WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Global warming a hoax no longer

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 12:44 PM GMT on May 05, 2006

Are the climate models that form the foundation of greenhouse warming predictions fundamentally flawed? That has been the argument of some scientists and "greenhouse skeptics" over the past few decades. The main issue has been the inability of the climate models to reproduce the relatively low amount of warming observed by satellites and weather balloon instruments in the troposphere (the lower portion of the atmosphere that extends up to elevations of about 40,000 feet.) This discrepancy was a prime argument Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) used in his famed 2003 speech when he referred to the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has probably more Congressional testimony about global warming under his belt than any other scientist, headlines his website with the quote, "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty." Michael Crichton also used the tropospheric warming discrepancy to give climate models a bad rap in his State of Fear novel. (Incredibily, Crichton--a science fiction writer--was summoned by Sen. Inhofe in September of 2005 to testify before Congress on the issue of climate change.) However, the arguments of these global warming skeptics were dealt a major blow with the issuance this week of a press release by NOAA's Climate Change Science Program refuting their main argument.



The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002 to help answer unresolved questions on climate, found that it was the measurements, not the models, that were in error. Their report, issued on Wednesday, stated, "there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere." They cautioned, however, that discrepancies still existed in some regions, particularly the tropics. Greenhouse skeptics will undoubtedly point to this smaller remaining discrepancy as evidence that climate models cannot be trusted, but the authors of the report thought it more likely that the measurements were flawed. Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, concluded in the report: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived,

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error. Christy is also one of the co-authors on the Climate Change Science Program study.

So can we trust the climate models now? That will remain a matter of debate, but now we know that these models have successfully performed at least one major prediction that their detractors thought was wrong. With the climate models validated by the collapse of the greenhouse skeptics' main argument against them, it is apparent that their predictions of possible catastrophic climate change are no hoax and need to be taken seriously.

For further reading: The Economist printed a easy to understand article in August 2005 summarizing the new research exposing the satellite and weather balloon measurement errors, and realclimate.org has a more technical discussion.

I'll be back next week to talk about the demise of La Nina, and other factors that may affect the coming hurricane season.

Jeff Masters

Climate Change

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

Reader Comments

thanks for that blog
Thanks Dr M, somehow I thing GW sceptics will never be turned around no matter the evidence.
Dr. Masters,
Thanks for the excellent post as always. I was once a skeptic about global warming, but what I see occurring with changes in our climate has convinced me that it is a real and serious problem. One may question some of the models, but it's hard to argue with what we are observing, with rapid increases in glacier melt rates and the observed data.
cue: neocon / corporatist hacks in 3-2-1
DenverMark I take back what I said, amend it too and somehow I thing some GW sceptics will never be turned around no matter the evidence.:-)
So can we trust the climate models now?

Well there is no question that climate models have been getting better with the help of new technology and in the future they will be more accurate.

However I feal that while climate modles are a great tool we should take what they say with a grain of salt. The reason is because if we start trusting these things more and more then we well start useing are own conclusions less because we will get to dependent on the Climate Modles.

Yes..this will become the superblog. 500-600?
Thank You Fixing The blog, AAron.
Your Code Fu is The BEST! Always.
im just filling you in with my daily report temps remain very hot over the gulf and nw caribbean this morning but however i have great news the shear is very strong in those areas and not expected to slow down for at least 2 weeks...i think you guys should be paying close attention to the tropics by may 23....thats when i think we will start the official 2006 hurricane season...i dont expect much of a season in the pacific this year about the same as last year maybe even fewer storms there...well i will check back with you every day to definitely let you know if anything changes in the coming 2 weeks...you guys keep plugging away....StormTop...
I would be satisfied with meteorlogical data/models that told my weatherman how to accurately forecast 24-48 hours out. Meanwhile, just water me!
Slightly confused. How long have we been in a La Nia? Wasn't last year a neutral year? I thought these were all multi-year oscillations...
While I'm not a global warming skeptic myself, I am a very skeptical personal in general and I'm afraid that reports like this one are likely to make warming skeptics more skeptical rather than less. The wording of the article gives one the sense that they "cooked" the satellite observational data until it matched the model. Its also unfortunate that more emphasis was given to "who", ie Christy, rather than "what", true source of deviation vs what prior calibration efforts had attempted and "why" the first was incorrect and the current one correct. Personally, I could care less about the horse race aspect of these things, while I do want to know the mechanics; and the posted description provides zilch in that regard.
I eagerly await the day that the 'Education' section of the site gets updated with some articles on Global Warming. The articles on ozone are excelent, and it really does look like similar head in the sand, and K street pressure is working against awareness of the potential for global warming consequences.
Kerneld..what is 'K street' in your statement?

franck,
It is where the lobbyists and think tanks reside in Washington DC.

See: the wikipedia article
K Street is a major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C. known for the numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups that exercise influence from this location.

So... when do you Americans think you will ratify the Kyoto protocol? Isn't there a lobby for that?
Uh. Now we're saying the measurements were wrong? Weren't those the measurements used to MAKE the models? Good lord.
Ok ... I love that everytime the good Dr posts about global warming or any does actually...all this hate goes out to americans by all this eurotrash...here it goes again...


First off there still is not a hint of a word that is spoken about whether or not this is a naturally occuring phenomenon...

Dr Masters...please address for me how long our planet has been warming... also address how much we know about the past rates of warming and warming trends accuratly if you can...


How does our relationship in regards to the sun relate to global warming? Can it be measured...we have seen more and more large solar flares the past 5 years and yet nobody has eluded to the fact that this may warm our planet as well...

Global Warming is obviously occuring but to say that america and the kyoto protocal ( or lack of signing) is causing it is absolutly absurd...

Do the people that hate america for not signing the kyoto protocal also dispise china with the same ferver?


It amazes me that even scientists think they know the answers without having ANY accurate data from the past ... Are you going to tell me that with accurate data from only the last 50-100 years you know that humans are the cause of global warming...get a grip people

Permafrost is melting, Glaciers are receding, reefs are dying, and storms are getting stronger, What do these people have to measure to be able to see this?
The issue, primarily, is how fast the change is going, if it's a natural process, and what it will be in the future - the warming is occuring, that's pretty much agreed.
*wraps duct tape securely around head to prevent cyclonebuster-induced cranial explosion*
I look at it this way. The way we have advanced with technology over the past 125 years is astonishing. It's only a matter of time before clean energy will be availible very cheap for everyone. The Earth will be able to take care of the high CO2 levels.

Over the past 100 years we have found other ways of power. Natural gas, coal, solar power, nuclear energy, and ethonal. Soon (30-50 years) we will be getting high levels of energy from hydrogen.

I'm not going to say global warming doesn't exist, but during the history of the Earth, it has had much higher carbon dioxide levels.

Look at nuclear energy. 500 years ago, people were certain that atoms didn't exist. Now we can split them for massive energy(for good and bad). At this rate, who knows what energy we will have in 50 years. I'm sure it will be cleaner than what we have now.
rwwhot, the thing you were afraid of allready happened!!
Good to see you wannabe.

Double, I do not think the real debate is about if global warming exists, but more what is causing it. To say that it is soley caused by human interaction with out having data to support that is crazy and narrow minded. While this may be the case in would take an inordinate amount of data to prove this, let's say the last million years or so worth of data.

The real problem is that money makes the world turn and as long as there is a profit to be turned on fossil fuels and the like we will not be able to get a way from them. This, to me, is part of the ignorance of the hunman race.

Please visit Stormjunkie.com and leave any feedback you may have in my blog.

SJ
The debate does not stem from the belief or disbelief that the Earth is warming. The debate is in the cause of Global Warming as Dr. Masters correctly termed those who do not believe the Earth is warming due to Greenhouse gas emissions, ie Human induced global warming.

I think you will find that most skeptics are skeptical because of our limited understanding of the Globe and the weather combined with the very small amount of reliable records for a relatively short period of time. The more we understand and the more accurate we become, the less of a debate this will be in time. As a skeptic, I am elated that the measurments were wrong. Why? Because that means we can hopefully fix the problem and start taking more accurate measurements so we can improve our understanding of what is really going on and hopefully find an end to this debate one way or the other. I want real data and real science as opposed to squewd data and twisted articles that are more about spouting political rhetoric rather than presenting accurate findings, regardless of what "side" it comes from. These new findings will not change my stance on human induced global warming. It will, however, make me a little less skeptical.

In regards to the Kyoto Proticol...Most have absolutely no idea of the negative consequences to the US would be if we did sign on. In it's present form, it is simply a noble concept, but a bad idea.

weatherwannabe...throwing around terms like "neocon" and "corporate hacks" are useless rhetoric. Do you have something useful to contribute to the discussion, or are you content resorting to infantile name calling?

Az
GReat buster I am sure it will be good for mother earth to spew all of her water in to space. Wonder what the long term implications of that would be.

RL3AO-
The near future...alternative fuels??? LMFAO. We could have done this 20 to 30 years ago, but again it is all about the MONEY. That is the only reason that we have not moved away from energy sources that we utilize.
um pt...


look man, Please tell me what the kyoto protocal is going to accomplish if EVERY nation does not sign it...

your snide remark..."rwwhot, the thing you were afraid of allready happened!!.... is just childish... If you have some time maybe you should do your research about why amarica hasnt signed the document and they open your trapper...

Oh did you know that the euro countries have already "failed" to live up to their treaty...but thats prolly because the USA too right?


Please keep politics of this blog... i beg you people

Solar activity is a significant contributor to global warming.

I took some monthly sunspot data dating back to the 1700's, ran a moving average filter on it to reduce the 11-year periodicity, and produced a chart that shows an unprecedented increase in solar activity since the mid-20th century. I compared this with a NASA global warming chart covering the last 50 years and found a significant correlation.

Another important data point is that NASA has found that the polar caps on Mars have been receding significantly over the past 40 years, and especially over the last 20 years. This indicates that Mars is undergoing global warming with much the same timeline that we see on the earth.

This may not totally exorerate CO2 emissions, but it does show that the effect may be much smaller than that caused by natural variations in solar output.

Since the correlation between solar output and its effect on the earth is not well characterized (there has not been a lot of data to work with in the absence of other disturbances), I doubt that current models properly consider it.

Scott

AZu-

As for wannabe, you have to understand that is the nature of the wannabe. She can tell you the real truth about global warming. The dreaded Bush's caused it. LOL.

SJ
F.Colby: I agree that the "warming" can't be denied by too many people (scientist or layperson)...as usual, the devil is in the details. Why the warming, how long the warming, what's causing the warming, and can we manage the warming by making changes?? These should become the foci of our efforts. Personally, the thing that scares me the most is that it is such a "long term" delimma that few politicans (or scientists) will have the foresight or the fortitude to handle it (kind of like social security and medicare)...it's hard to get anyone too excited about what might happen in 2040 or 2100 much less hundreds of years in the future. If we are real "custodians" then we will care to do something...if we are just here for the short haul, then not much will happen anytime soon. I guess that's the real delimma.
Scott...

"Another important data point is that NASA has found that the polar caps on Mars have been receding significantly over the past 40 years, and especially over the last 20 years. This indicates that Mars is undergoing global warming with much the same timeline that we see on the earth.


Dont say that they may actually look to investigate a cause as oppossed to trying to prove a theory...

There is the problem all unto itself...flawed scientific thinking
Pecos, can you give me a link to the mars ice caps thing. I would like to post it on my site.

Thanks
SJ
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
It doesn't take much to reinforce a skeptic on any topic, and one that is as ephermeral as global warming, thats just asking for trouble.

As to fiction authors testifying before congress, its no worse than having holyweird actors and actresses testifying based on roles that they have played, and the left does that all the time.
That being said Gcain. It brings up something I have struggled with for a long time. The human race, although brilliant, is also extremely stupid. It is plainly obvious to me that one day we will not have this planet anymore. No one currently knows when that day will be. That being said I do not understand how we can continue along our same path day after day. It is as if we are all just willing to accpet the fact that our race is gone when this place is gone. Why have we not landed on Mars yet, we are CAPABLE. Why am I still putting gas in my car, when we COULD have changed that 20 years ago? The answer to these question and others like them is-MONEY. Money will not buy our way out of here when the earths ability to support human existance.

SJ
Sorry HAARP. I'll pay closer attention next time.

Thanks for the link.
hey all-
there was a link posted showing a close up of the loop current temp around florida. Ive been searching but cant find it, can someone post that link again... thanks
Global warming on Mars

It is downplayed in news releases but it created a stir in the Mars science community. It is always characterized as "Mars coming out of an ice age," or "Mars sees climate change." They are very careful not to say "Mars has global warming too."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05274_Mars_Orbiter.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03415_ice_age.html
whrlwind. It is also on my site.

Just select the region the year and then most recent with thumbs.

Good SST maps
were the measurements right on mars????????????
hey stormjunkie how u been? long time...

that link is great...but there was another one that showed the gulf current going around FL. It was crazy looking, just a red band outlining FL. Ill keep looking for it...
Just in case you missed it whirlwind

Stormjunkie.com
F.Colby: Yep, its all about $$. Although, I believe that every problem has a hypothetical "critical mass" point where the need for action becomes so apparent that businesses, governments, scientific institutions, etc. converge on solutions...at least that is the way history plays out--so far. Of course, maybe its already too late, maybe that moment in time was 100 years ago...whose to know? How do you get the general public to care enough to demand change. Sort of like Katrina...do we really worry before or after the levee breaks? Do we really worry before or after the storm surge? Do we worry now or after the sky darkens forever? Tough questions, I think.
Go back to that site whirl and select the Gulf Stream link at the top left (I think) and then select year and date and so on. It think that one shows a small portion of the gulf an all of florida up to say canada.
Well stated gcain.
HAARP, the Kyoto was never meant to be the be all and end all, but a start. The European nations who signed may not achieving the limits set, but at least they are moving towards alternative energy.
As for the cost to industry and the US the kyoto will cause, the US people could gradually increase fuel economy and reduce, may be eliminate the need for foreign oil imports, thus keeping US money in the US, reducing the trade deficit.
I always love the 'if China and India don't do it we should we' argument. How about if the people in those countries decided that thaey should be allowed to produce as many emmisions per capita as the US, Global emssions would triple, if we aren't affecting Global climate now, I dare say we will be then.
As for the "all this hate goes out to americans ", it seems the only one who is insulting nationalities is you with the term Eurotrash.
whirlwind~ Was it this one? Also comes in 2-D (that's 3-D) or zoomed different degrees of zoomed out.

I'm not insulted, at least 49,99% of the American voters agree with me.
You are right creg, in this divers world it's hard to get something done, Kyoto was a hard bargain and a start for a global approach to a enviromental problem, whatever might be the cause of it. Not ratifying it is a neglect to the rest of the world, im sorry to say.
Two sides to Martian Global Warming:

"And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

Also, comparisions (admittedly difficult) using 1960's and 1970's images show even more shrinkage from that time to now.

A counterpoint article:

"In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states. Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Hmmm... sounds like handwaving. The last two sentences could easily be applied to "regional" glaciers and polar caps on earth.

Scott
Cregnebaa, it all boils down to whether the climate activists want a treaty that is ratifiable, or whether they want an issue. If they want one ratified, it will have to bind China, India, and the US to the same date based cap on total emissions, fair or no, that is reality. If they just want the issue to ramble along about, then the current discourse should serve them well for decades to come.

To those on the right, Kyoto doesn't look like a climate change solution, it looks like an excuse to create an obligation for increased foreign aid payments. To those on the left that aren't absolutely green, it looks like a way to decimate the last strongholds of union membership if the US.

Basically, if they want something ratified by any Senate elected by the people of the US, they are going to have to start over completely. Kyoto was every bit as dead on arrival as a Reagan administration budget proposal.

The thing that makes me the maddest, is that I believe Gore and his team knew they were creating something that even the most liberal in his party might be a bit squeemish about. They built something knowing and hoping it would fail in the Senate.



pt the problem is that money needs to be spent to do the research and then the research needs to be made number one public knowledge. I mean news coverage like that of the OJ trial.

Then and only then, when the masses are aware and the big wigs know the masses are aware will we begin to change things.
Lets review NOAA's stance on human induced global warming~

NOAA's globial Monitoring Division~
To slow the rate of anthropogenic-induced climate change in the 21st century and to minimize its eventual magnitude, societies will need to manage the climate forcing factors that are directly influenced by human activities, in particular greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions.

neat graph created in 2001~The global mean radiative forcing of the climate system for the year 2000, relative to 1750.


Credit NOAA (obtained from link above)
The situation is a bit like the Titanic, We see the iceberg. We know we need to turnWe try We hope we wont hit but the machine is too big
Mars has no magnetic force field or atmosphere. It takes a harsh bombardment from space. To compare it to earth is like comparing an orange to a rotten apple.
Desert, your analogy is good, but the turning thing is not really what this is like. It is more like we know we are in iceberg laden waters and yet to impress everyone we plow ahead full throttle. So again, the Titanic anology is good.
Dont agree with you storm, Political awareness is as equal important. Example? why did we ban the Ozone consuming gasses? Not because you and me didnt want them anymore, but because politics, due to good evidence. was aware of the fact that things were going wrong.
Same with this problem, if the thread of an economical impact is clear the problem will be solved, not earlier
oh on a side note ... I do my part to be a good steward of our planet... I plant trees every year ( 20 a year ) and I drive a hybrid vehicle... I also belong to many so called liberal organizations locally...and I am non political but lean right on some issues

what do you good people do to help ?

Of all the problems with this world global warming is minor...I would say we need to focus on air quality or we will choke ourselves to death soon....

very similar issue but never talked about...

or how about protecting our water supplies...

global warming huh????

puhlease
Many are sipping their martini thinking this ship is too strong to be sunk by that iceburg...
Skye, that's just the point. Mar's climate system is extremely simple, with basically one input - the sun. If Mars is warming, presumably something is going on with the sun, which would also affect us, no?
oh btw, if the titanic had not try to turn and had run straight into the iceberg, it would still be floating........
I understand your logic pt, but the sad fact is that politics will not change unless the masses absolutely demand. We are their votes. They will only change if we stop electing them and the likes, or if we stop giving money.
StormJunkie,

The "Big Wigs," as you call them, rely very heavily on the ignorance of the American people. Their number one concern is getting re-elected and if what they do actually benefits people then it's a bonus.

The cost of switching over to new and more energy efficent means of energy is astounding and the American people would have screamed bloody murder if this was done because the short term price of EVERYTHING would have gone up. Now they are screaming because the formerly cheap means of energy is hurting them and blaming corporations and the Government because they haven't provided alternative energy sources. It's a lose/lose situation. The only thing that makes me happy about the current situation is that it is forcing everyone to rethink energy use and it will hopefully have a more possitive outcome in the long run for the country and the environment. The sad and maddening thing is that no one wants to change their usage of energy, they just want to complain that it costs too much.

Az
And here is where the Titanic analogy falls down - this iceberg might hit us even if we do slow down.
here is my biggest problem with everything....people are bending the #'s to support there own conclusions....its insane.

Just like that noaa graph that says solar radiation is only that small of a cause...we get 100% of our heat from the sun am I right?

william teller had a idea to eliminate global warming... he said we should just take planes and blanket the earth with sunscreen...doing this for 2 years would lower temperatures to levels below 1710...

bring on the chemtrails
If it had not been going so fast in order to impress then it could have turned. Me, I'd rather not hit the berg then to have to deciede to turn or not.
Honestly, why do people care so much? How about trying to improve our 2-3 day forecasts than reverse hundreds of years of warming? Wouldn't that be more useful than spending trillions trying to "clean up the mess?" Just a few questions that I think of when reading something about global warming and long-term climate change.
"Do the people that hate america for not signing the kyoto protocal also dispise china with the same ferver"

China is still largely a third world nation running on human and animal power. It uses much less energy than the US, though it has 3X the population.

Kyoto exempted it from the strongest measures because it is going to industrialize to bring its standards of living up to at least European levels. Holding it back in a pre industrial age while allowing the US to spend 9X the energy per capita is obviously wrong.

Furthermore, china has made a strong commitment to alternative energy, including creating the largest energy producing dam in the world.

Next strawman, please.
If you must know I jog to work and never use my heating (living on a small isalnd in the tropics helps in both ways).

I agree there are other issues that need to be raised, especially the mass extinctions that are seem to be occuring at this time, which will all be coming back to climate warming (human induced or not), pollution and habitat distruction.

There is evidnce both temperature and CO2 have been a lot higher than todays levels, it is the speed of this change in very recent times that is the worry.
We should have rethought our use of energy t he moment, 20+ years ago, when we realiazed that it was dirty and the people we get most of it from want to kill us.

The titanic analogy still holds strong. It is not really about slowing down, but more where our priorities lay. For me, that would be the continued long term existance of our race. Which takes a whole hearted investment in research from all nations.
In one way I agree with you atmos, I live in a moderate seaclimat, Ive always said that my country ( the Netherlands) should have been where France is, 600 km to the south, giving us much warmer winters and sunny summers. Well this happens now on this spot. The last 20 years I can say that we hardly skate anymore in the winter beause of the lack of ice and that we've had record braking summers.
The thing is that, due to higher (global)temperatures, the seelevel is rising and im living under it.... Like you americans we can feel the threat comming nearer and nearer.
lobby your congressman to subsidize solar energy for individual homes...

STOP WITH THE PER CAPITA energy cost figures people...

of course america has the highest energy PER CAPITA... we are a nation of wealth and 99% of our population is living in housing...unlike every other country in the world...

I try my best as an individual to use as little energy as possible...my home is heated and cooled geo-thermally ... cost me alot of money to do it and glad we did...because I get to laugh at my neighbors 400 gas bills and 300 electric bills...

I Also think its really funny that Gore gets out of office and then screams that Bush is the problem...huh...maybe he should have did something when he had power huh...oh no wait ... this isnt all political is it...I hate politics...every po;itician is a crook all over this world...
Mysticdog,
Most of Chinas energy comes from Coal I think, and not especially clean coal at that. They also have many many mining accidents that would make the ones that make the news in the US look like car accidents in the parking lot. They have rapidly increasing energy demands, and the new power production they are bringing online is not really any more efficient than their current systems. It is a very big problem, you can be sure of that.
The fact that Mars is so simlified is my problem. Without that atmosphere it feels the effects of space storms on a much greater level & the friction of being hurdled through space is also greatly amplified there as compared to here. This friction can be seen in how the earth's magnetic field has trailed the earth farther & farther on the back side as the magnetic force has weakend. That magnetic field & atmosphere buffer us from more than the suns burning rays.

HAARP~ don't twist things yourself, notice on the bottom of the graph the rate of scientific understanding (well in 2001)

HAARP:Of all the problems with this world global warming is minor...I would say we need to focus on air quality or we will choke ourselves to death soon....very similar issue but never talked about...

Haarp, I agree at some level. Bad air is a much more immediate problem. However, air quality has improved dramatically in the last 30 years. I mean, looking back, I can't believe we used to let cars have leaded gasoline...think of all the lead people got exposed to. It's been (relatively) easy to reduce the amount of most pollutants that a car emits...but we can't really scrub the CO2 out of the exhaust.

An interesting note is that hydrogen, as an auto fuel, would help tremendously with air quality, but wouldn't help at all with global warming...unless we stop using coal or natural gas to generate the H.
Last weekend we converted the Barn to 100% solar power. If only it was that easy to get the house of the grid. I'm tired of being herded toward oil.
Actually most developed countries have 99% of our population is living in housing (ie UK, Germany, etc) and the US isn't the richest country per capita either.

Agree on the politian front though, gos ith the power.
"Mars' orbit is significantly elliptical. One result of this is a temperature variation of about 30 C at the subsolar point between aphelion and perihelion. This has a major influence on Mars' climate. While the average temperature on Mars is about 218 K (-55 C, -67 F), Martian surface temperatures range widely from as little as 140 K (-133 C, -207 F) at the winter pole to almost 300 K (27 C, 80 F) on the day side during summer. "

It also has a 687 day year, a 25 degree tilt, and a surface atmospheric pressure of 0.007 bar.

I know people like to speculate on why mars is so different, but its really not that hard. Its a lot smaller. It is further from the sun. It lost its heat more rapidly, resulting in its crust cooling to a much greater depth. If it has a molten center at all any more it is too small to generate a magnetic field to protect its atmosphere, which it holds onto much more weakly than larger Earth and Venus do. Consquently, the solar wind is more capable of stripping off that atmosphere over the billions of years its been in existence. CO2 is primarily left, because it is much heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, while still lighter and with a higher boiling point than sulfur oxides so it stays in gaseous form in the very cold martian environment.

The water all sank into the 80+ mile thick crust. On earth, the lighter water floats on the hot molten rock and gets pushed back out through hotspots in the ocean (and in a few places on land). On mars, it just fills in the cold fractures in the crust and gets covered by the blowing sand.

Mars is nothing like earth. Let it go.
storm junkie..

."We should have rethought our use of energy t he moment, 20+ years ago, when we realiazed that it was dirty and the people we get most of it from want to kill us.

amen

sky

". This friction can be seen in how the earth's magnetic field has trailed the earth farther & farther on the back side as the magnetic force has weakend. That magnetic field & atmosphere buffer us from more than the suns burning rays."

maybe the weakening of the magnetic field is also a cause of the warming too


Dobs...

" However, air quality has improved dramatically in the last 30 years"

well instances of chronic lung ailments such as asthma,emphysema, bronchitis has grown 100 fold in the last 30 years too...a clear indication that the air is horrible...

you should hear my son weeze from his asthma...it will break your heart dude to hear a 4 yr old have trouble breathing ...

HAARP:of course america has the highest energy PER CAPITA... we are a nation of wealth and 99% of our population is living in housing...unlike every other country in the world...

sorry, but this is simply not true. lots of developed nations (whose people live indoors)use less energy than we do. Take this statement from the US Dept of Energy comparing energy use among the G-7 nations (US, Canada, France, Germany, UK, Italy, and Japan): "In 2001, the United States and Canada consumed 342 million Btus per person and 403 million Btus per person, respectively. No other G-7 members per capita consumption exceeded 200 million Btus in that year."


Souce
one solution can be to produce fuels from natural sources like seeds. Its a hot topic here because some people run their dieselcars on homemade fuel..but its banned!!! The exxons and shells dont earn on it so you know what happens..
Yes, China is way behind on technology. But again, the point is that you can't hold a country back in the pre industrial period while western nations flaunt their energy excesses.

China does not value the life of its people as highly, and its people are more willing to take risks with their lives. All chinese industry is less safe than western equivalents, largely because it is so far behind technologically, and there is a lot of money to be made not improving their job safety. China is like the US 120 years ago, with noticeable exceptions in very large cities and where they put the resources into high technology, like making computer parts.

None of this changes that China, India, and the rest of the preindustrial world cannot be held back while the west burns all of the world's energy in happy, piggish selfishness. Kyoto recognized that, whether you want to or not.
HAARP: I'm sorry your son has asthma, but that does not change the fact that the air quality in this country has improved. There's still room for improvement, but the fact is, the air is better now than it was when I was growing up in the early 70s.
Hey everyone,

I have to go so I will keep this simple.:)

The computer models are only as good as the data put into them.

Since the atmosphere is so inherently complex and our true understanding of it, while improving, is still far from adequate to even guarantee an accurate forecast for a small region of our Country more than a week out, much less for a century in advance for the entire globe.

Moreover, we have a very short record of data that in itself cannot be ensured to be without discrepancies (i.e. weather stations being moved and the results thereof) when using such measurements for comparative purposes.

Consequently, these limitations will most certainly ensure that this debate will not come close to being decided in any conclusive way in any one of our lifetimes.

Therefore, there will continue to be plenty of speculative arguments made on both sides of this controversial issue.

However, that doesn't mean that political expediency will not define the answer for us despite the aforementioned facts.

Air quality trend data from EPA.

Link
"you should hear my son weeze from his asthma...it will break your heart dude to hear a 4 yr old have trouble breathing ..."

chemicals in the food dick with the immune system (and everything else). Most pesticides differ from human hormones only superficially, and some are a couple atoms away from some nerve gasses. Indoor carpeting holds allergens in a home in far greater concentration than the outdoors except right when a particular allergen is blooming, and keeps exposure up year round.

Particulate levels have fallen, smog levels have fallen, and the air is cleaner. Outside.
mytsic, good point on the indoor air. not only does carpet trap allergens, it (and its adhesives) also emit volatile organic chemicals that can be irritants. overall, indoor air quality is much worse than outdoor air quality.
The latest monthly forecast for this hurricane season by the University College in London is out:

May 5th Forecast

They forecast 14.6 tropical storms and 7.9 hurricanes which is slightly lower than their April forecast (15.4 and 8.2) due to the demise of La Nina and the warmer than expected SSTs in the Pacific.
W/E in regards to energy usage...I could care less which country does what should have been my statement... as a whole we all need to do our part and I for one am happy about fuel costs and energy costs...maybe people will use there brains more in regards to usage...

Im going to find a article I read awhile ago about how much energy we spend on lighting every year as a nation ... it was like 30% of our energy costs for our government ... just look up at the night sky...its so bright its crazy...we have street lights every 20' everyone has lights on in buildings when they are not even occupied...parking lots all have a ton of lights on even after nobody is around...all a big waste... please tell me why we need lights on roads? dont we have headlights????

I think I have just flip-flopped
HAARP ~maybe you use the word maybe cause you haven't studied the matter. The magnetic field of the earth switches from time to time (we are overdue), comparing the temps through ice cores & what not with the shifts has yeilded no corrilation with tempature rises.

Clean energy sources certainly help reduce air pollution, funny how we can be on the same page, just fighting over the reason we got there. I understand all too well about asthma (sister & it never went away), sorry this disease has struck your own. The trashing of our enviroment to near no end, over money, needs to end.
What drives me batty is how many electronics keep a light on even when the power is off. it may not add up to much power, but still, WHY? why does the power switch on my monitor at home blink when the CPU is off? why does the PS2 have to have a red light indicating the power is off all the time? DVD player has the same thing.
"funny how we can be on the same page, just fighting over the reason we got there"...

welcome to the blogosphere!

The source of heat for both Mars and the Earth is the sun. The same sun. If Mars and the Earth are both losing polar ice (and they are), and if solar activity data shows that the sun has been more active in the last 40 years than at any other time in recorded history (and it is), then I would certainly think that this would be an enormously interesting correlation.
rwdobson... you might have to talk about this with your psychologist...

Just kidding. This amount of power over a year is mostly comparable to 5 minutes of regular operation by the device.
oh I understand what causes asthma... and I do understand about indoor air quality and take as many staeps as possible to protect him from particulates and "bad air"...we have no carpeting in our house too...


But I do not trust the epa in there measurements and they dont measure for all particulates...I was part of an independant test of the air quality in our local area run by some university scientists that basically could not beleive there results on certain days...the barium and other toxic chemicals that were absent from epa reports were there in high quantities...
I would expect from people who like to call themselves conservatives (e.g. the Republican party?), to take a more conservative/safe approach when dealing with an important problem:

Ok, there MIGHT be global warming induced by human activity. We are not certain but there are some (if not the majority of) scientistis who think so.

What is the caucious, conservative thing to do?
A. Keep polluting at the same rate.
B. Let the industry regulate itself.
C. Promote cleaner technologies and set stricter limits to the polluting industries.
LOL~ rwdobson~ i thought i lived here:)

I think many must feel better having little lights on stuff to give them a homming beakon in the dark, just as many are comforted with exterior lighting. It's always erked me as a lover of the dark. You will find no flood lights at my place.

Mysticdog~ nice post on mars, the little details & #'s that slipped my mind
bbl
Most EPA/state monitoring focuses on the 6 major pollutants. Particulates (total PM, not breaking it down by species), NOx, SOx, Ozone, Lead, and carbon monoxide. Total PM in the atmosphere has declined. The barium and other toxics, well, there used to be even more.
103. HAARP
I love the dark too... My whole neighborhood has a mandate that no outside lights can remain on after midnight...and we are trying to get the tollway authority to turn theres off too ... or at least even 1/2 of them off... NOBODY needs that many lights to drive...

thankfully they are 2 miles away... all our local buisnesses have also joined us to take back the night...

slowely people are coming around...

Im glad I blogged with yall today...see ya around soon...
I agree that the amount of night lighting that is used is overduing it quite a bit, but the problem should not be looked at as how do we use less energy, but how we get our energy and how efficiently we can use it. We will need our energy especially if the earth is going to continue warming.

SJ
105. pt100
NO2 Europe

If you like NO2, come to my place, I live in the red zone..


lmao cyclone, don't know about you and the carbon nano tubes, but the truth is we all contribute to the problem if not through action then through inaction.
Alright, I am going to work on my site for awhile. Ya'll please check it out and leave any feed back you have in my blog.

See ya
Stormjunkie.com
109. pt100
NO2 global

and here is the rest of our blue planet
110. pt100
What to think of this?
In a scientific breakthrough that has stunned the world, a team of South African scientists has developed a revolutionary new, highly efficient solar power technology that will enable homes to obtain all their electricity from the sun.

This means high electricity bills and frequent power failures could soon be a thing of the past.

The unique South African-developed solar panels will make it possible for houses to become completely self-sufficient for energy supplies.

The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers, lights, TVs, fridges, computers - in short all the mod-cons of the
modern house.
new solarpanels
How am I suppose to read that pt?
113. pt100
hmm, the link is to the main page, this 1 should work
Link
114. pt100
On the astma subject, I found a dutch research been done from 1992 - 1995 under approx. 500 kids, with or without the illness.
Higher airpollution (small particles) had an increase of complaints from 32 - 139%, Higher SO2 and NO2 gave an increase of 16 - 131% of the symptoms. (Can't find the data)
There was no difference in residential areas or in the country
I wont link because you cant figure out what it says.....
115. RL3AO


Invest 91W is looking a little better today.
On the Mars-Earth correlation -> Mars, Earth, and Jupiter have all been undergoing significant climate change recently. Since rapid climate change clearly does occur without human intervention (since I assume we're not intervening on Mars/Jupiter), we can therefore not make the assumption that the current trends are human-caused.

Pesticides -> Only a few atoms away from nerve gases? I visited a strawberry field near my home a year or so ago, and they went though what they do before growing the things. It's stunning - they pump CYANIDE through the soil. Cyanide! Which, by the way, leaves traces in the soil during the growing season. Yum, yum.

Babelfish translation of the Dutch page:

You do not see even sitting: the Opbeurmachine are there also still! Placed on 08.09.2004, 07:48:45 hours | 1174 examined | inland country | WWW.NIBURU.NL | print for solitary people who, however, what can friends use its life on at fleuren, are there a new remedie. Perfectly being appropriate in the computer society of the new millennium or socially worker does not adress a psychiatrist, but a converted gokkast its customer encouraging. Source: Now Video -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- React to this Article... Wheel Article by... Top Zelda wrote on 08.09.2004, for 08:12:04 Profitable matter for the inventor. freek wrote on 08.09.2004, for 09:15:53 me gives www.niburu.nl but eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 09:42:40 , Don't hear do you say freek on an uninhabited island sit....?? Shaved and... You do not forget zonnebrandcrme but. freek wrote on 08.09.2004, for 09:50:16 only if you go along in my one seems me but nothing, takes along your rag top and verlengkabeltje eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 09:55:56 I will reflect ff concerning h... return I later still on; -) those freek.....haha freek wrote on 08.09.2004, for 10:10:04 laughing smiley are oke, but were t gea's idea? that we with ze'n all would go? me seems nevertheless leuker then with his tweetjes or you must think differently, I take along cd'tje of molly johnson giteren gedownload entirely my taste eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 10:31:33 no honest is honest, if we go will everyone, even Danny.... Can you brush a beetje, Danny? eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 10:33:08 huh, gea's idea...?? O I thought of those duffe femke.... freek wrote on 08.09.2004, for 10:51:42 why must femke be change gear nou duf, or are you busy on voorhand a rivale disappoint me a beetje of you, I go out ff aan'm'n social obligations to work doei eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 10:53:19 nou say......;-) Bramsan wrote on 08.09.2004, for 14:53:10 mmm..zo'n opbeurmachine... work that also at people with average IQ? instead of low... ennu Freek finely that your Molly Johnsont... if I take along my beachballset can I thus? freek wrote on 08.09.2004, for 15:05:35 as eva t well find, belief that them a beetje is angry gea wrote on 08.09.2004, for 15:07:13 yes, I could have considered that idea, however, but these was not of me.. Eva, can I your strijkbout even lenen?ik have there none.. believe I.th ahum. Moek me now is ashamed himself? Serve schreef on 08.09.2004, for 17:09:11 beetje of lief hears!! be for femke femke wrote on 08.09.2004, for 17:10:06 * hips * where blijvezz your nouzz * hik * nou ikzz swing wwel with me onderboekie, then wetenz your waarz * hik * I zzzit..... daaag TOMs wrote on 08.09.2004, for 17:13:49 O what can sociably, my girlfriend also. She is as much as a beetje strangely and not real hand-tame, but hl terrible lief. She cannot sing. Is that terrible? Jan cut wrote on 08.09.2004, for 17:33:49 And I am bald, already as from my 21st, am be allowed go along it then a problem. Freek can lend I your zonnebrandcrme then? Wietske wrote on 08.09.2004, for 21:21:26 No, I do not want TOMs. And nou will I for sentence for you sing. eva wrote on 08.09.2004, for 22:41:21 say what is here all to the hand, which is all those people, freek? freek wrote on 09.09.2004, for 00:20:19 yes, you ff are gone drips of everything, also take along we that?, that island can be, however, a continent and t also not uninhabited being weet you all what you take along?? eva wrote on 09.09.2004, for 00:50:44 nou eh, you of course.....en my rag top (have I that actual, however). and all those others? what do want do you freek? freek wrote on 09.09.2004, for 01:14:32 I will sleep firstly nachtje, "geeeuw" mischien do not dream I, however, a beautiful dream in any case go I without you, a strijkbout does not take along I therefore, tropical island nevertheless?, do not have we that necessary, nou terusten "gaaaap" eva wrote on 09.09.2004, for 09:16:19 nou, weet you it already? I think that but slightly, as little as possible luggage will travel... that seems me the bests, nevertheless? and if we go, it lets know me then ff....dan puts I which all those others ff on a dwaalspoor.... -) Bramsan wrote on 09.09.2004, for 15:20:11 beetje puts others on the dwaalspoor... That is nevertheless not real Niburu minded... muffler also malicious... but I think that I you luck does not have stand in the way... Freek and Eva, good luck! eva wrote on 09.09.2004, for 15:28:53 you are right, I want bring nobody on a dwaalspoor freek zoekt it but concerned from with his bald head and his pitjeskaas... eh where this also already bramsan? eva wrote on 09.09.2004, for 15:54:22 ...neem you woman thus freek, differently are themselves it this way pitiful for d'r... grip I the pitjeskaas in... -) ilse wrote on 10.09.2004, for 09:23:33 Uninhabited island says you? Nou ahead I also go along, provided that I can take along someone. (and that which stomme Natasja with d'r tie copper fetisj stays in) http://www.russellcroweheaven.com/ Those can, and differently go along I not!!!!
Here are Transcript and mp3/... links to a radio show on Australia's ABC Radio National show on sustainable energy in Australia which I found very interesting. Radio National has some great podcasts.
118. pt100
I rest my (dutch) case..
Sorry, this page has the links to the mp3 etc on it.
120. pt100
Nice, i just read the whole thing
Just a heads up for anyone intrested. We are about to have some decent storms roll through the Charleston SC area. Check out live local weather info at Stormjunkie.com
122. pt100
gtg, sleep tight
Mysticdog... As I said, its not a question of fair or not. It is absolutely unfair. However, fair and truth are rarely comingled, and what is truth is that a date set cap that does not bind the US, India, and China to the same date will *never* become law in any way, shape, or form, in the US.

Now, if you don't actually want the US to be part of a climate protection protocol, thats fine, this makes a great rallying point and fundraising issue for the greens, and who knows, maybe thirty years from now, the greens will be able to overtake and displace the democratic party for leadership of the left.. But I wouldn't count on it.

This is one of those instances where you can have either progress, or principle, but you can't get both.
Ooooh! Looks like the global warming skeptics can no longer try to say that it isn't happening. As for anthropogenic warming, that is an entirely different matter; for example, look at this article. However, I noticed that the article says that perts of Jupiter are getting warmer while other parts are cooling down; this is not the same as what is happening on Earth.
It is also obvious that we can say goodbye to inactive hurricane seasons (except for during very strong El Ninos). Link
Has anyone looked in to "heat soaking" as a possible addtion to global warming? What I call heat soaking is the fact that large major cities keep and reflect back at night much of the heat occured during the day? Could it be a factor? Also could we by replacing what nature destroyes in terms of replacing and repairing beaches be affecting tidal flows? We know that nature since the start of time has reshaped the coast lines over and over. I believe we do not help this earth by all the things we are doing but maybe some of the things stated above could be making it worse?? Just my thoughts....
Do you mean the heat island effect? This should not affect global climate, only local climate. By the way, it can make storms more severe, as a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/1520-0450(1978)0172.0.CO;2" target="_blank">this study indicates for where I live (and I have seen examples that support this).
What happened? Oh well, a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/1520-0450(1978)0172.0.CO;2" target="_blank">here is the link.
The link does not work for some reason; here is what the article says:

Urban Effects on Severe Local Storms at St. Louis
Stanley A. Changnon Jr.

Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana 61801

(Manuscript received August 24, 1977, in final form February 3, 1978)

ABSTRACT

As part of METROMEX, a five-year study of how St. Louis affects summer weather, studies were made of possible urban effects on severe local storm phenomena. Localized (within 40 km of the city) increases were found in various thunderstorm characteristics (about +10 to +115%), in hailstorm conditions (+3 to +330%), in various heavy rainfall characteristics (+35 to +100%) and strong gusts (+90 to +100%). No indication of effects on tornado activity was found. The more substantial percentage increases were found in the expressions of storm intensity (very frequent thunder, hailfall impact energy and high rainfall rates). Urban-related increases in severe local storm conditions appeared at midday, were greatest in the evening and ended by midnight. Urban-induced increases occurred with all synoptic weather types but were most frequent and intense with squall lines and cold fronts. Results suggest that urban-induced factors alter the microphysical and dynamic properties of clouds and storms.
Posted By: pt100 at 9:57 PM GMT on May 05, 2006.

The panels are able to generate enough energy to run stoves, geysers,....

So now we can put Old Faithful on solar power, I take it?
You didn't put the lesser-than sign at the beginning.
Colby - I tried to post the link the normal way by using the Link button. I noticed that the URL has less than and greater than signs in it, which may be why it does't work.

Here is the link I tried to post (it can only be posted by posting an image of it):


Notice the less than and greater than signs near the end.
a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/1520-0450(1978)0172.0CO;2">Hmmm
How very odd, I think it's because of the blog comment's HTML filter. If you scroll up a bit to my second comment above this one, notice that the 'report as' is a link. Click it to get the article, though it requires subscription.
I found the article on Google and I did not need to subscribe to read it.
Oh, I just noticed that the link in the "Report As" is different from the link that I had.
138. RL3AO
according to that graph, were in the middle of an ice age, or am I missing something?
Ummm... Califonia is one of those who refuses to believe in global warming, despite all of the evidence (and mounting by the day).
Look at how the gulf has warmed in the las three days.

5-1-06

5-4-06

Notice the warming in the Carib also.
Pecos1680 said:

"Solar activity is a significant contributor to global warming.

I took some monthly sunspot data dating back to the 1700's, ran a moving average filter on it to reduce the 11-year periodicity, and produced a chart that shows an unprecedented increase in solar activity since the mid-20th century. I compared this with a NASA global warming chart covering the last 50 years and found a significant correlation."

Scott, would you please post these charts on the blog so I can look at them.
fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gs/averages/06may/gs_06may04_2318_multi.png495x518
Sorry bout the oversized pick ya'll. I think this is what david was trying for.
StormJunkie yes i was trying for it how did you do it where i can not?
David, here is what the code should look like (this is an image so that you can see the code):

imag src="http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gs/averages/06may/gs_06may01_0209_multi.png
David? What in the world are you trying to do? It might be better to try this in your own blog; you can even use modify comment to fix problems instead of having to repost stuff; Dr. Masters and others won't like it if this blog is cluttered up with bad posts.
hey SJ, cool site - just checked it out. and thanks for the SST links

Posted By: RL3AO at 9:15 PM CDT on May 05, 2006.

according to that graph, were in the middle of an ice age, or am I missing something?



You are correct. We're in the middle of an ice age. Temperatures and CO2 levels are nearly as low as they get on this planet.

About every 100,000 years we have an "interglacial period" where it warms up just a little and the ice retreats.

They last usually 15,000 to 20,000 years, then the ice comes back down for another 80,000 or so years.

The current interglacial period started about 18,000 years ago. That's how long we've had "global warming".

Thanks Snow.
MichaelSTL and evere one and dr M i am sorry i did not mean to do that JeffMasters would you Please take a way my 8:17 PM post i did not mean to do that i am vary sorry
David, I did not mean like that; I just meant that you should test things in your own blog, especially if you ar not sure if they will work or if it is something that you have not done before. Also, remember that in your blog, you can use "modify comment" to fix any errors instead of having to post again.
Califonia, there is natural variation in the earth's climate, which was all there had ever been until a few thousand years ago, and since then there is an increasing level of unnatural (ie. human induced) change in the earth's climate.

At first, it was only microclimates and local climates that we managed to affect (eg. when a forest was burned down or cleared).

Later regional climates were changed by deforestation (eg. the Greek and Roman empires deforested lands all around the Mediterranean, and in many places like much of Greece and Yugoslavia the soil eroded, the forests never came back, and the regional climate changed for good).

Now in the last decades, we are putting so much crap in the form of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (and clearing so much of the world's forests and draining so many wetlands) that we risk ruining the optimal climatic conditions which currently prevail on the planet.

The unnatural (human-induced) changes are accelerating, and every passing month brings more evidence. I'll be curious to see what it takes to bring you around.
*looks at graph* So, before the climate goes nuts and kills us all, we'd have to hit CO2 levels that are at least, what, 21x the current levels?

Riiiight.
California, I love your chart, but something that is missing really peaks my curiousity as a result of its ommission.

Sea Level.

Tack sea level on there. Global ice cover would also be an interesting tack on as well, but Sea Level is the real clincher.

I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting that the planet has usually been much warmer that it currently is; we recognize it from fossils of clearly tropical plants in latitudes we know aren't tropical now. We also know that from fossils that sea levels have been, and in fact, usually have been quite a bit higher than they are now.

The question you have to ask yourself, is humanity as a whole technically advanced enough for us to be content having the global oceans rise back up to their steady state level.
Colby, I know California doesn't share this opinion, but look at just the little slices before the big upticks, To me, the graph suggests that it only takes a modest time-local increase in CO2 to send the Earth's temp back up to its equilibrium temperature.

Man is currently forcing a time-local increase in CO2.

On the other hand, to suggest that returning to the equilibrium temp will "kill us all" is rediculous. Nasty, hideous, catastrophic... sure. Extinction, or even cessation of technological civilization... not a chance.

Posted By: ForecasterColby at 4:15 AM GMT on May 06, 2006.

*looks at graph* So, before the climate goes nuts and kills us all, we'd have to hit CO2 levels that are at least, what, 21x the current levels?



You will notice even at those levels there's no runaway greenhouse effect.


Posted By: rwwhot at 10:55 PM CDT on May 05, 2006.

California, I love your chart, but something that is missing really peaks my curiousity as a result of its ommission.

Sea Level.


Not "my" chart... heheheheh

I assume you refer to the amount of land that will be lost...

Actually when glaciers retreat, we have massive gains in the amount of fresh new land available for use.

You have read about the millions of acres being freed up presently from retreating glaciers, and at the same time you can see we certainly haven't lost any significant amount of coastal land as all that water has been released into the oceans.

This is purely a guess, but it seems like we might be gaining 10,000 acres for every coastal acre lost? Maybe 100,000 acres? Just guessing. Actually, still waiting to see a coastal acre lost to sea level rise...
I'll be back next week to talk about the demise of La Nina, and other factors that may affect the coming hurricane season

hmmmmm i see it when i see it that what he said in the last blog update so DR where is it and how come you did not have it on your blog today like you said you will i was waiting to see the blog update of your so will it be monday web friday of next week????

if you see this post yet me no thank you oh mail for you
I said only what I said. The fact that you're trying to divert attention to another issue is telling.

Sea Level rise does have benefits, Antarctica and greenland become available land masses, the quantity of productive continental shelf shallow water ocean would increase quite a bit, etc.

I just asked if you have a chart that tacks in sea level with those other two curves. Basically, I'm curious if there are plateaus that follow temp, or whether they run out of ice before the temp returns to 22C.


OTOH, I wouldn't hold your breath on watching for something. That signal is currently being vastly overwhelmed by effects of channelization and erosion, and for the human eyeball, just the effects of moon and wind driven tides make visualizing the changes from small overall sea level rise nearly impossible. I mean really, when the wind alone can drop the level of Galveston bay a foot, how is someone supposed to see the effects of a 1 inch rise in sea level?
Things are really firing up here in Texas tonight! Reports of 4.25" hail, and over 10 tornado reports so far. Injuries reported

Radar
Check out how much the waters have warmed in the gulf stream and gulf in the last week.

May 2
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gm/averages/06may/gm_06may02_0146_multi.png

May 6
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gm/averages/06may/gm_06may06_0154_multi.png

GIANTS IN 06

Posted By: rwwhot at 12:09 AM CDT on May 06, 2006.

Basically, I'm curious if there are plateaus that follow temp, or whether they run out of ice before the temp returns to 22C.



Yes. The ice disappears.

Ice ages last only a few million years.

Most of the time this planet has no ice. That is the normal condition for Planet Earth.

For all those who say that Global Warming will bring out better change such as Antarctica and Greenland becomming liveable landmasses....Who wants to live somewhere where its 24 hours of sunlight one time of the year, and 24 hours of darkness the other? Doesnt sound like much fun.
An essay I wrote if anyone wants to read it.

Climate Change

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have over the course of time, steered ourselves into the headlights of a blosomming situation. Created by man, woman, and child alone, it is time to become active. No longer can we sit and watch others work, educate and learn as we have done throughout our history. We must take this matter into our own hands, ensuring health, prosperity and wellbeing for our children, and their children henceforth.

No time in our history have we faced a situation with the prospective magnitude such as this one. From California, to Zimbabwe. Argentina to Finland and Nome Alaska to South Africa, the people and this place will be affected throughout.

Community is a huge player in this complicated game of chess. People must gather together and make the dedication to difference together. People too often beleive that the government itself is the answer to soley combating this issue. However the U.S. Government being one of the world leaders for the past two centuries, has shown little to no signs of dealing with this problem. Furthermore, the very foundation of the US government doesn't show much movement when these are the start of the important years.

We must first realize the situation; its implications, how we can solve it and the benefits when we have conquered it. Since the end of the last ice age, the human race has flourished wonderfully. Things have changed for the better. We are much more healthy, educated and prosperous than we were back then. The impact we have on the place we live has also changed five fold. Our actions no longer affect just us as a community here in Marin, but have world implications which can be said for any community in the world.

Lets take a similar situation for example which was solved just in the last 20 years. The hole in the Ozone in the stratosphere of our atmosphere. It started out as a shunned away belief that one person first realized as far back as 30-40 years ago. We thought there wasnt a way for us to have an impact as large as destroying our atmosphere which keeps us safe. Something we take for granted every day. As time went on, and more research was conducted, this one person who used persistance was able to identiy that the problem was in fact caused by us. The scientist found that our emission (recognize that word?) of Chlorolfloral Carbons was literally tearing a hole through the Ozone layer whch protects us from the Sun's harmful rays. However at the time when the hole was found, we thought the hole was much much smaller than it actually was and thought that the hole itself would not have impacts that could effect us. With more persistance and a much bigger following than first started, they luckily found the hole to be MUCH bigger than we had originally thought. Instead of being just 100 miles in diamieter, it covered a large portion of the north pole. And with enough activism, we were able to cut our emissions enough and the Ozone repeared itself. Proving that our emissions can have an effect on us.

We only have one place to live, and thats here on Earth. With the vast amount of us here, we must treat our communities and tend to them as if they were our own. Keeping them clean and safe for our children.

Solving this problem may seem very difficult, but in actually it is very easy, and completing the means to solve it actually secure our economy for many years to come. The switch to alternative types of energy and becomming aware, are the first steps. For the years of cheap oil are waning and the time is at hand to build the infrastructer and machinery that will carry our economy into the future. One can only imagine the oil prices in 10-15 years.
Taking baby steps is a big step. Educating people something as basic as recyling makes a real difference. Or try buying just one solar panel; It will make you feel better about making a difference in your conserved greenhouse emissions, but also your community donation. The bills are high these days, and they arent comming down anytime soon. Helping prepare your house for the future with a small adjustment brings lower energy bills for years to come. Join your community; Attending a park cleanup, community garbage cleanup, or community counsil meeting make big differences. The Education of others concerning this dilema spreads a web effect throughout your community, followed by its crossing great lands, Making a HUGE difference. And thats just where it starts.

The benefits of solving the Global Warming situation are colosal. Right now with the current forcasts of how this world will look in 100 years, all of us will be greatly effected. It doesnt have to be that way! With enough activism, community, persistance, motivation and confidence, we can ensure the health and wellbeing of our children for many generations to come, garaunteeing them just as prosperous a land as we have experienced.

Its hard to make preparations for something that will 'affect' us as far down the road as 1-2 or 3 generations. However we have been lucky enough to be blessed to recognize and even more importantly have the means to solving this problem, that we surely cannot wait any longer to start solving it! The time is now to gather the population and partake on the journey begun.
For a community rich with activism and will, limitless are the possibilites of prosperity.
California,

There is a reason that 1/2 of the worlds people live near the coast. Food, a nice place to live and great weather. Most people live in Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco why? Beucase they are at the coast. Why dont poeple live in Montana? Becuase the climate isnt very good. Furthermore, if we can reduce emissions and get the world back to its normal self, than why should we have to live in Antarctica? In 10,000 years when the climate is back to how it should be, then we could live in Antarctica when the avg temp is 60 degrees, but until then lets get out of the problem we've created and worry about our generation and the generations that follow.
I ask if A or B.
I get the answer "yes". boggle.

To ask, perhaps more clearly, does the sealevel plateau before, or after the temp gets back to 22C?

Trouper415, between what China is going to soon do with coal, and what we are going to soon do with coal, I think yall need to get passed this "we can stop it" thing. Recognizing reality is the first step in making rational plans, and the reality is that we are about to blow the doors off of any sort of CO2 containment.


rwwhot,

What is more important. What you want or what you need?
Acknowledging what "is", is more important than what I might need, or want. So obviously, if you wish an answer directly, need is more important than want, however, "is" is more important than either.

For you, 'is' is taking into consideration the implications of what human induced Global Warming means for our generation and the ones following. People naturally dont look at the big picture and plan for the future because we have never had to. And never have there been 5 billion humans on the planet as well. Our compatability with the Earth has changed durastically and so must the way we respect it now as well. Prosperity will come soon.
174. jeffB
The links to the South Africa solar breakthrough site are interesting.

My first reaction was "venture-capital scam". No links to the professor's Web site, no links to the university, no mention of scholarly publications on the topic -- just lots of popular press about how it was many times more efficient than existing panels (unlikely because of basic physics), how it was a simple "metal film" (how's it going to be efficient if it reflects or transmits most of the light that hits it?), and it was going to "change the world", starting any day now. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

HOWEVER, I believe I may have been wrong. If you scroll way down on this page, past the "over-unity" garbage and so on, there's a lengthy article that does point to Vivian Anderson's publications -- there are a bunch, they are in real journals, and they are directly relevant to the technology that the popular-press articles mention. It's conceivable that Anderson has simply decided to focus on commercialization rather than academic publication. (It's a shame, though; results much less significant than this make it into Science and Nature all the time.)

It certainly looks like it could be legit, at least on closer examination. I really hope so.
Good morning to everyone.

I as well have a question on the hurricane issue. Last year I thought we had a weak El Nino in the Eastern Pacific. I thought that would make last seasons wind wind shear in the Alantic slightly above average keeped Hurricanes down (despite the warmer then average water temps in the Alantic)

However we all know what happend last season. This season however we are in a weak La Nina for the season (its expected to last for another 3-6 months) know with the weak La Nina shouldnt there be below average wind shear in the Alantic? If that was the case wouldnt the season be worse then last year? yet many are saying it will be not as bad as last year despite the La Nina.
If that was the case wouldnt the season be worse then last year?



i think so
lightning, I have not had time to look through and research to much information because I have been busy working on the web site, but I think, if memory serves me corrctly, there did seem to be fewer storms that formed out in the Atlantic. There were quite a few carib storms and gulf storms, or storms that strengthed in the carribean and gulf then in the E Atlantic. There were not many Cape Verde storms last year. Anyone else who can chime in on this?

SJ
Another question I have is how certain are we in our predictions of a La Nina, and how certain are we that a La Nina will reduce shear in the Atlantic?

Ex.
"Most of the statistical and coupled model forecasts indicate ENSO-neutral conditions in the tropical Pacific through the end of 2006 (Fig. 6). The spread of the most recent statistical and coupled model forecasts (weak La Nia to weak El Nio) indicates uncertainty in the outlooks for the last half of the year. However, current conditions (stronger-than-average easterly winds over the central equatorial Pacific and below-average upper-ocean heat content) support those forecasts indicating that La Nina conditions will continue for the next 1-3 months."
From Climate Prediction Center
I noticed most of the people the good DR. refers to are these uneducated Senators and other rednecks. You are doing your country no favors by refering to these political low lifes. they will say what ever the establishment want them too, as so they can feed their fat faces at the trough, keep the american people iggnorant. (which isn't hard). Remember WMD.
O thats right. I often forget that La Nina affects the area around Cape Verde. Most of the hurricanes where from the gulf of Mexico or from caribbean.

This year could we get more storms from Cape Verde? If so wouldnt that mean that the east coast would have a higher risk this year
I remember in the 50's people thought hypnosis was a hoax. Now doctors use it to cure patients.

Questioning global warming will make our chidren and grand children pay a high price for our denial.

It did take centuries to admit earth is round.
Lucky, cyclonebuster is the supreme spammer of the internet. I've never seen a board he HASN'T plastered with these asinine tunnels.
Lightning,

Looking through the SST Anomoly history, I don't see anything that looks like an El Nino. The SST near the Equatorial Pacific had some above normal temps around May-June, but nothing that extended from S. America across the Pacfic. They were broken up by many areas of below normal temps which consolidated into a week La Nina by September. This weak La Nina is what I believe helped caused the large number of late season storms that we had.

This season has >1% chance of seeing as many storms as last season. The weak La Nina we had throughout late Autum and through Winter has pretty much dissapeared. So despite StormTops doomsday predictions, it's looking like we will have neutral ENSO conditions and an active season, but not like 2005. We'll know for sure later in the year.

SST Anomoly Link


BTW, Trouper415, please tell me how the Earth 'should be' because as far as I can tell, this history of the Earth is climate change. It stays here and there for a little while, but it never stops changing. That's not to say we aren't having an effect on the climate, but to say that without our interference the climate would stay as it 'should be' is a very flawed idea in my opinion.
I think it doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not, from a practical standpoint. Two very significant factors will remain true either way:

- the days of cheap oil are drawing to a close
- the american lifestyle, wealth, and power is linked to cheap energy and cheap mobility

America and many other nations have already largely decoupled their non-mobile economies from oil (some with nukes, others with coal, some otherwise). No other nation is as fixated with cars as the US, so our mobile economy is uniquely oil-heavy, but few have wealth, square miles, and cheap energy. When will we change? When we have to -- due to fuel costs and shortages. But I doubt we'll change all that much. A lot of people drive $45K SUVs today -- they could drive a plug-in hybrid averaging 100mpg for less and keep the lifestyle largely unchanged.

Once cheap oil runs out we'll shift our economy more to coal, LNG, and tar sands, then probably to nuclear before we get to totally renewable energy. But since that'll take 100 years we personally won't care, and our kids will probably have worse issues with water, food, and disease to deal with as the population grows anyway.

In the meantime, build an energy efficient house, buy efficient cars, and invest your savings in oil exploration, battery manufacturers, and Canadian tar sands. You'll smile while others cry. Don't blame publically traded oil companies for their profits either -- they're your best (only?) friends on the global stage, as they're driven by money, unlike their nationalized rivals run by China and such.

Of course, the poorer you are, the worse you'll fare, but that's just the way the world works. For everybody else chaos and strife will be matched by opportunity. Tack along with the winds of change and enjoy the journey.

Zap
well put LakeWorthFinn.


It seems as if overall SSTs in the Atlantic arent as high as they were one year ago with the amazing season we had in 2005. However the Gulf SSTs are really starting to crank up and look higher than they were last year. So, coupled with the fact that La Nina mainly effects cape verde storms out in the Atlantic, and very high SSTs in the gulf, couldnt we expect a good hurricane season? I know we dont know much about El Ninos or La Ninas very well, but I was wondering.

HurricanesMyles,

When I said getting the climate 'back to what it used to be' might have been a bit confusing. I just meant getting it back to its natural variations of what it has been doing the past 500 million years and beyond greatly being effected by the Milankovitch Cycle. I was referring to it 'used to being' before humans had an impact with the emission of greenhouse gasses etc. And we can do that.
Zaphod and others,

People must realize that we are, or should be in a massive transitional period. Energy from resources is what keep us alive. First it was wood in the form of fires. Then oil from whales etc. Then coal, Then Petrol; not knowing the good or bad effects of each. And each new energy source was better than the last, more efficient and much more abbundant. However now we have begin to run out of oil and it is time to make the transition to the next energy source. We as Americans and anyone else who has the leadership abilites should be thinking ahead and making the transition. For we have waited far to long. However the leadership of this country has been very poor the past 6-10 years concerning this. As a leader you must be concered both of whats partaking now with your people, but also thinking ahead and making preparations ensuring the wellbeing of future generations so your people prosper. This however has not happened and why? Because the world leaders in this country and not leaders by any means. And I could consider myself conservative on many views. He has lead many people indirectly to thinking that oil is still the future, and we as Americans and the world will thrive off this. Not really thinking about the future at all but just for himself. There has been a severe lacking of American leadership the past 6-8 years. And we as America being a vast influential leader ourselves for the time we have been around, looks very lackadazickle and unready for what is ahead.

I gauruntee that if a leader was in place right now who had the ability to convice the worlds people, we would be well on our way to making that transition. Generations to come would be secure as they always have, and people would have confidence in their beliefs. It will all take place soon.
The GOM SSTs are shocking right now - area of +3C anomalies in the NWGOM.
Trouper, how can you say Atlantic temps are not warmer then they were last year? Look at the Gulf stream and Carib in these images.

Especially the upper stream.

5-6-05 SSTs

5-6-06 SSTs

It looks to me like the Central Atlantic is about the same temp, maybe slightly cooler, but the E coast and the Carib are warmer.
Last year we had everyone make a prediction and i still have the list.....This year we are going to do it again but you have to have your prediction in before June 1st.....We have plenty of time and I hope everyone stays safe and has no damage from the Hurricane Season of 2006.....I made one chase to Hurricane Wilma with Hurricanechaser and it was an unique experience to say the least.......Im not a techinal person and have been busy with work, but finally have a chance to get my footage edited and maybe have a chance showcase it. I will be back soon...........
The Central Atlantic is much cooler then last year at the same time. The Caribbean is also quite a bit cooler aswell. The North Atlantic is warmer, but that doesnt matter much at 40N. The Gulf is really the only thing that is warmer then last year.




weatherboyfsu

I would love to make my own prediction and be on your list. ^_^
Hmmm...don't know why those didn't work. But the links do work, so you can still check out the differences between the SST on 05/06/06 and 05/07/05.
Quick post on a continuing hot subject. It won't change unless the cost of renewables and the cost of oil about the same. It will only be at that point that it will become beneficial for people, as individual comsumers, to start switching. If you feel that this time is near, buy stock in renewable related industries, and laugh when Exxon takes a dive.
I was refirring that the La Nina which may effect the Atlantic Ocean more so than the gulf which would aid the formation of the Cape Verde storms. And the above normal temps coupled with a little help from the La Nina would aid the hurricanes forming in the gulf and the caribean area. I'm just saying it looks like those 2 adding up could mean for a nice season.

GIANTS IN 06
pt100 that was a really good link. I am glad to see that progress is being made on the solar energy. Me personally, I think this is the way to go!!!!
I wrote in here the other day about an HBO special "to hot NOT to handle". They said in this show that if we lined up 100 miles of solar panels on each side of the Mojave desert this would be enough to power our whole country. Not sure if this is true or not BUT, now after reading about this breakthrough in Africa....... Maybe not so far-fetched!!!!!!
Like I said before you guys should try to catch the HBO special really really good.
Myles, I am not sure I understand the scales you have on those maps, and what do you make of those maps compared to the ones I posted. The detail level is definetly higher on the links I posted. I do agree most of the Atlantic is cooler, but the Carib and the east coast seem to be a good bit warmer. If I am correct then this would be because of the current loop and the fact that it is pulling the much warmer water out of the gulf and in turn heating the entire gulf stream area. That being said could we not expect the central atlantic water to continue to warm as long as the Gulf stays so much above average? I would think that would also prevent the W Alantic from cooling as much as normal. Ya'll let me know where I am off.

Thanks
SJ
Looking at the maps, it looks like last year was an El Nino year for the first half at least - notice the 3*C+ anomalies in the Pacific along the equator; this did nothing to decrease Atlantic hurricane activity. Who knows how many more storms would have formed if last year had started as La Nina or neutral...
Micheal can you explain what the scale is on the maps that were posted by lightning? Is it deviation from average?
The maps show the deperture from average in degrees Celcius, with blue-black being below normal and yellow-red above normal.
The links I posted, and images lightning posted, are SST anomlies - the difference between average SST and actual SST. The difference is that those two maps dont show actual SST, as the one you posted did.

I really dont know how you're seeing that the Caribbean and East Coast are warmer then last year. The East Coast appears roughly the same while the E. Caribbean is below average when last year it was above. The rest of the Caribbean and Atlantic are warmer then normal, but about 1-1.5C. Last year most of the Atlantic and Caribbean was 1.5-3C warmer.

Also, I have no idea how SST early in the year effect SST later in the year. I haven't the education or the expierince to draw on and say what may happen. I'm not going to college for metoerology and I have only been watching the weather for about two years. However, I would guess that it is safe to assume that above average SST now should correlate with above average SST later, but I can't say for sure.
Does anyone know what the cost of a Hybrid engine is to buy? And does anyone have any websites conerning Hybrid Engines in general so I could do some studying. Thanks.
Black-Blue is acutally below average MichealSLT. Average is very light blue or very light yellow. That would mean SST is less than -.5 or +.5C.
207. pt100
FSHHEAD

Im afraid that the real power in this world, the oil/energy companies, are powerfull enough to stall this new product untill the last drop of oil is sold.

For u who dont know what we are talking about:
new solarpanels
There is a special on TWC about climate change for anyone who is intrested.
? The maps show the deperture from average in degrees Celcius, with blue-black being below normal and yellow-red above normal.

What do you mean by "Black-Blue is acutally below average MichealSLT. Average is very light blue or very light yellow. That would mean SST is less than -.5 or +.5C."?
From my understanding he is talking about this.

The darker blues are below average and there are a few blacks on there that look like islands. These are temps taht are less then or equal to 5 degrees celsius below average.

Yellow is average where it has been for most of the time durning the past 100 years or so.

Deaper reads are temps that are on average equal to or greater then 5 degrees celsius.

Again I might be wrong.

That was my mistake, I misread.

BTW, the TWC program is kinda interesting. It's on the new GEOSS program and how is should help our understanding of weather.
Does anybody have any thoughts on what the El Nino like anomalies last year and the lack of them this year might mean?
MichealSTL,

I took a good look at anomlies from last year, and it was actually quite interesting.

During Jan 05 the enite equatorial Pacific was warmer then ussual. However, the warmth was spotty with only very warm SST in regionalized locations. It looked nothing like the straight line of high SST almost right above the equator that El Nino ussually displays.

From Feb-early April, La Nina conditions acutally developed and started looking pretty defined. During late April though SSTs warmed up and from April 26th-May 10th a pool of warm water developed that look quite like El Nino, much more so then in Jan.

However, as quickly as it went from what looked like La Nina in early April to El Nino in late April, it went back to cold anomalies in late May. These, too, didn't last and again El Nino like conditions developed from late June-late July when cold water again broke up the developing warm pool.

During August there was a mix of regoinal warm pools and cold pools scattered about the equatorial pacific with a persitant warm pool near lower Central America/Northan S. America.

Then from September on we had our weak La Nina.

In all, it was a back and forth effort between warm anomalies and cold anomalies from Jan until Sept. Neither strong El Nino or La Nina condtions developed, but it does appear that weak El Nino and La Nina alernated from Jan until August.

What does all this mean? I don't know. I'm not too familiar with ENSO beyond it's effects. I dont even know excactly why El Nino/La Nina causes More/Less shear besides it displaces the Jet Stream. How/Why it does that, I have no clue. I would guess that since niether El Nino or La Nina persisted for more then a month that it didn't have too much of an effect, but I could be wrong.
That wasn't ENSO, last year was ENSO Neutral. Even the 'La Nina' of September on wasn't officially so, it was strong or consistant enough to be classed as such.
ForecastorColby,

Last year may have been technically ENSO Neutral, but that doesn't mean that El Nini/La Nina like conditions cannont develope and persist for less time then required to be declared an offical El Nino/La Nina. These pattern changes could effect us even if they are only short term.

Also, the La Nina of September was the start of the official La Nina we had over the winter. Doesn't it have to persist for 6 months to be declared official?
guys please give it a rest i can assure you there is to much sheer for anything to devlop now so all of you get a good night sleep...do what tonys doing relaxing...however start to really look at the tropics by may 21-24..you all have a great night im going to eat at acmes...StormTop
Ahhh....I'm confused. There was no bickering, fighting, or anyting like that. We're simply discussing the current SST compared to last year and MichealSTL asked about ENSO conditions last year. I dont think anyone is expecting anything to develop right now.
I second that Myles. I think it is evident to most everyone that there is too much shear for anything to develop right now. I think the real question behind this discussion is can we predict periods of higher and lower shear in the Atlantic based on El Nina La Nino/ssts.

SJ
look like the gulf is a lot hoter then last year at this time am i right on this
Yes, the NW Gulf in particular is much hotter.
what dos this mean

Jupiter got hit by a big mother asteroid, the explosions themselves were as big as the Earth, just recently. When something much less than that happened last time on Earth it burned down the world and changed the climate for millions of years. It nearly killed much of higher life on land, and finished off the dinosaurs. Jupiter's climate will be purturbed for hundreds of thousands of years, swamping out all other possible natural variations.

The sun radiation intensity (warming) has been very very little. The reports of "global warming" on Mars and Pluto as proof that the Sun is at fault for Global Warming on Earth fail to account for why thirty other worlds and moons are not warming. If the sun is the main reason, then ALL the planets have to show warming.

If the sun was at fault it would be far worse for mankind, as we could do SOMETHING about man-made warming, but we can do NOTHING about solar warming. It's a good thing that the records going back 100 years show very little variation in solar radiation.

On the other hand Mars and Pluto have more "greenhouse gases" than Earth does. If a tiny bit of extra sunlight causes major warming on Mars with an atmosphere mostly made of CO2 than we should learn from that to keep CO2 levels from increasing in our air.

Neither Mars nor Pluto have thick protective gas envelopes to stop many high energy radiation particles from penetrating to surface like Earth does -- one cannot compare these worlds as if they would react identically to Earth to any input changes. It is equivilent to science frauds to make definitive statements about other planets with so little actual data. Nobody has visited these worlds, and instruments have only recently started building the records of facts of things we may be somewhat sure of about some of the other planets.


http://home.case.edu/~sjr16/advanced/mars.html
As can be seen in the table below, Mars' atmosphere is much less than Earth's and Venus', and it exerts a pressure of only 0.000636 bars at the surface. Its composition is nearly all CO2; the rest is approximately:
* CO2: 95.32%
* N2: 2.7%
* Ar: 1.6%
* O2: 0.13%
* CO: 0.08%
* H2O: 0.021%
* NO: 0.01%
* Ne: 0.00025%
* HDO: 0.000085%
* Kr: 0.00003%
* Xe: 0.000008%

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
Atmosphere of Mars
Not such a bad place to visit, and you couldn't live there.
Mars has a thin atmosphere:

Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus and Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the planet in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules per m2 in Earth's atmosphere.

Earth Venus Mars
N2 0.79 2 3 x 10-4
O2 0.20 < 0.001 10-7
Ar 0.01 0.005 2 x 10-4
CO2 0.0003 64 0.009
H2O ~ 0.02 ~ 0.01 ~10-6

Total 1.00 90 0.01

--------------------------
H2O 3 km 0.5 mm small
liquid
+ vapor

(A technical note: This is based on a pressure ratio of 0.0056/1,
a surface gravity ratio of 0.38/1.0, and a mass per molecule
ratio of 1.5/1.0 for Mars/Earth.)

Note that Mars has more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than does Earth, but Mars has a lot less of everything else.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Pluto.html#atmosphere
Atmosphere

Pluto has very thin atmosphere with a surface pressure 100,000 times less than that on Earth. It is composed of 98% nitrogen and small amounts of methane and carbon monoxide much like the atmosphere of Neptune's moon Triton.

Pluto's atmosphere gradually freezes and collects on the surface as the planet moves away from the Sun. Yet, interestingly, observations have shown that between 1989, when Pluto was at perihelion, and 2002, the atmospheric pressure increased threefold. The explanation probably has to do with the fact that materials take time to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth, for example, is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon, when sunlight is the most intense. The fact that Pluto's atmosphere is still building up rather than freezing out, as many scientists expected, is good news from the standpoint of what the New Horizons probe, launched toward Pluto in 2006, might learn of the ninth world.
i have updated my blog
226. Inyo
i just dont buy the sun thing. Yes, the sun varies in intensity but i havent seen any credible, scientific data that points to the sun being a major part in climate change. The earth IS naturally warming but i don't think this is much because of the sun, but because of other, poorly understood factors.

You can stick a fork in La Nina. It's DONE! Sorry, those of you wishing for /dreading more atlantic hurricanes. I dont think it will be much of a factor either way. I do think the eastern pacific will be below average at least for the start of the season, beacuse that area is cold right now
Ha ha, all your link says is that you are wrong, as usual.
228. RL3AO
Who cares about the EPac. 95% off the storms move away from land. With the Atlantic, it's completely opposite.
Cyclone, I laugh at the pure stupidity of your last post. You just posted something that BLATANTLY SAYS YOU'RE WRONG...good greif!
That is a little scary, I think cyclone actually believes most of the stuff he says.

Anywho if you have any links you think would be a good fit for the sight then let me know in my blog. Also leave and other feedback you may have. Still looking for more video. There is already a short clip of weatherboyfsu's Wilma footage, check it out at
Stormjunkie.com

Thanks
SJ
JeffMasters,
Enjoyed your review of
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."
Many more good links on
that page as well. How the heck does
Crichton rate a hot seat in Congress
testifying on climate change?
-Barefoot-

One could not pluck a flower without
troubling a star. --Loren Eiseley
The Crichton affair has a precedent in American politics. A few decades ago, there was much public hand-wringing about the state of the American Farmer (you know the archetype I mean). In an effort to portray what it was like to run a farm household, whom do you think was called to testify before Congress? A real farmer's wife? Nope. It was Sissy Spacek, who had portrayed such a character in a movie.
It's a truth vs falsity issue, not a political issue. However, some parts of the modern GOP have aligned with propganda and untruths. As a distinctive group, those of us that follow and believe scientifc truths without allowing political biases rule our lives, have had the responsibility of defending science and its truths from people like you, StormJunkie et al. PS, the earth is round. Enjoy your Sunday.
Heh - since when do we trust Congress?
Why do you want to start wannabe? The fact is that you fall in to the left wing trap of believing any thing they say in order to support your political views, so I think you have no right to chime in on this. Why don't you go back to blaming global warming on Bush. Drop your political agenda and lets all try to look at the scientific facts.

Sincerely
SJ
Don't get me wrong I know Bush has his problems, but I had to laugh when wannabe tried to blame global warming on him. Along with the other stuff you spew wannabe.

SJ
*sigh* *withdraws again from the hotbutton issue*

The engine of world global warming is the military industrial complex centered primarily in the US, so an argument can be made against any leader whose primary motivation is to promote it. And whether leadership in Washington is even cognizant of this is doubtful, which makes the scenario scary indeed. Sort of like a leader who sits on the largest nuclear aresenal in the world and is not able pronounce the word nuclear.
All this can be discussed without politics. Hurricanes will be here soon and they don't care whether you're republican, democratic, liberal, green, etc. Let's focus on why we're here - an interest in weather, specifically tropical systems.
Amen Stellar.

241. Inyo
Posted By: RL3AO at 10:22 PM CDT on May 06, 2006.
Who cares about the EPac. 95% off the storms move away from land. With the Atlantic, it's completely opposite.


Exactly! E-pac storms almost never hurt anyone, aside from an odd Baja landfall. All they do is circle around and look cool on sattelite, give the surfers in California something to do, and give a needed shot of moisture to Arizona every now and then. If you'd rather see a strong atlantic season with thousands of people being made homeless or killed, you are a sicko!

and remember... e-pac storms work pretty much the same way.. they offer the opportunity for learning about hurricanes, without killing anyone.

also you are crazy if you are implying that 95% of atlantic hurricanes hit land. Clearly that is not true, plenty of them recurve harmlessly into the Atlantic and never touch land.

Obviously we need to watch the atlantic season more closely, since it has the potential to do so much damage. But the E-pac systems are just as amazing, and much less likely to cause us problems.

Wow, it takes a while to go through all this. Glad to see that stormtop is back to stir things up. Now time to go through the posts and flag as spam the ones about tunnels.
Shear is too high cyclone. especially if it moves a little N.
Good to see you St. It has been awhile. Check out my blog and the site. Let me know what you think.

SJ
Nicely said ScienceCop.

Everyone have a good one.
Uh, Junkie, the shear is near zero over that. Probably won't stay that way for too long, but certainly worth keeping an eye on.
For all you peeps in FL:

How long has it been since we have had a fire advisory like this before? Its been so so dry here. Just like they say, a very dry season usually means an active hurricane season.
NOGAPS has a tropical cyclone located right on top of that convection...TD1 out of nowhere!?

Link
Understood Colby, but it can not go any where with out running in to shear or land correct? And the shear is on the outer edges of where it is trying to form.
The shear is to it's NE, but is moving off to the NE as well. At the moment, the system isn't moving, so I'd say it has a fairly decent shot.
Whirlwind, we had one a few years ago. I have 2002 in my head, but I'm not sure. It's typical La Nina year weather.
253. Inyo
i still say, compared to other factors, La Nina isnt doing much now.
June 15th
Look at Levi's blog.
Here is the QuikScat on the wavelet near Panama:



The front to its north is still driving it south, last time I looked. If the front stalls, it might have a chance
Progressive,

I also say the 15th thru the 18th will be the first storm of the Atlantic Season...
Wave not looking quite as healthy tonight - tomorrow morning is what'll really matter, though.
The invest in the Western Pacific is looking pretty good.
Well I noticed that there is a lot of sheer out there on the Pacific and the Atlantic, so we will be clear for a while longer...


Although the Pacific Hurricane Season does start in a little more than a week from now....


Taco
True, but not for long. The low ITCZ shear is moving north, I'd go with the others here and say ~ 2 weeks.
262. RL3AO
yep, looks like a TD in the west pacific. JTWC has a formation alert for it.

I would not be surprised to see a super typhoon from that; look at this - it is forecasting a very large intense system; the deeper warm-core it is, the more powerful it is (the indicated pressure is not accurate; even for Katrina, it only indicated a minimum pressure of 970 mb).
Yes, there may actually be global warming, but we don't know what, if any, impact our industrialized and technological civilization is having on global warming and the climate in general. Would these changes still be happening if humans didn't exist? We can't know for sure, because we don't have a duplicate Earth to use as a control group.
Dr. Masters,

It would be nice if you would disallow (or shrink) images in the comments that are larger than typical screen width. Your blog entry is very difficult to read due to the world water temperature images posted by lightning10.

Thanks for your consideration. Your blog & site are fantastic!
Thanks for the thread! I think one big problem we have had with this and other issues (e.g. Ozone) is that so much scientific writing is done with qualifiers and in passive voice. This gives great action fiction wroters like Inhofe's "expert" (sic) an opening. Most people do not like nor understand out typical dry writing style.

Dr. Masters, perhaps you could give us all an overview of the implications of entry into a "super-interglacial" era for rainfall patterns etc. In particular, what happens with the tropical high at the convergence of the Ferrel and Hadley cells. As I understand the recent history (million years or so) the desert areas are more intense during interglacials than during a glacial period. Can that be extrapolated to a super-interglacial? What are the implications for areas around 40 degreee latitude?
A quote from geochemist Wally Broecker (1990):

"The inhabitants of planet earth are quietly conducting a gigantic experiment. So vast and so sweeping will be the impacts of this experiment that, were it brought before any responsible council for approval, it would be firmly rejected as having potentially dangerous consequences. Yet the experiment goes on ... "

Today's CO2 levels are as much higher than a 'normal' interglacial as an interglacial is higher than a glacial period.