time monthly record anomaly set in October, and an amazing 0.25 C higher than the previous November record anomaly in 2013.

So, a new global annual temperature record is going to be set in 2015, exceeding the 2014 record by a very big margin. However, the second year of the three strongest El Ninos on record exceeded the global temperature anomaly of the first year by a whopping 0.16 C, so 2016 is almost certain to be taking us into uncharted waters.

We live in interesting times.

NASA data
Quoting 34. nrtiwlnvragn:








What are you talking about with gravity waves? They are theoretical space phenomena and not something known to occur on earth. This is the second time you posted this pseudoscientific jargon.
Responding to floods in a new climate economy

The devastating floods in India’s southern state of Chennai, and now yet another deadly typhoon (Melor) bringing massive flooding in central Philippines, point to a rising frequency of climate-related disasters. For an effective response to these increasingly costly events, we can no longer regard them as one-off acts of nature. They are part of an emerging pattern shaped by human activity, in two ways. Globally, climate change is making countries far more hazard-prone; locally, environmental destruction is adding to the fall out.

Link
Quoting 132. washingtonian115:

We get tornados in the mid-atlantic but down there in Texas is like dealing with a new animal.


What part of TX you moving to?
Quoting 132. washingtonian115:

We get tornados in the mid-atlantic but down there in Texas is like dealing with a new animal.

First make sure you have insurance and an underground shelter.
Get every bit of advice and a warning system installed so as you know if anything is coming your way.
Third, look on the bright side of things, Texas is very wide and tornados are very narrow by comparison.

We will be looking forward to hearing from you and all the adventures.


The latest of TS Melor/Nona (saved). Notice the track and the models! Looks like Pagasa finally gave in to reality (track to the northeast; although microwave may give the impression, storm is headed east or even southeast), but most models still do not (tracks to the southwest). Weird, lol. Due to decoupling of circulation on different levels? I just wonder.


Pagasa (Philippine weather service).


Other models/sites (including WU).


Latest microwave of Melor/Nona.

New storm "Onyok" at the doorsteps of southern island Mindanao. Isn't forecast to become very strong. Hope they got this one right ;-)

UPDATED: Tropical depression 'Onyok' approaches Mindanao; 'slightly intensifies'
By Mindanews on December 16 2015 8:51 pm
Quoting 14. rjsenterp:

Maybe Dr. masters could give a talk on why you have to have a base power generation capacity, using fossil fuels, that is equal to the maximum usage requirements of a utilities customers for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Unless of course you want rolling blackouts during peak periods during the summer cooling periods and the winter heating periods.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear is the only way to go.
You have posted this same wrong information before. Baseload generation is not equal to the maximum power demand ever forecast. It's equal to the average power demand. We have peaking power plants to handle above average demand. There are no wind facilities that are peaking power plants and only one solar plant. They contribute to baseload. Hydro plants, especially pumped storage plants, provide a lot of the peaking power in this country. Biomass, fossil, and nuclear provide the rest. I'm not in favor of immediately decommissioning nuke plants, but peaking power will be provided by an increasing number of solar plants as they get more efficient. There's nothing better for providing peaking power at the hottest times of the day since that's when they are the most productive. Winter is a time of generally low electrical demand because less than 40% of homes use electric heat. Those that do are generally in areas of cheap electricity, and there's almost always a surplus of power available. The majority of heating is provide by natural gas and propane.

I worked in the industry for a lot of years. I don't know what your motivation is, but almost none of the information you keep posting is true. I hope no one is taking you seriously.
Just now on the Spanish national news TVE.
Barcelona had a temp today of 21/C no winds so they have introduced traffic controls to help to reduce pollution which is bad even though the city is on the coast.
Meanwhile Segovia's dams are down to 30% of capacity and although I get the impression that they are playing this down a bit as its the early part of the rainy season, they are obviously worried.
Meanwhile it seems that the capital Madrid is in about the same bad way for water reserves.
We in the deep south seem to have no problems as most dams here appear to be near full.

The weather forecast for the next week is for no rain in our area and that's one more week nearer to summer, when it defiantly will not rain!
Quoting 24. TheBigBanana:

Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. She was part of a team that invented soft-serve ice cream.

Here's a little story about that from 1983
Uh, no. Soft serve ice cream is a strictly American invention. Tom Carvel or Dairy Queen, depending on what source you take, invented soft serve ice cream in the mid-30's. If Margaret Thatcher ever worked on soft serve ice cream, it was for a brief period in the late 1940's, when the British company J. Lyon was partnering with Mr. Softee, another US claimant to inventing soft serve. This was long after there was a Carvel's on every corner in NYC, and a DQ everywhere else.
Northwest to have a litany of precipitation types tomorrow.


143. 882MB
So much talking about gravity waves, I was just checking a loop of PR, and found some gravity waves over the Mona passage and W-PR. Also some nice hot towers with our Caribbean blob, Here below is the most recent image.

Quoting 140. PlazaRed:

The weather forecast for the next week is for no rain in our area and that's one more week nearer to summer, when it defiantly will not rain!

European continental weather is one boring mess for sure, Plaza. Guess German weather bloggers are already bald now, pulling out their hair with every new run of the models. High pressure over the Med is like concrete, blocking all those wild storms spat out from Newfoundland into the Atlantic from entering Europe, and keeping some cold air in Russia (if there is any) at bay as well. Only subtropical air from the southwest gets permission to enter - and there isn't much rain connected with those airmasses. Last night I got a little bit, after many dry days, and not much in the offing the days to come. Just the current mild-glop (as it's called in German blogs, lol).

Will Global Warming Heat Us Beyond Our Physical Limits?

If we don’t cut greenhouse gases, it’s not just storms and rising seas we’d have to worry about. The heat alone could kill a lot of us.


SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.—If greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, rising temperatures and humidity wrought by global warming could expose hundreds of millions of people worldwide to potentially lethal heat stress by 2060, a new report suggests.

Link
Quoting 130. VAstorms:

The problem is towns like this one in NC. US town rejects solar panels amid fears they 'suck up all the energy from the sun. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u s-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-u p-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html. A retired "science" teacher said the solar farm would stop photosynthesis in the areas near the panels and that it might cause cancer. This type of know nothing science is not helping.
This was talked about extensively in the previous blog. The Independent's headline is false. The solar farm proposed is the fourth in a town of one square mile with 809 people. All the speakers but two were against the fourth plant because their houses were being surrounded by hundreds of solar panels, which was decreasing property values. Out of all the speakers at the town council meeting, a husband and wife team that apparently have significant mental problems were the only ones saying these outlandish things. Of course, they made the headlines, while no one in the media published anything about the real issues.
Quoting 134. VAstorms:



What are you talking about with gravity waves? They are theoretical space phenomena and not something known to occur on earth. This is the second time you posted this pseudoscientific jargon.
A gravitational wave is a theoretical space construct. Gravity waves are well known phenomena that occur in the atmosphere.
"She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. "

Boy ain't that the truth

The arguing that goes on here is just what fossil fuel interests want
Quoting 134. VAstorms:
What are you talking about with gravity waves? They are theoretical space phenomena and not something known to occur on earth. This is the second time you posted this pseudoscientific jargon.
You should poke your head in some different books. The waves crashing on beaches and other waves propagated by gravity acting on matter in the air and oceans are also called gravity waves. Here's the wikipedia link.
Quoting 109. Gearsts:

Philip Klotzbach ‏@philklotzbach 2 hhace 2 horas Ver traducción
About 80% of ECMWF ensemble forecast members have ENSO neutral or La Nina conditions by next June.


OMG nice!!
So not only will there be more days that push the limits of what humans can handle, but more people will be exposed to those conditions.

While the numbers would vary from year-to-year, the researchers estimate that by the 2060s, some 700 million people could experience a wet-bulb threshold of about 90°F (32°C) per year, with one or two such events per year. “So they’re not rare events,” Coffel said. About 250 million could experience about a 91°F (33°C) event, and 50 million a 93°F (34°C) one.


Link
Quoting 133. yonzabam:

I don't know if anyone's posted this, but the NASA figure for the November global temperature anomaly is just in, and it's a doozie, at 1.05 C degrees above the 1951-80 average. That's just 0.01 C behind the all time monthly record anomaly set in October, and an amazing 0.25 C higher than the previous November record anomaly in 2013.

So, a new global annual temperature record is going to be set in 2015, exceeding the 2014 record by a very big margin. However, the second year of the three strongest El Ninos on record exceeded the global temperature anomaly of the first year by a whopping 0.16 C, so 2016 is almost certain to be taking us into uncharted waters.

We live in interesting times.

NASA data


A point I haven't seen brought out is that the 1982-83 super El Nino event occurred a few months after the massive El Chichon eruption which was comparable to the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption. The effects on global temperature largely cancelled with strong cooling from the stratospheric sulfate injection compensated by strong warming from El Nino. Unlike 1997-98 the entire 82-83 winter was not incredibly warm either globally or in North America although it did have the characteristic lack of winter arctic air in the southern states.

And unlike the summer of 1992 (followin the 1991 eruption) which was dramatically cool in the midwest and northeast, the summer of 1983 was hot after a cold and very wet spring.


Found a site with some good informations f.e. about the rain balance in Germany. Below a chart of the precipitation so far in one of the suburbs of my town Mainz near Frankfurt (Mainz-Lerchenberg). You see, apart from the first weeks in 2015 precipitation was faaar below normal. In numbers: So far we got 361mm= 14inches, this is only 59 percent of what we should have got in a year: 614mm=24inches. Still two weeks to go in 2015, though. But looking at the models with all this high pressure and record mild temps around, ts ts ts, hopeless.



BTW similar balances for some other regions mostly in the southern part of Germany. The northwest like the area of Cologne got enough rain this year.
154. Wrass
134 relax what do u know about gravity waves . I know satilite imagery . I see it ok . Hello. !!! Maybe it's a Harp thing.!!
Quoting 124. LostTomorrows:

I know that there are many other things being discussed here, but is anyone's interest piqued by what seems to be spinning up in the Carribean? Looked like more of a blob yesterday and looks more like it's trying to be something more than that today. What do you all think?
Looks like an upper level low riding a pretty broad trough that extends all the way to South America. It's pretty clear on the 300mb chart but it's not extending down to the surface. The low in South America is really not moving, and it's trapped from going too far north by the large Atlantic high. It should drift generally east as the US fronts keep pushing it. It will give Hispaniola some thunderstorms, but I can't see any mechanism for it developing now.
Quoting 144. barbamz:


European continental weather is one boring mess for sure, Plaza. Guess German weather bloggers are already bald now, pulling out their hair with every new run of the models. High pressure over the Med is like concrete, blocking all those wild storms spat out from Newfoundland into the Atlantic from entering Europe, and keeping some cold air in Russia (if there is any) at bay as well. Only subtropical air from the southwest gets permission to enter - and there isn't much rain connected with those airmasses. Last night I got a little bit, after many dry days, and not much in the offing the days to come. Just the current mild-glop (as it's called in German blogs, lol).

Hi Barb,
So I just watched the weather forecast for Spain and its dry all the time up until Sunday when its also dry but cooler down from 24/C to 22/c. Well so much for that.
The one thing that did not get mentioned but was apparent on the map is that after the 22/C cold spell on Sunday, there is a very warm looking lump of air in the mid Atlantic which is drifting our way, so no hopes of any rain or cold weather for at least the next week or so.

We might not get a winter at all at this rate, as the weather starts to warm up in mid February and even though it can rain here until the end of April, its often not very much and just gets absorbed by the dry ground.

also I noted that this warm air we are getting is drifting up over the UK and slightly eastwards into southern Norway, so no blizzards there in the next week.
More extreme weather is causing more blackouts; some US utilities unprepared and underfunded
UPGRADES ARE COSTLY, BUT SO ARE OUTAGES

When Hurricane Irene hit the Northeast in 2011, it marked the first time in the history of Con Ed that more than 200,000 customers lost power from a storm. Superstorm Sandy struck just 14 months later, quickly followed by a devastating Nor’easter, leaving 1.1 million customers in the dark.

“It was clear to us that weather patterns were changing fundamentally. Severe weather events were becoming more frequent and devastating,” Allan Drury, a Con Ed spokesman, said in an email.


Link
I see we have "29" of the south east coast of the Philippines.

Some people might find this link interesting or amusing.
The snow forecast for the next 7 days over the Sierra Nevada mountain in southern Spain just round the corner from me gives no snow and a low temp of +3/c, the rest of the temps are much higher than +3/C.
So its bare rock on the Sierra Nevada this season so far.
Possibly a re-naming should take place to the Sierra Piedra, or stony mountains.

Link
Quoting 126. Bucsboltsfan:



It is an interesting feature. Climatology says no. However, we are not in normal times. If it were Aug/Sept it would really catch my eye.


Well we had out-of-season systems before, and with El Niño winding down and all that latent untapped heat in the Carribean, it's not improbable. We can see what this feature does.
Quoting 148. bappit:

"She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. "

Boy ain't that the truth

The arguing that goes on here is just what fossil fuel interests want
No. The ignorantly anti-scientific posts by ignorantly anti-scientific people one sees all too frequently here are what the fossil fuel interests want.
More evidence that the plankton vote is going to bigger than we ever dreamed.

Change in Australia's plankton population, as climate changes, threatens human food chain

Australia's plankton population, a vital key in the human food chain, has moved 300 kilometres south in 30 years, new research has found.

Scientists attributed the shift to the warming oceans caused by climate change.

In some regions there was also a shift from cold-water to warm-water plankton species.


Link
162. beell
Quoting 148. bappit:

"She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. "

Boy ain't that the truth

The arguing that goes on here is just what fossil fuel interests want


I think there are more than a few here that want that also. There is comfort and familiarity in the low-hanging fruit of presenting the hourly rebuttals to denial on the off-chance that one soul will be saved from ignorance.
Quoting 156. PlazaRed:

also I noted that this warm air we are getting is drifting up over the UK and slightly eastwards into southern Norway, so no blizzards there in the next week.

Blizzard, what's that, lol??? Sure, very unlikely any time soon in western Europe this year. If any is to happen this winter in my part of Europe, it will likely occur much later when a lot of sprouting and blossoming plants are in danger. I don't trust our weather any more, Plaza.


Forecast of temperature anomalies for Europe until Christmas.

Good night with this for now. Won't be around very often until the weekend due to a looming family trip, starting tomorrow evening.
Dr Richardson said off the coast of Tasmania's Maria Island, there had been a shift from cold-water to warm-water plankton species.

"Warm-water plankton is smaller and some fish, seabirds and marine mammals just don't like the taste," he said.

"The main food for young fish is plankton, and so as the climate warms we're getting this tropical plankton which is very diverse, but small, moving further south and that is bad for fish spawning and breeding."


Link
Good Morning Class!
Quoting 162. beell:



I think there are more than a few here that want that also. There is comfort and familiarity in the low-hanging fruit of presenting the hourly rebuttals to denial on the off-chance that one soul will be saved from ignorance.
Possibly, and in much the same way some seem drawn to a fantasy world where not discussing certain unpleasant issues makes those issues go away as if by magic, a cheerful, cozy land where silence and complacency rule, and no ill wind dares roil the still waters...
Quoting 165. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Good Morning Class!



oooppps.....Good Afternoon Class!
168. beell
ZOMBIE CLEAN-UP, AISLE 4! ZOMBIE CLEAN-UP, AISLE 4!




"Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies.
"
Susan Hassol of climatecommunication.org.
(snipped from today's blog post by Doc M.)
As I have said before, it's the very small things that own our world , we serve at their pleasure .

And all those small things are already living in a new world.

Honduras has 'ecological catastrophe' with Southern pine beetle

The southern pine bark beetle is a tenacious critter, native to the forests of the southern United States, Mexico and Central America. While it's always been present in Honduran forests, climate change has vastly increased the beetle's numbers.

The sudden explosion of southern pine beetles this year in Honduras is being blamed on a warming climate by some scientists, but to the 350 soldiers of the First Artillery Battalion in Zambrano province, just north of the Honduran capital, the war they are fighting against the tree-munching bug is an effort in futility.




Read more: Link





let the perfect be the enemy of the good - Wiktionary
(idiomatic) To insist on the total realization of a goal and reject any compromise, thereby decreasing the chance of achieving even a part of that goal.
171. MahFL
Quoting 124. LostTomorrows:

... Looked like more of a blob yesterday and looks more like it's trying to be something more than that today. What do you all think?


35 kts of shear = "forget about it".
This year, the strongest El Nino ever recorded has brought drought to the region causing a six-fold increase in the beetles. Southern pine beetles have already destroyed 400,000 hectares (one million acres) of pine forest, about one-quarter of the country's primary forest cover.

The link at 169

Someone needs to explain to Mr. Trump that if 25% of the forest in Honduras is wiped out in a single year, his wall is going to need to be much higher , and much deeper.

As dtlange just said @ Scribbler's
We live an age of some sort of
“some sort of moral coma”


Quoting 170. LowerCal:

let the perfect be the enemy of the good - Wiktionary
(idiomatic) To insist on the total realization of a goal and reject any compromise, thereby decreasing the chance of achieving even a part of that goal.


Many thanks for that marble . It's been rolling around in my head for days. ......................... "let the perfect be the enemy of the good" ........... “some sort of moral coma”
174. Inyo
glad to hear there is some hope. This stupid 'warm' winter in new england is awful. Yes I know it is an el nino thing not necessarily associated with global warming but can't help but think the 'stuck jet stream' phenomena that is causing this as well as the brutal cold last winter may be related. :(
175. Inyo
Quoting 43. DeepSeaRising:

Arctic is going to melt, will reach the point of rapid collapse and then it's climate game changed in a way we can only imagine. This accord will work, countries are motivated, but we've likely already gone too far to stop the Arctic from collapsing. This conference dealt with stopping this from getting worse, but we're going to be responding to climate change as much as preventing it for likely multiple generations. The Republican response, some day when they realize we've already gone too far, is going to be priceless. Full story will be out and the Cruz, Trump, and other outright loon deniers will look like the fools of history that they are.


imho when that day comes they will neither apologize nor betray their oil cronies. they will turn to reckless and stupid geoengineering. These people - the ones who own the republican party - are accustomed to buying whatever they want and they will attempt to throw their wealth and political power at the situation with some scheme. I am almost certain it will happen and nearly as certain that these idiots will do something to make the situation even worse - worsen the warming somehow, increase extremes, or even cause an ice age. These are not nice people, and they have the sort of intelligence needed to play politics and the stock market but not the right kind to manipulate the climate.

In 100 years we could end up with anything - scorching heat, geoengineering-fueled ice age, or some other awful thing we havent even imagined. or maybe the optimists will win out... I hope so
Quoting 149. bappit:

You should poke your head in some different books. The waves crashing on beaches and other waves propagated by gravity acting on matter in the air and oceans are also called gravity waves. Here's the wikipedia link.


I actually read a lot of physics books and this almost always talked about in a cosmological context. Saying that waves breaking on beaches has nothing to do with the picture that was posted. If you want to have a physics off, I'm glad to oblige.
Quoting 166. Neapolitan:
Possibly, and in much the same way some seem drawn to a fantasy world where not discussing certain unpleasant issues makes those issues go away as if by magic, a cheerful, cozy land where silence and complacency rule, and no ill wind dares roil the still waters...
People have gotten too cozy and smug in refuting the old arguments. We need a more muscular discourse, less weenie. Time to move on.
Quoting 176. VAstorms:
I actually read a lot of physics books and this almost always talked about in a cosmological context. Saying that waves breaking on beaches has nothing to do with the picture that was posted. If you want to have a physics off, I'm glad to oblige.
The attitude is unnecessary. Einstein's gravity waves are one thing. Writing off any other kind of gravity wave as "pseudoscience" is something else entirely.
179. beell
Quoting 176. VAstorms:



I actually read a lot of physics books and this almost always talked about in a cosmological context. Saying that waves breaking on beaches has nothing to do with the picture that was posted. If you want to have a physics off, I'm glad to oblige.


Would you prefer "undular bore"?

A particular form of gravity wave.
Quoting 168. beell:
ZOMBIE CLEAN-UP, AISLE 4! ZOMBIE CLEAN-UP, AISLE 4!

The horror. ;-O
181. beell
Quoting 180. bappit:

The horror. ;-O


I didn't want to scare the children or wake up the mods. Went with "soft zombie".
Quoting 177. bappit:

People have gotten too cozy and smug in refuting the old arguments. We need a more muscular discourse, less weenie. Time to move on.


Lead the way Meriwether. We all a wait you at the 3 forks of the Missouri.
Quoting 136. RitaEvac:



What part of TX you moving to?

Arlington TX.
Quoting 183. ColoradoBob1:
Lead the way Meriwether. We all a wait you at the 3 forks of the Missouri.
Et tu, Brute.

The current Flagship Blog is a start. I'm wondering what is the story behind this statement?

Half of all new power resources coming on-line globally are in renewable energy, and that percentage is near 70% in the U.S.
Quoting 151. ColoradoBob1:

So not only will there be more days that push the limits of what humans can handle, but more people will be exposed to those conditions.

While the numbers would vary from year-to-year, the researchers estimate that by the 2060s, some 700 million people could experience a wet-bulb threshold of about 90°F (32°C) per year, with one or two such events per year. “So they’re not rare events,” Coffel said. About 250 million could experience about a 91°F (33°C) event, and 50 million a 93°F (34°C) one.


Link

So in other words, "Payback is a Bitch."
185. bappit

Et tu, Brute.

I didn't say this -
We need a more muscular discourse, less weenie. Time to move on.

(Sarcasm insert here)
I have zero solutions for the future . I grew up with Jane and Dean , where poorer the gas mileage was , the better. You know, "Dead Man's Curve", and all that.

I await your new more muscular discourse, with less "weenie".

Hope you don't get monster snowfalls followed by heavy rain storms. Or worse, another ice storm like 98. It is shaping up to be a difficult winter for the New England ski areas. Christmas Week is the first big week of the season and even places like Killington and Sunday River cannot make snow with these temps. Time to buy a 6/5/4 wetsuit and head to the coast for some epic winter surfing.

Quoting 174. Inyo:

glad to hear there is some hope. This stupid 'warm' winter in new england is awful. Yes I know it is an el nino thing not necessarily associated with global warming but can't help but think the 'stuck jet stream' phenomena that is causing this as well as the brutal cold last winter may be related. :(
189. beell
Quoting 187. ColoradoBob1:

185. bappit

Et tu, Brute.

I didn't say this -
We need a more muscular discourse, less weenie. Time to move on.

(Sarcasm insert here)
I have zero solutions for the future . I grew up with Jane and Dean , where poorer the gas mileage was , the better. You know, "Dead Man's Curve", and all that.

I await your new more muscular discourse, with less "weenie".




Europe’s Largest Battery Energy Storage Project Opens In Feldheim, Germany
Quoting 186. PedleyCA:


So in other words, "Payback is a Bitch."


Get ready little lady , Hell is coming to breakfast



Gavin Schmidt
‏@ClimateOfGavin
All of the global mean trend since 1950 is human caused. Regardless of what @curryja or @MarkSteynOnline says.

192. Inyo
Quoting 188. HaoleboySurfEC:

Hope you don't get monster snowfalls followed by heavy rain storms. Or worse, another ice storm like 98. It is shaping up to be a difficult winter for the New England ski areas. Christmas Week is the first big week of the season and even places like Killington and Sunday River cannot make snow with these temps. Time to buy a 6/5/4 wetsuit and head to the coast for some epic winter surfing.




yeah i didn't mention that ice storm but that's the other concern. We've had lots of rain storms and if the cold air can ever build in enough to persist in the valleys before one of these rain storms hits we could be in for trouble.
Quoting 192. Inyo:



yeah i didn't mention that ice storm but that's the other concern. We've had lots of rain storms and if the cold air can ever build in enough to persist in the valleys before one of these rain storms hits we could be in for trouble.


trapped cold air in a valley can make for really nasty glaze. However a few thousand feet of air a few degrees below freezing will only freeze a few mm of water before latent heat of fusion warms the air to freezing and no further freezing occurs. For more than a cm of ice and esp for inches of ice you need a resupply of cold air, typically with overrunning over a cold layer with ageostrophic flow out of a high to the northeast pushing cold air southwest right into the precipitating zone. Often these situations are worse because the cold air is very dry (overrun with warm precipitating clouds), and evaporative cooling cools the airmass even more.
194. Inyo
Quoting 193. georgevandenberghe:



trapped cold air in a valley can make for really nasty glaze. However a few thousand feet of air a few degrees below freezing will only freeze a few mm of water before latent heat of fusion warms the air to freezing and no further freezing occurs. For more than a cm of ice and esp for inches of ice you need a resupply of cold air, typically with overrunning over a cold layer with ageostrophic flow out of a high to the northeast pushing cold air southwest right into the precipitating zone. Often these situations are worse because the cold air is very dry (overrun with warm precipitating clouds), and evaporative cooling cools the airmass even more.



Yeah, AFAIK the worst ice storms haven't hit our location in Montpelier as much, the topography shelters us from all but a little bit of west wind. Blocked on the north, east, and south. Oddly the normally warmer Champlain Valley can get creamed by ice storms when cold air trickles down from the N and warm air from the S. Montpelier gets more snow and less ice... it's nice. Of course this year the most snow we have gotten was a few dustings - mostly in October. I do think startin January we will start getting storms, but it sure has been a weird end to the year.

Last year was so darn cold... we actually didn't get that much snow, but it literally didn't thaw at all much of the winter, so it kept building up and by spring we had a good couple of feet
Quoting 188. HaoleboySurfEC:

Hope you don't get monster snowfalls followed by heavy rain storms. Or worse, another ice storm like 98. It is shaping up to be a difficult winter for the New England ski areas. Christmas Week is the first big week of the season and even places like Killington and Sunday River cannot make snow with these temps. Time to buy a 6/5/4 wetsuit and head to the coast for some epic winter surfing.




December 27, 1984 I traveled to Stowe to ski with friends. The month was warm in the East, record warm in some areas and another overrunning situation set up with snow to glaze to rain overnight. I went out on the slopes the following morning in pouring warm rain. The low slopes were a disaster with rivers and mud throughout. The upper slopes still had decent snow under the rain. I was doing fine until "one last run " before lunch. I snagged in a slop spot, fell on my ski edge and severed the medial collateral ligament and other tendons around the patella.. out for the season! And I didn't have a chance that afternoon to explore the diminishing snow at elevation (what with being in surgery and all :-( ). Next morning I heard Boston had had a record high of 71F. 30s to low 40s in Stowe.
This accident was a disaster for me, sick for two weeks from LP for surgery, couldn't drive for 10 weeks, fortunately Ilived within hobbling distance of school, got rides from friends, and was walking well by the time school started a week later but I felt sick for another ten days after that and lost quite a bit of academic progress.

No snow, zero, nada, at any resort in MD, even Wisp in western mtns. They might make some this weekend but next week will destroy that too.
Quoting 178. bappit:

The attitude is unnecessary. Einstein's gravity waves are one thing. Writing off any other kind of gravity wave as "pseudoscience" is something else entirely.


There are many many words in English that have two completely acceptable meanings. Gravity waves in the atmosphere and ocean are a real phenomenon, control significant energy and are very important to capture in initial conditions (difficult too!!) for good short range forecasts. Incidentally the waves you see on the beach are what are called deep water gravity waves.. wavelength much less than depth. Tsunamis are shallow water waves even in the open ocean because wavelengths ~100km are much larger than basin depths ~10km. Their dynamics are different too, shallow water waves are not dispersive, phase velocity is the same as group velocity and they hold their shape and energy propagates with the wave. Deep water gravity waves ebb and grow if you watch closely and energy moves at a fraction (I think half for this case) the phase velocity so waves outrun their energy and dissipate.
Quoting 190. ColoradoBob1:



Get ready little lady , Hell is coming to breakfast





Quoting 186. PedleyCA:

5 miles East of my house is a place called Ransom Canyon , it's full of rich people now.

But it was once was a place where the Comancheros used to ransom the captured slaves from New Mexico with their Comanche counterparts.

That Josey Wells c;ip is rooted in American history.

The Comanche stole slaves for nearly 2 hundred years.
I've posted this video at least a dozen times easily since it came out.

Uploaded on May 6, 2007
Time Lapse of gravity wave action from the Tama, Iowa KCCI-TV webcam on 6 May 2007.


57 post to reach a US WX map.....ain't much happenin' tonite !!
Lot easier just to go to the wu map page.
Dec. 16, 2015

Study Shows Climate Change Rapidly Warming World’s Lakes



Climate change is rapidly warming lakes around the world, threatening freshwater supplies and ecosystems, according to a new NASA and National Science Foundation-funded study of more than half of the world’s freshwater supply.

Lake temperature variations
This image of Lake Tahoe, from the ASTER instrument on Terra, shows the lake’s temperature variations (cold is blue, warm is red).
Credits: NASA


Using more than 25 years of satellite temperature data and ground measurements of 235 lakes on six continents, this study -- the largest of its kind -- found lakes are warming an average of 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit (0.34 degrees Celsius) each decade. The scientists say this is greater than the warming rate of either the ocean or the atmosphere, and it can have profound effects.

The research, published in Geophysical Research Letters, was announced Wednesday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

As warming rates increase over the next century, algal blooms, which can rob water of oxygen, are projected to increase 20 percent in lakes. Algal blooms that are toxic to fish and animals are expected to increase by 5 percent. Emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on 100-year time scales, will increase 4 percent over the next decade, if these rates continue.

“Society depends on surface water for the vast majority of human uses,” said co-author Stephanie Hampton, director of Washington State University’s Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach in Pullman. “Not just for drinking water, but manufacturing, for energy production, for irrigation of our crops. Protein from freshwater fish is especially important in the developing world.”

Water temperature influences a host of its other properties critical to the health and viability of ecosystems. When temperatures swing quickly and widely from the norm, life forms in a lake can change dramatically and even disappear.

“These results suggest that large changes in our lakes are not only unavoidable, but are probably already happening,” said lead author Catherine O'Reilly, associate professor of geology at Illinois State University, Normal. Earlier research by O’Reilly has seen declining productivity in lakes with rising temperatures.

Study co-author Simon Hook, science division manager at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, said satellite measurements provide a broad view of lake temperatures over the entire globe. But they only measure surface temperature, while ground measurements can detect temperature changes throughout a lake. Also, while satellite measurements go back 30 years, some lake measurements go back more than a century.

Global lake temperature map



Global changes in lake temperatures over the past 25 years. Red shades indicate warming; blue shades indicate cooling. The study found Earth’s lakes are warming about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit (0.34 degrees Celsius) per decade on average, faster than overall warming rates for the ocean and atmosphere.
Credits: Illinois State University/USGS/California University of Pennsylvania
“Combining the ground and satellite measurements provides the most comprehensive view of how lake temperatures are changing around the world,” he said.

The researchers said various climate factors are associated with the warming trend. In northern climates, lakes are losing their ice cover earlier in the spring and many areas of the world have less cloud cover, exposing their waters more to the sun’s warming rays.

Previous work by Hook, using satellite data, indicated many lake temperatures were warming faster than air temperature and that the greatest warming was observed at high latitudes, as seen in other climate warming studies. This new research confirmed those observations, with average warming rates of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) per decade at high latitudes.

Warm-water tropical lakes may be seeing less dramatic temperature increases, but increased warming of these lakes still can have significant negative impacts on fish. That can be particularly important in the African Great Lakes, where fish are a major source of food.

“We want to be careful that we don’t dismiss some of these lower rates of change,” said Hampton. “In warmer lakes, those temperature changes can be really important. They can be just as important as a higher rate of change in a cooler lake.”

In general, the researchers write, “The pervasive and rapid warming observed here signals the urgent need to incorporate climate impacts into vulnerability assessments and adaptation efforts for lakes.”

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

For more information about NASA's Earth science activities, visit:


206. beell
Germany's Green Energy Is an Expensive Success-bloombergview.com/9/22/2014
By Leonid Bershidsky

It's easy to declare Germany's ambitious policy of moving to clean energy from fossil fuels, while at the same time abandoning nuclear power, a failure. After all, the country burns more coal than five years ago, has some of the highest household electricity bills in the developed world and will miss its 2020 greenhouse gas emission targets.

To me, though, the policy's results show how a determined government can eventually shake up complacent oligopolies and point their thinking in a different direction.

The German government's subsidies to wind, solar and other renewable energy producers have grown to 20 billion euros a year (almost $26 billion at the current exchange rate) since 1991, when Germany first started the financial support. With that massive amount of aid, Germany overshot by three percentage points the European Union's 1997 goal of producing 12 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. In the first quarter of 2014, Germany's electricity mix had a 27 percent renewable share.

This rapid growth skewed the market. Because of renewable energy's subsidized production cost, wholesale electricity prices have dropped 60 percent since 2008. That has made it unprofitable for traditional utilities to operate natural gas-burning power plants. Russian gas imports are not just a geopolitical risk for Germany: They contribute to energy companies' losses.

Nuclear power would have been the natural fallback as Germany switched from fossil fuels, but after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered eight of the country's oldest reactors shut down and the rest phased out by 2022.

Germany's four big utilities, RWE AG, E.ON SE, EnBW AG and Swedish-owned Vattenfall AB have been forced to use more coal, of which there's an oversupply in the U.S. because of the shale gas revolution. The coal is cheap, but its use contradicts the government's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent of the 1990 level by 2020. Until Fukushima, Germany was on track, but from 2011 to 2013, emissions increased by 2.4 percent. Thus, the share of renewable energy and emissions grew at the same time.

Meanwhile, German households picked up the growing bill for the wholesale subsidies for renewables that German industry enjoys, accounting for 18 percent of the average price that consumers paid for electricity last year -- twice as high a proportion as in 2010. Germany's energy-intensive industries receive generous exemptions from the renewable energy subsidies.

Several months ago, U.S. Senator Dan Coats, who had served as ambassador to Germany, blasted Germany's transition to clean energy, the so-called Energiewende, as "misguided executive branch overreach and regulatory attack on energy industries." He has a point, but it isn't the whole story.

The drop in wholesale prices boosted the competitiveness of Germany's energy-intensive industries, without the economy becoming an energy hog. According to Eurostat, the country's industry is the sixth least energy-intensive in the EU. At the same time, household electricity consumption has been going down by about 1 percent a year since 2005, as higher prices forced Germans to save energy. My Berlin apartment, like many others, has only low-consumption diode light bulbs.

Perhaps most importantly, however, the energy reform transferred power from the traditional utility companies to some of those same private consumers who are paying those high electricity prices:



A whopping 46 percent of Germany's renewable energy generation is done by private individuals and farmers, compared to just 5 percent for the "big four" power providers. The German people, who created the political will for the green transition, have been benefiting for it by becoming more self-sufficient.

Granted, that is not always possible, but the incredible uptake of sustainable generation by ordinary citizens and the tiny share of traditional utilities tell an important story. The German energy industry has lobbied incessantly to amend the clean energy reforms -- had they embraced the changes and absorbed the associated losses earlier, they would be in better shape today.

As it is, RWE posted its first loss since 1949 last year. Its future looks gloomy, despite a belated change of heart by the company's management. Chief Executive Peter Terium now says: "My dream, my vision is that RWE will put solar panels on your roof, a battery in your shed, a heat pump in your cellar, and we will also manage this complex energy system for you. We want to be the holistic energy manager of the future."

The Energiewende will go on despite its obvious setbacks. There are countries in Europe that already generate more than half their electricity from renewable sources, such as Sweden, and other that are getting there, such as Austria, and the continent's biggest economy is trying hard to catch up. The German government's determination to experiment, and citizens' continued willingness to pay for these experiments if they lead to a cleaner future, carries important lessons for the U.S. and other countries where politicians are afraid of the kind of upheavals that Germany has faced.
Quoting 162. beell:



I think there are more than a few here that want that also. There is comfort and familiarity in the low-hanging fruit of presenting the hourly rebuttals to denial on the off-chance that one soul will be saved from ignorance.


Well said. It's a lot easier to complain about something over the internet than to actually do something or accomplish something.
208. vis0
What would YOU like to see become part of the TOP 10 (then 11) list of Susan H?

Number 11
and heading towards being number 3 FOR ME would be::
would like to see People WORLDWIDE making it their business to converse CALMLY and with respect to all options HOW to help AS INDIVIDUALS in the cleaning of the GLOBE.

As sar2401 and other long lived and learned/learnt via experienced humans stated, start locally so by the time people talk nationally or internationally those on behalf of helping clean the planet have real life experience in doing so and passing that wisdom to others NOT cause they can explain it but cause they lived it.
sar2401s example (bad memory cannot remember details) was as to help as to cooking, in a cleaner emissions manner for local people in Northern Asia. Help the local first (its cheaper) and let their positive experience get the word out.
Think that does not work?, just look how YouTube works or any popular fad, 1 or 2 kids see something they plus it before you know it it has 10 million views its "on fire".

BTW i'm "DBing" (Difference Between, as in dark matter vs. Dark energy) my words as a way to teach myself and others to converse as to a subject.  Even if you get hook on DB come back here to WxU, a place where observational learning as an individual is a plus.
209. vis0

Quoting 76. Patrap:

2015, the Year the Global Climate struck back.






watch what begins after Dec ends ~Jan 6th...(i know i'm repeating what i stated last Sept2015 but it still was from dec/jan2016).

  NOT in any wxModel then but starting to show/picked up by long term models.

STS those 2-5 inches rains that were expected in one day over the past few weeks you pointed out but took 2-3 days to manifest will soon be in less than a day and Seattlelite to Ca. ( stop twisting my arm ncstorm, ...ok Taz too) stay safe.
i'm trying to figure out what type of hybrid could form off the SSE BlizzardCane or ??? (posted a better Hybrid name in Sept2015 but can't locate it) , but back to solving how to get more humans involved in cleaning up the Globe.
Darn... worse than we thought.

http://www.adn.com/article/20151216/greenlands-ic e-loss-already-massive-and-now-its-speeding

Link

BB - Feel free to put this on your list in your blog...
211. beell
Quoting 207. tampabaymatt:



Well said. It's a lot easier to complain about something over the internet than to actually do something or accomplish something.


I don't look at it as complaining. But it is time to shift some focus towards doing something. See the copy/paste job at 206.

Are you ready for that?

Is there enough incentive for venture capitalists to build a clean(er) gas-fired power plant or a system to manage wind and solar on a large scale? Will you accept the managed risk of a nuke plant in your backyard or a fracked-gas well down the street? Will you pay a higher tax on gasoline to fund production credits for renewables?

The list goes on and on.

None of the above is pretty or perfect but it is time to give a bit more time/dialogue here to the imperfect realities of solutions. That's about all the " do something or accomplish something's" you and I can do here. With the exception of keeping track of the attributions of climate change, the science is done. YRMV!
:)
A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target

Reto Knutti1 *, Joeri Rogelj1,2, Jan Sedláček1 and Erich M. Fischer1

The world’s governments agreed to limit global mean temperature change to below 2 °C compared with pre-industrial levels in
the years following the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen. This 2 °C warming target is perceived by the public as a universally
accepted goal, identified by scientists as a safe limit that avoids dangerous climate change. This perception is incorrect:
no scientific assessment has clearly justified or defended the 2 °C target as a safe level of warming, and indeed, this is not a
problem that science alone can address. We argue that global temperature is the best climate target quantity, but it is unclear
what level can be considered safe. The 2 °C target is useful for anchoring discussions, but has been ineffective in triggering the
required emission reductions; debates on considering a lower target are strongly at odds with the current real-world level of
action. These debates are moot, however, as the decisions that need to be taken now to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C are very
similar. We need to agree how to start, not where to end mitigation.

More ...
April 4th will be my last day in D.C :( Not sure if I'm ready to leave.
Quoting 213. washingtonian115:

April 4th will be my last day in D.C :( Not sure if I'm ready to leave.


You'll love Austin. Austin's twin is Madison, Wisconsin. Quirky fun town surrounded by Texas.
Quoting 201. Patrap:

Lot easier just to go to the wu map page.


heh....where's the fun in that!?
#214,, that gish gallop prolly won't stick here.

No Science, no nada, no nothing but werds.


We're like 9 years past dat un.

Quoting 214. blizzard1024:

I am in disagreement with this whole notion that CO2 concentrations, a trace gas, and a minor greenhouse gas (water vapor and clouds are the primary) is driving the global climate. The sum external forcing of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases is on the order of about 2 W/m2. The total outgoing longwave radiation is 240 W/m2. This is less than a 1% change and somehow this is cause for concern?? Climate science has transcended into a political activist movement. When you hear people compare the science is settled just like gravity is, it shows naivety. The Earth's climate system is tremendously complex with many variables. Clouds, tropical convection, oceanic circulations, aerosols, among others are unknown and not modeled well at all, yet they exert a tremendous amount on the climate system. All this catastrophic global warming talk is related to climate models which are highly suspect.

Plus if you look at the paleo climate records, the Earth was warmer 6000-8000 years ago after the collapse of the great NH ice sheets and now it is cooler. There was the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods which were not just local as climate activists like to say. As a meteorologist, how can one part of the globe remain colder and the rest of the globe warmer for centuries. Fluid dynamics and baroclinicity in the mid to high latitudes rules and this is implausible and ludicrous. There is lots of evidence of a medieval warm period and a little ice age around the world. The Little Ice age peaked in the 1600 and 1700s and ended in the 1800s. The 1900s to Today likely is a rebound from this cold period. CO2 plays a role, but in my scientific opinion it is impossible to discern how much is natural and how much is man-made. CO2 by itself can only explain up to 1.2C for a doubling by radiative transfer alone. The feedbacks are the wildcards and there is conflicting evidence whether there is a positive or negative water vapor feedback. Plus a lot of the recent warming from the 1980s can be explained by changes in global cloud cover by the ISCCP cloud data set.

Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.
Has this been peer reviewed?
Philippines Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin #3
TROPICAL DEPRESSION ONYOK
11:00 AM PhST December 17 2015
====================
“ONYOK” has maintained its strength as it poses a threat over Caraga Region

At 10:00 AM PhST, Tropical Depression Onyok (1000 hPa) located at 8.4N 132.0E or 625 km east of Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur has 10 minute sustained winds of 30 knots. The depression is reported as moving west at 8 knots.

SIGNAL WARNINGS
============

Signal Warning #1
Very light or no damage to low risk structures.
Light damage to medium to high risk structures.
Slight damage to some houses of very light materials or makeshift structures in exposed communities. Some banana plants are tilted, a few downed and leaves are generally damaged.
Twigs of small trees may be broken.
Rice crops, however, may suffer significant damage when it is in its flowering stage.
Wave Height (Open Sea): 1.25-4.0 meters.


Mindanao Region
---------------------
1. Surigao del Sur including Siargao Island
2. Surigao del Norte
3. Dinagat Province
4. Misamis Oriental
5. Camiguin
6. Agusan del Norte
7. Agusan del Sur
8. Davao Oriental
9. Davao del Norte
10. Compostela Valley
11. Bukidnon

Additional Information
===============
Estimated rainfall amount is from moderate to heavy within the 100 km diameter of the tropical depression.

Residents in low lying and mountainous areas of the provinces with Public Storm Warning Signals are alerted against possible flash floods and landslides.

The public and the disaster risk reduction and management council concerned are advised to take appropriate actions and watch for the next Severe Weather Bulletin to be issued at 5 PM today.
Quoting 213. washingtonian115:

April 4th will be my last day in D.C :( Not sure if I'm ready to leave.


Whhhaaaaaaattt? Where are you going?

Does this mean you will have to change your nickname here?
Stay tuned for tomorrow's follow up entry "One Thousand Reasons to be Pessimistic on Climate Change"
LOL Wxgeek....

So far I have 1,000 reasons to be pessimistic after that debate last night.

Will the cold weather PLEASE make it to South Florida soon!
Quoting 214. blizzard1024:

I am in disagreement with this whole notion that CO2 concentrations, a trace gas, and a minor greenhouse gas (water vapor and clouds are the primary) is driving the global climate.
You sound like a really smart person. You should publish all your research about this so all the other deluded scientists can read it and learn.

As for me, I'm shopping Christmas deals for more cheap LED light bulbs.
Quoting 222. Dakster:

LOL Wxgeek....

So far I have 1,000 reasons to be pessimistic after that debate last night.

Will the cold weather PLEASE make it to South Florida soon!
Sorry, Dak, but you're SOL. The high is supposed to be 73 here on Christmas Eve with rain. I'll take the rain...if it happens, but it's not going to get any cooler in south Florida with temperatures like that in Alabama. I've had 0.42" so far today. Montgomery has had 1.49" and they have a flood watch. There is also a "limited" risk (I'm not sure what that means) for an exciting tornado later this morning. It appears to me that the risk is so limited as to be approaching the vanishing point. Still, at least it's something to get the old adrenaline moving, and better than another night of dense fog.

226. vis0

Quoting 220. Dakster:



Whhhaaaaaaattt? Where are you going?

Does this mean you will have to change your nickname here?
maybe TxJax or formalyKnownAsWashi..., anti-washi, washnwhere, washiwest, washitex, wacowashi (can't use wacko that's my middle name), La Chalupa (fiery in the good sense) or washintionian115 i thought up the last one all by my 5 selves.


back to posting ways to help begin to lower the rise of aGW
So, I scored at the office Christmas gift exchange! They call your number, and if you don't like the gift, you can trade (steal) someone else's who's gone before. He who laughs last, gets their pick of everything. I was last this year. Scored a "weather station". It's really pretty. It only measures indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and pressure, but it's more than I had before. My place isn't all that conducive for a full on weather station anyway. Lots of buildings around. And did I mention the display is really pretty? It's going to look good mounted on the wall once I get to the hardware store for some screws.
Quoting 222. Dakster:

LOL Wxgeek....

So far I have 1,000 reasons to be pessimistic after that debate last night.

Will the cold weather PLEASE make it to South Florida soon!


Should've brought some from Alaska.
Quoting 214. blizzard1024:

I am in disagreement with this whole notion that CO2 concentrations, a trace gas, and a minor greenhouse gas (water vapor and clouds are the primary) is driving the global climate.


That's because you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of the physics. It's not just percentages that are important, but persistence. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime, which allows for it's effects to build over the course of time. It doesn't how small the amount of energy you add to a system is, if there is nothing to dissipate that energy then it stays in that system.

And that's really the problem here. It's not the CO2 is some major forcing locking huge amounts of excess heat into the climate system over the course of a year. It's a small persistent forcing that is adding energy over the course of a couple centuries.

The sum external forcing of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases is on the order of about 2 W/m2. The total outgoing longwave radiation is 240 W/m2. This is less than a 1% change and somehow this is cause for concern??
.

Again, you're not understand the physics here. It's not the amount, it's what happens to it. Energy doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. If it isn't being radiated off into space, then it's staying locked in the system. In the case of our planet, our surface is 75% covered by a giant heat sink (water). Of every bit of additional energy that isn't being radiated off into space, most of it is going there. It's not a lot, a few watts, but that's more than enough to alter a chaotic system that was, until that point, in equilibrium.

Climate science has transcended into a political activist movement.


Oh yes. I remember when the CO2 cutting laser I was using in chemistry class suddenly turned socialist.

When you hear people compare the science is settled just like gravity is, it shows naivety.


Or it shows that they actually know what they're talking about. The physics and chemistry that predict global warming date back to the early 19th century.

The Earth's climate system is tremendously complex with many variables.


Yes, and all of them obey things like the laws of thermodynamics. Heat doesn't vanish by magic. If it isn't leaving, then it's staying. Moreover, we know it's staying because we can observe the effects.

Clouds, tropical convection, oceanic circulations, aerosols, among others are unknown and not modeled well at all, yet they exert a tremendous amount on the climate system.


Again, your confusing an average, very general phenomena (global warming) with trying to predict specific impacts. It doesn't take a big complex model to figure out that the globe is warming due to increased greenhouse gases. High school math and physics is all you need to take some basic concepts like black body radiation and turn it into an energy balance model. That's the "spherical cow" approach, and even at that level you can get a ballpark estimate the warming induced from additional greenhouse gases. That was figured out in the 19th century.

The much more difficult problem is predicting regional and smaller scale effects are from that change. That's what the big complex GCMs are for. And yes, they will always have error bars and uncertainties. There is no such thing as a perfect model, or perfect data to feed them. But the can be (and are used) to explore various aspects of the climate system and establish bounds, likelihoods, etc. Models are just tools.

All this catastrophic global warming talk is related to climate models which are highly suspect.


There's nothing "suspect" about them. There are a ton of papers and documentation on their construction, the science behind them, and what their limits and caveats are. You can download their source, compile, and run them yourself if you were so inclined to learn how (and it isn't for the faint of heart). Or you could read the IPCC section that's dedicated to the models and the ensembles they ran and get a good summary of the results, errors, and issues.

Or you can head on over to AGU where there is some 15,000 climate scientists standing around in public with big posters and presentations on a countless assortment of climate related topics.

Plus if you look at the paleo climate records, the Earth was warmer 6000-8000 years ago after the collapse of the great NH ice sheets and now it is cooler.


First, your timeline is off. Second, I suppose you think that such periods happen by....magic? Sorry, but the planet doesn't warm up and cool off just because it wants to, and there is plenty of available science on the topic. If you have a different model for these occurrences then by all means post it and publish it. But if you're going to say "we don't know", then you don't have a valid scientific argument. If you don't like a scientific explanation, you provide one of your own along with a plethora of data and observations to back it up. "Don't know" wasn't an acceptable answer in school, and certainly isn't one out in the real world.

There was the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods which were not just local as climate activists like to say.


I await your links to the research that back up your claims. The current literature on the subject certainly doesn't agree with your assertions in any way, shape, or form.

As a meteorologist, how can one part of the globe remain colder and the rest of the globe warmer for centuries. Fluid dynamics and baroclinicity in the mid to high latitudes rules and this is implausible and ludicrous.


As a meteorologist, I would expect you to have better grasp of physics. :P

There is lots of evidence of a medieval warm period and a little ice age around the world. The Little Ice age peaked in the 1600 and 1700s and ended in the 1800s. The 1900s to Today likely is a rebound from this cold period.


The data doesn't agree with you. The long term trend from Holocene optimum has been downward. That is, until about the last 150 years where there has been a sharp and sudden spike upwards. In addition, the observations match the predictions made by physics and chemistry. Even Arrhenius's primitive model he published back in the 1890's is pretty much on the nose here.

But if you have a better mechanism that can explain the observations and a model that can also show that this climate response we're seeing is really just a fluke, I'd be more than happy to see it.

CO2 plays a role, but in my scientific opinion it is impossible to discern how much is natural and how much is man-made.


Your scientific opinion, while an opinion, is certainly not scientific. So far, the only thing you've managed to express successfully is your general (and possibly willful) ignorance on the topic of climate science. You have neither asked any novel questions nor presented any additional insights that haven't already been expressed by dozens of others like yourself who come strolling through. Everything you have brought it is well explained on any number of sites, research articles, books, and so on. Worse, you opened with summarily dismissing all climate science right from the get go while providing nothing substantive backing up your claims which the standard tactic of a denier, not a skeptic.

CO2 by itself can only explain up to 1.2C for a doubling by radiative transfer alone. The feedbacks are the wildcards and there is conflicting evidence whether there is a positive or negative water vapor feedback.


This is where ignorance wrecks your arguments. Even a site like skeptical science counters your claims, and they link to the research that backs up their explanations. Meanwhile, you rehash old debunked talking points that even Watts doesn't even use anymore.

Plus a lot of the recent warming from the 1980s can be explained by changes in global cloud cover by the ISCCP cloud data set.


No. It really doesn't. But I can see how you'd believe that since you think all climate science not done by you is a sham.

Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.


Ah, I was waiting for you to bring this up since this is practically the gold standard of denialism. You see, ignorance does not help your cause. If you weren't ignorant, then you'd know that satellites don't measure temperature. The measure microwaves. Worse, they can only measure broad swaths of the atmosphere. And even worse, satellite data has to be heavily manipulated, corrected, and tweaked to even get something resembling useful temperature information. They give a full description, including error analysis, on their respective sites.

Surface temperature readings, on the other hand, are based on thermometers. Thousands of them. Any corrections to the data are published and documented. GISS has links right off the main website, complete with a full in depth detailed description as to what was changed and why. You can still get the old uncorrected data as well, so there's no big conspiracy or secret there.

So aside from needing a considerable amount of brushing up on your climate science (which you won't do), you also need to gain an understanding in general chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and if your "since 1998" statement is as telling as the rest of your rhetoric, then you need a good book on statistical analysis as well.

That should keep you busy for a while. I'll be looking forward to your first published articles on climate in Nature.
Norway oil fund to make green investments
The Local (Norway), Published: 15 Dec 2015 10:18 GMT+01:00
Norway’s oil fund has asked to shift part of its vast $830bn holdings into green infrastructure projects such as wind turbines and solar energy parks in the wake of last week’s climate deal in Paris.
Yngve Slyngstad, manager of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, made the request in a letter to Norway’s Ministry of Finance, published in Norway’s Dagens Næringsliv business newspaper on Tuesday.
“The bank believes it will be possible to carry out investments in infrastructure for renewable energy with the same profitability requirements as other investments,” wrote Slyngstad and Jon Nicolaisen, the deputy governor of Norges Bank, which manages the fund. ...
That CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant really. What is relevant is how far CO2 levels are out of their Natural Balance

CO2 levels have been between 200 ppm and 270 ppm for somewhere between 600,000 and 1,000,000 years and suddenly in the last 100 jumped to 400+ ppm

That is a ***system imbalance** of between 40% and 100% ..... If the crankshaft in your car's engine was even 4% out of balance it would shake the motor into pieces in no time even if that represents just a few ounces of weight. Also this imbalance is a Positive Feedback that's adding energy to the system and Positive Feedbacks always go into a runaway state (tipping point) without an equal amount of Negative Feedback introduced into a system. In the 50's, 60's and well into the 70's we had a Negative Feedback in the form of aerosols and particulate pollution that reflected or blocked the sunlight from reaching the earth meaning there was less IR to radiate back into the atmosphere at night for the CO2 to 'capture'. That is why you see the large sudden upswing in global temperatures in the 70's and beyond

Here's something else to consider, recent tests have shown that indoor CO2 levels as low as 600 ppm cause significant loss of brain function, the ability to learn and the ability to analyze and rationalize. We'll likely go from 400 ppm to 600 ppm in a faster timeframe than it took to get from 270 ppm to 400 ppm simply because more and more tundra is thawing and releasing it's carbon stores as CO2 and methane adding even more CO2 than just burning hydrocarbons. Just the fact that we till so much land every year here in Iowa has turned my state from a net Carbon Sink to a net Carbon Source (Drying up, backfilling and planting most of the Prairie Pothole region of the state contributed a lot to that also)

Yet another thing to consider .... A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.3 pounds and about 5.5 pounds of that is carbon and all but the minute amount that gets left in the engine as residue is literally injected into the atmosphere. Again every gallon of gasoline you burn in an engine you directly inject 5.5 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere. None of it is destroyed, it is simply scattered to the winds ..... And that is compounded year after year after year. If you stopped every 20-30 miles and dumped 5.5 pounds of garbage onto the ground they give you a ticket, maybe even throw you in jail if you do it more than once. That's pretty much what you are doing though, every 20-30 miles (maybe less) you are dumping 5.5 pounds of garbage into the environment and no one in their right mind would say that's not going to be a huge problem down the road






233. MahFL
Quoting 232. Longjohn119:

..no one in their right mind would say that's not going to be a huge problem down the road








Problem is a lot of elected officials disagree. which says a lot for their mindset.
234. beell
DAY 4-8 CONVECTIVE OUTLOOK
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0322 AM CST THU DEC 17 2015

VALID 201200Z - 251200Z


...DISCUSSION...
NUMEROUS...POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT...SHORT-WAVE TROUGHS WILL PROGRESS ACROSS THE CONUS DURING THE UPCOMING MEDIUM RANGE PERIOD. THROUGH DAY4 THESE FEATURES SHOULD ENCOURAGE FAVORABLE LOW-LEVEL TRAJECTORIES FOR MOISTURE RETURN ACROSS THE WRN GULF BASIN...AND BY DAY5-6 IT APPEARS BUOYANCY WILL INCREASE MARKEDLY NEAR THE NWRN/NCNTRL GULF COAST REGION. WITH TIME SUFFICIENT INSTABILITY IS EXPECTED TO ADVANCE INLAND SUCH THAT ROBUST CONVECTION MAY BE POSSIBLE WITH EARLY-MID WEEK SHORT WAVES. GIVEN THE TIMING/PLACEMENT DISCREPANCIES AMONG THE MEDIUM RANGE GUIDANCE WILL NOT INTRODUCE SEVERE PROBS AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER...ORGANIZED CONVECTION MAY ULTIMATELY EVOLVE ACROSS PORTIONS OF THE GULF STATES BY TUESDAY/WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.

..DARROW.. 12/17/2015
Quoting 217. Patrap:

#214,, that gish gallop prolly won't stick here.

No Science, no nada, no nothing but werds.


We're like 9 years past dat un.




I did win climate change denial bingo, however!
Quoting 233. MahFL:


Problem is a lot of elected officials disagree. which says a lot for their mindset.


Let's put this into real world terms .... The US uses 374.74 million gallons of gasoline PER DAY. That's 2,061,070,000 pounds of Carbon (garbage) tossed into the environment each and every day. Over 2 billion pounds of Carbon per day directly injected into the atmosphere over the United States. And that's just gasoline and doesn't include natural gas (It still has carbon in it, just less than gasoline) and coal

As for politicians it was barely 60 years ago those NitWits thought blowing off nuclear weapons into the atmosphere upwind from civilian populations wasn't going to be a big deal .... Today the average 6th grader can tell you that's not a good idea at all, in fact they'd probably say it was a pretty stupid thing to do. (Or evil and callous if they knew better and did it anyways)
Why bother debating him on the points huh, cRRK? Insults and smear is your best weapon right?
Quoting 236. Longjohn119:



Let's put this into real world terms .... The US uses 374.74 million gallons of gasoline PER DAY. That's 2,061,070,000 pounds of Carbon (garbage) tossed into the environment each and every day. Over 2 billion pounds of Carbon per day directly injected into the atmosphere over the United States. And that's just gasoline and doesn't include natural gas (It still has carbon in it, just less than gasoline) and coal

As for politicians it was barely 60 years ago those NitWits thought blowing off nuclear weapons into the atmosphere upwind from civilian populations wasn't going to be a big deal .... Today the average 6th grader can tell you that's not a good idea at all, in fact they'd probably say it was a pretty stupid thing to do. (Or evil and callous if they knew better and did it anyways)
I sure hope we can find an alternate fuel source in the coming years as there are to many thing made by petroleum, that most can't or won't live without.
Quoting 240. PensacolaDoug:

Why bother debating him on the points huh, cRRK? Insults and smear is your best weapon right?
Insults and smear are not the best weapons, although their is a lot of it about. Their is so much money involved to really ever find the correct answer, but it should all come to light in the next few decades. I just wish we could use all the incredibly smart people on both sides, to find a way to stop all the air and water pollution that is occurring on this planet. You might have a better outcome if you did this first, as we can actually control these problems that are destroying our environment.
Quoting 240. PensacolaDoug:

Why bother debating him on the points huh, cRRK? Insults and smear is your best weapon right?


"The adjustments made especially to temperature over the oceans are very suspect. "
Smear.

"No one understands how all this works enough to make such bold predictions about how a trace gas and minor GHG. You show how naive you are by bringing this up. "
Projection of ignorance plus ad hominem (type Dunning-Kruger).

"7) if your saying that man primarily is attributed to climate change you are clueless about natural climate cycles. the climate is always changing. You are the ignorant one here. The debate is how much is man influencing the climate because we are rebounding out of a little ice age. "

Nonsense and ad hominem.

That post was against the blog rules.
But apparently those who point it out get their post snipped or a ban.


Quoting 243. NativeSun:

Insults and smear are not the best weapons, although their is a lot of it about. Their is so much money involved to really ever find the correct answer, but it should all come to light in the next few decades. I just wish we could use all the incredibly smart people on both sides, to find a way to stop all the air and water pollution that is occurring on this planet. You might have a better outcome if you did this first, as we can actually control these problems that are destroying our environment.

Well it all is coming to light right now.
And we don't have decades the time to wait at all.
I'm just still not too sure how we can possibly have a lifestyle change drastic enough to lower our emissions..
The computer I'm typing on, the clothes I'm wearing, and about everything else nowadays is factory made.
Trying to make things easy on ourselves winds up hurting the environment. And not every person in the world can be a farmer..
If the climate really is changing, could we possible do enough to slow it down? Because I doubt we can stop it. It seems like, in Earth's history, the climate has shifted before, but this time we're really speeding it up...
251. beell
Quoting 242. Xandra:


Source EcoWatch


I would give economic barriers to clean energy a bit more attention than Mr. Jacobson if oil & gas prices stay low for an extended period. Which may require an extended period of artificial market rules, incentives, subsidies, etc.

But yes to all the rest!
Quoting 237. blizzard1024:



1) Persistence? This is totally wrong. The Sun "persistently" bombards the Earth with 1366 w/m2. Other processes including convection, clouds and precipitation, evaporation, etc "persistently" are radiating heat back to outerspace to the tune of 240 w/m2. Additional CO2 radiates heat in ALL directions including to outer space and to the Earth's surface at 2 w/m2 all the time. That's less than 1%. Sorry.

2) Because it radiates to space, the stratosphere cools a little while the troposphere warms hence there is no net energy added to the system. energy is conserved assuming the Sun and albedo remain constant. CO2 does not make energy. That's pretty basic stuff.

3) "Again, you're not understand the physics here. It's not the amount, it's what happens to it. Energy doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. If it isn't being radiated off into space, then it's staying locked in the system. In the case of our planet, our surface is 75% covered by a giant heat sink (water). Of every bit of additional energy that isn't being radiated off into space, most of it is going there. It's not a lot, a few watts, but that's more than enough to alter a chaotic system that was, until that point, in equilibrium."

The Oceans are a huge sink of energy and have huge thermal capacity. So even if the worst case model scenarios comes true, the oceans could take centuries to eventually release the heat effectively damping the climatic response.
A few watt's per m2 in much of the holocene never changed the climate system drastically why should it now?? The Earth's climate has been very stable in the Holocene.

3) The atmosphere and climate system are tremendously complex with many non-linear chaotic feedbacks, No one understands how all this works enough to make such bold predictions about how a trace gas and minor GHG. You show how naive you are by bringing this up.

4) The peer review process is polluted by groupthink and climate activists and will not publish anything that counters the global warming theme. Paltridges paper on decreasing water vapor in the high altitudes is a great example of this. Basically this is totalitarianism. You must "believe" the climate models or you are a "denier" or maybe even prosecuted "RICO act". This is from Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany.

5)" Again, your confusing an average, very general phenomena (global warming) with trying to predict specific impacts. It doesn't take a big complex model to figure out that the globe is warming due to increased greenhouse gases. High school math and physics is all you need to take some basic concepts like black body radiation and turn it into an energy balance model. That's the "spherical cow" approach, and even at that level you can get a ballpark estimate the warming induced from additional greenhouse gases. That was figured out in the 19th century."

But convection and especially clouds play a huge role in the climate system. So in time a climate model that does not handle these processes will become erroneous. The CFSv2 climate model which predicts monthly and seasonal climates is horrible. The basic processes these models do well with but the long term global average temperature remains elusive.

The Earth was warmer than today 6 to 8 thousand years ago. Plenty of paleo evidence. It was called the Holocene optimum. Very basic stuff.

6) there is absolutely NO way that one part of the Earth remains colder than the rest in the absence of ice sheets due to physical dynamical processes. To even insinuate that discredits your understand of the atmosphere. Why not run the climate models and see if they can do it! Of course they could easily "tune" them to get the result they want and make them over sensitive to CO2 concentrations I suppose.

7) if your saying that man primarily is attributed to climate change you are clueless about natural climate cycles. the climate is always changing. You are the ignorant one here. The debate is how much is man influencing the climate because we are rebounding out of a little ice age.

8) Now you just wrecked your credibility. The Stefan-boltzman equation is used here. If you double CO2 you get about 3.7 w/m2 extra forcing. If you plug this in the S-F equation you get about 1.2C of temperature increase. This assumes no feedbacks. The feedbacks are where there is uncertainty. Low cloud cover is a negative feedback and high clouds are positive. More convection can mean less high clouds. More evaporation off warmer oceans can mean more low clouds. the ISCCP dataset clearly shows changes in global cloud cover explains a lot of the variations in global temperatures between 1983-2009 when they did this experiment.

9) The satellite measurements of temperature are clearly superior to the surface based record. The adjustments made especially to temperature over the oceans are very suspect. Plus microclimates that change in time around climate monitoring stations, moving stations, land use changes etc all contaminate the surface record so much that its anyone's guess what is happening. Plus the tolerance on temperature sensors at least in the USA is /- 2F!!! That is an order of magnitude greater than the trends measured!!

That was pretty easy.


Sounds a good debate. Hope you can stick around.
Quoting 249. Xandra:

I see that blizzard1024's post #237 has got a plus from NativeSun, PensacolaDoug and Webberweather53. I guess they've got their "science" from Joe Bastardi et al. Lol
Good morning Xandra..People will plus a comment sometimes to let the other member know that it was read by them, not because they agree with it..If it is really good, I type " many pluses, or great comment " . I dont have the time to respond, so i click a plus to let them know I read it. If time allows, then I type a response.
Quoting 253. hydrus:

Good morning Xandra..People will plus a comment sometimes to let the other member know that it was read by them, not because they agree with it..If it is really good, I type " many pluses, or great comment " . I dont have the time to respond, so i click a plus to let them know I read it. If time allows, then I type a response.


Good morning hydrus. Yes I know that there are different reasons why people will plus a comment.
Quoting 239. NativeSun:

It's good to debate these idea's on climate change, as there is a lot of valid info on both sides.
No, there isn't. On one side are thousands of scientists who've done nothing their entire lives but learn everything they can about the climate and what we're doing to it. On the other side, you have a small handful of doubt merchants, working for high-polluting corporations, whose sole purposes is to delay action on climate change through whatever means possible. And thanks to a complicit and lazy media, they've been successful...
Quoting 239. NativeSun:

This should all come to light in 15 to 20 years or so, as both the Atlantic and Pacific should be in their cold phases by then.
Actually, it all "came to light" several decades ago. The PDO and other natural cycles merely move existing heat around the system. CO2, OTOH, is seeing to it that more heat is added to that system.
Quoting 239. NativeSun:

I would like to see us get off fossil fuel one day, but this is going to be a while into the future before this happens, as of now we don't have the technology to replace all of our everyday materials that we use around our households and in our daily lives, that are made with petroleum.
No one is seriously suggesting we do away with fossil fuels or petroleum-based products; that's a strawman if ever there was one. No, this isn't about what's made of petroleum; it's about the four million metric tons of excess CO2 our burning of long-sequestered fossil fuels is pumping into the atmosphere every single hour of every single day. And no one is even talking about doing away with that; we're just trying to get policymakers to understand what's happening, and work toward common sense solutions.
Quoting 252. Kenfa03:

Sounds a good debate. Hope you can stick around.

Why? This exact kind of nonsens been debunked for a quarter century and they never learn.
I do not do the debate - one does not reason with revisionism.

And the dumbness of it all... Even simple concepts like 'average' and how multiple measurements reduce individual instrument error get dumbed away: "Plus the tolerance on temperature sensors at least in the USA is /- 2F!!! That is an order of magnitude greater than the trends measured!!".

And then that pride of stupidity!

Having dealt with that for years I just find it revolting.

Quoting 252. Kenfa03:

Sounds a good debate. Hope you can stick around.

So, scientific truth is decided through debates? Mathematics and the laws of nature are irrelevant? The comment you quoted had much verbiage but no equations. How is this in any way science?
Quoting 218. Kenfa03:

Has this been peer reviewed?

Well, yes. Miss Sparkle's Day Care said it made ok bathroom tissue.
Quoting 253. hydrus:

Good morning Xandra..People will plus a comment sometimes to let the other member know that it was read by them, not because they agree with it..If it is really good, I type " many pluses, or great comment " . I dont have the time to respond, so i click a plus to let them know I read it. If time allows, then I type a response.
Hi, yes I did plus the comment, because the points that were made are in fact a great rebuttal to Xandra's post, and this person has a lot of knowledge on the subject as it seems. JB is not the only one who has a different view to the cause of climate change, JD and Dr. Ryan Maue both are pretty much on the same thought ideas as JB. My degree is in Biology so I am not an expert on climate science or climate change, but I do have my ideas as to the cause, and yes man is part of the cause, but how much I don't know as of this time. I do know that if we put 50% of the time and money into stopping air and water pollution as we do trying to change the climate, then this planet would be a much better place. Just think of all the people in China who would like to have clean air and water, and what this may do to the environment. Fix these two problems and the rest will take care of it self.
Quoting 260. NativeSun:

Hi, yes I did plus the comment, because the points that were made are in fact a great rebuttal to Xandra's post, and this person has a lot of knowledge on the subject as it seems. JB is not the only one who has a different view to the cause of climate change, JD and Dr. Ryan Maue both are pretty much on the same thought ideas as JB. My degree is in Biology so I am not an expert on climate science or climate change, but I do have my ideas as to the cause, and yes man is part of the cause, but how much I don't know as of this time. I do know that if we put 50% of the time and money into stopping air and water pollution as we do trying to change the climate, then this planet would be a much better place. Just think of all the people in China who would like to have clean air and water, and what this may do to the environment. Fix these two problems and the rest will take care of it self.

" I am not an expert on climate science or climate change.." - good. Then LISTEN to the experts instead of plussing a post that is one long series of utter nonsens laced with ad hominems and smears of climate science.

I see the debate goes on. During the dust bowl many farmers denied it was caused by the plowing methods they employed. We have politicians that really believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am curious as to how much evidence of climate change does it take to change a climate  deniers mind. A 700 mb storm? Miami under water? Greenland ice free? What extreme will it take to "change there minds"?
Quoting 256. cRRKampen:


Why? This exact kind of nonsens been debunked for a quarter century and they never learn.
I do not do the debate - one does not reason with revisionism.

And the dumbness of it all... Even simple concepts like 'average' and how multiple measurements reduce individual instrument error get dumbed away: "Plus the tolerance on temperature sensors at least in the USA is /- 2F!!! That is an order of magnitude greater than the trends measured!!".

And then that pride of stupidity!

Having dealt with that for years I just find it revolting.


I like being able to read arguments from both sides of the aisle in one blog.
Quoting 263. floridaT:

I see the debate goes on. During the dust bowl many farmers denied it was caused by the plowing methods they employed. We have politicians that really believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am curious as to how much evidence of climate change does it take to change a climate  deniers mind. A 700 mb storm? Miami under water? Greenland ice free? What extreme will it take to "change there minds"?




debate is a way of pretending you're doing something when actually you aren't...good morning boys and girls
Quoting 262. tampabaymatt:




How much do you think we'll get out of this event. Satellite picture of the GOM looks pretty lame right now.
Wow, I see we have a gish gallop of climate denial centered around the very old and tired argument that science is socially constructed. For your reading pleasure, "Why has Critique Run Out of Steam?"

Over the years since I have been here, I have done my best to post accurate science and critique science denial as it has reared its head. It a time where there exists no uncertainty in the basic premise that the planet is warming and human CO2 emissions are the primary cause, it is painful to see the same denier nonsense brought up here, and the fact that somehow uncited, unsupported ramblings can be seen as valid by some of the blogs members. The argument to back up their no support? A conspiracy of "climate activist" scientists. Look at that, that is where science breeches into the political, rejection of the best method of evaluating science that gets added to the discourse is attacked by political conspiracy. I highly doubt our friend doesn't go to the doctor, or finds fault in his daily application of general physics, which according to that logic, are just as suspect as almost 200 years of knowledge regarding the property of a gas.

The contradiction is arguments is astounding, first it's that CO2 can't be that big of a deal, then its CO2 doubling will lead to 1.2C of warming, then it's the surface warming is falsified and that the satellite record is better. Well which is it? That's the problem with science denial, and especially climate science denial. There is no one unified theory that explains the observations like anthropogenic global warming does. The denial "side" is a pieced together nonsensical attack on pieces of science that do not amount to any complete explanation, grounded in conspiracy and ideological biases. We could at least give credit if the ideas coalesced into a coherent counter argument, yet that is not the case.

All of us should realize this for what it is, distraction and obfuscation. It speaks to the very quote above many of you on the blog reposted. "She argued that emphasizing the solutions to climate, change rather than talking about the science, is a better way to communicate to the public. Talking about the science of climate change often leads to confusion, due to long-discredited arguments by climate change deniers that rise from the dead like zombies."

That zombie is here again, hopefully it is the last gasp of ignorance and disinformation.
Quoting 267. Bucsboltsfan:



How much do you think we'll get out of this event. Satellite picture of the GOM looks pretty lame right now.


Hopefully we at least get the 0.50” to 0.75” the WPC is projecting over the next week. I’ve had no measurable rainfall at my location in over 3 weeks.
Quoting 260. NativeSun:

Hi, yes I did plus the comment, because the points that were made are in fact a great rebuttal to Xandra's post, and this person has a lot of knowledge on the subject as it seems. JB is not the only one who has a different view to the cause of climate change, JD and Dr. Ryan Maue both are pretty much on the same thought ideas as JB. My degree is in Biology so I am not an expert on climate science or climate change, but I do have my ideas as to the cause, and yes man is part of the cause, but how much I don't know as of this time. I do know that if we put 50% of the time and money into stopping air and water pollution as we do trying to change the climate, then this planet would be a much better place. Just think of all the people in China who would like to have clean air and water, and what this may do to the environment. Fix these two problems and the rest will take care of it self.
Good morning N.S... May I please ask what branch you specialize in ? There are so many. Biology was one of my required courses at Edison.
Quoting 264. Kenfa03:

I like being able to read arguments from both sides of the aisle in one blog.

Same old, same old again and again?
This will do: Link
Quoting 263. floridaT:

I see the debate goes on. During the dust bowl many farmers denied it was caused by the plowing methods they employed. We have politicians that really believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am curious as to how much evidence of climate change does it take to change a climate  deniers mind. A 700 mb storm? Miami under water? Greenland ice free? What extreme will it take to "change there minds"?


A hit on their own homes. Which is guaranteed due.
This is not a real debate, it's paid denier propaganda at it's finest. Since the mid nineties the measured raise in world temperatures has been swift and felt worldwide. Signs are all around us and have had huge impacts worldwide for years. This year in climate highlights this to anyone who cares to truly look. The Arctic is melting. Greenland is melting. The oceans are rising. And we sit and muddle through the propaganda machine that's the very block to collective American purpose. All in the aim to stop change, so their masters can suck up profit. They'll keep this up as long as they can.
Quoting 263. floridaT:

I see the debate goes on. During the dust bowl many farmers denied it was caused by the plowing methods they employed. We have politicians that really believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am curious as to how much evidence of climate change does it take to change a climate  deniers mind. A 700 mb storm? Miami under water? Greenland ice free? What extreme will it take to "change there minds"?


Good morning, Bubbles

Quoting 265. ricderr:




debate is a way of pretending you're doing something when actually you aren't...good morning boys and girls
 
love it   can I use that quote ? can apply to many things.
How can the companies and individuals behind the propaganda machine against AGW/climate change possibly rationalize their actions. Lying to the American populace. They thought this out fully knowing the lie it would be they would spread. All in aims of misleading the American populace, rake in their billions, and continue polluting the world. Doing everything to stop the truth from getting out, corrupting power in the US government through their mouthpieces that knowingly spew lies for them against the truth of climate change; this needs to stop.
love it can I use that quote ? can apply to many things.
Quoting 275. floridaT:






why of course...just send royalties to....idonothing.com
Parts of the UK are expecting a heavy dust storm today instead of snow..
Quoting 278. Skyepony:

Parts of the UK are expecting a heavy dust storm today instead of snow..


Sounds totally normal for December 17th.
Quoting 229. blizzard1024:



This is all basic climate science. CO2 has an absorption band around 15 microns which is well known and peer reviewed and is a small component of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are the primary greenhouse gases. This is well known. Climate 101. CO2, if doubled in concentration, gives an extra 3.7 w/m2. This is well known and basic science. The total outgoing long wave radiation at the top of atmopshere is about 240 w/m2. This is well known because it balances (roughly) the incoming solar radiation. This is about 1366 w/m2 which has to be divided by 4 because of geometric considerations and then multiplied by (1- Earth's albedo) which is 30% give or take a few percent . You get close to 240 w/m2 incoming solar radiation. This is all well known basic science. climate 101 again.

You also have to remember that the peer review process can be flawed and corrupted by politics and the pressure to publish. Much good research and ideas in climate science have been shut down because the climate scientists get a LOT of grant money in support of global warming. The science is skewed.


I very accidentally plussed your statement! In no way do I think that you are right, especially when you question the integrity of science and scientists. Using bigger words to state the same thing other denialists use to falsely support your opinions doesn't make you right. And if you would be so kind as to provide any type of real evidence, not evidence manufactured or misinterpreted by well-paid "scientists" who do not have any type of training in climatology, instead of attacking the scientific review process as corrupt, perhaps your beliefs would be a bit more palpable to those who prefer the truth over propaganda.
Los Angeles Times today..

Climate change is indeed a cause of social conflict.


Migrants and refugees carrying their belongings arrive at a transit camp in Slavonski Brod, Croatia on Nov. 4. Bernie Sanders, among others, has made statements linking climate change to terrorism. (Elvis Barukcic / AFP/Getty Images)
Might as well start off 2016 with a tropical system. Interesting feature developing from the tail end of a frontal boundary the end of the year.

Quoting 278. Skyepony:

Parts of the UK are expecting a heavy dust storm today instead of snow..


typical wintertime here in the southwest
Quoting 282. fmbill:

Might as well start off 2016 with a tropical system. Interesting feature developing from the tail end of a frontal boundary the end of the year.




the first winter cat 5 doomsday for tampa......may i suggest they start evacuating now


as the nino 3.4 region starts to plummet...may i be the first to state....we will see la nina type readings starting in june...and just in case i need to...may i state july august sept nov and december just to wrap those up also
Quoting 254. Xandra:



Good morning hydrus. Yes I know that there are different reasons why people will plus a comment.


My plus was accidental! I'm on the app and was trying to scroll down! I will say this...he might have the capability of winning a Lincoln-Douglas debate, which does not depend upon truth as much as it does one's ability to tear apart an opponent's argument. He also has a real talent for fiction and a true ability to distort history!
Quoting 264. Kenfa03:

I like being able to read arguments from both sides of the aisle in one blog.
"Both sides"? You mean like this?

Quoting 263. floridaT:

I see the debate goes on. During the dust bowl many farmers denied it was caused by the plowing methods they employed. We have politicians that really believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I am curious as to how much evidence of climate change does it take to change a climate  deniers mind. A 700 mb storm? Miami under water? Greenland ice free? What extreme will it take to "change there minds"?

The Earth has been there, and done that, except for maybe the sub 700mb storm, but who knows how strong storms were in the far past.
Quoting 288. NativeSun:

The Earth has been there, and done that, except for maybe the sub 700mb storm, but who knows how strong storms were in the far past.


It's irrelevant. Land masses were different, humans did not exist. This isn't about the planet, it is about us, our society, our civilization.
Quoting 270. hydrus:

Good morning N.S... May I please ask what branch you specialize in ? There are so many. Biology was one of my required courses at Edison.
Hi Hydrus, I specialized in Ichthyology, was a lot of fun, but at the time there was very little money involved in a paycheck.
Quoting 287. Neapolitan:

"Both sides"? You mean like this?


That about sums it up. Which side is which?
Now That They Fixed Climate Change, Can We Stop Hearing About It?

RUSH: You know, we finally have some news that has nothing to do with the political race. Not that I want to get rid of the political race. Don't think that at all. But, I mean, there's some other stuff out here that's got a literally nothing to do with the campaign. (interruption) Well, no, I'm not even talking about the climate change stuff, but, you know Marc Morano -- since you bring that up -- our former man in Washington. At Rush Limbaugh the TV show we had a roving man in Washington with a camera and a microphone that went around and harassed Democrats whenever he could find them, and usually he found them when they were a little tipsy, they'd been consuming adult beverages. It was funny.

Well, Morano now runs a global warming website, an anti-global warming website, and he asked a great question. There's a big deal, they have this great Paris accord. Do you realize John Kerry said they didn't put any enforcement mechanisms in it because they knew the US Congress would never vote for it. It's not a treaty, so there's no enforcement mechanism on this. They're relying on peer pressure for this. This is just a political -- actually what it is, when you boil it all down, it's a fleece job. More detail on that as the program unfolds.

My only point here, Morano says, since they signed this deal, since they've now fixed it, can we stop hearing about it? And I think that is a brilliant question, because we will not stop hearing about it.
Still no snow at my house. Just a rainy day, with an ice storm warning for the inland folks. Not a record though. Apparently the latest snowfall on record at my location is about January 13th, from 2000.

My clients, which include the top oil and gas companies of the globe, dear deniers, had been feeding and supporting you with propaganda and false science for years on climate change, as if hoping it was not true. Unless you missed the bus, you can now watch those same organizations not only accept the facts, they are actively working to assess impacts to their infrastructure and they have industry meetings where their CEOs now get together and talk about the impact of climate change on the globe and what it means to their business models. It is pretty clear that the temperature curves and other empirical data confirm the warming trends, sea level rise, and other related information, and the organizations that had been behind false climate science are now fully and financially engaged. At this point, why fight it? Change is happening...embrace the knowledge of the change...hugs....
Quoting 279. Naga5000:



Sounds totally normal for December 17th.


Here at my station from Nov 15th to December 15th I had an average high of 9F above the typical normal (which was 51 mid Nov. dropping to 36 in mid Dec.) for that time frame. Just in the last 9 days we have had an average temperature of 21F above the normal. Highs were in the mid 60's 4 of those 9 days. lol Mowed twice now in December and 4 times in November.

Quoting 292. luvtogolf:

Now That They Fixed Climate Change, Can We Stop Hearing About It?

RUSH: You know, we finally have some news that has nothing to do with the political race. Not that I want to get rid of the political race. Don't think that at all. But, I mean, there's some other stuff out here that's got a literally nothing to do with the campaign. (interruption) Well, no, I'm not even talking about the climate change stuff, but, you know Marc Morano -- since you bring that up -- our former man in Washington. At Rush Limbaugh the TV show we had a roving man in Washington with a camera and a microphone that went around and harassed Democrats whenever he could find them, and usually he found them when they were a little tipsy, they'd been consuming adult beverages. It was funny.

Well, Morano now runs a global warming website, an anti-global warming website, and he asked a great question. There's a big deal, they have this great Paris accord. Do you realize John Kerry said they didn't put any enforcement mechanisms in it because they knew the US Congress would never vote for it. It's not a treaty, so there's no enforcement mechanism on this. They're relying on peer pressure for this. This is just a political -- actually what it is, when you boil it all down, it's a fleece job. More detail on that as the program unfolds.

My only point here, Morano says, since they signed this deal, since they've now fixed it, can we stop hearing about it? And I think that is a brilliant question, because we will not stop hearing about it.


I love when people who claim they don't even believe the problem is real have a conversation critiquing that same thing or related things as a real problem. This is doublethink.
Quoting 280. ProphetessofDoom:



I very accidentally plussed your statement! In no way do I think that you are right, especially when you question the integrity of science and scientists. Using bigger words to state the same thing other denialists use to falsely support your opinions doesn't make you right. And if you would be so kind as to provide any type of real evidence, not evidence manufactured or misinterpreted by well-paid "scientists" who do not have any type of training in climatology, instead of attacking the scientific review process as corrupt, perhaps your beliefs would be a bit more palpable to those who prefer the truth over propaganda.
Hi, do you have any idea of the amount of scientist, or people on both sides of the debate, who have an actual PHD in Climate Science? Does Al Gore, Barrack Obama. the Pope, Dr. Masters or the great JB, or anyone else you know have a PHD in this field? There are people on both sides of this debate, but very few actually have the credentials or knowledge to be experts in this field. We as a species do effect climate change, there is know arguing that, but how much I don't know, and probably no one else does either. Lets clean up the air and water, and after doing these two things we can actually do and afford, I believe this will benefit the planet more than we can imagine, and also go a long ways in reducing CO2 output.
Quoting 294. ILwthrfan:



Here at my station from Nov 15th to December 15th I had an average high of 9F above the typical normal (which was 51 mid Nov. dropping to 36 in mid Dec.) for that time frame. Just in the last 9 days we have had an average temperature of 21F above the normal. Highs we're in the mid 60's 4 of those 9 days. lol Mowed twice now in December and 4 times in November.




I'm in the middle of the great Central Florida summer that will not end. Hit 86 yesterday, looking forward to the cool blast on Saturday, and then back to the never ending summer. Maybe we will be able to go swimming this month. No worries though, I hear the satellites say there's been no significant warming as long as you cherry pick a starting point, ignore the massive deviation from the weather balloon data, and ignore the massive adjustments with obscured methodologies. For all I know, it may actually be cold enough to snow.
Quoting 290. NativeSun:

Hi Hydrus, I specialized in Ichthyology, was a lot of fun, but at the time there was very little money involved in a paycheck.
That is awesome. I love all science. My interests were in paleontology and Archaeology when I was young, but living on the water all my life gathered my interests toward weather and Oceanography. Truth is, I am fascinated by everything from Astronomy to Silviculture .
Quoting 285. ricderr:



as the nino 3.4 region starts to plummet...may i be the first to state....we will see la nina type readings starting in june...and just in case i need to...may i state july august sept nov and december just to wrap those up also
Should make for an interesting 2016 hurricane season, along with other positive variables that effect hurricane formation. Who wants to be the Nina champion, as we had a Nino champion.
Quoting 237. blizzard1024:



1) Persistence? This is totally wrong. The Sun "persistently" bombards the Earth with 1366 w/m2. Other processes including convection, clouds and precipitation, evaporation, etc "persistently" are radiating heat back to outerspace to the tune of 240 w/m2. Additional CO2 radiates heat in ALL directions including to outer space and to the Earth's surface at 2 w/m2 all the time. That's less than 1%. Sorry.

2) Because it radiates to space, the stratosphere cools a little while the troposphere warms hence there is no net energy added to the system. energy is conserved assuming the Sun and albedo remain constant. CO2 does not make energy. That's pretty basic stuff.

3) "Again, you're not understand the physics here. It's not the amount, it's what happens to it. Energy doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. If it isn't being radiated off into space, then it's staying locked in the system. In the case of our planet, our surface is 75% covered by a giant heat sink (water). Of every bit of additional energy that isn't being radiated off into space, most of it is going there. It's not a lot, a few watts, but that's more than enough to alter a chaotic system that was, until that point, in equilibrium."

The Oceans are a huge sink of energy and have huge thermal capacity. So even if the worst case model scenarios comes true, the oceans could take centuries to eventually release the heat effectively damping the climatic response.
A few watt's per m2 in much of the holocene never changed the climate system drastically why should it now?? The Earth's climate has been very stable in the Holocene.

3) The atmosphere and climate system are tremendously complex with many non-linear chaotic feedbacks, No one understands how all this works enough to make such bold predictions about how a trace gas and minor GHG. You show how naive you are by bringing this up.

4) The peer review process is polluted by groupthink and climate activists and will not publish anything that counters the global warming theme. Paltridges paper on decreasing water vapor in the high altitudes is a great example of this. Basically this is totalitarianism. You must "believe" the climate models or you are a "denier" or maybe even prosecuted "RICO act". This is from Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany.

5)" Again, your confusing an average, very general phenomena (global warming) with trying to predict specific impacts. It doesn't take a big complex model to figure out that the globe is warming due to increased greenhouse gases. High school math and physics is all you need to take some basic concepts like black body radiation and turn it into an energy balance model. That's the "spherical cow" approach, and even at that level you can get a ballpark estimate the warming induced from additional greenhouse gases. That was figured out in the 19th century."

But convection and especially clouds play a huge role in the climate system. So in time a climate model that does not handle these processes will become erroneous. The CFSv2 climate model which predicts monthly and seasonal climates is horrible. The basic processes these models do well with but the long term global average temperature remains elusive.

The Earth was warmer than today 6 to 8 thousand years ago. Plenty of paleo evidence. It was called the Holocene optimum. Very basic stuff.

6) there is absolutely NO way that one part of the Earth remains colder than the rest in the absence of ice sheets due to physical dynamical processes. To even insinuate that discredits your understand of the atmosphere. Why not run the climate models and see if they can do it! Of course they could easily "tune" them to get the result they want and make them over sensitive to CO2 concentrations I suppose.

7) if your saying that man primarily is attributed to climate change you are clueless about natural climate cycles. the climate is always changing. You are the ignorant one here. The debate is how much is man influencing the climate because we are rebounding out of a little ice age.

8) Now you just wrecked your credibility. The Stefan-boltzman equation is used here. If you double CO2 you get about 3.7 w/m2 extra forcing. If you plug this in the S-F equation you get about 1.2C of temperature increase. This assumes no feedbacks. The feedbacks are where there is uncertainty. Low cloud cover is a negative feedback and high clouds are positive. More convection can mean less high clouds. More evaporation off warmer oceans can mean more low clouds. the ISCCP dataset clearly shows changes in global cloud cover explains a lot of the variations in global temperatures between 1983-2009 when they did this experiment.

9) The satellite measurements of temperature are clearly superior to the surface based record. The adjustments made especially to temperature over the oceans are very suspect. Plus microclimates that change in time around climate monitoring stations, moving stations, land use changes etc all contaminate the surface record so much that its anyone's guess what is happening. Plus the tolerance on temperature sensors at least in the USA is /- 2F!!! That is an order of magnitude greater than the trends measured!!

That was pretty easy.




I'm in the engineering field, not atmospheric science so I will not pretend to understand what I don't, I've only taken basic thermodynamic classes years ago. I'm trying to understand your skepticism. So first you say that all the temperature data we have is invalid because it has been adjusted, then you say it is invalid because of of temperature sensor tolerances. So what do you suggest? We stop gathering temperature data all together? Also, even if the tolerance is +-2F, with enough data the trend will still be accurate Numerous sources indicate global temperatures are increasing, even the majority of climate change deniers are on board with that fact. If you aren't, please post data proving otherwise, saying "well it's not accurate because of this and this" isn't enough, science requires data.

So the earth is warming, why? The earth goes through climate cycles, yes, but there is always a forcing factor with every shift. The basic laws of thermodynamics indicate that the earth as a system is always trying to reach an equilibrium. All energy entering the planet must be contained, transformed, or released, since temperatures are increasing either the earth is receiving more energy, it is containing more than before, or less is being transformed AND more is being contained. If it isn't due to anthropogenic reasons, what natural reason has caused the system to become unbalanced? There MUST be a forcing factor.

So you're saying the entire scientific peer review system is bunk, yes, it is no where near perfect, but it has in some form for hundreds of years been utilized by the scientific community. Have we made huge scientific, medical, and technological gains in the last 50-60 years when peer review become the global standard? I'm not sure, let me google that in my Tesla and get back with you. So the peer review system has clearly worked, more or less, for decades, why all of a sudden is it useless for this ONE topic? If it doesn't work, fine, but it can't not work for one topic of your choosing but still work for all other topics. And if what you're saying is true about the scientific community refusing to publish anything that counters the global warming theme, how come there are (as few as they are) papers out there, that have been peer reviewed, that have been published, that counter some aspects of global warming? These shouldn't exist, correct?

It seems to a layman like myself that you're only "proof" that anthropogenic climate change is not happening is because their data is bad and/or is biased. This is the same argument that virtually all other climate deniers make. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide EVIDENCE and DATA to prove they're wrong, words simply isn't enough.
Quoting 299. hydrus:

That is awesome. I love all science. My interests were in paleontology and Archaeology when I was young, but living on the water all my life gathered my interests toward weather and Oceanography. Truth is, I am fascinated by everything from Astronomy to Silviculture .
Well that will give you a wide range of options, for a college degree. Good luck in which ever one you choose, also make sure their is a decent paycheck involved. As much fun as some occupations are, you also need to be able to live a comfortable life.
Quoting 297. NativeSun:

Hi, do you have any idea of the amount of scientist, or people on both sides of the debate, who have an actual PHD in Climate Science? Does Al Gore, Barrack Obama. the Pope, Dr. Masters or the great JB, or anyone else you know have a PHD in this field? There are people on both sides of this debate, but very few actually have the credentials or knowledge to be experts in this field. We as a species do effect climate change, there is know arguing that, but how much I don't know, and probably no one else does either. Lets clean up the air and water, and after doing these two things we can actually do and afford, I believe this will benefit the planet more than we can imagine, and also go a long ways in reducing CO2 output.


You have repeatedly ignored those Ph.D.'s in the field and refused to acknowledge the very real science behind the issue.
Quoting 284. ricderr:



the first winter cat 5 doomsday for tampa......may i suggest they start evacuating now
Greetings Ric..Do not even want to imagine what a direct hit from a cat-5 would do to Tampa.
Quoting 302. NativeSun:

Well that will give you a wide range of options, for a college degree. Good luck in which ever one you choose, also make sure their is a decent paycheck involved. As much fun as some occupations are, you also need to be able to live a comfortable life.
Not to many fields in science pay well. Many are not doin it for the money, just the love for there work. I have talked to many Mets, they are underpaid to say the least. Excluding TV Mets, which bring in some serious cash...jmo
Quoting 293. SkiDestructor:

Still no snow at my house. Just a rainy day, with an ice storm warning for the inland folks. Not a record though. Apparently the latest snowfall on record at my location is about January 13th, from 2000.

My clients, which include the top oil and gas companies of the globe, dear deniers, had been feeding and supporting you with propaganda and false science for years on climate change, as if hoping it was not true. Unless you missed the bus, you can now watch those same organizations not only accept the facts, they are actively working to assess impacts to their infrastructure and they have industry meetings where their CEOs now get together and talk about the impact of climate change on the globe and what it means to their business models. It is pretty clear that the temperature curves and other empirical data confirm the warming trends, sea level rise, and other related information, and the organizations that had been behind false climate science are now fully and financially engaged. At this point, why fight it? Change is happening...embrace the knowledge of the change...hugs....


hugs....cute. But that is the message, "Ha, Ha, we fooled you!" As if they were Bart Simpson. And now the oil companies and the billionaires in the field, are on it in regards to the need for change and are fully invested. Change will come, just have some patience. Have done this with no consequences and great power grab politically. Impressive to say the least. To trust your clients to be responsible actors is a trust lost based on the facts.
So 2 days ago I posted the winners of the 2015 scorecard... care to check?
Quoting 304. hydrus:

Greetings Ric..Do not even want to imagine what a direct hit from a cat-5 would do to Tampa.
"There goes the neighborhood" would take on a whole new meaning. (jk)

Had to turn the AC on last night to sleep, it was so warm and humid.... Temps are already heading down to a more seasonal 40f tonight.. love it!
Quoting 300. NativeSun:

Should make for an interesting 2016 hurricane season, along with other positive variables that effect hurricane formation. Who wants to be the Nina champion, as we had a Nino champion.



i'll let others vie for champion......those that do seem to not be able to admit when they're wrong....i'd rather be wrong abd learn than be right and still dumb
Quoting 306. DeepSeaRising:



hugs....cute. But that is the message, "Ha, Ha, we fooled you!" As if they were Bart Simpson. And now the oil companies and the billionaires in the field, are on it in regards to the need for change and are fully invested. Change will come, just have some patience. Have done this with no consequences and great power grab politically. Impressive to say the least. To trust your clients to be responsible actors is a trust lost based on the facts.

Nobody fooled anybody; it was all by choice for the cheapest, most effective solution for energy. Billions of people have risen from brutal poverty to a comfortable existence on this planet due to fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Life is about trade offs. Humans will adapt as necessary as they always have and always will. Life has impacted Earth for a billion years. All oxygen is from biological activity.

If anybody was fooled, it was the uninformed and misguided environmental movement which advocated for the dismantling of the nuclear power industry in this country. France generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power compared to 20% in the US.
Quoting 304. hydrus:

Greetings Ric..Do not even want to imagine what a direct hit from a cat-5 would do to Tampa.



hey hydrus......older homes.....built under less stringent codes.....older people....less adaptive.....it would be ugly.....
Quoting 294. ILwthrfan:



Here at my station from Nov 15th to December 15th I had an average high of 9F above the typical normal (which was 51 mid Nov. dropping to 36 in mid Dec.) for that time frame. Just in the last 9 days we have had an average temperature of 21F above the normal. Highs were in the mid 60's 4 of those 9 days. lol Mowed twice now in December and 4 times in November.




It's been warm in DC but not warm enough for fast grass growth and last cut for most people was sometime in November. Grass is staying greener than the seasonal mean though. Most lawns here are tall fescue or bluegrass. Zoysia is a warm season grass and browns in October greening up again in late APril. Cool season grasses green up here in the first days of March and first cut is last days of March.
A lot of fields here have bermudagrass and it is a tough fast growing warm season grass but it also sporadically winterkills.

What kind of grass do you have. The only fast growing winter grass I know of is perennial ryegrass and that has problems getting through the summers here.
Quoting 310. canyonboy:


Nobody fooled anybody; it was all by choice for the cheapest, most effective solution for energy. Billions of people have risen from brutal poverty to a comfortable existence on this planet due to fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Life is about trade offs. Humans will adapt as necessary as they always have and always will. Life has impacted Earth for a billion years. All oxygen is from biological activity.

If anybody was fooled, it was the uninformed and misguided environmental movement which advocated for the dismantling of the nuclear power industry in this country. France generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power compared to 20% in the US.


i heard an old news story from millions of years ago...the dinosaurs said that same thing

Meanwhile, the heat goes on with another "Hottest Year Ever" projection. this time from UK Met Office:

Global average temperatures for next year are expected to hit a new high since records began in 1850, says a UK Met Office outlook.

At 0.84C above the 1961-90 average, the Met Office says 2016 "is likely to be at least as warm, if not warmer" than 2015.

Top spot

A few weeks ago, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) announced that 2015 is likely to be ranked as the hottest year in modern observations. Today, the Met Office says 2016 will likely knock it straight off top spot.

According to their annual outlook for the year ahead, 2016 is expected to be between 0.72C and 0.96C above the 1961-1990 average of 14.0C, with a most-likely estimate of 0.84C. You can see how this compares to the last 20 years in the chart below.



Global average temperature (in degrees C) relative to 1961-90 average, for observed (1996-2014), provisional (2015) and forecast (2016) years. Error bars are /- 0.1C for observed and provisional data, and /- 0.12C for 2016. Data from WMO and Met Office; chart by Carbon Brief.

Read more at Carbon Brief ...
Quoting 310. canyonboy:


Nobody fooled anybody; it was all by choice for the cheapest, most effective solution for energy. Billions of people have risen from brutal poverty to a comfortable existence on this planet due to fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Life is about trade offs. Humans will adapt as necessary as they always have and always will. Life has impacted Earth for a billion years. All oxygen is from biological activity.

If anybody was fooled, it was the uninformed and misguided environmental movement which advocated for the dismantling of the nuclear power industry in this country. France generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power compared to 20% in the US.


Sure they did, did you miss the propaganda lies that have misled half of America? Right, the environmental movement's to blame, not the corporate greed and legislation to award that greed and power. I say good for the French, although those things can blow up or get hit by some natural disaster and meltdowns are a major downer man. But the US is a wee bit bigger than ole France. These corporations in question want Republicans in so they can frack more, drill in the Arctic more, and drill off the Eastern Seaboard. Deregulation will come and pipelines will be built. This is what these oil companies and their huge wing of wealth influence really only care about. That's who they're backing politically, shows their agenda and how far yet we have to go. They have too much power. Need to break up big oil and get them out of our politicians pockets at our expense.
I just got a one question site survey. Did anyone else get one?
Quoting 312. georgevandenberghe:



It's been warm in DC but not warm enough for fast grass growth and last cut for most people was sometime in November. Grass is staying greener than the seasonal mean though. Most lawns here are tall fescue or bluegrass. Zoysia is a warm season grass and browns in October greening up again in late APril. Cool season grasses green up here in the first days of March and first cut is last days of March.
A lot of fields here have bermudagrass and it is a tough fast growing warm season grass but it also sporadically winterkills.

What kind of grass do you have. The only fast growing winter grass I know of is perennial ryegrass and that has problems getting through the summers here.




Most of my grass and my neighbors as well is Kentucky Bluegrass. I have noticed that the cheapy Scott's fast growing grass that I have used in the past to patch areas of my yard work, is absolutely thriving about twice the growth rate as my Kentucky bluegrass. There is very little brown around town, and where it is, it's typically Bermuda grass.

LOL like you said ...7-lb bag of Scotts Turf Builder perennial ryegrass seed produces a dark blue-green lawn
Quoting 317. ILwthrfan:




Most of my grass and my neighbors as well is Kentucky Bluegrass. I have noticed that the cheapy Scott's fast growing grass that I have used in the past to patch areas of my yard work, is absolutely thriving about twice the growth rate as my Kentucky bluegrass. There is very little brown around town, and where it is, it's typically Bermuda grass.

LOL like you said ...7-lb bag of Scotts Turf Builder perennial ryegrass seed produces a dark blue-green lawn


Ryegrass is often included in bluegrass mixes because it germinates and grows faster and other slower grasses grow better with it tying down the soil and providing some shade. In hot summer areas it dies out the first summer leaving the other grasses to take over. Here in DC summer is the stress season for most lawns. Seed planted in late November will overwinter as tiny shoots fine, but seed planted in May will be killed by summer conditions.
Quoting 310. canyonboy:


Nobody fooled anybody; it was all by choice for the cheapest, most effective solution for energy. Billions of people have risen from brutal poverty to a comfortable existence on this planet due to fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Life is about trade offs. Humans will adapt as necessary as they always have and always will. Life has impacted Earth for a billion years. All oxygen is from biological activity.

If anybody was fooled, it was the uninformed and misguided environmental movement which advocated for the dismantling of the nuclear power industry in this country. France generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power compared to 20% in the US.
Fossil fuels did and still do provide the needs for the human race, but not without doing some serious damage to the Earth. Now that we are more advanced, we can at least try to move in a cleaner and more efficient way to produce the needs and comforts you speak of. Brutal poverty has always existed , and whether we had fossil fuel or not, would still have been there. France has a population of 66 million, around 1/5 of the U.S. number. Sticking with nuclear was not only an easy choice, but once the plants are built and on line, it is more than difficult to switch to something else. People here are aware of the industrial revolution, and oil and coals vital role during wars and growth that increases exponentially. The oxygen here on earth has gone through several processes, and how it is controlled today is not well understood. What is certain is that it is the 3rd most abundant element in the Universe, but took billions of years to reach the high levels it did during primordial times. The oxygen that the biomass produces today is being affected by humans. Not good considering without it , we and almost everything else could be be seriously affected..

Quoting 298. Naga5000:



I'm in the middle of the great Central Florida summer that will not end. Hit 86 yesterday, looking forward to the cool blast on Saturday, and then back to the never ending summer. Maybe we will be able to go swimming this month. No worries though, I hear the satellites say there's been no significant warming as long as you cherry pick a starting point, ignore the massive deviation from the weather balloon data, and ignore the massive adjustments with obscured methodologies. For all I know, it may actually be cold enough to snow.
It's all relative ya know.  Just keep thinking positive. ....tell everyone it's going to snow soon and wait and see if it happens. 
blizzard1024 @ 237, 214 and 229 repeated many denialist talking points, many of them distorting the known science. For example:
...Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.

Both the UAH and the RSS analysis of the MSU/AMSU data for the lower troposphere are based on the work of Spencer and Christy which was intended to remove the known cooling trend found in the stratospheric data. It's no wonder that they tend to agree, even though RSS leaves out the data over the Antarctic and other regions of high altitude. However, as the newer data from the AMSU is appended, the two groups use different approaches. The latest work from UAH, version 6.0 is entirely different beast, in which the stratospheric contamination is removed by vertical averaging of different channels, instead of the earlier horizontal correction which us the outermost scans to correct the middle scans while ignoring the 3 center scans. This work has not been thru peer review and published, so it can not be considered to correctly represent our recent climate. Looking at the UAH v6.0 TLT data, one can see that the Arctic is hardly warming, yet there are numerous examples on the ground of intense warming while the Arctic sea-ice is clearly melting away.

While we are at it, there are other groups which provide "satellite temperature" analysis and these show much greater upper air warming than UAH. The RSS web page allows one to view plots of this data. For example, select the "TTT" time series.

As a typical denialist, the writer claims that the AOGCMs don't represent a valid description of climate, thus it's OK to ignore all their results. The Stefan-Boltzman only applies to a solid body with a fixed temperature and the Earth certainly isn't a constant temperature surface. Gasses only radiate/absorb at specific wave lengths, which makes the problem much harder to analyze. All the energy from the Sun eventually will make it's way back out of the atmosphere via IR energy and convection only moves energy from lower to higher levels from which some of the IR originates. Trouble is, we have only one Earth and thus models are the only way to study the impact on the changes which we are all causing by using the atmosphere as a common dump for our waste products.

Get over it, the changes are happening for all to see...
Good Afternoon; rather than a science based comment, I will take my Mother's position (82 years old and no college education) as I alluded to a few days ago:

"I have never seen anything like this in December in my 82 years on the planet"...........................
Graphic Forecast of Temperatures Across the US from the National Digital Forecast Database



I can say this easily, for some who hang here in a science forum, the derp they bring, and believe, is really a sad thing.



Water temperature is 78 degrees off Sanibel Island here in the Fort Myers area. I don't remember the water temperature ever being this warm here during my holiday break.
Quoting 309. ricderr:




i'll let others vie for champion......those that do seem to not be able to admit when they're wrong....i'd rather be wrong abd learn than be right and still dumb
Exactly.
Quoting 322. EricGreen:

blizzard1024 @ 237, 214 and 229 repeated many denialist talking points, many of them distorting the known science. For example:
...Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.

Both the UAH and the RSS analysis of the MSU/AMSU data for the lower troposphere are based on the work of Spencer and Christy which was intended to remove the known cooling trend found in the stratospheric data. It's no wonder that they tend to agree, even though RSS leaves out the data over the Antarctic and other regions of high altitude. However, as the newer data from the AMSU is appended, the two groups use different approaches. The latest work from UAH, version 6.0 is entirely different beast, in which the stratospheric contamination is removed by vertical averaging of different channels, instead of the earlier horizontal correction which us the outermost scans to correct the middle scans while ignoring the 3 center scans. This work has not been thru peer review and published, so it can not be considered to correctly represent our recent climate. Looking at the UAH v6.0 TLT data, one can see that the Arctic is hardly warming, yet there are numerous examples on the ground of intense warming while the Arctic sea-ice is clearly melting away.

While we are at it, there are other groups which provide "satellite temperature" analysis and these show much greater upper air warming than UAH. The RSS web page allows one to view plots of this data. For example, select the "TTT" time series.

As a typical denialist, the writer claims that the AOGCMs don't represent a valid description of climate, thus it's OK to ignore all their results. The Stefan-Boltzman only applies to a solid body with a fixed temperature and the Earth certainly isn't a constant temperature surface. Gasses only radiate/absorb at specific wave lengths, which makes the problem much harder to analyze. All the energy from the Sun eventually will make it's way back out of the atmosphere via IR energy and convection only moves energy from lower to higher levels from which some of the IR originates. Trouble is, we have only one Earth and thus models are the only way to study the impact on the changes which we are all causing by using the atmosphere as a common dump for our waste products.

Get over it, the changes are happening for all to see...
Very true, but one thing about models, there only as good as the info given to them, by humans. Their is so much we don't understand as of this time period, hopefully in the future we will.
Quoting 322. EricGreen:

blizzard1024 @ 237, 214 and 229 repeated many denialist talking points, many of them distorting the known science. For example:
...Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.

Both the UAH and the RSS analysis of the MSU/AMSU data for the lower troposphere are based on the work of Spencer and Christy which was intended to remove the known cooling trend found in the stratospheric data. It's no wonder that they tend to agree, even though RSS leaves out the data over the Antarctic and other regions of high altitude. However, as the newer data from the AMSU is appended, the two groups use different approaches. The latest work from UAH, version 6.0 is entirely different beast, in which the stratospheric contamination is removed by vertical averaging of different channels, instead of the earlier horizontal correction which us the outermost scans to correct the middle scans while ignoring the 3 center scans. This work has not been thru peer review and published, so it can not be considered to correctly represent our recent climate. Looking at the UAH v6.0 TLT data, one can see that the Arctic is hardly warming, yet there are numerous examples on the ground of intense warming while the Arctic sea-ice is clearly melting away.

While we are at it, there are other groups which provide "satellite temperature" analysis and these show much greater upper air warming than UAH. The RSS web page allows one to view plots of this data. For example, select the "TTT" time series.

As a typical denialist, the writer claims that the AOGCMs don't represent a valid description of climate, thus it's OK to ignore all their results. The Stefan-Boltzman only applies to a solid body with a fixed temperature and the Earth certainly isn't a constant temperature surface. Gasses only radiate/absorb at specific wave lengths, which makes the problem much harder to analyze. All the energy from the Sun eventually will make it's way back out of the atmosphere via IR energy and convection only moves energy from lower to higher levels from which some of the IR originates. Trouble is, we have only one Earth and thus models are the only way to study the impact on the changes which we are all causing by using the atmosphere as a common dump for our waste products.

Get over it, the changes are happening for all to see...


The satellite record from RSS and UAH are validated by the radionsonde data, a completely different dataset. There is less warming in the middle and upper troposphere which is counter to the enhanced greenhouse effect theory.
The stefan-boltzman law CAN be used to estimated effects of doubling CO2. You show very little knowledge of physics. I only took radiative transfer at the undergraduate and graduate level from a nuclear physicist. I am not a denialist. This is insulting. I am an unbiased atmospheric scientist who questions EVERYTHING. that is how we learn.

BUT the climate change "movement" has become totalitarian in nature. There is not supposed to be any debate anymore. Just like in Galileo's time, when the church shut his research down!! Climate science will remain at a standstill as long as these totalitarian views dominate.
Quoting 324. Patrap:

I can say this easily, for some who hang here in a science forum, the derp they bring, and believe, is really a sad thing.






The Saddest part of all is that the AGW crowd has been unable to communicate their message in simple terms that that the average person can understand. I have argued both sides of the coin with unbelievable success, and am baffled by the scientists who can't do the same. You're movement, which is very compelling, needs paid , trained advocates that break these issues down for the masses. down for the masses.
Seems we have a nice sprinkling of sock puppets today.

Imagine dat?

What any single or group of Humans "believe's" has jack squat to do with the realities of Science.

Smoke dat and be free.

: P

331. vis0

Quoting 214. blizzard1024:


I am in disagreement with this whole notion that CO2 concentrations, a
trace gas, and a minor greenhouse gas (water vapor and clouds are the
primary) is driving the global climate.

My (vis0) comment to follow is NOT IN CORRECT ORDER.



i'm posting my comment BEFORE Q230. Xyrus2000 even though it hours later , as some people for whatever reason (1 reason i state below) do not like to read scientific based comments even if its mostly correct. Another reason i waited to reply and post just before/after a new blog is created so replies remain here on this blogbyte.
Its 12:30PM NYc cannot wait any longer have to go shopping, posting now.

Lets say blizzard1024 had a home where one if its wooden doors had just 1 termite, yet in noticing that termite just as blizzard1024 was in a hurry to leave for a well deserved vacation of 2 weeks so blizzard1024 just brushed off the termite and locked the doors as blizzard1024 left to get into the car.

In the car a few hours later at a rest strop blizzard1024 began to think and via very good scientific formulas that if the termite he brushed off gets back to eating / digesting the wood on that door it would take that termite a month to create a hole about his pinky in size. blizzard1024 figured since blizzard1024 could buy some plastic wood and fill that hole, that its best he continue on to the airport.

Oops, blizzard1024 did not figure out that within minutes that termite is going to attract so many more termites that by the time he came back in 2-3 weeks instead of a
wooden front door Oops is going to have a wooden screen door. Therefore in the end its not just the wooden door that is full of holes but HOW GOOD SCIENTIFIC FORMULAs are used.


Now below is Xyrus2000 very good reply PLEASE read it as its fun to learn.

Do you not enjoy learning news games, new dances, so this is something new.

Now HERE IS ONE VERY IMPORTANT ADVICE i hope one passes on to fellow humans.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT , V E R Y I M P O R T A N T
that when one reads scientific data or words that ones brain is well rested.

So if you just took or are taking the kids to school, coming back from a hard days work, or hard day of partying (to some thats hard work), going to go holidaze shopping for me, just had to crunch
the families economic book balancing numbers THEN TAKE A GOOD NAP before you read the rest of my words or Q230-Xyrus2000's comment below HERE.


One of my college papers was the reason humans are becoming "brain lazy" is that humans are placing too many incorrectly grounded devices near their brains...

(this was in the 1980s and though i mentioned then that this overloading of the brain's area can lead to diseases even before that the THEN the devices where walkmans®,
stereo headsets, even boom boxes (with SSSourround® sound) overload the brains energy field causing what i called then induced tired brain syndrome...yes the acronym today seems to fit ITBS, then IT was not used...not to mention what some might think of my theories )

--sar2401 might remember those headsets with cushions as big as beanbag chairs made one look like they were/where
"air ramp marshalls" some pilots i heard call "glow w***s" (not nice)---



...thus overheating the brain and when the brain has an opportunity to learn deep science stuff that uses lots of brain CRU power it wants to shut down as its overheating (around it)
so the person connected to that brain decides to give up way too fast in reading scientific stuff.

Yet since partying or reading simple humour or watching youtube VIDs are no brainers (not much thinking to do that) those tired people go ahead and do those things, specially simple humor as that helps cool the brain (maybe why guys prefer 3 stooges, nyuk nyuk nyuk...where are my 3 stooges DVD collection? ah there it is next to my unread war n peace hardcover) Add to that the crime i type of that i call "portable haarp" and humans are reaching epidemic ADD (form of artificially induced lazy brain) and will continue till that crime is noticed by the FBI and companies learn to correctly form the plastic casings...

(history will show IF humans survive aGW and DO NOT WASTE the oils used to create synthetics needed to create plastics that
one of the main IMPORTANT uses of plastics is to redirect loose energy, even in correctly building flying orbs)


...of anything that goes above ones shoulders (assuming that is where the brain is, sit down ncstorm stop saying guys brain is elsewhere).

Sent that idea in 2011 to Phillips (UK), Sony & HP, if i hear/here not from them by 2016 i'll post it here AFTER i send it to some military people / NFL front office sites as a way to lower the affects of concussions and loud sounds interacting with laser technology that causes continuous depression amongst military veterans
(here a CLUE so you do not think i'm making this up, its what i call "dual direction 5Fold" technology where any energy that could affect the brain is sent towards ground NOT by the brain to sole of feet (in ancient scriptures it was "son of gawd" on shoulders while "lucifer"/satan under ones feet) but via natural ground, as in sounds move towards earth's center path via air not the (complex animal) human body.
.
It might even help lower terrorism as THINK its not just solders on both sides experiencing these loud sounds as bombs, high revving jet engines flying low and loose energies all over the place that can travel almost endlessly (as lasers) but the kids in war zones thus their brains
are being fried at age 4, 6, 8 thus their growing brains (intellectually & physically) are wired incorrectly by puberty so their good thoughts cannot win over their chaotic thoughts and in time those chaotic thoughts are harnessed by those in charge with terroristic plans).

but then again i could be 99.9% wrong.

a bit more that is too weird to post here at my zilly blog pg 5 cmmnt#230






Quoting 230. Xyrus2000:



That's because you're jumping to the wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of the physics. It's not just percentages that are important, but persistence. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime, which allows for it's effects to build over the course of time. It doesn't how small the amount of energy you add to a system is, if there is nothing to dissipate that energy then it stays in that system.

And that's really the problem here. It's not the CO2 is some major forcing locking huge amounts of excess heat into the climate system over the course of a year. It's a small persistent forcing that is adding energy over the course of a couple centuries.

The sum external forcing of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases is on the order of about 2 W/m2. The total outgoing longwave radiation is 240 W/m2. This is less than a 1% change and somehow this is cause for concern??
.

Again, you're not understand the physics here. It's not the amount, it's what happens to it. Energy doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. If it isn't being radiated off into space, then it's staying locked in the system. In the case of our planet, our surface is 75% covered by a giant heat sink (water). Of every bit of additional energy that isn't being radiated off into space, most of it is going there. It's not a lot, a few watts, but that's more than enough to alter a chaotic system that was, until that point, in equilibrium.

Climate science has transcended into a political activist movement.


Oh yes. I remember when the CO2 cutting laser I was using in chemistry class suddenly turned socialist.

When you hear people compare the science is settled just like gravity is, it shows naivety.


Or it shows that they actually know what they're talking about. The physics and chemistry that predict global warming date back to the early 19th century.

The Earth's climate system is tremendously complex with many variables.


Yes, and all of them obey things like the laws of thermodynamics. Heat doesn't vanish by magic. If it isn't leaving, then it's staying. Moreover, we know it's staying because we can observe the effects.

Clouds, tropical convection, oceanic circulations, aerosols, among others are unknown and not modeled well at all, yet they exert a tremendous amount on the climate system.


Again, your confusing an average, very general phenomena (global warming) with trying to predict specific impacts. It doesn't take a big complex model to figure out that the globe is warming due to increased greenhouse gases. High school math and physics is all you need to take some basic concepts like black body radiation and turn it into an energy balance model. That's the "spherical cow" approach, and even at that level you can get a ballpark estimate the warming induced from additional greenhouse gases. That was figured out in the 19th century.

The much more difficult problem is predicting regional and smaller scale effects are from that change. That's what the big complex GCMs are for. And yes, they will always have error bars and uncertainties. There is no such thing as a perfect model, or perfect data to feed them. But the can be (and are used) to explore various aspects of the climate system and establish bounds, likelihoods, etc. Models are just tools.

All this catastrophic global warming talk is related to climate models which are highly suspect.


There's nothing "suspect" about them. There are a ton of papers and documentation on their construction, the science behind them, and what their limits and caveats are. You can download their source, compile, and run them yourself if you were so inclined to learn how (and it isn't for the faint of heart). Or you could read the IPCC section that's dedicated to the models and the ensembles they ran and get a good summary of the results, errors, and issues.

Or you can head on over to AGU where there is some 15,000 climate scientists standing around in public with big posters and presentations on a countless assortment of climate related topics.

Plus if you look at the paleo climate records, the Earth was warmer 6000-8000 years ago after the collapse of the great NH ice sheets and now it is cooler.


First, your timeline is off. Second, I suppose you think that such periods happen by....magic? Sorry, but the planet doesn't warm up and cool off just because it wants to, and there is plenty of available science on the topic. If you have a different model for these occurrences then by all means post it and publish it. But if you're going to say "we don't know", then you don't have a valid scientific argument. If you don't like a scientific explanation, you provide one of your own along with a plethora of data and observations to back it up. "Don't know" wasn't an acceptable answer in school, and certainly isn't one out in the real world.

There was the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods which were not just local as climate activists like to say.


I await your links to the research that back up your claims. The current literature on the subject certainly doesn't agree with your assertions in any way, shape, or form.

As a meteorologist, how can one part of the globe remain colder and the rest of the globe warmer for centuries. Fluid dynamics and baroclinicity in the mid to high latitudes rules and this is implausible and ludicrous.


As a meteorologist, I would expect you to have better grasp of physics. :P

There is lots of evidence of a medieval warm period and a little ice age around the world. The Little Ice age peaked in the 1600 and 1700s and ended in the 1800s. The 1900s to Today likely is a rebound from this cold period.


The data doesn't agree with you. The long term trend from Holocene optimum has been downward. That is, until about the last 150 years where there has been a sharp and sudden spike upwards. In addition, the observations match the predictions made by physics and chemistry. Even Arrhenius's primitive model he published back in the 1890's is pretty much on the nose here.

But if you have a better mechanism that can explain the observations and a model that can also show that this climate response we're seeing is really just a fluke, I'd be more than happy to see it.

CO2 plays a role, but in my scientific opinion it is impossible to discern how much is natural and how much is man-made.


Your scientific opinion, while an opinion, is certainly not scientific. So far, the only thing you've managed to express successfully is your general (and possibly willful) ignorance on the topic of climate science. You have neither asked any novel questions nor presented any additional insights that haven't already been expressed by dozens of others like yourself who come strolling through. Everything you have brought it is well explained on any number of sites, research articles, books, and so on. Worse, you opened with summarily dismissing all climate science right from the get go while providing nothing substantive backing up your claims which the standard tactic of a denier, not a skeptic.

CO2 by itself can only explain up to 1.2C for a doubling by radiative transfer alone. The feedbacks are the wildcards and there is conflicting evidence whether there is a positive or negative water vapor feedback.


This is where ignorance wrecks your arguments. Even a site like skeptical science counters your claims, and they link to the research that backs up their explanations. Meanwhile, you rehash old debunked talking points that even Watts doesn't even use anymore.

Plus a lot of the recent warming from the 1980s can be explained by changes in global cloud cover by the ISCCP cloud data set.


No. It really doesn't. But I can see how you'd believe that since you think all climate science not done by you is a sham.

Additionally, NOAA and GISS have made significant adjustments recently since 1998 to the ocean temperatures based on tenuous procedures. If you remove these man-made adjustments the warming is muted. The satellite record from UAH and RSS is much better and show minimal warming since 1998 and some from the cool period of the late 1970s. Hardly anything to dismantle our energy infrastructure for and hurt our nation economically for.


Ah, I was waiting for you to bring this up since this is practically the gold standard of denialism. You see, ignorance does not help your cause. If you weren't ignorant, then you'd know that satellites don't measure temperature. The measure microwaves. Worse, they can only measure broad swaths of the atmosphere. And even worse, satellite data has to be heavily manipulated, corrected, and tweaked to even get something resembling useful temperature information. They give a full description, including error analysis, on their respective sites.

Surface temperature readings, on the other hand, are based on thermometers. Thousands of them. Any corrections to the data are published and documented. GISS has links right off the main website, complete with a full in depth detailed description as to what was changed and why. You can still get the old uncorrected data as well, so there's no big conspiracy or secret there.

So aside from needing a considerable amount of brushing up on your climate science (which you won't do), you also need to gain an understanding in general chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and if your "since 1998" statement is as telling as the rest of your rhetoric, then you need a good book on statistical analysis as well.

That should keep you busy for a while. I'll be looking forward to your first published articles on climate in Nature.

Quoting 53. hydrus:

Quitting smoking now greatly reduces ones risk of getting cancer...The same applies to Earth...Your right, it is very late to get things headed in the right direction, but it is something we as a race should do. If everyone does there part, the results would be profound.
The point is though, that we already have cancer!
Quoting 292. luvtogolf:

Now That They Fixed Climate Change, Can We Stop Hearing About It?

My only point here, Morano says, since they signed this deal, since they've now fixed it, can we stop hearing about it? And I think that is a brilliant question, because we will not stop hearing about it.


This from the people who've voted 50 times to repeal Obamacare. It's absolutely bizarre.

And don't think for a second that global warming is something that humanity will adapt to just like it's adapted to every other change throughout history. I can assure you, for anyone not familiar with history, that humanity has generally done a very poor job adapting in the short term -- months, years or even decades. There were Romans, for example, who in the early 400s took it as second nature that there would be a steady food supply from the farms and plantations spread hundreds of miles around their world. A generation later those supply lines had dried up and most of these people, and their offspring, had died and their civilization was in ruins.

You'd be amazed how quickly things can turn. If those supermarket shelves ever go bare . . . .
Quoting 329. Tornadocane:



I have argued both sides of the coin with unbelievable success, and am baffled by the scientists who can't do the same.
Out of curiosity, would your name happen to be Donald Trump? Just wondering...

Anyway, you should know that there are no "two sides" of the coin. Here you go:

Quoting 45. JohnLonergan:

Another "Hottest Year Ever" projection. this time from UK Met Office:

Global average temperatures for next year are expected to hit a new high since records began in 1850, says a UK Met Office outlook.

At 0.84C above the 1961-90 average, the Met Office says 2016 "is likely to be at least as warm, if not warmer" than 2015.

Top spot

A few weeks ago, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) announced that 2015 is likely to be ranked as the hottest year in modern observations. Today, the Met Office says 2016 will likely knock it straight off top spot.

According to their annual outlook for the year ahead, 2016 is expected to be between 0.72C and 0.96C above the 1961-1990 average of 14.0C, with a most-likely estimate of 0.84C. You can see how this compares to the last 20 years in the chart below.



Global average temperature (in degrees C) relative to 1961-90 average, for observed (1996-2014), provisional (2015) and forecast (2016) years. Error bars are /- 0.1C for observed and provisional data, and /- 0.12C for 2016. Data from WMO and Met Office; chart by Carbon Brief.

Read more at Carbon Brief ...
From reportingclimatescience.com:

Sensitivity Study: Climate Outlook Worse Than Feared

The impact of climate change may be worse than previously thought, a new study suggests

From the University of Edinburgh

As world leaders hold climate talks in Paris, research shows that land surface temperatures may rise by an average of almost 8C by 2100, if significant effort s are not made to counteract climate change.

Such a rise would have a devastating impact on life on Earth.

It would place billions of people at risk from extreme temperatures, flooding, regional drought, and food shortages.

Climbing emissions

The study calculated the likely effect of increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases above pre-industrialisation amounts.

It finds that if emissions continue to grow at current rates, with no significant action taken by society, then by 2100 global land temperatures will have increased by 7.9C, compared with 1750.

This finding lies at the very uppermost range of temperature rise as calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It also breaches the United Nations’ safe limit of 2C, beyond which the UN says dangerous climate change can be expected.

Read more >>
337. bwi
I haven't read downthread to see if this was already covered, but Bloomberg has a nice article on the extended solar and wind tax credits that are slated to be enacted as part of the year-end omnibus spending and tax extenders package released yesterday:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17 /what-just-happened-to-solar-and-wind-is-a-really- big-deal

"The clean-energy boom is about to be transformed. In a surprise move, U.S. lawmakers agreed to extend tax credits for solar and wind for another five years. This will give an unprecedented boost to the industry and change the course of deployment in the U.S.
The extension will add an extra 20 gigawatts of solar power—more than every panel ever installed in the U.S. prior to 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). The U.S. was already one of the world's biggest clean-energy investors. This deal is like adding another America of solar power into the mix.
The wind credit will contribute another 19 gigawatts over five years. Combined, the extensions will spur more than $73 billion of investment and supply enough electricity to power 8 million U.S. homes, according to BNEF.
"This is massive," said Ethan Zindler, head of U.S. policy analysis at BNEF. In the short term, the deal will speed up the shift from fossil fuels more than the global climate deal struck this month in Paris and more than Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan that regulates coal plants, Zindler said. "
Mid December dust clouds for the UK!

"On Thursday, the Daily Mirror’s front page warned of a “blood rain alert”, claiming Britain faced a “risky red Christmas” due to red rain, while the Daily Express said the UK faced a “deluge” of blood rain."

So at a time when they should be having freezing fog on a good day, they are getting Saharan dust clouds.
Here's the link:-

Link
I expect denial will still be happening after half the human and wildlife population has succumbed to starvation due to agriculture and marine life failure as well as disease resulting from the greatly increased health impact of a warmer Earth. The few remaining frogs will be saying "Warm? It's always been like this -- and it's been warmer in the past. Who are you trying to fool?"
Quoting 328. blizzard1024:

The stefan-boltzman law CAN be used to estimated effects of doubling CO2.
Did you read that on Nova's site? Curry's? Or was it at (chuckle, snort) Principia-Scientific? I guess you realize that those sources are about as credible where climate science is concerned as a shovelful of stall scrapings. At any rate, I look forward to seeing your unbiased research summarized, submitted for peer-review, and published. Sounds like you possess knowledge that will overturn centuries of climate science, so it'll be awesome to know that we read it here first.
Quoting 328. blizzard1024:

BUT the climate change "movement" has become totalitarian in nature. There is not supposed to be any debate anymore. Just like in Galileo's time, when the church shut his research down!! Climate science will remain at a standstill as long as these totalitarian views dominate.

So, the "Galileo Defense". Oh, dear; I'm afraid your denialism is showing...
Quoting 334. Neapolitan:

Out of curiosity, would your name happen to be Donald Trump? Just wondering...

Anyway, you should know that there are no "two sides" of the coin. Here you go:


Lots of talk about the Donald.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
The people of earth could use the technology in the unacknowledged special access programs to counter CO2 emissions. Such use might be considered a giant leap for man and a small step for mankind. For the uninitiated, please Google Dr. Steven Greer to begin...
Quoting 344. blizzard1024:




I am done on this site. You folks are so ignorant about how science and more importantly how the atmosphere works. I don't have time to educate you all. I should have known. Wunderground is owned by the weather channel which is owned by NBC a far left wing news source. No chance of any real science, let alone common sense here. what a joke. By the way more than 1/2 of meteorologists in the USA don't believe in catastrophic man made global warming so I am by no means alone. And I do not get kick backs from any oil companies, Koch brothers etc. So, have fun. Wait another 20 years and you will see this is totally overblown.
Dont leave.
Hey ho.

Bit of an inversion in the ol' 89406 this week, but a front moving through today's supposed to blow it out. High clouds, some lenticular formation over the ranges to the south and west, snow showers on the ranges to the east and north.

The quenching cup on my work desk was frozen solid, which was funny but it made it a lot easier to tweeze out the brass pins I made. Passed that along to a goldsmith friend up in the Yukon, he said "Wow, you guys have real Arctic weather!" Nah, just a typical winter inversion.

Relevant to today's blog entry - my housemate is not at all convinced of the anthropogenic CO2 nature of warming - but he's VERY big on cutting pollution. In my view, I'm not terribly concerned what he thinks of the cause, he wants cleaner air. He needs it, his lungs are bad, and his oldest daughter has asthma.
Congratulations!! Y'all managed to run off another one in record time!
Our werk here is done seems.

: )
Quoting 310. canyonboy:


Nobody fooled anybody; it was all by choice for the cheapest, most effective solution for energy. Billions of people have risen from brutal poverty to a comfortable existence on this planet due to fossil fuels over the last 150 years. Life is about trade offs. Humans will adapt as necessary as they always have and always will. Life has impacted Earth for a billion years. All oxygen is from biological activity.

If anybody was fooled, it was the uninformed and misguided environmental movement which advocated for the dismantling of the nuclear power industry in this country. France generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear power compared to 20% in the US.


Switching from hydrocarbons to wind and solar IS adapting you NitWit .....

More of the same is NOT adapting, it's denial .....

Quoting 281. Skyepony:

Los Angeles Times today..

Climate change is indeed a cause of social conflict.


Migrants and refugees carrying their belongings arrive at a transit camp in Slavonski Brod, Croatia on Nov. 4. Bernie Sanders, among others, has made statements linking climate change to terrorism. (Elvis Barukcic / AFP/Getty Images)


I have been saying for months now that the current migration of Syrians and others to Europe will someday be known as the first of the Great Climate Change Migrations ....
Quoting 327. NativeSun:

Very true, but one thing about models, there only as good as the info given to them, by humans. Their is so much we don't understand as of this time period, hopefully in the future we will.

Projection verging on dishonesty. There is so much that YOU do not understand.