WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Near-Record Global Warmth Continued in October

By: Jeff Masters 6:24 PM GMT on November 17, 2016

October 2016 tied with 2003 as Earth's third warmest October since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) on Thursday. October 2016 was 0.73°C (1.31°F) warmer than the 20th-century October average; the only warmer Octobers were during the two previous years, 2015 and 2014. NASA reported that October 2016 was the second warmest October in its database, behind October 2015. October 2016 was Earth’s coolest month (relative to average) since November 2014, which was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above average. This October was also the first month since April 2015 that failed to set a global heat record in either the NASA or NOAA database.


Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average by region for October 2016, the third warmest October for the globe since record keeping began in 1880. Record warmth was observed across parts of Mexico and the Caribbean, parts of west central Africa, sections of Iraq and southeastern Asia, and western Alaska extending to Far East Russia, where temperatures were more than 5°C (9°F) above their 1981–2010 averages. Cooler- and much-cooler-than-average conditions were observed across much of western Canada, most of eastern Europe, and a large swath extending across much of central Asia, where temperatures were more than 5°C (9°F) below their 1981–2010 averages in places. No land areas experienced record cold temperatures during October 2016. Africa as a whole observed its second warmest October on record, behind only 2015; North America had its seventh warmest; Asia had its 39th coolest October in the 107-year continental record. Image credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).


As we blogged about on November 11, a weak La Niña event is now underway in the Eastern Pacific. The cool waters present in that region have helped cool the planet slightly below the record warm levels observed during the strong El Niño event of 2015 - 2016. The fact that October 2016 was still the 2nd to 3rd warmest October on record despite the presence of La Niña can mostly be attributed to the steady build-up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases due to human activities. NOAA’s global surface temperature for the year so far (January-October 2016) is an impressive 0.97°C (1.75°F) above the 20th-century average and 0.10°C (0.18°F) warmer than the previous January-to-October record, set in 2015 (see Figure 2 below). Remarkably, no land areas were cooler than average for the year-to-date. Barring an asteroid impact or the largest volcanic eruption in human history sometime in the next month, it is almost certain that 2016 will end up as the warmest year on record for the planet, giving us three consecutive warmest years on record.

Ocean-only, land-only, and lower atmosphere temperatures in October
Ocean-only temperatures this October were the second warmest on record, while land-only temperatures were the 16th warmest on record. (Since most of Earth’s surface is covered by ocean, the land-plus-ocean reading is dominated by the ocean-only temperatures, thus keeping October 2016 so warm globally.) Including 2016, the past five Octobers (2012–2016) have had the five highest October global ocean temperatures in the 137-year record. For the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere, global satellite-measured temperatures in October 2016 were the second warmest in the 38-year record, just behind October 2015, according to the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). For the Jan - Oct year-to-date period, these temperatures have been the warmest on record.


Figure 2. Departure from the 20th-century average for the global January-through-October temperature for the years 1880 - 2016. This year has seen by far the warmest temperatures on record for the year-to-date period. Image credit: NOAA/National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Arctic sea ice hits its lowest October extent on record
October 2016 Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the 38-year satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The new record low was due, in large part, to high sea surface temperatures in open water areas and unusually high October air temperatures that extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere. Amazingly, temperatures in the Arctic have spiked in mid-November to even higher values, and were 20°C (36°F) above average north of 80°N this week (see Figure 3). The unusual warmth in the Arctic has created an unusual amount of open water, which has provided high amounts of moisture to the atmosphere. As a result, widespread snows fell in regions where it was cold enough to snow; snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in October was the third greatest on record.


Figure 3. Daily mean temperatures by Julian day over the Arctic north of 80°N, as compiled by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). Temperatures for this year (red line) are compared to the long-term averages (green line.) This week’s heat spike to 20°C (36°F) above average is a greater deviation from average than any previous spike recorded at any time of year since DMI began tracking Arctic temperatures in 1956. Previous record: 17°C warmer than average, set in December 2002 and January 2006. Thanks go to WU member VibrantPlanet for pointing this out.

One billion-dollar weather disaster in October 2016: Hurricane Matthew
According to the October 2016 Catastrophe Report from insurance broker Aon Benfield, one billion-dollar weather-related disaster hit the planet in October: Hurricane Matthew, which tore through the Caribbean before pounding The Bahamas and the southeast United States. Matthew caused $5.5 billion in damage in the Caribbean and The Bahamas, and up to $10 billion in damage to the U.S. Two other tropical cyclones in October fell just short of being billion-dollar disasters: Super Typhoon Haima in the Philippines and China ($940 million in damage) and Super Typhoon Sarika in the Philippines and China ($890 million). From January through October 2016, there were 28 billion-dollar weather disasters globally. This is the fifth greatest number of such disasters in any year since 1990, with only 2013 (41), 2010 (40), 2011 (35) and 2014 (29) with more. For the U.S., Aon Benfield counted thirteen billion-dollar weather disasters during January - October 2016, which is the second highest number of such disasters on record since 1980 (the record: sixteen in 2011.)

Here is Aon Benfield’s tally of billion-dollar weather disasters globally for January - October 2016:

1) Flooding, Yangtze Basin, China, 5/1 - 8/1, $28.0 billion, 475 killed
2) Hurricane Matthew, Caribbean, Bahamas, U.S., 9/28 - 10/10, $15 billion, 601 killed
3) Flooding, Louisiana U.S., 8/9 - 8/16, $10 - $15 Billion, 13 killed
4) Drought, China, 1/1 - 3/1, $6 billion, 0 killed
5) Flooding, Germany, France, Austria, Poland, 5/26 - 6/6, $5.5 billion, 17 killed
6) Drought, India, 1/1 - 6/30, $5.0 billion, 0 killed
7) Wildfire, Fort McMurray, Canada, 5/2- 6/1, $5.0 billion, 0 killed
8) Flooding, Northeast China 7/16 - 7/24, $4.7 billion, 289 killed
9) Severe Weather, Plains-Southeast U.S., 4/10 - 4/13, $4.3 billion, 1 killed
10) Severe Weather, Rockies-Plains-Southeast-Midwest U.S., 3/22 - 3/25, $2.5 billion, 0 killed
11) Super Typhoon Meranti, China, Taiwan, Philippines, 9/13 - 9/16, $2.5 billion, 44 killed
12) Flooding, China, 6/18 - 6/23, $2.3 billion, 68 killed
13) Flooding, Texas U.S., 4/15 - 4/19, $2.0 billion, 9 killed
14) Winter Weather, East Asia, 1/20 - 1/26, $2.0 billion, 116 killed
15) Severe Weather, Plains-Midwest U.S., 4/29 - 5/3, $1.8 billion, 6 killed
16) Tropical Cyclone Roanu, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, China, 5/14 - 5/21, $1.8 billion, 135 killed
17) Severe Weather, Plains-Rockies U.S., 7/28 - 7/29, $1.6 billion, 0 killed
18) Drought, Zimbabwe, 6/1 - 8/10, $1.6 billion, 0 killed
19) Flooding and Severe Weather, Plains-Midwest-Southeast-Northeast U.S., 3/4 - 3/12, $1.5 billion, 6 killed
20) Super Typhoon Nepartak, Philippines, Taiwan, China, 7/8 - 7/9, $1.4 billion, 111 killed
21) Severe Weather, Plains-Southeast U.S., 3/17 - 3/18, $1.4 billion, 0 killed
22) Tropical Cyclone Winston, Fiji, 2/16 - 2/22, $1.4 billion, 44 killed
23) Flooding, Argentina and Uruguay, 4/4 - 4/10, $1.3 billion, 0 killed
24) Severe Weather, Plains-Midwest U.S., 5/21 - 5/28, $1.3 billion, 1 killed
25) Severe Weather, Plains-Midwest-Southeast-Northeast U.S., 2/22 - 2/25, $1.2 billion, 10 killed
26) Severe Weather, Netherlands, 6/23 - 6/24, $1.1 billion, 0 killed
27) Severe Weather, Plains-Midwest-Mississippi Valley U.S., 5/7 - 5/10, $1.0 billion, 2 killed
28) Winter Weather, Eastern U.S., 1/21 - 1/24, $1.0 billion, 58 killed

And here is the one billion-dollar disaster from October 2016 in more detail:


Disaster 1. Category 4 Hurricane Matthew devastated Haiti on October 4, killing 546, making it the Atlantic’s deadliest hurricane in 11 years. Damage in Haiti was estimated at $1.9 billion—a staggering 21% of the impoverished nation’s GDP, and by far Haiti’s costliest hurricane on record, according to the international disaster database, EM-DAT. The previous record was $400 million (1980 dollars) in damage wrought by Hurricane Allen. Matthew battered Cuba as a Category 4 storm, causing $2.6 billion in damage (3.2% of their GDP.) Matthew was Cuba’s second most expensive hurricane on record, behind Hurricane Georges of 1998 ($3 billion in damage in 2016 dollars, according to EM-DAT.) The Bahamas suffered $600 million in damage from Matthew (6.8% of GDP), making it their third most expensive hurricane on record behind Hurricane Frances of 2004 ($1.28 billion in losses, 2016 dollars) and Hurricane Jeanne of 2004 ($700 million in damage). Matthew grazed the coast of Florida and Georgia before making landfall in South Carolina on October 8 as a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds. Matthew killed 49 people in the U.S., 28 of them in North Carolina. U.S. damage was estimated at up to $10 billion. This would make Matthew the 17th most expensive hurricane in U.S. history. Remnant moisture from Matthew also brought flooding rains and high winds to parts of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, causing tens of millions of dollars in damage. In this image, we see a small town along the southwestern coast of Haiti that suffered extreme storm surge damage from Hurricane Matthew. Image credit: United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), via univision.com.

Notable global heat and cold marks set in October 2016
Hottest temperature in the Northern Hemisphere: 44.5°C (112.1°F) at Podor, Senegal, 9 October
Coldest temperature in the Northern Hemisphere: -41.4°C (-42.5°F) at Geo Summit, Greenland, 1 October
Hottest temperature in the Southern Hemisphere: 44.2°C (111.6°F) at Augrabies Falls, South Africa, 28 October
Coldest temperature in the Southern Hemisphere: -72.7°C (-98.9°F) at Vostok, Antarctica, 11 October
(Courtesy of Maximiliano Herrera.)

Major weather stations that set (not tied) new all-time heat or cold records in October 2016 (Courtesy of Maximiliano Herrera)
Macapa (Brazil) max. 36.6°C, 5 October
Bandarawela (Sri Lanka) max. 33.0°C, 11 October
Majuro (Marshall Islands) max. 34.0°C, 16 October
Taua (Brazil) max. 39.4°C, 19 October
Tshane (Botswana) max. 41.5°C, 31 October

Note: On 5 October Buffelsfontein Farm in South Africa recorded -10.5°C, which is the lowest temperature ever measured in Africa for the month of October.

No all-time national heat records set or tied in October 2016
No nations or territories set all-time heat or cold records in October 2016. From January through October 31, 2016, a total of 21 nations or territories tied or set all-time records for their hottest temperature in recorded history. This breaks the record of eighteen all-time heat records in 2010 for the greatest number of such records set in one year. Also, one all-time cold temperature record has been set so far in 2016 (in Hong Kong.) For a detailed list of these all-time records, see our September global climate summary post.

We'll be back with our next post on Friday. See our earlier post today for more on Invest 90L, in the southwest Caribbean, which has changed little since Wednesday.

Jeff Masters

Climate Summaries

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....
Quoting 1. MahFL:

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....


Anyone's "belief" in climate change should not be based on emotions or on political ideologies. The "belief" that you hold to concerning climate change should be a direct reflection of how much you understand the basic Science on climate change. Were it only this simple.
RealClimate: Record heat despite a cold sun

Global temperature goes from heat record to heat record, yet the sun is at its dimmest for half a century.




Fig. 1 Time evolution of global temperature, CO2 concentration and solar activity. Temperature and CO2 are scaled relative to each other according to the physically expected CO2 effect on climate (i.e. the best estimate of transient climate sensitivity). The amplitude of the solar curve is scaled to correspond to the observed correlation of solar and temperature data. (Details are explained here.) You can generate and adapt this graph to your taste here, where you can also copy a code with which the graph can be embedded as a widget on your own website (as on my home page). Thus it will be automatically updated each year with the latest data. Thanks to our reader Bernd Herd who programmed this.



Fig. 2 Time series of the Sun’s luminosity from the World Radiation Center in Davos.

Quoting 1. MahFL:

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....


After looking for what you are talking about in the article unsuccessfully, I just searched the page for the number "65" and only found it in your comment. Are you sure you are talking about this article?
Thanks for the new blog, Dr Masters.
Quoting 1. MahFL:

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....


Presumably he would withdraw as soon as possible, and then defund any actions aimed at meeting the requirements of the Paris Agreement, so that even if we were technically still covered by it, to all intents and purposes, we would not be doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Thanks for the update, Dr. Masters.

Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent (source : NSIDC - sea ice news & analysis).

I still believe, that major part of the exceptional warmth poleward of 80 degrees north is due to heat escaping from beneath the halocline. But atmospheric conditions have to be the reason for record low ice cover, since the areas, where ice is abnormally absent, are on the continental shelf.
Quoting 1. MahFL:

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....


In my opinion, a better way to phrase your last sentence is "I do believe in the science of climate change."
Global warming caused by man is a hoax. The Earth exists in the Sun's atmosphere, think about that for a moment.
When other planets surface temperatures in our solar system track each other thats a little clue.
59 million years ago the Earth had a higher avg. temperature, no automobiles or fossil fuels existed.
So yes the Earth may be warming, or cooling depending on where you live, and there is more Ice in the Antartic than ever- (just ask the global warming research ship captain that had to rescued because the ice was so thick]- to think man can effect the weather is non-sense. I for one will look for the US to stop funding these phony scientists. The money could be used for infrastructure and inner cities....

Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 %u2013 the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Despite claims of snow being %u2018a thing of the past,%u2019 cold season snowfall has been rising.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit %u2013 differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and %u2018not currently contributing to sea level rise.%u2019
In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year %u2018pause%u2019 with %u2018no significant change in the past decade.
Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Introduction:
CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth%u2019s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: %u201CThe fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.%u201D %u201CIt%u2019s scientific nonsense,%u201D Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, %u201CThe actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.%u201D
The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from %u2018global warming%u2019. But even if you accept the UN%u2019s and Al Gore%u2019s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not %u2018save%u2019 the planet.

PS: Im greatly looking forward to much lower heating bills this winter, how about you?

Good day...

Earl
Quoting 8. elioe:

I still believe, that major part of the exceptional warmth poleward of 80 degrees north is due to heat escaping from beneath the halocline. But atmospheric conditions have to be the reason for record low ice cover, since the areas, where ice is abnormally absent, are on the continental shelf.


I am not well versed on the halocline, but it is my understanding that the halocline is vertical column of water, so how could heat energy be escaping from below it? Are you thinking about the thermocline? How would heat energy escape from the thermocline? Just asking the questions.
Quoting 16. elioe:



Looks very promising.
Soon we'll have Arctic sea routes open all year round, and Arctic archipelagoes hospitable for human life.

Your views of how promising that would be don't look all that popular in Finland. Why are the overwhelming majority of Finnish people so worried about climate change & you are not? Personally all the Finnish I know are concerned about it for the obvious reasons. You are the first Finn I've seen that welcomes AGW like an oil baron, so had to see what the stats were.. You really are in the minority there.

Even as parts of the Arctic get even warmer, the sun wouldn't shine there at all from like October/Nov to March or so & then in the summer the sun doesn't set at all, Spring and fall there is some day and night but things look froze over then some too...That doesn't seem like great or even marginal Agriculture conditions, plants need day & night, mostly without frost.

Also Finland enjoys a longer growing season right now than other places at the same latitude like Anchorage, Alaska because of the warm gulf stream waters, because the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift Current moderates the climate, Finland contains half of the world's arable land north of 60° north latitude. The gulf stream is slowing due to climate change and as that slows more, Finland's growing season would shorten or stay the same. Just not seeing the gulf stream factor included in studies saying Finland's growing season will be 1.5 months longer.

We can grow food in FL just about all year round and export more than you produce. Putting FL under to try and lengthen your season isn't a good convincing factor for most of us to get behind climate change.. Reading about Finland agriculture and the history of is actually pretty sad. Better growing conditions elsewhere and cheap shipping has really about put your food production AG under.

78% of the Finnish population – an overwhelming majority – indicated that addressing climate change was either urgent or very urgent.

These high levels of concern about climate change and a clear sense of urgency to do something about it generally provide fertile ground for strong climate policy. It is thus not surprising that the previous Finnish Parliament approved the FCCA and that the newly-appointed government’s programme promises active measures to mitigate climate change.
Thank You Dr. for the October update; can't help but notice how that prominent North Atlantic cold pool anomaly off of Greenland, surrounded by red, is still there for the past almost two years now and how that might be related to Arctic glacial melt issues to the North and the pileup of warmer waters to it's south as the Gulf Stream approaches off the US East Coast and almost makes a hard right turn East of Maryland ....................





Quoting 11. Some1Has2BtheRookie:



I am not well versed on the halocline, but it is my understanding that the halocline is vertical column of water, so how could heat energy be escaping from below it? Are you thinking about the thermocline? How would heat energy escape from the thermocline? Just asking the questions.


Well, here is the pic from Wikipedia, showing measurements from Arctic in January.



The halocline means, that surface water has less salt than deep water. That's why the surface water is less dense than deep water, even when the deep water is warmer. If the surface water would increase enough in salinity, the entire water column would circulate, until the deep water would reach a temperature very close to freezing point of seawater (-1.8C). Until then, practically no sea ice could form.
another new blog 2 in one day thanks great info as always
10. tvengineer
2:21 PM EST on November 17, 2016

You are from Green Bay, Wisconsin; you might want to change your position based on the official position some of your State scientists has taken on the issue:


Wenger, R.B. & Harris, H.J. (2010) 4: 326. doi:10.1007/s11707-010-0116-3
    Climate change will have major impacts in the Great Lakes region of North America. Particularly vulnerable are shallow freshwater estuaries, such as Lake Michigan%u2019s Green Bay, located in the north-eastern part of the State of Wisconsin. Green Bay and the Lower Fox River, its major tributary, were considered to be severely polluted as early as 1925. As a result of large expenditures of money and a major research effort that has been conducted over the past 40 years or more, some progress has been made toward the restoration of ecosystem integrity. However, work remains, and within this context, potential climate change impacts pose additional challenges. We discuss in this paper a methodology that can be used to assess climate change impacts on ecosystems, and describe an application to the Green Bay ecosystem. The methodology employs numerical methods to evaluate the inputs from scientific, policy, and management experts who are knowledgeable about the ecosystem under study. The Green Bay ecosystem application reveals that runoff from agriculture and urban sources, already a major ecosystem stressor, will be exacerbated in the future as a result of climate change impacts.


Quoting 14. elioe:



Well, here is the pic from Wikipedia, showing measurements from Arctic in January.



The halocline means, that surface water has less salt than deep water. That's why the surface water is less dense than deep water, even when the deep water is warmer. If the surface water would increase enough in salinity, the entire water column would circulate, until the deep water would reach a temperature very close to freezing point of seawater (-1.8C). Until then, practically no sea ice could form.


OK, I understand what you are saying now. This is dealing more with upwelling when you are talking about tranferring heat energy from the lower levels to the upper levels. It is also my understanding that the surface layers of the water are freshening due to glacial melt. This, in the way that I see it, would only further reinforce the warmer, deeper waters to remain the warmer, deeper waters. Am I missing something in what you are trying to say? How would any of this negate the fact that atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Quoting 10. tvengineer:

Global warming caused by man is a hoax. The Earth exists in the Sun's atmosphere, think about that for a moment.
When other planets surface temperatures in our solar system track each other thats a little clue.
59 million years ago the Earth had a higher avg. temperature, no automobiles or fossil fuels existed.
So yes the Earth may be warming, or cooling depending on where you live, and there is more Ice in the Antartic than ever- (just ask the global warming research ship captain that had to rescued because the ice was so thick]- to think man can effect the weather is non-sense. I for one will look for the US to stop funding these phony scientists. The money could be used for infrastructure and inner cities....

PS: Im greatly looking forward to much lower heating bills this winter, how about you?

Good day...

Earl

yeah sure it is if you want too know the truth we should actually already be in a cooling phase along time ago but in fact we are not this is the scary part there is a variable movement to warm back to cool then warm then cool but its not going that way any longer its warm warmer warmest



maybe the entire graph should be deep red before we accept that something is wrong and as its going it will be in 20 years or so maybe even faster
Quoting 10. tvengineer:

Global warming caused by man is a hoax. The Earth exists in the Sun's atmosphere, think about that for a moment.
When other planets surface temperatures in our solar system track each other thats a little clue.
59 million years ago the Earth had a higher avg. temperature, no automobiles or fossil fuels existed.
So yes the Earth may be warming, or cooling depending on where you live, and there is more Ice in the Antartic than ever- (just ask the global warming research ship captain that had to rescued because the ice was so thick]- to think man can effect the weather is non-sense. I for one will look for the US to stop funding these phony scientists. The money could be used for infrastructure and inner cities....

PS: Im greatly looking forward to much lower heating bills this winter, how about you?

Good day...

Earl



Denying the physical properties of a gas is not a very well thought out argument.

1. Are the other planets warming? Well, some due to seasonal variation, but not all. Link

2. Climate of the past, understanding forcings and natural variation are key here. The focus is what is causing this warming, the planet does warm by magic Link

3. The Arctic and Antarctic are different, one is ocean surrounded by land, the other land surrounded by ocean. Relative increases in Antarctic Sea Ice can be explained by numerous factors, however, there is a current massive drop in Antarctic Sea Ice, and overall, the small gains do not offset the large losses in the Arctic, all else aside. Link

4. To think we cannot impact the atmosphere is foolish, see: Ozone hole and aerosols

5. If it was merely U.S. scientists telling us about global warming, maybe your comment would make sense, however, every major scientific organization in the WORLD supports the science behind human driven climate change as it is based in the solid sciences of physics and chemistry. Link

I'll go back to not posting again, we need to move beyond this nonsense.
Wisconsin State Government is also on board it seems in terms of carbon emissions:


In an attempt to find answers to these and countless other questions, the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) was formed as a collaboration between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and UW-Madison's Nelson Institute, both of which had begun to examine the issue of climate change impacts. Since DNR Secretary Matt Frank and then- Nelson Institute Director Lewis Gilbert signed an agreement to form WICCI in the fall of 2007, the initiative has grown to include representatives from other state and federal agencies, several UW System schools, tribal organizations, businesses and nonprofit groups.

The initiative is distinct from the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming, which was formed to recommend ways to mitigate climate change, primarily by curbing carbon emissions. WICCI, on the other hand, was established as an independent effort to identify and prepare for the consequences of climate change regardless of its cause. The operating principle is that climate change is underway and is gaining momentum. Even if we stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow, changes that are already in the system will continue to develop for at least another century. Adapting to these changes is critical to Wisconsin's future, regardless of how the state decides to reduce the causes of climate change.

"Wisconsin is taking steps to address the causes of climate change, including creation of the Governor's Global Warming Task Force and the signing of a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord with 10 other Midwestern states," says DNR Secretary Matt Frank. "WICCI complements these actions by helping communities, businesses and citizens prepare for climate change impacts, even as we work to reduce them."

Quoting 39. Patrap:

Faster and faster.


We're all gonna get Hydrated.

Quoting 10. tvengineer:

Global warming caused by man is a hoax.

Yet, I see on your own page that you're into the chemtrail "spraying" conspiracy. Talk about a hoax.
Quoting 8. elioe:

I still believe, that major part of the exceptional warmth poleward of 80 degrees north is due to heat escaping from beneath the halocline. But atmospheric conditions have to be the reason for record low ice cover, since the areas, where ice is abnormally absent, are on the continental shelf.

Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa talks about wave action and the thermal mixing of arctic sea water.
Quoting 17. Some1Has2BtheRookie:



OK, I understand what you are saying now. This is dealing more with upwelling when you are talking about tranferring heat energy from the lower levels to the upper levels. It is also my understanding that the surface layers of the water are freshening due to glacial melt. This, in the way that I see it, would only further reinforce the warmer, deeper waters to remain the warmer, deeper waters. Am I missing something in what you are trying to say? How would any of this negate the fact that atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


Glacial melt and increase in runoff of rivers surrounding the Arctic have the effect of more freshwater getting into the Arctic. Whether it results in the freshening of surface layer, depends on how much saltwater it's mixed into. My view is, that only the presence of all-year-round ice cover over the deep parts of Arctic Ocean is suppressing the mixing of huge amounts of deep, salty water into the surface layer. As climate changes, sea ice cover gets smaller, and there is more upwelling. That brings heat and salt to the surface layer in ever-increasing amounts. This helps to reduce the sea ice cover further. Finally, some time in not-so-distant future, the surface layer at freezing point is denser than the warm deep water. The deep parts of Arctic will enter an all-year-round icefree mode, which lasts at least decades, while the excess warmth of deep ocean gets slowly released.

That is no way negates the effect of carbon dioxide. Those two effects act together. Needless to say, pure radiative processes so far could in no way explain the warming of Arctic. If the global climate models have missed this effect I'm discussing, it could explain, why they have underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice by an order of magnitude.
Quoting 19. Naga5000:

...[W]e need to move beyond this nonsense.
Agreed. It seems that every time Dr. Masters and/or Bob Henson take the time to research, write, and post a fact-filled, science-based blog entry such as this one, a small number of forum members feel compelled to stop by and start spouting utter nonsense. That seems a little like visiting a science forum dedicated to aerodynamics, and interrupting the proceedings by loudly proclaiming that there's really no such thing as lift, and that airplanes are really able to fly only because they have invisible sky fairies tethered to their wings--and then complaining when others point out just where and how wrong you are.

I don't get it.

Reasoned arguments, rational refutations, and scientific skepticism are not only acceptable, but necessary. But being forced to relitigate a mountain of solid scientific evidence several times per blog entry simply because some are ideologically blind and/or too intellectually incurious to do more than parrot what they hear on talk radio? Not the same. Not the same at all.
Quoting 10. tvengineer:

Global warming caused by man is a hoax. The Earth exists in the Sun's atmosphere, think about that for a moment.
When other planets surface temperatures in our solar system track each other thats a little clue.
59 million years ago the Earth had a higher avg. temperature, no automobiles or fossil fuels existed.
So yes the Earth may be warming, or cooling depending on where you live, and there is more Ice in the Antartic than ever- (just ask the global warming research ship captain that had to rescued because the ice was so thick]- to think man can effect the weather is non-sense. I for one will look for the US to stop funding these phony scientists. The money could be used for infrastructure and inner cities....

PS: Im greatly looking forward to much lower heating bills this winter, how about you?

Good day...

Earl



For now I will assume that you are serious, and not trolling. Please explain using thermodynamics why us adding huge quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere does not reduce the amount of heat lost to space. While you are at it, also explain why the average temperature on Venus, with a greenhouse gas-laden atmosphere is significantly hotter than even the sun-facing side of Mercury (467C vs 427C) even though it receives far less heat from the sun as it is much further away ( 67 vs 36 million miles). Note the average temperature of Mercury is much lower (167C).

Let's stop feeding the trolls, they won't know how to get food anywhere else. ;)
Quoting 26. Neapolitan:

Agreed. It seems that every time Dr. Masters and/or Bob Henson take the time to research, write, and post a fact-filled, science-based blog entry such as this one, a small number of forum members feel compelled to stop by and start spouting utter nonsense. That seems a little like visiting a science forum dedicated to aerodynamics, and interrupting the proceedings by loudly proclaiming that there's really no such thing as lift, and that airplanes are really able to fly only because they have invisible sky fairies tethered to their wings--and then complaining when others point out just where and how wrong you are.

I don't get it.

Reasoned arguments, rational refutations, and scientific skepticism are not only acceptable, but necessary. But being forced to relitigate a mountain of solid scientific evidence several times per blog entry simply because some are ideologically blind and/or too intellectually incurious to do more than parrot what they hear on talk radio? Not the same. Not the same at all.


Sadly, Captain Chemtrail is simply a man of his time.
Checkout oxford's word of the year for 2016.
On a more serious note, when looking at the Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, one thing that appears to me to get lost is that when we have a succession of years above average, that actually drives up the average itself for that period, hence the graph slightly under represents the significance of the increases. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Thanks Dr. Masters...
Quoting 30. NNYer:

On a more serious note, when looking at the Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, one thing that appears to me to get lost is that when we have a succession of years above average, that actually drives up the average itself for that period, hence the graph slightly under represents the significance of the increases. Am I interpreting this correctly?


It certainly can, but if you notice, most data is compared to the average over a certain period. Provided that time period is kept constant then that bias is eliminated. The temperature deviation shown in Fig 1 in the blog shows a deviation from the average for 1981 to 2010. However, as AGW was well underway during that period, the data does indeed downplay the deviation from the pre-industrial average..
Quoting 24. elioe:



Glacial melt and increase in runoff of rivers surrounding the Arctic have the effect of more freshwater getting into the Arctic. Whether it results in the freshening of surface layer, depends on how much saltwater it's mixed into. My view is, that only the presence of all-year-round ice cover over the deep parts of Arctic Ocean is suppressing the mixing of huge amounts of deep, salty water into the surface layer. As climate changes, sea ice cover gets smaller, and there is more upwelling. That brings heat and salt to the surface layer in ever-increasing amounts. This helps to reduce the sea ice cover further. Finally, some time in not-so-distant future, the surface layer at freezing point is denser than the warm deep water. The deep parts of Arctic will enter an all-year-round icefree mode, which lasts at least decades, while the excess warmth of deep ocean gets slowly released.

That is no way negates the effect of carbon dioxide. Those two effects act together. Needless to say, pure radiative processes so far could in no way explain the warming of Arctic. If the global climate models have missed this effect I'm discussing, it could explain, why they have underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice by an order of magnitude.


My view is that you are more describing a feedback due to a warming climate and less of an initiator of a warming climate. Would you agree to this? One of the things that Science has yet to tell us is when a feedback would initialize and how influential it would be in the rate of global temperature rise.
Quoting 26. Neapolitan:

Agreed. It seems that every time Dr. Masters and/or Bob Henson take the time to research, write, and post a fact-filled, science-based blog entry such as this one, a small number of forum members feel compelled to stop by and start spouting utter nonsense. That seems a little like visiting a science forum dedicated to aerodynamics, and interrupting the proceedings by loudly proclaiming that there's really no such thing as lift, and that airplanes are really able to fly only because they have invisible sky fairies tethered to their wings--and then complaining when others point out just where and how wrong you are.

I don't get it.

Reasoned arguments, rational refutations, and scientific skepticism are not only acceptable, but necessary. But being forced to relitigate a mountain of solid scientific evidence several times per blog entry simply because some are ideologically blind and/or too intellectually incurious to do more than parrot what they hear on talk radio? Not the same. Not the same at all.
Hello Nea...I have learned a few here ( now and in the past ) just argue because they enjoy it, or like the attention...It is weird to say the least.
Quoting 12. Skyepony:

Your views of how promising that would be don't look all that popular in Finland. Why are the overwhelming majority of Finnish people so worried about climate change & you are not? Personally all the Finnish I know are concerned about it for the obvious reasons. You are the first Finn I've seen that welcomes AGW like an oil baron, so had to see what the stats were.. You really are in the minority there.


Depends on which socioeconomic circle those you have seen belongs. And depends on how closely you know them.

Like majority of Americans, majority of Finns are also scientifically illiterate. Our school system may get praise, but it's simply, because it is effective in shoving information down pupils' throats. For the majority of people, once they have finished their part in the school system, the foremost problem they are pondering in their minds is, whether Ridge will marry Brooke or Taylor next. I, unlike many, gather information from various sources about subjects like climate change, even when not forced to do so by the educational system.

So, why are many people here "concerned" about climate change? Because the mainstream media gives them a public environment, where the only acceptable opinion is to be concerned. Journalists adhere overwhelmingly to green movement. They think about global consequences for humans. They think about consequences to various ecosystems. Definitely they do not think (or understand), how much money and resources it takes to have a global energy revolution. If a public figure were to mention anything positive about climate change, a full scale media assault would be launched on such a person. Any general polls are sensitive to the "Trump effect". The people, who know about media bias on climate change, are likely to say "they are concerned" and "climate change is bad" in polls, even if they really think to the contrary. Because they shield themselves.

Quoting 12. Skyepony:
Even as parts of the Arctic get even warmer, the sun wouldn't shine there at all from like October/Nov to March or so & then in the summer the sun doesn't set at all, Spring and fall there is some day and night but things look froze over then some too...That doesn't seem like great or even marginal Agriculture conditions, plants need day & night, mostly without frost.


Not all plants require a diurnal cycle. Small-scale agriculture already extends north of Arctic Circle in Finland and Norway. In case of Arctic archipelagoes, the main point isn't agriculture, since there's basically no soil either. The first plants to likely survive in these archipelagoes are moss and lichen. The latter makes reindeer herding possible. As climate continues to warm, many species of berries, that are short, and need only a small nutrient intake, can colonize the archipelagoes. Meanwhile, algae can grow in the icefree waters, supporting increased fishery. That's not like the archipelagoes become the new global grain silo. There will be simply more for humans to use, than the preindustrial situation, which was: Practically nothing.

Quoting 12. Skyepony:

Also Finland enjoys a longer growing season right now than other places at the same latitude like Anchorage, Alaska because of the warm gulf stream waters, because the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift Current moderates the climate, Finland contains half of the world's arable land north of 60° north latitude. The gulf stream is slowing due to climate change and as that slows more, Finland's growing season would shorten or stay the same. Just not seeing the gulf stream factor included in studies saying Finland's growing season will be 1.5 months longer.


Also here in Finland, mainstream media is always giving the impression, that a new local cool period is imminent. Normally the chain reaction goes like this:
1) Mr. Rahmstorf publishes a study, which correctly implies via models and empirical evidence, that fresh water influx is suppressing the Labrador Sea branch of thermohaline circulation.
2) The story gets distorted into a claim, that the entire AMOC was in trouble. That can be easily disproven by looking at SST anomalies near Norway and Svalbard.
3) Media starts a frenzy about this distorted vision, purposefully, to give Finns the impression that we would not receive any beneficial effects of climate change.
For the reason, why Norwegian Sea branch of thermohaline circulation won't be doomed in the future either, see comment #24.

Quoting 12. Skyepony:

We can grow food in FL just about all year round and export more than you produce. Putting FL under to try and lengthen your season isn't a good convincing factor for most of us to get behind climate change.. Reading about Finland agriculture and the history of is actually pretty sad. Better growing conditions elsewhere and cheap shipping has really about put your food production AG under.


I'm not convincing to get people "behind climate change". Mostly I'm trying to disprove claims, that each country and every individual on this planet are going to suffer as a result of climate change. And our agriculture is already benefiting from climate change. Especially rapeseed cultivation has increased dramatically. Even without climate change, continued population growth on this planet would have eventually increased the price of food so much, that increase of agriculture would've become viable, even with the high wages we'd have to give for new agricultural workers.

Quoting 12. Skyepony:

78% of the Finnish population – an overwhelming majority – indicated that addressing climate change was either urgent or very urgent.


"Addressing climate change", yes. I also think that addressing climate change is urgent. Finland needs to address climate change in all planning of future infrastructure, yes. Such as any country does.

"Combating climate change" would be a different thing. For me, it's not even a question, whether we humans should stop global warming. It's a matter of predicting, that we won't. Pure economics dictate that outcome. Net negative effects worldwide from climate change will run into tens of trillions USD. But so would the "premature" replacement of fossil fuels by the most cost-efficient alternative, nuclear power. Replacing fossils with wind and solar could easily cost hundreds of trillions of USD. I'm already a BA in Energy Engineering. I couldn't survive in my future profession, if I fantasized about "individual contribution leading the way in global energy source change blah blah blah...". I have to accept the economic reality of this world.
Brian Schmidt: Climate change is a real, existential threat that should be dealt with immediately
BAS - Nov 11.
In 2015, just in time for the upcoming Paris meeting on climate change, something very rare happened. On the last day of a weeklong conference of dozens of physicists and 650 young scientists on an island in Lake Constance in Germany, 71 Nobel laureates issued a call to action and signed their names to it.

Bas: Say you're on an elevator, and someone asks you what is the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change? Do you have a 30-second explanation you can give? What's your quick summary of what it is and what it's trying to do?

Schmidt: The Mainau Declaration was a group of 70-some Nobel Prize-winners coming together to state categorically that climate change is real, it's profound, and the world community needs to act on it. And failure to act on climate change would lead to existential risk, or the crash of global civilization as we know it.
blue line is where the ice should be for this time of year




Trends in sea ice thickness/volume are another important indicator of Arctic climate change. While sea ice thickness observations are sparse, here we utilize the ocean and sea ice model, PIOMAS (Zhang and Rothrock, 2003), to visualize October sea ice thickness from 1979 to 2016. Sea ice less than 1.5 meters is masked out (black) to emphasize the loss of thicker, older ice. Updated through October 2016.

Credit: Zachary Michael Labe, Ph.D. Student, Department of Earth System Science
The University of California, Irvine
.cam wont post
second try



NOTE: The camera image is often obscured due to harsh and unpredictable weather conditions. A guy wire supporting the tower upon which the Palmer Station camera is mounted can be seen in most images.
Located on Anvers Island near the Antarctic Peninsula, Palmer Station (64° 46’S, 64° 03’W) is named for Nathaniel B. Palmer, who in 1820 on a sealing expedition in his 47-foot (14-meter) ship the Hero became the first American to record sighting Antarctica. The original station was built in 1965. In 1967, the U.S. Navy began construction of the current larger and more permanent station approximately a mile east of the original site. The first building at the new station, the biology laboratory, opened its doors to science in 1970.
Quoting 35. Some1Has2BtheRookie:



My view is that you are more describing a feedback due to a warming climate and less of an initiator of a warming climate. Would you agree to this? One of the things that Science has yet to tell us is when a feedback would initialize and how influential it would be in the rate of global temperature rise.


I agree.
44. bwi
Quoting 41. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

.cam wont post



I fixed it, KOTG.


Cameras on a post
Quoting 8. elioe:

I still believe, that major part of the exceptional warmth poleward of 80 degrees north is due to heat escaping from beneath the halocline. But atmospheric conditions have to be the reason for record low ice cover, since the areas, where ice is abnormally absent, are on the continental shelf.


What is causing mixing through the halocline where there was less before? Not a loaded question asked by a lawyer, a real question from someone who does not know. I'll also ask Elioe to define it rather than posting mine which is likely not as accurate.

Quoting 1. MahFL:

The article was saying although about 65% of Americans are sure Global Warming is occurring, it's not a subject they talk about with other people, including family members, it's not high on the list of their priorities.

President - Elect Trump has said he wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement immediately, but the agreement has a 4 year waiting period before you can pull out, how's that going to work out ?

By that way I do believe myself in climate change, just so people are clear about that....


The agreement was never ratified by the Senate and he can unilaterally pull out at any time.
Every time I drive across the Howard Frankland Bridge going northbound on I-275 towards Tampa, I'll look across the bay towards the Gandy and see this wonderful or not so wonderful smokestacks from TECO Electric and Apollo Beach Power Plant. I tell myself look at the constant flow of CO2 and other gases being generated every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, at some point that smoke accumulates with other naturally occurring cloud formation from condensation and water vapor. We can't keep on doing this to ourselves, I feel really bad for people who live nearby and have developed health problems, or have had to move away because of concerns about it. The best solutions are to transition to solar power, hydroelectric power, and wind farms, it's naturally generated, it's healthy, it's much more friendlier to the environment for both plants and animals (God forbid we get another BP Oil Spill) and it really is endless, until the sun flames out and becomes a red giant. Trust me, if you work in a coal mine now, would you rather continue working underground in that sultry heat and suffocating air, it's hard work, lots of health risk, (God forbid we get another Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster) or would you rather be working outside in the open fields in the fresh air? That answer is easy for me, not sure about you all. See just ask yourself these questions. Actually, I would love to get an insight from a coal miner in here on their thoughts on climate change and having the opportunity to work for a renewable energy sector job.



Too bad I won't be here to see this event.

What will happen to the Earth when the sun becomes a red giant?
In the solar system, the sun will engulf Mercury and Venus, and may devour Earth, as well. A red giant star is a dying star in the last stages of stellar evolution. In only a few billion years, our own sun will turn into a red giant star, expand and engulf the inner planets, possibly even Earth.
Interesting as always! :)
Quoting 39. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

blue line is where the ice should be for this time of year






The polar bears waiting to walk onto Hudson Bay will have a longer than usual wait this year
Quoting 21. EmsiNasklug:


We're all gonna get Hydrated.



I love water! I'm fine with that. Lol
Quoting 45. Some1Has2BtheRookie:



I fixed it, KOTG.


Cameras on a post

I got mine to post as well image and info was all pasted together
I think anyway its seeable now
Quoting 50. georgevandenberghe:



The polar bears waiting to walk onto Hudson Bay will have a longer than usual wait this year
most of the outer area of the ice is slush ice as my grandfather would call
it is first year ice or will be when winter ends even then it will only be six months old wont even make it to year
on the bright side we start seeing a bit of a snow cover coming by this coming tuseday some good news



be good for making water when it melts later
Quoting 24. elioe:



Glacial melt and increase in runoff of rivers surrounding the Arctic have the effect of more freshwater getting into the Arctic. Whether it results in the freshening of surface layer, depends on how much saltwater it's mixed into. My view is, that only the presence of all-year-round ice cover over the deep parts of Arctic Ocean is suppressing the mixing of huge amounts of deep, salty water into the surface layer. As climate changes, sea ice cover gets smaller, and there is more upwelling. That brings heat and salt to the surface layer in ever-increasing amounts. This helps to reduce the sea ice cover further. Finally, some time in not-so-distant future, the surface layer at freezing point is denser than the warm deep water. The deep parts of Arctic will enter an all-year-round icefree mode, which lasts at least decades, while the excess warmth of deep ocean gets slowly released.

That is no way negates the effect of carbon dioxide. Those two effects act together. Needless to say, pure radiative processes so far could in no way explain the warming of Arctic. If the global climate models have missed this effect I'm discussing, it could explain, why they have underestimated the loss of Arctic sea ice by an order of magnitude.


Fresh water reaches its maximum density at 4C and becomes less dense with further cooling. This blocks mixing unless the mean temperature is close to 4C above and causes most deep bodies of fresh water to have a shallow mixed layer at the surface and a thermocline through which mixing is blocked. In midlatitudes the surface layer averages warmer. I am not as knowledgable about the dynamics of deep water bodies in regions with average temperatures lower than 4C.

Salt complicates everything. Salty water is denser and sinks. As water evaporates from the ocean surface it gets more salty. The effect is minor in most of the ocean but in a few locations, off the North Coast of Antarctica and in the waters around southern Greenland, evaporation is enormous and most of the deep cold water in the entire global ocean body forms in one of these two regions. Incidentally at the equator, well below the thermocline, water temperatures are arctic cold, near the melting point of said saltwater. This stuff does not mix up.

Since the Arctic surface temperature forcing ranges from net heat flux into the ocean in summer (melting and warming) and flux out most of the rest of the year, its dynamics are more complicated. I'll leave Elioe who sounds very knowledgeable to both explain further and correct. But I am skeptical that we will get a mechanism to mix through the entire depth of the ocean. If we do, he's right, even winter ice will be gone with radical effects on the general circulation since the Ocean will become an intense heat source.



Quoting 53. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

most of the outer area of the ice is slush ice as my grandfather would call
it is first year ice or will be when winter ends even then it will only be six months old wont even make it to year


The bears only need a few weeks of freezing for the ice to be walkable for them. Hudson Bay ice rarely (since I've been out of grad school, 1987, NEVER) survives the summer.
Quoting 10. tvengineer:


I see you've added some select quotes from pundits from The Daily Caller and Infowars. That's some good science you have there.
1 year animation ice thickness

1 year animation ice concentration

Quoting 18. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

yeah sure it is if you want too know the truth we should actually already be in a cooling phase along time ago but in fact we are not this is the scary part there is a variable movement to warm back to cool then warm then cool but its not going that way any longer its warm warmer warmest



maybe the entire graph should be deep red before we accept that something is wrong and as its going it will be in 20 years or so maybe even faster


Dude, years before I even got my GED, my homeschooling education was so terrible, I pretty much only knew how to divide and multiply stuff. I still knew how to pick out trends on graphs, though. Why am I mentioning this? Because understanding the science behind AGW is literally so easy that even a pathetic excuse for a dropout like me was able to do it back then.
Quoting 18. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

yeah sure it is if you want too know the truth we should actually already be in a cooling phase along time ago but in fact we are not this is the scary part there is a variable movement to warm back to cool then warm then cool but its not going that way any longer its warm warmer warmest



maybe the entire graph should be deep red before we accept that something is wrong and as its going it will be in 20 years or so maybe even faster


Perhaps some year (followed by another) where the U.S. midwestern summer rains just stop,, worse than 1988, will alert us that something really bad has just tipped!
whole year of North Atlantic Subpolar gyre



Disclaimer: NRL is providing the INFORMATION on an "as is" basis. NRL does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit for any particular purpose, and NRL does not guarantee availability, service, or timely delivery of data.
30 days of gom sst's animation cooling nicely



Disclaimer: NRL is providing the INFORMATION on an "as is" basis. NRL does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit for any particular purpose, and NRL does not guarantee availability, service, or timely delivery of data.

Central California will be in the right front entrance of a jet max through the weekend with a front stalling over the region for prolonged moderate and possibly heavy rainfall. Forecast has a wave developing on the front which may further enhance ppt as the associated surface low propagates onshore. Coastal SSTs remain milder than normal for the time of year.
Presented sans commentary:

“Surreal” U.S. Wildfires Should Not be Burning in Mid-November
The smoke here in Atlanta has been surreal — Meteorologist Stu Ostro

*****

It’s a script that reads like something from the pages of a dystopian sci-fi novel:

In Dallas, on November 16, the thermometer hit 88 degrees Fahrenheit, breaking a 95 year old record. In Ada, Oklahoma the mercury struck 85 degrees F. Further north in high-elevation Denver, temperatures soared to 78 F — punching through a 75 year old record.

Meanwhile, strange, out-of-season wildfires continued to burn from the U.S. South to North Dakota and New England. In Atlanta, smoke streaming out of nearby wildfires blanketed the city. Red-eyed residents were increasingly forced to don protective masks beneath the choking late-fall pallor. In Chattanooga, over 200 residents were hospitalized from smoke inhalation and shortness of breath.


Link

Quoting 56. georgevandenberghe:



Well, basically, the mechanism should exist, because it exists everywhere else. In lower latitudes, wind causes a certain amount of turbulence in water column, those turbulent motions receiving a certain kinetic energy per unit time. Meanwhile, as part of thermohaline circulation, the water has a net rising motion. To maintain a stationary depth for the thermocline, certain amount of that kinetic energy of turbulence has to become potential energy of the cold deep water, which gets mixed into the less dense surface layer above it.

Without the ice cover of Arctic inhibiting wind-driven turbulence, I don't see, why the same rate of potential energy deposition wouldn't happen also in the Arctic. If the same rate was to be applied to the Arctic (in which, net vertical velocity is essentially zero), within a few years of ice-free conditions, enough salty deep water would've mixed into the surface layer to make the entire water column unstable.

Ps. I may be somewhat knowledgeable, but I'm not a climatologist. I'm an energy engineering student, and my knowledge of flows and thermodynamics comes primarily from there. I don't follow the progress in climatology systematically, so someone may have already disproven my hypothesis.


watch our developing la nina

Quoting 62. KoritheMan:



.
I love reading kori always have I love information it makes you aware
my misses tells me all the time
stop reading one day you will read so much
you will get to a point where nothing will make sense anymore
then you shall truly go mad
Great Smog of London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Smog of London Nelson's Column during the Great Smog of 1952.jpg
Nelson's Column during the Great Smog of 1952
Date 5 to 9 December 1952
Location London, England

The Great Smog of 1952, sometimes called The Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal – to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

Although it caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrated indoor areas, the smog was not thought to be a significant event while it was under way, since London had experienced many smog events in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]




Picadilly Circus - 1952 It was so thick one couldn't see the elephants.



we have Winter Storm Argos from TWC 1st named storm of the season


TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
700 PM EST THU NOV 17 2016

For the North Atlantic...Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico:

1. Cloudiness and showers over the southwestern Caribbean Sea are
associated with a broad low pressure area. This system continues
to show little change in organization. However, environmental
conditions are expected to be conducive for slow development during
the next several days, and a tropical depression could form by late
this weekend or early next week while the low moves slowly and
erratically.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...low...20 percent
* Formation chance through 5 days...high...70 percent

76. bwi
Quoting 67. Neapolitan:

Presented sans commentary:




As a statistician, it's very difficult to see how that graphic is within any reasonable usual tolerance. That sort of deviation from the norm looks like the sort of thing that would normally only be explained by a gigantic global shock like an epoch-ending asteroid strike or supervolcano, not the normal passage of seasons.

I haven't paid attention to Antarctic sea ice much, but I think if is a signal that Antarctic ice is now decreasing in the way the Arctic sea ice has decreased over the last three decades, it could hasten the loss of the ice shelves, which, in turn, would speed up land ice sheet flow.

Hold on to your butts folks, Dr. Hansen's theories about accelerating change and doubling times, which were regarded by many serious climate scholars as an unlikely extreme case, might not be so unrealistic after all!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/

Quoting 62. KoritheMan:



Because understanding the science behind AGW is literally so easy that even a pathetic excuse for a dropout like me was able to do it back then.


I learned about the greenhouse effect in fifth grade science class. It was really easy to understand.
I was listening to a Podcast and these scientists were discussing past abrupt changes in climate due to Asteroid impacts. They were mainly discussing evidence of past impacts and the possibility of future impacts.
But then the topic of the Great Ice Age Flood from about 15,000 years ago came up. They posted this picture of the flood path in Washington State. I thought it was a really cool image so I thought I'd post it. The podcast is new from today on JRE if anyone is interested in hearing it.

Cool image of the flood path.

Quoting 9. FatPenguin:



In my opinion, a better way to phrase your last sentence is "I do believe in the science of climate change."


Mehn~

It's a bit like saying "I believe in death".

'Belief' isn't involved at all. It's just a plain fact.

I do believe, though, that I'll raise a glass to Climate Change:

It's the one thing that will finally put humans in their place.
Quoting 80. MontanaZephyr:



Mehn~

It's a bit like saying "I believe in death".

'Belief' isn't involved at all. It's just a plain fact.

I do believe, though, that I'll raise a glass to Climate Change:

It's the one thing that will finally put humans in their place.

Well said. Very, very well said.
Quoting 27. OviedoWatcher:



For now I will assume that you are serious, and not trolling. Please explain using thermodynamics why us adding huge quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere does not reduce the amount of heat lost to space. While you are at it, also explain why the average temperature on Venus, with a greenhouse gas-laden atmosphere is significantly hotter than even the sun-facing side of Mercury (467C vs 427C) even though it receives far less heat from the sun as it is much further away ( 67 vs 36 million miles). Note the average temperature of Mercury is much lower (167C).




Deniers are either paid shills or delusional. Period.

So there's no point at all in responding to them; reason will have no effect.

If you like we can make a game of it. Is this one delusional or paid? I'd say delusional. Paids tend to go into long obfuscational BS presentations. This one is more on the yaba-dabba whip-ding side.
Episode 4 of Netflix's The Crown features the 1952 London Smog as a major part of the plot line.

Quoting 73. Grothar:

Great Smog of London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Smog of London Nelson's Column during the Great Smog of 1952.jpg
Nelson's Column during the Great Smog of 1952
Date 5 to 9 December 1952
Location London, England

The Great Smog of 1952, sometimes called The Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal – to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

Although it caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrated indoor areas, the smog was not thought to be a significant event while it was under way, since London had experienced many smog events in the past, called "pea-soupers". Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]




Picadilly Circus - 1952 It was so thick one couldn't see the elephants.




Quoting 83. oxnardprof:

Episode 4 of Netflix's The Crown features the 1952 London Smog as a major part of the plot line.




I saw it. It had me all choked up.
Quoting 48. GTstormChaserCaleb:

Every time I drive across the Howard Frankland Bridge going northbound on I-275 towards Tampa, I'll look across the bay towards the Gandy and see this wonderful or not so wonderful smokestacks from TECO Electric and Apollo Beach Power Plant. I tell myself look at the constant flow of CO2 and other gases being generated every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, at some point that smoke accumulates with other naturally occurring cloud formation from condensation and water vapor. We can't keep on doing this to ourselves, I feel really bad for people who live nearby and have developed health problems, or have had to move away because of concerns about it. The best solutions are to transition to solar power, hydroelectric power, and wind farms, it's naturally generated, it's healthy, it's much more friendlier to the environment for both plants and animals (God forbid we get another BP Oil Spill) and it really is endless, until the sun flames out and becomes a red giant. Trust me, if you work in a coal mine now, would you rather continue working underground in that sultry heat and suffocating air, it's hard work, lots of health risk, (God forbid we get another Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster) or would you rather be working outside in the open fields in the fresh air? That answer is easy for me, not sure about you all. See just ask yourself these questions. Actually, I would love to get an insight from a coal miner in here on their thoughts on climate change and having the opportunity to work for a renewable energy sector job.



Too bad I won't be here to see this event.

What will happen to the Earth when the sun becomes a red giant?
In the solar system, the sun will engulf Mercury and Venus, and may devour Earth, as well. A red giant star is a dying star in the last stages of stellar evolution. In only a few billion years, our own sun will turn into a red giant star, expand and engulf the inner planets, possibly even Earth.


I agree- used to live over your way before moving to St Augustine. the sad part of all this is the GOP complains and whines about Obama's enviromental regulations regarding power plants...they claim ( as they always seem to do whenever there is change..whether it be seat belts in cars...airbargs in cars or whatever that the sky is falling and the impacts of change will bankrupt the nation) that the economic toll is high. Scare tactics ...oh electric prices will double...triple and jobs will be lost etc. The sad part is nobody says hey..these out dated power plants are running on ancient furnaces...wasteful just like our old boat like cars were in the 70s..gee..how about all the new jobs created building high tech furnaces. Ones made in the good old USA because we have the tech vs say China...or oooh..these new higher tech furnaces or natural gas is actually cheaper in the long run...less cost to run...and far less health costs to our population in the long run . But no...be it switching to unleaded gas...airbags or even no smoking in offices or planes or trains...the GOP cries bloody murder....doomsday stuff which in the end always is proven wrong. Remember them screaming about phasing out filament light bulbs...oh...we will be in the dark because the new tech costs so much nobody will be able to buy lightbulbs. I always chuckle...then cry later because its so depressing to watch the ill logic take root
Re: post 37. elioe
(Speaking about the Finnish people) "Definitely they do not think (or understand) how much money and resources it takes to have a global energy revolution."
Here we are at the crux of the problem. The capitalist economic system brought us to this precipice. I don't think it's wise to look to capitalism to provide us with the means to walk ourselves back. Watching a few hours of any commercial TV channel in the U.S., broadcast or cable, means being hosed with a torrent of advertising, and while these ads may not be effective in getting you to buy stuff, they are certainly effective, in the aggregate, in demonstrating that capitalism today is simply nihilism heavily slathered in makeup. What must happen, because if it doesn't nothing will happen, is a restructuring of economies along the lines of what occurred during WWII. When your country was fighting for its survival in 1944, was the cost of munitions high on the list of concerns?
Quoting 85. cameronstaugustine:



I agree- used to live over your way before moving to St Augustine. the sad part of all this is the GOP complains and whines about Obama's enviromental regulations regarding power plants...they claim ( as they always seem to do whenever there is change..whether it be seat belts in cars...airbargs in cars or whatever that the sky is falling and the impacts of change will bankrupt the nation) that the economic toll is high. Scare tactics ...oh electric prices will double...triple and jobs will be lost etc. The sad part is nobody says hey..these out dated power plants are running on ancient furnaces...wasteful just like our old boat like cars were in the 70s..gee..how about all the new jobs created building high tech furnaces. Ones made in the good old USA because we have the tech vs say China...or oooh..these new higher tech furnaces or natural gas is actually cheaper in the long run...less cost to run...and far less health costs to our population in the long run . But no...be it switching to unleaded gas...airbags or even no smoking in offices or planes or trains...the GOP cries bloody murder....doomsday stuff which in the end always is proven wrong. Remember them screaming about phasing out filament light bulbs...oh...we will be in the dark because the new tech costs so much nobody will be able to buy lightbulbs. I always chuckle...then cry later because its so depressing to watch the ill logic take root


I like the way Guy McPhereson (too dickensian a name, BTW), puts it, which is approximately:

"If you think that the economy is more important than habitat, try holding your breath while you count your gold".
I dont understand how a system in the sw caribbean could Develop given the strong northerly winds expected during the weekend ..im confused



Quoting nhc
"Looking ahead, a reinforcing front will enter the
northwest Caribbean on Sunday bringing a surge of strong northerly
winds across the western Caribbean, the Windward Passage, and
along the coasts of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and western Panama into
Monday. Scattered showers and thunderstorms can be expected along
and south of the merged frontal boundary."
winter storm Argos

Quoting 30. NNYer:

On a more serious note, when looking at the Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, one thing that appears to me to get lost is that when we have a succession of years above average, that actually drives up the average itself for that period, hence the graph slightly under represents the significance of the increases. Am I interpreting this correctly?

That depends upon the baseline against which the anomaly is measured. GISS, for instance, uses 1951-1980 as the baseline. So the bulk of the current warming isn't contained within the baseline. Other baselines are used by other data sets, though, and those that use baselines ending in 2000 or after will suffer from the defect you identify.
Good evening!

It's 82 and feeling like 92, partly cloudy, with a 90% chance of rain through tonight.

The islands have been rocking and rolling these last few days with the BVI's ramping up with a four point four and a four point oh (number four won't work on my laptop).... I don't like anything above a four over here, and that's too close for comfort for me.

It's been raining off and on over here every day for the last month or so. I do love it but at this point I'm so sick of the mosquitoes. Starting to be hard to find my "Eau de Off".

Adding insult to injury, there was some sort of problem with transport ships delivering food to the local islands and many of the stores have some bare shelves, mostly fresh vegies and meats. Should be resolved in the next couple of days but it really brings to mind just how fragile a life we lead living on an island in the middle of the ocean!

Hoping all is well with you folks!

Lindy
Climate change a Chinese hoax? Beijing gives Donald Trump a lesson in history
China points out to global warming denier and president-elect that Republicans under Reagan and Bush actually put global warming on international agenda

Link
U.S. Companies to Trump: Don’t Abandon Global Climate Deal

Hundreds of American companies, including Mars, Nike, Levi Strauss and Starbucks, have urged President-elect Donald J. Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal, saying a failure by the United States to build a clean economy endangers American prosperity.

In a plea addressed to Mr. Trump — as well as President Obama and members of Congress — 365 companies and major investors emphasized their “deep commitment to addressing climate change,” and demanded that he leave in place low-emissions policies in the United States.


Link
Quoting 30. NNYer:

On a more serious note, when looking at the Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, one thing that appears to me to get lost is that when we have a succession of years above average, that actually drives up the average itself for that period, hence the graph slightly under represents the significance of the increases. Am I interpreting this correctly?


Well eventually the average will probably be warmer. We'll go from "it's really mild" to " bleeping heck it's really mild"....
Quoting 39. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

blue line is where the ice should be for this time of year...


There is no "should be line" , that line is what used to occur, what occurs now is how it is. Nature will adapt to the new conditions.
Large forest die-offs can have effects that ricochet to distant ecosystems

Swann's previous research looked at how a hypothetical massive tree planting in the Northern Hemisphere to slow global warming could have the unintended effect of changing tropical rainfall. More recent research has shown how European deforestation over the past thousands of years may have reduced rainfall over modern-day Africa.

Read more at: Link
Quoting 95. MahFL:



Well eventually the average will probably be warmer. We'll go from "it's really mild" to " bleeping heck it's really mild"....


Try, "Hell comes to breakfast".
lol, I was just blocked on Facebook by someone I met in a weather group for telling him that he can't claim he's a good forecaster or that he nailed any particular forecast without going back and verifying it. This kid was supposed to be a college student, which is frightening to me.
Quoting 74. thetwilightzone:

we have Winter Storm Argos from TWC 1st named storm of the season
Neat to see a Winter Storm going on, while we have also a Tropical Entity going on.
101. MahFL
Quoting 74. thetwilightzone:

we have Winter Storm Argos from TWC 1st named storm of the season


This morning TWC said the storm would not be named....and now it is...
Quoting 96. MahFL:



There is no "should be line" , that line is what used to occur, what occurs now is how it is. Nature will adapt to the new conditions.


I find these glib quips, posing as deep understanding , shallow as Lake Meade.
99. KoritheMan

It's a post empirical world, evidence is dead, only "feelings, beliefs, and opinions" matter.
Quoting 76. bwi:



As a statistician, it's very difficult to see how that graphic is within any reasonable usual tolerance. That sort of deviation from the norm looks like the sort of thing that would normally only be explained by a gigantic global shock like an epoch-ending asteroid strike or supervolcano, not the normal passage of seasons.

I haven't paid attention to Antarctic sea ice much, but I think if is a signal that Antarctic ice is now decreasing in the way the Arctic sea ice has decreased over the last three decades, it could hasten the loss of the ice shelves, which, in turn, would speed up land ice sheet flow.

Hold on to your butts folks, Dr. Hansen's theories about accelerating change and doubling times, which were regarded by many serious climate scholars as an unlikely extreme case, might not be so unrealistic after all!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/




Tamino posted a similar chart at Open Mind, in the comments he said it was a 6.9 sigma event .

Link
Quoting 83. oxnardprof:

Episode 4 of Netflix's The Crown features the 1952 London Smog as a major part of the plot line.



I was born in 1946 (a 'genuine baby boomer') and grew up in the London Basin (UK).
'Pea Soup Smog' really was green, we used to walk to school in this stuff and joked that 'visibility was two feet' –– as we stood looking down at our own two-feet.
We used to get a temperature inversion that trapped the polluted air between the hills that surround London .... it would last for days on end.
Ah ..... the 'good old days' !!
By the late fifties open coal fires were 'banned', you had to burn 'smokeless' fuel .... coke. It glowed, gave off heat, smelled bad. Eventually it helped to clean things up a bit.
Coke was (still is perhaps) a by-product when making Coal Gas .... the UK burns North Sea Gas (while supplies last !) these days.
Back then, they burned coal for generating electricity too ... so gas or electric your cooking was really done on 'coal' anyway.
Quoting 104. JohnLonergan:



Tamino posted a similar chart at Open Mind, in the comments he said it was a 6.9 sigma event .

Link


We know that heat seeks cold, to see it murdering the birth of Arctic ice in the dark is truly unsettling.
Quoting 96. MahFL:



There is no "should be line" , that line is what used to occur, what occurs now is how it is. Nature will adapt to the new conditions.


But if what's occurring now is different from before, it means there was some of climatic mechanism responsible for initiating a new average. And nobody said nature wouldn't adapt; the problem is that millions of people WON'T adapt. They'll die or have their livelihoods turned completely upside down.
Quoting 103. RobertWC:

99. KoritheMan

It's a post empirical world, evidence is dead, only "feelings, beliefs, and opinions" matter.


We need to stop coddling ourselves by pretending that all opinions are equal, for one.
109. MahFL
Quoting 105. GreatSlaveLake:


By the late fifties open coal fires were 'banned', you had to burn 'smokeless' fuel .... coke...


That was the Clean Air Act 1956. When I lived Bradford, UK, we'd get a few pea soupers too, a lot of smoke from all the wool mills. I recall they cleaned the stone of an old mill that was made into a Museum, the stone went from black to sandstone coloured. It occurred to me, even as a kid, we might have that black stuff in our lungs...
110. elioe
Quoting 56. georgevandenberghe:



Yet on the effects on general circulation. I'm not a meteorologist either, but I guess you are? If indeed deep Arctic were to remain icefree year-round, I could imagine an east-to-west jet stream separating the warm Arctic air from Siberian and North American cold air masses during winter. Places like Finland could get occluding cyclones coming in from the northeast.

And as the Arctic waters would become more dense while cooling, Norwegian branch of thermohaline circulation would go to an overdrive. Perhaps reaching something like 40 million m³/s, as opposed to current discharge of 5 - 10 million m³/s. SST's off Norway would increase dramatically. If such SW-moving low pressure system would come at a correct trajectory, there could be a Foehn wind, causing temperatures in NW Finland to exceed +20 C in December. Our current national December heat record is +11.3 C, set last year. My first comment after joining WU was to inform this blog about that record breaking, lol.
While I believe we are pumping grotesque amounts of fossils fuels into our atmosphere which is bad for all of us in many ways and other pollutants mind you....cfc etc
Just spent the evening looking at Asia and east Asia including Siberia Japan etc...it's colder or as cold in northern Japan than fort mac in Alberta.....what gives?
105. GreatSlaveLake

I was born at Lubbock, Texas in 1949. When I walked home from the 4th grade in the spring, we would see baby horny toads out eating red ants. They have been gone for decades, the red ants are doing just fine.

A waste of good energy.
Comment removed.
bf out
Quoting 111. 19N81W:

While I believe we are pumping grotesque amounts of fossils fuels into our atmosphere which is bad for all of us in many ways and other pollutants mind you....cfc etc
Just spent the evening looking at Asia and east Asia including Siberia Japan etc...it's colder or as cold in northern Japan than fort mac in Alberta.....what gives?


It's called the Dipole. Heat flowing North has knocked the cold off it's old perch. Now it wonders around like a drunken sailor. It set up over Siberia this year, 5 months of snow in one month.
We have a tropical entity?
Quoting 100. Climate175:

Neat to see a Winter Storm going on, while we have also a Tropical Entity going on.


I flew through tons of shear in the region today

Nothing shoeing on this wv nothing happening

It had a chance a few days ago but but the reason the models backed off is the same reason other than Matthew (fluke) verified
The region cannot support anything and even in light of a very warm sst nada
We just don't understand the interconnections yet nor do the models (obviously)
We had a 2 month rainy season in the western carib....that's it
Increasing temps have not at this stage increased severe weather in our region it seems.....
How about tornados ? Its just dry and warm....,these seem to be increasing factors of hotter days
Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 from The Economist. There's a political article I wish I could post here but that time is past.
(n)ever developing 90L?
Quoting 98. RobertWC:



Try, "Hell comes to breakfast".



Quoting 118. BaltimoreBrian:

Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 from The Economist. There's a political article I wish I could post here but that time is past.
then just post a link without commentary other than a title
It's cool keeper, I posted it on Rood's blog since he talks about the presidential election there.
Snow may fall in northeastern US as temperatures plunge up to 50 degrees this weekend

Alex Sosnowski, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist

The first major blast of cold air will sweep across much of the northeastern United States this weekend and will be accompanied by snow and strong winds in some areas.

The same storm set to bring the first heavy snow and blizzard conditions of the season to the northern Plains into Friday will turn eastward this weekend.
Cold air wrapping around the storm will slash temperatures by 25-50 degrees Fahrenheit in about 36 hours from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic. More than half of the temperature plunge can occur in the matter of a few hours.
Temperatures in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Morgantown, West Virginia, and Buffalo, New York, will plummet from the 60s and 70s on Friday to the upper 20s and lower 30s during Saturday night. Then, temperatures may recover by only 10 degrees or less on Sunday.

The transition to cold air will be slightly less dramatic along the Interstate 95 corridor of the mid-Atlantic. However, strong winds will mark the approach and passage of the leading edge of the cold air.
In coastal New England, the bulk of the cold air will not arrive until the end of the weekend, but cold and blustery conditions will make their presence known during Sunday night and Monday.
Throughout the region, temperatures will plunge to 10 to 15 degrees lower than the actual temperature before the weekend draws to a close.
Fallen leaves will be whisked away and loose items in the yard can become projectiles. Gusts can be high enough to break tree limbs and cause sporadic power outages during Saturday night and Sunday.
Snow will fall across the Appalachians and eastern Great Lakes as the cold air will catch up with moisture lingering across the area. The snow will begin in some areas as early as Saturday evening.

"While the exact timing of the snow is questionable this far out, we expect snow to develop over West Virginia and expand northward across western Pennsylvania, northeastern Ohio and western New York during Saturday night and Sunday," according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Brian Wimer.
Roads will transition from wet to slushy to snow-covered over portions of I-68, I-70, I-80, I-90, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and other highways within and along the western slopes of the Appalachians during the second half of the weekend.
Motorists should be prepared for rapidly changing road conditions and visibility due to the sudden temperature drop, gusty winds and heavy nature of the snow in some locations.
Even as moisture from the storm leaves, the first significant lake-effect snow event of the season will develop off lakes Erie, Ontario and Huron and continue Sunday night and into Monday.
Not all of this snow will diminish after crossing the Appalachians.
"The first snowflakes of the season may occur from parts of north-central Maryland to southeastern Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey," Wimer said. "But people should not expect any accumulation outside of the mountains."
Beyond the wintry blast, winds will ease and temperatures will slowly moderate from Tuesday into Wednesday. However, another storm is likely to swing into the region on or before Thanksgiving Day.
winter storm Argos
Quoting 123. VibrantPlanet:

Excellent article by Washington Post - The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends


I moved from South Florida to the Arctic. I think I packed too much heat with me.
Quoting 126. Dakster:



I moved from South Florida to the Arctic. I think I packed too much heat with me.
so it was you
Quoting 76. bwi:



As a statistician, it's very difficult to see how that graphic is within any reasonable usual tolerance. That sort of deviation from the norm looks like the sort of thing that would normally only be explained by a gigantic global shock like an epoch-ending asteroid strike or supervolcano, not the normal passage of seasons.

I haven't paid attention to Antarctic sea ice much, but I think if is a signal that Antarctic ice is now decreasing in the way the Arctic sea ice has decreased over the last three decades, it could hasten the loss of the ice shelves, which, in turn, would speed up land ice sheet flow.

Hold on to your butts folks, Dr. Hansen's theories about accelerating change and doubling times, which were regarded by many serious climate scholars as an unlikely extreme case, might not be so unrealistic after all!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/




"Tipping point" is just too vague a term to describe what is actually happening. It's more like watching a catalyst at work, causing a sudden change in a reaction.

I've always worried that methane could act as a catalyst for sudden climate change, the kind that causes new species to rise, and others to fall.


I wonder how long polar bears and other animals can survive as a species in zoos alone.
VibrantPlanet, thanks for linking that story. Zachary Labe mentioned in the story is blogger blizzard92 on wunderground, although he has moved to bigger and better things :)
Zachary Labe is also on google's Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page as a trusted verified source. And here's a direct link to Zachary's site. I hadn't noticed Zachary being on the google site before this week.
Quoting 128. OracleDeAtlantis:



"Tipping point" is just too vague a term to describe what is actually happening. It's more like watching a catalyst at work, causing a sudden change in a reaction.

I've always worried that methane could act as a catalyst for sudden climate change, the kind that causes new species to rise, and others to fall.

falls first everything stabilizes then rebirth or rise after that
the great cycle of life current cycle is the 5th
perhaps on the verge of the start of 6th cycle
if not already
Quoting 130. BaltimoreBrian:

VibrantPlanet, thanks for linking that story. Zachary Labe mentioned in the story is blogger blizzard92 on wunderground, although he has moved to bigger and better things :)
another that got his start from here he has done well

120. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
3:16 AM GMT on November 18, 2016
Posting some left field soothing clip really gets my hackles up.

I read the list above. They are not watching your clip. They are all trying to make breakfast with hell at the table.

Quoting 112. RobertWC:

105. GreatSlaveLake

I was born at Lubbock, Texas in 1949. When I walked home from the 4th grade in the spring, we would see baby horny toads out eating red ants. They have been gone for decades, the red ants are doing just fine.




Please don't post and throw a line like that, if I wrote an answer to

I would probably get banned
Quoting 135. Grothar:



Please don't post and throw a line like that, if I wrote an answer to

I would probably get banned


Do what ???????????????????
Quoting 135. Grothar:



Please don't post and throw a line like that, if I wrote an answer to

I would probably get banned
maybe probably likely depends
I am really sick of people who are not yet full of mud, thinking it will not happen to them.
I am really sick of people who are not , full of fire, thinking it will not happen to them.
I am really sick of people who have water , thinking drought will not happen to them.

Understand this , everything is on the table. Including your fat happy life.
Quoting 135. Grothar:



Please don't post and throw a line like that, if I wrote an answer to

I would probably get banned


Well you would be in good company, I have banned for 72 hours.
Quoting 111. 19N81W:

While I believe we are pumping grotesque amounts of fossils fuels into our atmosphere which is bad for all of us in many ways and other pollutants mind you....cfc etc
Just spent the evening looking at Asia and east Asia including Siberia Japan etc...it's colder or as cold in northern Japan than fort mac in Alberta.....what gives?


The laws of thermodynamics. Our atmosphere and oceans don't create heat. They store it, move it around, etc. For the planet to warm, it either needs to receive more heat and/or it needs to prevent heat from escaping (greenhouse gases).

Our atmosphere is basically a big heat engine. The equatorial regions get warm and the poles get cold. These temperature differentials are basically what drives the large scale atmospheric patterns.

But what happens when the temperatures aren't quite so different, as in the case of a warming world? Smaller differentials mean weaker jets, and weaker jets are subject to more erratic behavior. For example, typically a strong polar jet forms in the winter which acts as a barrier to keep the cold arctic air locked up. But with the arctic regions rapid rate of warming over the past couple of decades, that polar jet has begun to look more like silly string. This allows for arctic air to pour out of the arctic, which in turn allows for warm air to push into the arctic. It also allows for long term blocking patterns to form. What we're seeing right now is basically a failure of the polar jet, which has allowed a large mass of warm air to displace most (if not all) of the arctic air mass and push it over Siberia and keep it there for an extended period of time. That's not good for the poor people in Siberia and other surrounding regions, and it is certainly not good for the Arctic.

Even though the term climate change describes what's happening, I prefer the term climate destabilization to more accurately describe it. As the world continues to warm, the long term climate patterns man has come to rely upon and expect will continue to breakdown in ever more random and dramatic fashion.

This is all a gross over-simplification but it gives you the general idea.
Quoting 128. OracleDeAtlantis:



"Tipping point" is just too vague a term to describe what is actually happening. It's more like watching a catalyst at work, causing a sudden change in a reaction.

I've always worried that methane could act as a catalyst for sudden climate change, the kind that causes new species to rise, and others to fall.


A large enough release of methane could yield a rapid short term rise in temperatures, but only short term. Methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere (into water vapor and CO2). The additional CO2 from the breakdown would, of course, end up keeping temps warmer but CO2 isn't a s strong a greenhouse gas so after the initial spike things would mellow out a bit.

That's assuming it doesn't kick off a positive feedback loop (which is certainly a possibility). Trying to predict such tipping points though is pretty hard to do, and an ongoing area of active research.
Quoting 117. 19N81W:



I flew through tons of shear in the region today

Nothing shoeing on this wv nothing happening

It had a chance a few days ago but but the reason the models backed off is the same reason other than Matthew (fluke) verified
The region cannot support anything and even in light of a very warm sst nada
We just don't understand the interconnections yet nor do the models (obviously)
We had a 2 month rainy season in the western carib....that's it
Increasing temps have not at this stage increased severe weather in our region it seems.....
How about tornados ? Its just dry and warm....,these seem to be increasing factors of hotter days


I'm inclined to call bs. If your hyperbole were anywhere close to rooted in fact, we'd be seeing entire articles about this fearsome western Caribbean drought.
147. vis0
ACCIDENTALLY click to post the rough draft this the vis0 accepted comment please remove other i've wanted  20 minutes to edit  the other accidentally posted version but it has not posted and i cannot afford to loose my beauty  sleep   hibernation  so i'm posting the somewhat corrected version here::

FOLLOWING IS PART FACTUAL and last paragraph fiction till its discovered.
 
i keep seeing the words "climate change" being used making it seem like its just a cycling thing.  

Its not your every day/eon NATURAL climate change, its abrupt (chemically enhanced by man) climate change aka anthropogenic Global warming aka aGW.

Its not  man directly - physically changing Nature man can't even change a light bulb on time,  its man's introduction of chemical / chemical reactions that otherwise would not happen (have happened) or happen over hundreds of thousands of years,  all being introduced within 200 years as in oil taken out and burned.  
 
If skeptics reply with  how do we power our energy grids?
That's why the quicker we realize out addictions the quicker we get off them.
Humans know of the dangers of burning oil for over 60 years but keep putting off getting off that dangerous greed enhanced addiction by passing the buck.    Most every day folks understand the dangers of burning oil as to ones health, the problem is those in charge of making  decisions at local, and national levels are delaying just like an addict not reaching step ONE of AA, as wanting to realize there is a problem.  
Once we get on the same page (thast there is a problem in burning ANY FORM of compressed fat as in coal or oil for energy) kids then start to think in ways to help as they hear grown ups working together on a problem.  Just like as kids we heard of "man" wanting to go to the moon so through a kid imagination we made up as to how, then as that kid grew up he/she figured actual ways to get to the moon, which did use fuel but just as then,  once kids hearof a need they think of new fueling methods THEN we'll see young  adults implementing those dreams into realistic goals - BUT FIRST ADULTS HAVE TO PLAY NICE WITH REALITY, otherwise kids think hating one another is the norm.

Q For skeptics:: how do you figure that "its natural" (Earth warming from excess co 2) meaning Nature at some point would have burnt (used up) all the oil underground ALL WITHIN 200 years, please explain skeptics.

 
For "imageneers" (engineers that think outside the box) with a scientific mind:: (please put down your musketeer ears/hat aquak9)

Remember that oil when pressurized even more becomes  more important as to wealth and its scientific uses as crystals one day will be discovered to be more useful to science and to the need for producing energy.  If it wee not sad/tragic would like to be there when a Koch bro. or family of today's "oil greeders" still greedy relatives finds out ~2059 that if they'd have stored the oil that is no longer around then, technology could have advanced pressurized the oil into crystals that could be used to power engines and make them 4 to 8 times more money than the most expensive oils.  Again passing certain loose ions through/around crystals while within a base of deep sounds will produce a higher rate of energy than oil, problem is in creating such a tight vacuum in an everyday car, don't think literal physics based vacuum think of tapping into an energy that already does that look at space and recreate....i did with the majeekal device
 
i see we're back to the old server linkage style...wait fer it ...wait fer it... (unless its a delay/timer added so MODs can read them before its viewable)
Quoting 50. georgevandenberghe:



The polar bears waiting to walk onto Hudson Bay will have a longer than usual wait this year

There's rot going on on Svalbard.
149. vis0
ImgLand.net image
Quoting 107. KoritheMan:



But if what's occurring now is different from before, it means there was some of climatic mechanism responsible for initiating a new average. And nobody said nature wouldn't adapt; the problem is that millions of people WON'T adapt. They'll die or have their livelihoods turned completely upside down.
Then the problem will end, less people less CO2. Co2 is not the problem, overpopulation, air, and water pollution are, and these are the things we can actually do something about.
Quoting 138. leofarnsworth:


The blog has hit a new low. Hardly a damn comment on the invest. Just other crap. Have to hand it to the good Dr. and his new sidekick. Frustrating.
Yes frustrating indeed, but the weather doesn't sell as good as climate change. It truly is sad, as this use to be a great weather blog.
More Temperature Fraud?!?!

Come on! Science gets another black eye!


date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

Quoting 151. NativeSun:

Yes frustrating indeed, but the weather doesn't sell as good as climate change. It truly is sad, as this use to be a great weather blog.
they need to split it into 2 separate blogs so the warming guys have somewhere to hang out. and we get our weather. if snuff people brought this up it could be done.
90L is doing quite well dispite the upper level winds that has become a little less favoured it has a very decent low level spin as seen on vis RGB and shortwave imagery and convective activity has increased

I do expect 90L to meander for the next day or so before it starts making its move in that time upper level winds are expected to become much more favoured in a couple of days (this is also stated in the TWO 7am update) and as also stated in 7am TWO I'd also expect 90L to upgrade by late weekend going into early next week

As I said earlier 90L wanna take it nice and slow it wants to make sure everything is just right it wants to make sure an advisory package is not wasted
Why am I not surprised
At 15000 its was 40 kts(that's knots korith) from the NE at 200 (that's flight level korith) it was 0 thus the shaking on board at 280 45 from 120 degrees in the opposite direction almost....and our season has been very short it's not hyperbole but you do have an exceptional use of the English language for a teenager. Also I never suggested a "fearsome drought"? I said we have had a short season. Oh and articles about our region? Really.....
don't post garbage. Grow up.
Quoting 145. KoritheMan:



I'm inclined to call bs. If your hyperbole were anywhere close to rooted in fact, we'd be seeing entire articles about this fearsome western Caribbean drought.
It does look better this am
Quoting 154. wunderkidcayman:

90L is doing quite well dispite the upper level winds that has become a little less favoured it has a very decent low level spin as seen on vis RGB and shortwave imagery and convective activity has increased

I do expect 90L to meander for the next day or so before it starts making its move in that time upper level winds are expected to become much more favoured in a couple of days (this is also stated in the TWO 7am update) and as also stated in 7am TWO I'd also expect 90L to upgrade by late weekend going into early next week

As I said earlier 90L wanna take it nice and slow it wants to make sure everything is just right it wants to make sure an advisory package is not wasted
We're setting records here in Chicagoland, too. Yesterday, 74° F easily broke the record of 72°
Quoting 153. Tampa969mlb:

they need to split it into 2 separate blogs so the warming guys have somewhere to hang out. and we get our weather. if snuff people brought this up it could be done.
There is Dr.Ricky Rood's CC/GW blog but there is not enough people to argue with over there.
Good morning all. Question? Does this low in the Caribbean develop? Where will it go ? I do know that time will tell.
Will we have a thanksgiving surprise at the door here in S Fl or will it drift off to the west?
Quoting 160. washingtonian115:

There is Dr.Ricky Rood's CC/GW blog but there is not enough people to argue with over there.


Well there isn't much to argue...I would think by now that most folks here would realize that Dr. Master's blog focuses on weather and climate, but we seem to have a group that enjoys self flagellation over here.
Good morning all. Quick look in .... noting what looks like the moisture formerly associated with 90L being dragged NE along that frontal boundary which passed through here [NW Bahamas] on Wednesday... brought a rainy day and cooler temps in its wake. So far November here has been relatively mild, due to lower humidity and cooler temps .... we've had a couple of sub-70 degree nights already.

Here's hoping that moisture keeps tracking east and rains on Caribboy .... :o)
Quoting 138. leofarnsworth:


The blog has hit a new low. Hardly a damn comment on the invest. Just other crap. Have to hand it to the good Dr. and his new sidekick. Frustrating.
there is nothing there bud what do ya want to know about it it likely wont even develop at this rate

Quoting 163. BahaHurican:

Good morning all. Quick look in .... noting what looks like the moisture formerly associated with 90L being dragged NE along that frontal boundary which passed through here [NW Bahamas] on Wednesday... brought a rainy day and cooler temps in its wake. So far November here has been relatively mild, due to lower humidity and cooler temps .... we've had a couple of sub-70 degree nights already.

Here's hoping that moisture keeps tracking east and rains on Caribboy .... :o)
12 days of hurricane season left then its done
likely done already just a technical issue remains 12 days the season draws to the grand close and it time to hibernate for the winter wait till may or move on to winter weather and climate talk
Quoting 112. RobertWC:

105. GreatSlaveLake

I was born at Lubbock, Texas in 1949. When I walked home from the 4th grade in the spring, we would see baby horny toads out eating red ants. They have been gone for decades, the red ants are doing just fine.




I found a slightly larger horned toad in Prescott AZ. in 1969. It never occurred to me that they might become endangered.
this is not rocket science I got to get my coffee I normally wait till I have it before posting but its brewing and I have nothing else too do
Quoting 167. ChiThom:



I found a slightly larger horned toad in Prescott AZ. in 1969. It never occurred to me that they might become endangered.
its the smallest things that go first when I first relocated to Toronto back in 81 I use to love sitting out in the chair in the early evening and listen to the cirp of the crickets all nite long you could hear tem now the last 10 years or so you don't hear them anymore they are gone and the last time I saw a monarch butterfly in summer was july of 2011 I have seen none since but most don't notice the little things and assume they will last forever
Long time lurker, first time poster... I'm from the Great Lakes region and one thing not really mentioned by Dr Masters or really anyone here is just how ridiculously warm the Great Lakes are right now. Obviously they'll cool down quickly with this weekend's blast of cold but 6 weeks before the new year and Lake Superior's avg temp is still 45 degrees....that's impressive. And with all of the lakes still very warm, we might see lots of lake effect snow in the coming winter.

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov//res/glcfs/compa re_years/2016_323_glsea.png
Quoting 170. RunningTrauma:

Long time lurker, first time poster... I'm from the Great Lakes region and one thing not really mentioned by Dr Masters or really anyone here is just how ridiculously warm the Great Lakes are right now. Obviously they'll cool down quickly with this weekend's blast of cold but 6 weeks before the new year and Lake Superior's avg temp is still 45 degrees....that's impressive. And with all of the lakes still very warm, we might see lots of lake effect snow in the coming winter.



o yeah we will if and when the cold cold air arrives we get a shot this weekend starting tomorrow night and that will run till late Monday maybe early tuseday downwind from the lakes
Good Morning Folks; the visible circulation of 90L has improved and right off the coast of Central America and it is now starting to drag moisture from the E-Pac across CA.   From the looks of things, and the almost stalled movement, I would say that Dr. M was correct yesterday as to a dangerous flooding event for those parts on they way to dissipation (down to 60% in the Atlantic) right over land or a second term in the E-Pac.






Here is the current surface vort max:



170. RunningTrauma
8:32 AM EST on November 18, 2016


Great first post and welcome to the Blog. The Great Lakes region will have their hands full in the coming decades as I pointed out to a Blogger from Green Bay yesterday:

https://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/ global-warming/effects-on-wildlife-and-habitat/gre at-lakes.aspx

The Great Lakes are important sources of drinking water, economic livelihood and recreation opportunities for millions of Americans and Canadians. Recreational boating in the eight Great Lakes states produces more than $35 billion in economic activity annually, and fishing, hunting and wildlife watching amount to more than $18 billion in annual economic activity in these states.

Threats from Global Warming

Global warming adds yet another stress to a Great Lakes system already struggling with aquatic invasive species, deleterious land use changes, nonpoint source pollution, toxic chemical contamination, and coastal habitat degradation/wetlands loss. Potential global warming impacts include reduced water levels (due in particular to decreased winter ice cover allowing more evaporation), increased frequency of intense storm events (altering the timing of inflows), and warmer water temperatures.

Already, Lake Superior has increased water temperatures and an earlier onset of summer stratification by about two weeks in just the past 30 years. Within another 30 years Lake Superior may be mostly ice-free in a typical winter.

Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat. Global warming could change internal water cycling in the Great Lakes with longer summer stratification potentially leading to larger dead zones (lacking in oxygen). Other potential consequences include less habitat for coldwater fish, more suitable temperatures for aquatic invasive species and hazardous algal blooms, and more mobilization of contaminated sediments as well as nutrients and toxic chemicals from urban and agricultural runoff.

Quoting 152. NutZilla:

More Temperature Fraud?!?!

1. "More" implies that there has been previous temperature fraud. There hasn't.
2. There is no fraud here, either. A good faith estimation (which is likely to be pretty accurate in this case) isn't fraud by any sane and reasonable definition. Now, if they ignored the new data (which they are manifestly NOT doing) for some nefarious purpose, that would be fraud.
3. Words and facts mean something, American politics notwithstanding.
Quoting 180. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:



7.23C in the Arctic?! Yikes!
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
Quoting 181. Misanthroptimist:


+0.723C in the Arctic?! Yikes!
maybe its a figment of our imagination right nothing to worry about lets talk about an invest that at the moment is nothing and will likely continue as such minus some rains
Quoting 183. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

maybe its a figment of our imagination right nothing to worry about lets talk about an invest that at the moment is nothing and will likely continue as such minus some rains

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: If there is one thing people can't afford to do if they want to stay sane, it's have a sense of perspective.

But we do have some awesome digital watches now!
Quoting 169. KEEPEROFTHEGATE:

its the smallest things that go first ...snip... the last time I saw a monarch butterfly in summer was july of 2011 I have seen none since but most don't notice the little things and assume they will last forever


We have seen a few monarchs this year, not many. We started growing milkweed a few years ago, to encourage them. I didn't see many lightning bugs lately; we used to see thousands.
Quoting 139. RobertWC:

I am really sick of people who are not yet full of mud, thinking it will not happen to them.
I am really sick of people who are not , full of fire, thinking it will not happen to them.
I am really sick of people who have water , thinking drought will not happen to them.

Understand this , everything is on the table. Including your fat happy life.


There's reasons we're more than quadrupling our greenhouse winter growing space this month. Summers may end up just plain too hot to grow anything useful.
Would also a warmer, less iced-up great lakes region mean bigger, deeper snowstorms downwind? I remember the massive lake-effect storms of the 1970's that seemed to contribute to the OMG ICE AGE hysteria.

Quoting 175. weathermanwannabe:

170. RunningTrauma
8:32 AM EST on November 18, 2016


Great first post and welcome to the Blog. The Great Lakes region will have their hands full in the coming decades as I pointed out to a Blogger from Green Bay yesterday:

https://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/ global-warming/effects-on-wildlife-and-habitat/gre at-lakes.aspx

The Great Lakes are important sources of drinking water, economic livelihood and recreation opportunities for millions of Americans and Canadians. Recreational boating in the eight Great Lakes states produces more than $35 billion in economic activity annually, and fishing, hunting and wildlife watching amount to more than $18 billion in annual economic activity in these states.

Threats from Global Warming

Global warming adds yet another stress to a Great Lakes system already struggling with aquatic invasive species, deleterious land use changes, nonpoint source pollution, toxic chemical contamination, and coastal habitat degradation/wetlands loss. Potential global warming impacts include reduced water levels (due in particular to decreased winter ice cover allowing more evaporation), increased frequency of intense storm events (altering the timing of inflows), and warmer water temperatures.

Already, Lake Superior has increased water temperatures and an earlier onset of summer stratification by about two weeks in just the past 30 years. Within another 30 years Lake Superior may be mostly ice-free in a typical winter.

Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat. Global warming could change internal water cycling in the Great Lakes with longer summer stratification potentially leading to larger dead zones (lacking in oxygen). Other potential consequences include less habitat for coldwater fish, more suitable temperatures for aquatic invasive species and hazardous algal blooms, and more mobilization of contaminated sediments as well as nutrients and toxic chemicals from urban and agricultural runoff.

Quoting 162. Naga5000:



Well there isn't much to argue...I would think by now that most folks here would realize that Dr. Master's blog focuses on weather and climate, but we seem to have a group that enjoys self flagellation over here.
True. I guess some feel that if they demand loudly enough and long enough for Dr. Masters to censor himself and stop writing about the things that concern him, he'll do so. You'd think by now they'd have realized that's not going to happen...
Quoting 189. Neapolitan:

True. I guess some feel that if they demand loudly enough and long enough for Dr. Masters to censor himself and stop writing about the things that concern him, he'll do so. You'd think by now they'd have realized that's not going to happen...
Good post Nea..Pressman said that nothing can shift the Doc's core values and true beliefs on what is happening with the Earths climate..The weak lil trolls always lose anyway, they got feeble lil brains...:)
191. MahFL
Quoting 170. RunningTrauma:

Long time lurker, first time poster... I'm from the Great Lakes region and one thing not really mentioned by Dr Masters or really anyone here is just how ridiculously warm the Great Lakes are right now.


TWC did mention it.
Quoting 153. Tampa969mlb:

they need to split it into 2 separate blogs so the warming guys have somewhere to hang out. and we get our weather. if snuff people brought this up it could be done.
Sounds like a really good idea, would love to have the weather blog back, and it would not be hard to do.