WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Global warming underestimated?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 3:00 PM GMT on February 10, 2006

Are the official estimates of a 1.4° to 5.8°C (2.5° to 10.4°F) increase in global mean surface temperatures by the year 2100 significantly in error? That was the conclusion of MIT professor Dr. Peter H. Stone, in a lecture I attended last week at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society. Dr. Stone's results were also published January 13, 2006 in Geophysical Research Letters. The "official word" in the science of climate change comes from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a collaborative effort between over 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, including many of the top climate researchers in the U.S. The IPCC publishes an extensive assessment of the state of the science every six years. The most recent report, issued in 2001, predicted the 1.4° to 5.8°C increase. If Dr. Stone is right, the next IPCC assessment, due out in 2007, will have to revise that estimate upwards.

Dr. Stone started his talk by posting this quote from the Executive Summary of the 2001 IPCC model evaluation chapter: "Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols." (The term "forcing" in climate research refers to any process, natural or human-caused, that "forces" the climate to respond in a significant way.) The IPCC report supported their statement by comparing climate simulations of the observed 20th century climate that used just natural processes ("forcings" such as volcanic eruptions and natural changes in the sun's brightness) with simulations done including human-caused "forcings" (greenhouse-effect gases added since pre-industrial times, plus aerosol particle pollution). Dr. Stone presented Figure 4 (below), a modified version of a figure from the 2001 IPCC report. The figure shows a typical 20th century climate simulation by one of the major climate models used for the IPCC assessment--the UK Hadley Center model. The results look good. The model is able to reproduce the observed climate of the 20th century. In addition, the simulation shows that one cannot explain the observed 20th century global warming of 0.6°C without including human-caused (anthropogenic) climate forcings.

Dr. Stone argued that the IPCC's confidence in the ability of models such as the UK Hadley Center Model to predict future climate was invalid, and that the good agreement between the observed climate and model prediction seen in the figure above could have been coincidence. He outlined several ways that compensating errors in two or more areas of model uncertainty could have produced a climate simulation that matched the observed 20th century record.

Major uncertainties in climate change computer models include:

1) Climate Sensitivity (how much global surface temperature changes when CO2 is doubled)
2) Rate at which the oceans take up heat
3) Strength of forcing by aerosol particles
4) Natural variability

For example, if a model has a Climate Sensitivity that is too great (the model predicts too much warming for a given increase in CO2), and improperly assumes too much cooling will occur due to pollution from aerosol particles, the two errors will cancel each other out and lead to a realistic-looking simulation. The Climate Sensitivities of the 11 key models used to generate the 2001 IPCC results varied by about a factor of 2.5, from 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Similarly, the amount of heat taken up by oceans varied by about a factor of 2.5 in the models. Additional uncertainties exist in the models' treatment of aerosols and natural variability.

Rather than dismiss the climate models as being too filled with uncertainty to be useful for performing climate simulations, Dr. Stone maintained that one can do an intelligent uncertainty analysis by varying two of the major uncertainties in a model simultaneously, and study the resulting model predictions. He described his group's research to evaluate the uncertainties in 11 of the key models used to formulate the 2001 IPCC climate report. The study was done using data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), an international research program begun in 1995. The talk then became quite technical, with several plots showing Probability Distribution Functions on parameter-space diagrams. It was at this point I bemusedly watched the audience member next to me who hadn't had enough cappuccino that morning repeat the classic pecking bird "doze-droop-jerk-I'm awake!" pattern. Meteorology talks aren't always filled with captivating displays of 3-D Category 5 hurricanes! There's a lot of hard science needed to understand the concepts.

Finally, Dr. Stone finished his uncertainty analysis, and he presented some rather startling conclusions:

1) Models have been over-estimating the rate of mixing of heat into the deep ocean.

2) This implies that their projections of surface warming for the 21st century are too low.

The guy next to me jerked fully awake now, and the audience got noticeably more attentive. "And this worries me," Dr, Stone continued. "It worries me enough that we've made many extensive tests of our methodology that try to make sure that there are no flaws. I would be delighted if anybody here could come up with a test that we might look at to see if we've done anything wrong." The audience, filled with several hundred people, including many of the world's foremost climate experts, was silent. No one could come up with a reason to dispute Dr. Stone's gloomy conclusion.

So how much in error are the climate models? Dr. Stone didn't give a number in his talk, and when I asked him about this later he said he had only a rough preliminary idea of what this error might be. His research team is currently analyzing their results to see how much additional warming we can expect. When they publish some specific error estimates, I'll be sure to post a follow-up blog on the subject.

Professor Stone's talk can be heard on-line for free. To do so, you must install the free WebEx player for IE or Netscape. Note: this will not work for other browsers, such as Firefox! The talk is about 40 minutes long, and includes figures. Alternatively, you can read the paper on the subject that he co-authored along with C.E. Forest and A.P. Sokolov of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change:

Forest, C.E., P.H. Stone, and A.P. Sokolov, "Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings", Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01705, doi:10.1029/2005GL023977, 2006.

A free abstract of the paper is available from the agu.org website. A full version costs $9 for non-subscribers.

A note on my global warming blogs
In an issue as complex, contentious, and important as global warming, it is impossible for anyone to present an unbiased and fair treatment of the subject. My bias will be towards presenting new scientific findings published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as calling attention to the political aspects of the debate when it appears that one side or the other is attempting to twist or hide the truth. While thus far I have only focused on the NASA/Dr. James Hansen affair, I also have criticism of those claim that Hurricane Katrina was significantly enhanced by global warming. Although it is possible that global warming did contribute significantly to Katrina's intensity, the current best hurricane science supports only a 1-2 mph enhancement in Katrina's winds by global warming. I have a blog on this topic I plan to post next week, highlighting recent questionable statements by the editor of Science magazine on the matter.

For those of you following the NASA/Dr. James Hansen affair, see this morning's New York Times article, where George C. Deutsch, the young NASA press aide who resigned on Tuesday amid claims that he had tried to keep Dr. James Hansen from speaking publicly about global warming, defends himself publicly.

A note on media bias on the global warming issue
I'm of the opinion that articles in the New York Times on global warming tend to be biased in favor of dramatizing the problem and calling for action. Articles in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and Newsweek magazine generally have the opposite bias. Time magazine seems pretty neutral, and CNN.com may have a pro-action bias. I'm not sure about the USA Today, Washington Post, or other sources. One of my favorite sources of global warming info (but a little too technical for many readers) is from realclimate.org, which is maintained by some of the top climate scientists in the field. They have serious disagreements with the Wall Street Journal.

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

this like to update ever one

1st off the P storm update is uot by the nhc

2nd there is a vary big snow storm going on well may be not yet but it will

3rd my new blog is update and news about the snow you can find on my blog so stop on in
A 1002 mb gale low is over the E
Atlantic near 34n17w. A cold front extends from 32n14w to the
Canary Islands near

any news on this one?
pulling up a nice comfy chair on the sidelines, waitin to watch the debate heat up in here!
A 1002 mb gale low is over the E
Atlantic near 34n17w. A cold front extends from 32n14w to the

any news on this one?

The storm has no deep convection at the center, and is not a threat to develop into Alberto. It will gradually weaken as it drifts SE towards the Arfican coast the next few days.

The Northeast snowstorm looks to be a Cat 1 or 2, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to judge these things. Interesting that the NWS is not using the NESIS scale to rate this storm in any of their forecasts or discussions I looked at.

Jeff Masters
well be back soon and you all play nic in her you all her
JeffMasters could the big snow storm of 2006 could that have any ch of be come the A storm? oh could you find out of how storng this will be and you may want to look at the weather ch
got to go be back soon and be nic
Think this topic will kick off.

Does any one have a link to studies or evidence that diputes any correlation between global warming and human induced green house gases.
All I seem to see is in favour, and would like to see both sides of the arguement.
The silence is deafening - no one wants a repeat of last night :)
Check this out: Link

Look at that low near Britain at 144 hours...O_O
An interesting article from the Wall Street Journal on this topic:

"The 2,000-plus scientists at this week's annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society had plenty to talk about, from last year's droughts to flash floods and wildfires. But the biggest question at the meeting in Atlanta -- why last hurricane season was the worst since recordkeeping began 151 years ago -- was almost too hot to handle.

William Gray, America's most prominent hurricane scientist and an ardent foe of the belief that global warming has worsened hurricanes, was supposed to join a panel discussing the storms. So was Greg Holland of the National Center on Atmospheric Research -- who disagrees with Dr. Gray. But the organizers withdrew the invitations after deciding the dispute had grown so nasty it was too risky to put the two in the same room.

"It was looking like it would totally dominate everything else," says Joe Schaefer, a planner and the director of the National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center.

"To hell with it, I'm not going" to Atlanta, said Dr. Gray, a Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science, after learning of the cancellation before the conference. He didn't attend.

His adversary Dr. Holland is among a group of prominent scientists who argue that the recent burst of powerful storms isn't part of a normal pattern. In a recent article, he and co-authors said that global warming caused by human activity, while not affecting the number of hurricanes, appears to be causing more of them to be very intense. Dr. Holland went to the meeting despite the cancellation of his joint appearance with Dr. Gray and presented his paper's conclusions during a session on a wide variety of weather issues.

What is going on with hurricanes like Katrina and the subsequent Wilma, which was the strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic, matters urgently to millions of people wondering whether coastal areas are safe. Insurers and other companies are trying to calculate future risks of operating in the vulnerable regions. And policy makers are wrestling with whether to rebuild some shattered communities.

Dr. Gray, who is 76 years old, has been studying storms for nearly a half-century. He is the author of seminal early models for predicting the atmospheric conditions that lead to storms and was a mentor to 70 doctoral and master's students -- including Dr. Holland.

Dr. Gray hasn't been shy about firing back at his critics. After Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, co-wrote a paper linking global warming and hurricane intensity, he said: "Judy Curry just doesn't know what she's talking about."

Dr. Curry, in an interview at her Georgia Tech office, said Dr. Gray has "brain fossilization." She added: "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say."

Dr. Gray has said on his Web site and has testified to Congress that recent storms' intensity wasn't fueled by human-induced global warming. Natural factors, he says, such as the presence of upper-air currents that can bat storms from side to side, helped steer them ashore and thus made them more destructive. Dr. Gray believes the current era of high activity will eventually end as a result of changes in salinity and currents in the Atlantic. Sometime in the next decade or two, he predicts, the earth will enter a cooling period, as it did in the 1950s.

In October 2004, Dr. Gray's views faced a head-on challenge from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a prominent institute in Boulder, Colo., where Dr. Holland also works. At a news conference convened by Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment, Dr. Trenberth outlined his position that the spate of hurricanes that slammed the U.S. in 2004 might be linked to global warming caused by humans. He said rising temperatures weren't necessarily triggering more hurricanes but might be causing stronger ones, because as oceans warm they create more water vapor, the fuel for hurricanes.

That news conference roiled the world of weather scientists, several of whom thought Dr. Trenberth hadn't done sufficient research to back up the provocative claims. Some started new studies aimed at testing his claims.

In the July 31, 2005, online edition of the scientific journal Nature, Kerry Emanuel, a tropical meteorologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published results of a complicated re-examination of historic data on wind speed and duration for North Atlantic and Western North Pacific storms. Hurricane damage increases exponentially as wind speeds rise, meaning that a hurricane with winds of 148 miles per hour may produce as much as 250 times the damage of a hurricane with 74 mph winds, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

To calculate the total power generated over a storm's lifetime, Dr. Emanuel multiplied each hurricane's maximum sustained wind speed by itself and then multiplied that result by the wind speed again, a calculation known as cubing. Then he factored in how many hours the storm lasted.

Dr. Emanuel says he used scientifically accepted formulas to adjust for years when wind-speed data are most likely to contain errors, particularly in Atlantic storms from 1949 to 1969, when it is thought speed was overestimated. The calculation showed that the intensity of storms had essentially doubled in the past 30 years. He attributed growing hurricane intensity and destructive power to rising water temperatures that he said were "at least partially" the result of human activity.

At the same time, Dr. Curry and Peter Webster, who is also at Georgia Tech, set out specifically to investigate Dr. Trenberth's assertions. Dr. Webster had co-written a paper in 1998 with Dr. Gray and nine other scientists in which they didn't find the connections Dr. Trenberth claimed.

Much of past research on hurricanes had been limited to storms in the Atlantic, which spawns those that hit the U.S. The Georgia Tech researchers, along with Dr. Holland, broadened their scrutiny to all hurricanes -- known as tropical cyclones and typhoons in the Pacific and Indian oceans -- anywhere in the world since 1970.

"It's not rocket science," says Dr. Curry, 52, who says the researchers counted the number of Category 4 or 5 storms, or those with sustained wind speeds of at least 131 mph. They found that the total number of storms world-wide stayed fairly constant, but the number of intense ones had doubled since 1970. About two weeks after Katrina barreled into the Gulf Coast as a Category 3 storm, an article by Drs. Curry, Webster and Holland laid out their conclusion in the journal Science. They say the rise in ocean temperatures isn't related to natural causes and appears to be associated with global warming, most likely related to a rise in greenhouse gases.

Dr. Gray's views on the natural cycle of storms in the Atlantic are strongly supported by the weather establishment. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which runs the National Hurricane Center, took the unusual step in November of saying it is the consensus view among NOAA scientists that global warming related to human activity isn't causing either more storms or greater storm intensity. "Increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system," the statement said.

Most serious weather and climate researchers, including Dr. Gray, agree the planet has gradually warmed in recent decades. Last year was the warmest year since 1880, climatologists at National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said recently. All sides also agree 2004 and 2005 were unusually active years for big storms.

The sides disagree about how much global warming is attributable to natural cycles and how much to human activity such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. Among meteorologists who say humans are behind global warming, many contend there isn't enough evidence to link it to increased hurricane intensity.

Further complicating things: Climate change can be studied based on tree-ring and ice-core samples dating back thousands of years, but specific data on hurricanes has been gathered for only about 150 years. Even that is primarily in the Atlantic. Modern hurricane science began about 60 years ago, when daredevil pilots first flew into the storms. Until then, hurricanes' strength had to be extrapolated from damage and from data collected by ships and on land. Some storms in remote places may not have been recorded at all. Satellites improved the quality of information starting in the 1960s, and meteorologists wrote and rewrote formulas for calculating wind speed in an effort to smooth out the historical record.

Dr. Gray responded sharply to the new research tying hurricane intensity to human-caused climate change, and the once-intimate circle of hurricane researchers erupted in turmoil. In Senate testimony in late September and in papers on his Web site, Dr. Gray said the new conclusions were irreparably flawed by the inferior data of earlier years. He says he had seen weather information being gathered haphazardly when he visited remote Pacific outposts in the 1970s. "The satellites were down or the people weren't trained," he says.

Dr. Gray attacked the Science article on his Web site, agreeing that ocean temperatures were climbing but maintaining that the rise was largely attributable to long-term heating and cooling trends. The rise in water temperature has negligible connection to the hurricanes, he argued. He complained that "the near universal reference to this paper over the last few weeks by most major media outlets is helping to establish a false belief among the general public . . . that global warming may be a contributing factor" to devastation such as that from Katrina.

Worse, he said in a separate paper on his Web site, flaws in wind-speed calculation are magnified when the numbers are cubed, as in Dr. Emanuel's study. In an email widely circulated among climate researchers in November, Dr. Gray wrote: "How were Emanuel and Webster et al. able to see trends in the global data that the rest of us long-time (tropical-cyclone) researchers presently working on these same data sets do not find?"

Dr. Curry says her study used only data collected since 1970, after satellites were in global use, minimizing the possibility of errors. She says Dr. Gray's prominence in the field has overshadowed critical new research. Meteorologists trained by him had looked at the data for so long and in such a prescribed manner, she argues, that they missed red flags about increasing intensity.

Dr. Holland, the scientist who was supposed to appear with Dr. Gray Tuesday night, once was a student under Dr. Gray. At the Atlanta meteorological conference, he said seasonal forecasts, especially Dr. Gray's, are rarely correct. An ally of Dr. Gray, Chris Landsea, of the National Hurricane Center, presented a critique of the global-warming hurricane theories, but the two scientists weren't in a forum that allowed debate.

Dr. Gray says his forecasts are accurate and improving each year. As for his resistance to the new challenges, it is based on experience and solid science, not his age, he said. "I don't feel I'm fossilized. If half my ex-Ph.D. students say I'm senile, then I'll quit. They have not."

Scientists on both sides say they expect follow-up studies proving they are right to be published before the next hurricane season starts in June. Drs. Trenberth and Emanuel are submitting separate studies to major journals arguing that the influence of natural cycles has been greatly overestimated, a mutinous theory in established hurricane science. Dr. Landsea says he has submitted his own analysis to a major journal confirming the natural ebb and flow of storms argued by Dr. Gray. Both sides are waiting to see which papers will be accepted.

Meanwhile, a new panel discussion featuring the highest-profile hurricane scientists is being planned for an April conference in Monterey, Calif. Drs. Emanuel and Webster already have said they won't participate if Dr. Gray is there."

Get Rich Predicting Weather

It takes very little money to trade the futures market, yet you can become fabulously wealthy if you can consistently make accurate predictions.

They have now started a "snowfall" futures market - perhaps a "hurricane" market will be forthcoming?

People who trade the futures markets are providing INSURANCE for those who have some risk due to that commodity. They are providing a valuable service.

If you take a "long" position and snowfall goes up, you make money.

If you take a "short" position and snowfall goes down, you make money.

Feb 9, 7:53 PM EST

Chicago Merc to Trade Snowfall Futures

AP Business Writer

CHICAGO (AP) -- First came temperature futures, then frost-day futures. Now - futures involving how much snow falls at Logan Airport in Boston or New York's Central Park.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange said Thursday it will begin trading snowfall futures and options contracts later this month.

The world's largest derivatives exchange said the new product, which will trade electronically starting Feb. 26, should help cities manage risk associated with snow accumulation. Insurance companies, retailers and other businesses with a lot riding on the weather also can use the futures to hedge their risk.

Snowfall futures and options are geared to a snowfall index focusing initially on Boston and New York. The index will change based on official daily snowfall totals.

Investors can buy and sell contracts trading on a monthly basis from October through April. A trader makes money on a contract when the index rises after it is purchased and loses money when it falls.

The Merc is counting on it succeeding with large companies just as temperature-index or weather futures have since they were introduced in 1999. More than 889,000 weather contracts were traded last year and the pace is picking up in 2006, with 108,000 traded last month, the exchange said.

Last fall, it began trading futures contracts based on the number of frost days in Amsterdam after a major construction project in the Dutch capital was delayed several times due to a persistent frost, resulting in heavy financial losses.

"From the standpoint of municipalities or companies that are concerned with excessive snowfall and whether they will have shipment of goods, there's now the opportunity to hedge your removal costs or transportation delays or other weather-related exposure," he said. "CME's had a very good idea on the weather."

Interesting read, cheers Colby
A lot of information here in the header by Dr Masters and by some of our weather bloggers. Hope the discussions stay civilized and everyone can get in their points of view without being attacked by others.

Be nice everyone and enjoy what we have going here!

And remember...the season will return and some of us will also return to this blog soon.....LOL

Is it colder around the full moon?

25 years ago my grandmother told me it was, and my subsequent casual observation is that this is true. However, on clear, cold nights, one can see the full moon, but on warm, cloudy nights one doesn't see the full moon, plus I believe the hypothesis to be true, so maybe I only notice and mentally record the data that confirm the hypothesis.

I don't have the data or the skills to test this--my only thought is to search strings of, say, 28 days of temperature readings, record the coldest, and see how many days away from the full moon it is. There is a more complex statistical analysis using covariances where one shifts the dates forward or back by increasingly large numbers (0 days, 1 day, 2 days, etc.) and see if one gets a stronger correlation between coldest day and full moon when the shift is zero days or more.

I welcome any thoughts.
BTW Thank you very much Dr. Masters for the very lengthy, articulate, very informative posting on Dr. Stone's research (to say nothing of your numerous other, equally interesting and clearly-written, posts).

And thanks to ForecasterColby for posting the Wall St. Journal article. Increasingly I see people dismiss peer-reviewed articles that contradict their beliefs (e.g. articles suggesting we're changing the climate with CO2 emmissions) by saying "well, all these scientists think the same and don't consider opposing points of view." The Wall St. Journal article clearly shows that the "Free-Market Economy" world of scientific research is ruthless and that ambiguous results are debated fiercely whereas solid results become accepted by most, with only attention-seeking contrarians swimming against the tide. Clearly, significant scientific advances have been made by those that dared challenge accepted dogma, but only when they had new ideas or new data that stood the test of time.

I'm a geologist, a field in which one makes interpretations from scarce data about what happened millions of years ago. It is difficult to prove someone wrong since it happened in the past. Sometimes a new explanation, like plate tectonics, turns traditional thought on its head and, after some years of data collection and wrangling (like the current "debate" between Dr. Gray and others), becomes accepted theory.

Humans (most significantly Americans, with growing contributions from China & India) are currently conducting the largest experiment ever by pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It will be all too easy to prove who was right, but not easy to change the outcome. God forbid that the researchers are underpredicting the consequences. I remember the posting Dr. Masters posted years ago about the debate 25-30 years ago about the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. Industry-funded spokespeople discounted the peer-reviewed literature, but it turns out that early work UNDER PREDICTED the ozone loss that was later measured. Industry (mostly DuPont) finally realized they could make money under new conditions, stopped fighting the science (and stopped producing most CFCs). Happily, atmospheric concentrations of CFCs stopped increasing in the late 1990s and are now decreasing, some 20 years after action was taken. I'm 44 years old and hope to see CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations begin to go down in my lifetime.

Dr. Masters, again, thank you very much for providing this forum and anchoring it with such articulate and informative material!
Can we all agree that Dr. Masters will keep posting only what serves his view of global warming while those with an opposing view with do the same.

Either way, I think POLITICS should stay oput of it! His blog today was less political and gives a scientific point of view which should be acceptable to all whether we agree or not.

I'm sorry that my initrial post last night was SO AGRESSIVE, I was just a bit irritated and my following posts thereafter were indicative of my feelings after the initial burst of emotion about the blog.

In short, I ask that we ALL refrane from personal attaxks and please can we get away from politics which I have been pleading for since Fsshead began his blog that interjected politics into the global warming debate a couple months ago.

Before any of you accept the assumption that I made this political, go back and read the beginnings of Fssheads blog and you will see me continually saying it should not be political. However, when my Christian views are attacked, I will respond as I should.


Great post Colby. There will continue to be an ongoing never ending debate about the DIRECT cause of global climate change. Therefore, we must understand this and stop the pesonal attacks. My attention was not to attack Dr. Masters(although I can se how I came accrossed that way for whic I truly regret). I was simply disturbed by the decimination of information that accuses another of doing or saying something that may not have done and for which the accusor(DR. Masters in this case) has absolutely no personal knowledge nor does the articles writers where he got such information. To me, I was defending someone I felt was being attacked unnecessarily and instead I get viewed as the attacker because of my emotional response which was too aggressive. I stand by every word of my central premise because I am careful not to say anything about another that I don't know for sure. Whether you agree with my point of view from last night, I humbly ask you understand my true intention if possible. Regardless, there will be many like Weatherguy03 who won't ever accept thgis reality because of his own personal dislike towards me which is his right.


Except that your tunnels do dead flat zero to global warming, human caused or not.

I agree that we should search actively for alternative energy, whether we're causing global warming or not. Fossil Fuels are not renewable, and we will run out eventually. Hence, we need to find some way in which we can power ourselves with energy that will (for all practical purposes) never run out.

My personal opinion is that humans are contributing to, but not causing, global warming. We've been warming up since the last Ice Age, and more recently since the Little Ice Age in the middle ages. How much of that energy goes into hurricanes is less than many activists would have you believe, IMO. Look at warming prediction maps, and notice what gets heated the most by FAR - the poles. Not the tropics, which rise in some of the most drastic predictions by 2-3C.
I am not here wanting anymore trouble and I will not post my own opinions about global warming in this blog anymore to keep harmony.

Yeah right. We will believe it when we see it! Just like "I will never post again."..LOL..

Why can't you stop the personal attacks. I keep engaging in this immaturity with you because you won't leave well enough alone.

Why would I leave when I am getting people writing me emails asking me to stay? I am ONLY here to help share what little knowledge I may have.

YOu would do better using your profound knowledge and get away from the personal attacks.

I haven't continued the gflobal warming talk since last night and I will not in here again.

Time will prove you wrong on that issue...noty that you will ever apoloigize for that unnecessary comment will you?
To BOB, you wish I'd leave because you don't like the attention I receive in my blogs because you aren't the only educated forecaster on here. You don't discuss weather but consistently attack me personally.

have you seen my blog recently. I forecast the weather everyday here. Plus discuss weather on about 6 or 7 other blog here and interact with about 50 people on here about the weather. On the other hand, your blog, which you recieve mostly negative attention for, only likes to stir up trouble with your religious and political views. This is isnt bibleunderground, it is weatherunderground!!
Cyclone, someone with your firm grasp of physics (*giggle*) should know that all you're doing is moving heat down. Consider - you have, what, 100 miles of air above your head? Anyone know the formula for volume of a sphere? Because the deepest spot in any ocean is 6 miles deep. If you cool a tiny, tiny area (comparatively) like the Gulf Stream, you might lower air temps by .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001F.
hurricanechaser, weatherguy03, drop it! If one of you stops posting, the other will get bored after a while. Sheesh...can we please graduate 1st grade here?
Bah, sorry about the scrolling. If admins can edit the posts, perhaps you could throw in a newline there?
Hey Colby, who asked you anyway. I am not talking to you. I dont talk to children anyway..LOL..
Hey Bob,

That is your opinion! I mostly get negative attention...hmmm..thatis why I got about 40 people writing me last night to PLEASE keep posting my Weather 101 series.

I apologize for critisizing your forecasting ability but you know you started on me a couple of months about global warming and calling me a fake.

Can you have the same humility and drop the personal back and forth comments that benefits neither of us?

I agree with you Colby and wil do my part from this point forward.:)

For what its worth, based on this spirited conversation, I have decided its worthwhile to leave the ranks of quiet observation to become more active in this forum. When discussing items such as global warming, I believe there are enough facts that can equally be used to support either argument, but not enough in totality that can clearly prove either side. That being said, I truly appreciate the passion that this community shares, and myself - have been able to take into account personal views as part of an overall assessments. I do understand how political views become intertwined with this specific discussion as the expressed causes of global warming are directly related at its root to corporate/financial gains/losses. I feel environmental impact is secondary in the view of politics.

I felt compelled to atleast validate that opinions without passion seems rather void, and for a topic such as this, I am not sure any true answer or conclusion can be met.

I will continue to read this discussion, as well as that of more specific weather event analysis [which is what really drew me to this blog initally], and slip back into the observation deck - letting the players play on.
Ok I will stop for now. But if you get out of line again, I will right here to remind you. Oh and if you can e-mail me the list of 40 people I would appreciate it. Have a good day.
Dr. Masters,

I still believe it was wrong for you to post in your blogs information that characterizes someone in a negative manner when He himself adamantly denies it and you personally have no knowledge of the veracity of those claims about Mr. Deutsch.

That being said, I want to sincerely apologize for allowing the stress of my current living circumstances to cause me to make a likwise personal attack on you in response. Plain and simple, I was wrong in doing so and could've address that central premise without being so aggressive.


Can anyone except me see how Bob keeps the attacks going...

I ask those of you who did email me with your support...all 40 of you to please show Bob the truth if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ity sems I get emails supportig my views but they are afraid (rightfully so) to support me in public because of those like BOB.

Who are you to talk about keeping me in line... think you could do that in person?

My last post was very concilitory and apologetic, but I get this in response...

Posted By: weatherguy03 at 7:02 PM GMT on February 10, 2006.

"Ok I will stop for now. But if you get out of line again, I will right here to remind you. Oh and if you can e-mail me the list of 40 people I would appreciate it. Have a good day."
If I knew the formula for volume of a sphere, I would find the volume of a sphere with earth's radius (call it a) and then the volume of a sphere with the admosphere's radius (call it b). b-a=atmosphere volume

2 degrees throughout the atlantic? A degree a month? Do you have ANY idea how completely impossible that is?

It takes the *sun* months to warm the atlantic to summer temps, you think you can cool the waters faster than the sun can warm them? Righty-o.
Chaser, weatherguy, keep this up and I think a banning is likely.
Yes I will be here to keep you in line. As long as you play by the rules, I will be nice. But get out of line and I will be here to remind you. And yes if anybody wants chaser to stay please e-mail me. Thank you.
Personally, I would like chaser to stay if he can keep his temper in check. I think I speak for most of us.
Again, as an observer, but confident with what I have read over the last year, I have no problem expressing my support of Chaser and the passion he presents in his thoughts. Again, without that passion, taking a stand is rather futile. I don't agree with everything that is stated by either Chaser or others, but respect the vein in which is created. So, let me be the first say I am in support, and again, being an observer primarly, have no allegiance to anyone I have seen in this blog.
Okay, I have a new approach to argument stopping - take a look at this article we can all agree is ridiculous Link
Whose rules? your opposition to an opposing view. I'm sorry that will never be the case. I stand up for what I believe is right no matter how many attack me or my OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS...it's called having principles.

I once again humbly ask that you try to be civilized and please accept a sincere apology on my part and a fresh start, is this possible?

please reread a couple posts down where I apologized for critisizing your forecasting abilities and I simply prefer peace and regret my part in all of this bickering.

As a result I will not post my opinions of global warming in here, but will do so in my friends, Fssheads blog instead.:)

I am more concerned with helping others learn about the weather than doing anything else on this blog in all honesty. I realized last night that I have gotten away from the real reason I first joined this site. I must say I've learned alot from many who aren't or haven't had professional experience like those such as Colby just for the record.

We all can learn from each other because we had to learn what we know from someone else to begin with. Therefore, how can we presume to be so superior when our own knowledge is mainly a product of oppotunity, personal experiences, and circumstances whether they are positiver or negative.

I for one will call it a day for awhile by sincerely apologizing for forgetting WHY I first joined and will get back to my Weather 101 series the first chance I get.


Heated up quickly there.

Dont know how homosexuality got brought up, but isnt it mostly the old testament barraging it. Thought the New Testament was all about Love they Neighbour and he without sin cast the first stone, perhaps its unchristian to think like this, but that is my opinion.

Please if we start drifting on these topics well end up on Stem cell research and GM foods.

Again I reiterate on human induced global warming, why is it most other major industrial countries agree it is happening, when the is no evidence. Perhaps they believe the correlation is enough; perhaps they have better information than us, or perhaps they are run by stupid people who want to destroy their economies.
Cyclonebuster, I really am going to just assume that your tunnel idea is a big joke and that is the way you mean it because you are definitly not serious about what you say.
Thanks so much Sayhuh and Colby.:) I realize that my sensitivity is both one of my greatest strengths and yet can be one of my greatest weaknesses as evidenced by my over sensitivity as of late.

Thanks for reminding me of what is truly most important in life.:)

Your friend,

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But again, evidence does not mean proof.
True Colby, but we're never going to have proof, the best we can do is use correlations.
I say lets take little baby steps. Can we agree on weather it is Human Induced or Human Influenced Global warming. My vote goes with Influenced as I don't believe we started it. Of course I am assuming we all can agree that there is Global Warming going on, the issue is to what effect we are contributing to that. I also stay we stick with topics related to the weather and avoid other conservative/liberal topics that are just going to add heat to the arguments. But that is just my 2 cents.
Tpaul I am with you on that one "influenced" would be the correct term in my opinion
Wow - what a heated blog we have here. Ok - I have a question. Whether our global warming trend is human induced or not, isn't it still bad for our air quality in general? So wouldn't we want to clean it up just for that reason alone??? Wouldn't having the cleanest air we can breathe be a top priority for anyone - regardless of what it is doing to the ozone? Just a simple thought, as I'm a pretty simple thinker.
and will get back to my Weather 101 series the first chance I get..
How is this possible? You alsready left! So much for having priciples

Karen, I think everyone agrees on that. Clean air is good for everything. However, the solution(s) that some people have come up with costs lots of money which takes away from other investments and profit. People dont want to spend lots of money to stop spewing C02 and whatnot when they could be making money doing something else. So they fight it and try to defend their profit-making ways. I personally thinks a good thing that we should jump head-first into something whether we think its good or not; there always needs to be heathly debate.
I too would like to slip off of the observer bench to ask the cyclone buster to explain the mooring/floatation system that he proposes to use for his tunnels. If he is unable to explain this then I think that he should research it before claiming it to be the cure all and end all for every weather phenomena that exists.Thanks Dr. Masters for your blog and to all others for your very informative views."Buster" the average water depth half mile off-shore where I live is about 2000 ft.but I guess your tunnels wouldnt be deployed here anyway. L.O.L.
Ozone and Global Warming are unrelated, at least if we're talking about fossil fuel use. CO2, though it isn't a very good insulator, is good enough, and we're producing a great deal of it. The primary Ozone destroyers are CFCs (chloroflorocarbons). Basically:

O3 (Ozone) + Cl (chlorine from CFCs) -> O2 + ClO
2 ClO -> Cl2 + O2
Sunlight + Cl2 -> Cl + Cl
There's a smile character? Okay, that's just cool ☺

Where did you find that Colby?
In HillsboroughBay's post above.
Y'know, I can't speak for anyone else, but in this particular forum I'd much rather read someone's views on global warming than his views on religion and sexuality. But that's just me. :-)
I'd agree...at least global warming is semirelevant to the weather.
F5...the bible prescribes death by stoning as punishment - a gay joke seems pretty mild by comparison :P
64. F5

Here is an interesting summary as well as a link to the actual study which talks about whether our measurements of the global temperatures are even accurate. This is a key element because if our measuring system is not accurate, we may be vastly overestimating the warming that is occurring.

Not CO2. Read the synopsis as well as the actual study.

Another interesting site is run by the Roger Pielke Research Group at Colorado State University. Roger Pielke blog. I will find you some additional sites as well. It does make for interesting reading from the other side.
Good point, ForecasterColby. But since I had ham for lunch, and I'm wearing mixed-fiber clothing, I guess I'm automatically disqualified from commenting on the issue... :-)
66. F5
Forecaster Colby,

Prior to Jesus and the New Testament, the only way to be obedient to God was to follow the prescribed laws of the Hebrews. For Christians, the New Testament shows us a new way to be in harmony with God, without all the religous rules that were in place during the Old Testament. Jesus came to show us the way. I certainly would not want to live under old testament rules.
Cheers F5 will take a look.
Ok, maybe its me, but I am beginning to think that there is an underlying intent of individuals here to make this a debate of religion. Can we get back to the debate on the serious topic of global warming and for our amusement "tunnels".
Wow....thought I was jumping in to read about the weather. This must be the Baptist convention...where do I find the discussions about weather, I must be in the wrong lecture hall...
Here's a good laugh for everyone (I know it's true because it's my story!):

OMG.............LOLOLOLOLOL. Can't believe I forgot to mention this one:

I was in Biology earlier, and the teacher had been fairly arbitrarily handing out candies to the class. Towards the end of the period, the guy next to me bursts out laughing, and tells everyone to read their wrapper. I look at mine and read:

Ingredients: Isomalt, Citric Acid (for tartness), Natural and Artificial Flavor, Sucralose, Artificial color (red 40, yellow 5, blue 1).
Excess consumption may have laxative effect.
Can I remind folks the purpose of the main Blog?
Specifically Jeff Masters' blog?
This was posted bach during the heat of Hurricane season:
Hi all, let's review the rules we posted a while back on what to consider when posting comments here:

"I realize that hurricane time is an exciting time for a lot of people for many different reasons. Some people are worried about their property or their lives, others are interested in the nature of these majestic weather systems, others just really like the drama. All of that is fine, however prohibited language, threats, bickering, off topic chattering, etc. will no longer be tolerated in the featured blogs. Each user has their own blogs, to talk about whatever they desire so long as the content does not contain prohibited language and threats, etc. Please use those spaces, as well as the already existing private message system to communicate about material that does not belong in the featured blogs."
In particular, I would like to see the blog comment area have fewer "chit-chat" posts that belong in a chat area. It makes it very difficult for me to wade through endless long conversations to find legitimate questions I'd like to answer.
If there is a question you'd like me to answer, you're probably better off emailing it to me directly, jmasters@wunderground.com.

I encourage all of you to use the "spam" or "obscene" feature for a comment you'd rather not see. If five of you flag a comment, it will disappear until an admin looks at it and releases it. We have kicked a number of users off, but some of them keep coming back under new screen names, and there's really nothing we can do to permanently stop a determined person from creating havoc in a free open system like this.

This is getting ridiculous.
Now see what you have done HurricaneChaser, you have brought out Queen of the Rules.
Everything has a place TP.

It is wrong for you to personally blame me for anything for all this bickering. I have tried to bring reconciliation. But, I can't stop othes from the constant personal attacks.

I make NO APOLOGIES for sharing the Truths of the Bible as I personally see them when I am asked directly about them...please reread previous posts before making inaccurate statements.


I meant no offense to you, hope none was taken. Trying to keep it light as I remember how it was back during Hurricane season. But I have to admit don't seem to see you on here very often. Of course I guess most of us are just lurkers from time to time.
To I have to remind people that it was Dr. Masters himself who chose to interject politrics into his blogs and I find it hypocritical to set that example and then complain when this weather chat forum gets off topic.

Just my opinion.:)
Chaser, I'll tell you now that if you don't get at least a little back on-topic, you'll either be banned, or the spam reports will remove your posts.
I have been here as much as most until I got fed up with the personal attacks on others about two weeks ago.
Chaser, you may not be the sole reason for the bickering, clearly it takes two to tango, but conversely, you are perpetuating it. Having faith and opinion is fine, and I support that, but there is a time and place. And for off topic rants such as religion..this is neither.
Thanks Colby...what is the toipic again? I didn't bring up religion but responed to questins and statements about it directed towards me.
Aside from global warming/other topics..anything of interest weather related going on today?
I was meaning no offense to Sheraqueenofthebeach. I don't mean any offense to you either Hurricanchaser but you saying your are trying to bring reconcillation here is almost as laughable as CBs "tunnels". I am a Christian as well but everyone has there own path and I never agree with shoving my believes down others throats. I also think that your saying that Dr. Masters made this political to start is definitly a stretch of imagination on your part. Now I feel like I have gotten sucked into another discussion I had not planned on, those darn "tunnels".
The big snow storm for Central Kentucky looks like it is going to be a bust. I can't imagine that there is anyway for this topic to become heated.
My tunnels would stop the snow
*rolls eyes*

This is hopeless. I'll come back in a few days and see if this decaying community has come up a bit.

sphere= 4/3 times pi(3.1416) times radius cubed

earth is 7926.41 miles in diameter(average) earth is not a perfect sphere

atmosphere extends to 62 miles. 75% is below 11km or 6.8354 miles.

remember to halve the above diameter or any calculations are messed up

How is it a stretch that Dr. Masters wasn't politisizing the debate on Global warming when He keeps repeating characterizations of people who deny whast he posts that are conservative. He consistently bashes the Bush administration and even leaves out the gest of yesterdays article about Mr. Deutsch's denials until a short sentence today.

And, I don't appreciate your judgement saying I am not trying to be reconncilatory when I tried apologizing to both Dr. masters and all about last night and specifically Bob while He continued hios attacks.

Please show me where I am SHOVING my beliefs down anyones throats? That is both inaccurate and very demeaning to my sincere concern and love for others. Who are you to suggest otherwise.

I also take exception with the so called everything has its time and place. I agree, and when someone asks me what I believe about the Bible, it becomes the absolute time ands place to respond with God's Word and you can sit back and worry about othes opinions of you while I'll suffer the attacks for sharing what I said IS MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

I would never critisize another Christian for sharing the Gospel especially when it was brought to me first.

Simply put,

Don't attack me personally (feel free to attack my opinions)and we are all cool because I have no desire in doing that to another.
Thanks haydn. Earth is close enough to a sphere to make the calculations good enough for this sort of thing.
And the beat goes on. I would love to have a conversation here, on the topics at hand. But how could we. He keeps going on and on and on. Well at least I have other blogs to go to discuss some real issues. Its a real shame. Oh well.
That was the volume.

If you want a slice, you need the area formula....pi times radius squared
And he is still talking!!..LOL..OMG..Chaser give it a rest already..LOL..Noone wants to hear about your religous talk. I can tune into EWTN if I want that!!..LOL..Oh boy!!
100. haydn
Colby, What are you calculating?

Please stop the sarcasm and dishonesty. YOu have consistently and unwaveringly attacked me every chance you've had.

Just look at todays posts... please stop with this type of action if you can.

Another recdoncilitory email from my friend, Bob.

"Listen the religous crap has got to stop!! This is not the place for that. I'll even take your diatribes on global warming over that stuff. They have plenty of religous blogs if you need them."

Have I ever said anotyhers beliefs are CRAP? Never, but I can't ge the vsame respect. Yet, I am somehow the bad guy, Whatever, think what you will people. It doesn't have ANY effect on my true intentions and the Truth therein.
Colby what are you trying to work out?

Cyclone I think Caymanite, may be in Cayman which is in the caribbean south of cuba and west of Jamaca.
We are off that topic but you are keeping it going Bob.
Just for the vrecord everyone, I am all for staying away from politics and religious discusion on here if we can all abide by that. If not, I will ALWAYS respond to any and every religious comment directed to my attention as I should do if I truly care about what I believe and the person asking me the question. You don't haVE TO AGREE OR EVEN LIKE ME BUT YOU SHOULD RESPECT MY EARNEST desire to do what I personally think is right.

105. TPaul
Chaser, who is Bob, never mind, I don't want to know. If he is sending you emails just send him emails back. I don't see what all the fuss is about.
106. haydn
I'll be back later. I have to finish the cleanup of an insulation job.

KRWZ would agree with me on this. Can we be nice and pull religion and personal conflicts off the blog?

Fires stop when there is no fuel...eg..our posts.
Just look for the copnsistent perrsonal attacks througout these blogs toward me and you will see WEatherguy03 and his on topic comments.:)

TPaul and others,

can we agree to drop this discussion and let people talk about tunnels and global warming, I'm cool with that myself.:)
TPaul, dunno - think this snowstorm will be something else as it moves more northeast...wouldn't want to be in New York this weekend... ;-)
please no more tunnels
wow.. hope all this gets out of the system before hurricane season starts..
112. haydn

I feel the same you do about some of the above mentioned topics. I have found that being defensive isn't the best thing to do. I have been in your shoes before. It will be hard, but not saying a thing may be the best thing.
113. TPaul
Yea, New York and Boston look to be in for it but looks like we are getting some shear from the Northwest that is blocking the moisture from coming as far North and I think shifting the overal track of this storm a little further South. Actually if this storm tracks more South and strengthens we could see a storm like the February 96 storm here. Then we would see our heavy snow on Saturday night Sunday which would take everyone by surprise.
114. haydn
For those who want to discuss tunnels, I have set up a blog under the subject tunnels. I may or may not join in the discussion. If you decide to post, please read my entry.

Look under Haydn
TPaul, yeah..I think I agree with you. I looking a the WV imagery, it seems to be tracking a bit further south. Also looking at the GFS, the model looks like the potential for some rapid strengthening?
117. haydn
Now I am gone. ....back later
I am no global warming skeptic, but I dont believe that the CO2 rise will cause ocean temps to rise even more than 10F by 2100--heating up even the top few hundred meters of the ocean will take a LOT of energy, and I think it will take a longer time than that.
For those who are interested: We actually got a trace of rain here in Tucson (It's bad when people start cheering for a few raindrops on the ground......). The system was south of us, so we only caught the northern edge. Nogalas got almost .09". Now if we can only get several more of these storms, and not only the edge of them..... Current count: 162 days with less than .25" of rain.
In short, I ask that we ALL refrane from personal attaxks and please can we get away from politics which I have been pleading for since Fsshead began his blog that interjected politics into the global warming debate a couple months ago.

Before any of you accept the assumption that I made this political, go back and read the beginnings of Fssheads blog and you will see me continually saying it should not be political. However, when my Christian views are attacked, I will respond as I should.

K gotta put my 2 cents in here. I just got done reading all the posts for the last day & 1/2.
Chaser... don't try to blame this heated topic on me..
I was not even hereLOL.
Chaser when I stated those political tones, they were on MY blog. I reiterate MY BLOG. (if memory serves me correct)
Even though we really disagreed I think for the most part it was pretty civil.
I think that bashing Dr. Masters on HIS blog was wrong(glad you apologized).
That being said, this issue IS rather political,viewing the current situation in this country.
Like I said to you before, hopefully the statement in the State Of The Union address holds true for more reasons than just the global warming issue.
Hopefully we will see the BIG experiment unfold before our eyes. Like I said if the data supporting the warming theory is inaccurate & we start to slide back into an ice age.... WE SURE KNOW HOW TO PUT THE GASES BACK!!!!!
Man..... u guys sure get worked up when someone questions your beliefsLOL!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: smadsen8486 at 3:11 PM GMT on February 10, 2006.
pulling up a nice comfy chair on the sidelines, waitin to watch the debate heat up in here!
Hey Smads....
"Fshhead throws on the flak jacket & dives right in"

To clarify, the views expressed in your blog of a political tone spilled over into this blog. I am not tryiong to blame you for it was just timing I suppose. However, we ALL have our own part in continuing the political discussions including DR. Masters.

I accept my part in it, can anyone else do the same?


you were the one who asked for clarifdication on the Bibles view of Homosexuality from last nights blog wgich started that discussion from Inyo and others. I make no apologies for ANYTHING I said regarding my religious views for I not once attacked another in expressing them. I hate the sin of homosexuality but love the person who committs the sin. Just as we all sin. I was sharing the Bibles view from Scripture as you know.:)


Chaser I accept MY part on MY blog!!!!
BTW I hope evrything is well with U.
Gotta go to work BUT, I will definitly come back after to see how the war is going LMAO!!!!!!!!!
128. phelp
Hey guys,
In the spirit of the recent conversation, I've got a joke I think everyone can enjoy.

Q. What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?
A. It only takes one nail to hang a picture of Jesus.

Hope that brightened everyone's day!
Thanks Fsshead,

You know I like you personally even if we don't always agree (lol)for the person you are.:)

Your friend,
Hey cyconebuster,

point well taken.:)

Honestly, I owe you a sincere apology for mocking your tunnel idea. I caught up in the global warming debate and lost sight of the fact you truly mean well by your tunnel concept. As a result, it is wrong for me or anyone else to make fun of your well intentioned idea.

We can disagree about the DIRECT cause of global warming or even whether your tunnels will work, but none of us should ever make a joke about your wel intentioned idea which I have done in the past.


just a scientific curiosity here, so please bear with me, this may be highly theoretical...

with all the discussion about increased CO2 levels and the like, i just have a scientific thought here that may be something for everyone to think about....

In the combined gas laws, PV=nRT. And when doing things like uniform gas expansion or compression (p1v1/n1R1T1) = (p2V2/n2R2V2), usually n1=n2 and R1=R2, so they cancel each other out.

Well, with the changing composition of the atmosphere, mainly in the CO2 department, causing a spike in the heat balance; could the otherwise constant R actually be changing, with that causing changes to some of the other equations that govern meteorology?

It don't think it should, but with all the talk of the atmospheric composition of CO2 being almost 30% above levels when the constants were first established, and the CO2 levels being forecast to be even much higher, I could think that the constants may change with time and maybe toss the models into enough of a problem to make them more unrelaible.

Am I thinking way too theoretically, or is this actually possible?
Dr. Masters,

It seems pretty apparent that we are on different sides of what is the DIRECT cause of global warming and possibly the political views as well. That being said, I want to once again PUBLICLY apologize to you for making it personal as evident in my emotion investd first post last night.

I hope you understand why concern was the undeserved characterizations of Mr. Deutsch that are in doubt which if we were accused of something we MIGHT not have done would not appreciate.

I went WAY OVERBOARD in my response to your blogs and for that I sincerely apologize. I believe it is quite obvious I will only apologize when I believe I have done something I personally believe was wrong. Otherwise, I stand by my convictions regardless of anyones opinions.

I have to applaud todays post in that you did mention that Mr. Deutsch says he is innocent and I take that as being more objective than your post last night.`


To Everyone else,

I have to objectively think that my current stressful living situation might just have me very emotional. I read all of my posts from last night through today and see a tone in my comments that I don't personally like regardless of the fact I stand by my convictions made in them.

Therefore, I sincerely apologize for the tone of those cpmments and regardless of the reason(whether it be my living arrangements or not)was inappropriate and confrontational. On the other hand, that tone changed with the discussion of religion and my believes and I have no apologies for those coments and only shared my PERSONAL beliefs when asked about them which I believe was and is the right thing to do.

In short, I hope each of you has a great night and a good weekend.:)


I was calculating the volume of the atmosphere.

Again, I won't be posting for the next few days until either this calms down or I give up on the community here.
R is a constant that cannot vary. However, PV=nRT is only true for the theoretical "ideal gas". Real gasses vary slightly. Changing the composition of a gas does change its behavior but the effect is fairly small (particularly at lower pressures like the atmosphere). Carbon dioxide is only present in a few hundred parts per million so significant changes in its level are unlikely to significantly change the properties of the atmosphere but it is an interesting idea.
139. jeffB
hpbear wrote:

Well, with the changing composition of the atmosphere, mainly in the CO2 department, causing a spike in the heat balance; could the otherwise constant R actually be changing, with that causing changes to some of the other equations that govern meteorology?

It don't think it should, but with all the talk of the atmospheric composition of CO2 being almost 30% above levels when the constants were first established, and the CO2 levels being forecast to be even much higher, I could think that the constants may change with time and maybe toss the models into enough of a problem to make them more unrelaible.

Given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 0.04% by volume (0.06% by weight), it seems unlikely. The hypothesized 30% increase would raise this to 0.05%, not 30.04%, of course. :-)

Disclaimer: I never even took p-chem, much less advanced thermo.
Stormchaser, I don't think so at all. Wanting to improve the discussion here is not egotistical at all, it's not wanting to lose one of the best communities on the web.

If anyone would like to have a little fun, I'm doing a little fantasy storm contest on my site. Basically, I'm "playing" the storm based on a few past systems, and you guys try and predict. I remember it being a lot more pleasant around here during summer (when we were all excited about hurricanes) so maybe it'll help. I dunno.
actually, the levels were at something like 250 ppm when they started measuring on some mountain top in hawaii back in the early 1900's, and are now something like 380ppm, which is the increase I am talking about. it's supposed to rise further to something like 500-700 ppm, depending on the climate model. I know that's still a small amount compared to the atmosphere as a whole. but the increase that has already happened suposedly brought about the warming we are already seeing.

Not saying that maybe unusual sunspot activity or other space matters may be affecting things more or less, but that's all stll being studied.

I know it's just a thought, and maybe even a theory. But even foreasters can think of abstracts like that once in a while. that's why there are those in thermodynamics, micrometeorology, and atmospheric chemistry who could look at this.
hpbear ...

the combined gas laws only work for an ideal gas. since, the atmosphere is a mixture of real gases, use of the ideal gas law only gives appoximations. the atmosphere never acts as an ideal gas, so there are lots of more complicated gas law equations for the description of real gases (van der waals equation, and others).

To answer your question about R ... R was not determined using the atmosphere, so a change in CO2 would not change R.

Colby, I love this forecasting thing. I made the first post there. Also, I would like to talk to you about possibly setting up a severe weather forum on your site. I know it's the Amateur Hurricane Center, but maybe it could be made into the Amateur Weather Center. Also, I have a tremendous forecast game I came with, which may be the absolute nightmare scenario for the United States, and I would like to make that the basis for the next game.
thanks.... that's all I needed to know...

especially with all the assumptions that are used to come up with the models, from ideal gas to hydrostatics.
146. haydn


Keep posting. I am.

I noticed you are calculating the volume of the atmosphere.

At 62 mile height 1.24x10^10 miles cubed

At 6.8 miles 1.4x10^9 miles cubed
All agree?

In case anyone hasn't noticed, I like math stuff.

147. haydn
Look what is coming to Alabama and Georgia. Hope you got your rain gear. I'll get it a few hours later.
yes Get A Grip People it is friday
Wow where did all the anti-gay bigotry come from? Sheesh, looks like the people who run around in sheets burning crosses are still around. It's just the same as slurring someone for their race or ethnicity, and just as bad.
22 megabit movie Link
Well that link doesnt work, so go to www.coolwx.com/usstats/ and then click on the pressure movie a little way down on the left.
and me as well
what do you call all the anti=Christian attacks? It's ironic how people can engage in bigotry against Christians and call them all kinds of horrible names yet let a Christian respond with the Biblical view on a sin such as homosexuality and we get called bigots.

Once again, I am no better than anyone else whether homosexual, liar, murderer, adulterer, etc. I am not without sin either but I am not making excuses for my sins and saying if you point out it is wrong for me to have an affair on my wife that you are a bigot against adulterers.

Please read my new blog just posted, before making any other statements regarding my actions the past couple of days, please?:)

I'm with you wholeheartedly cyclone.:)
I have an interesting question and wonder what the answers would be if everyone answered this question honestly.

Would anyone in here be disappointed if cyclonebusters tunnel idea was very feasiable and actually could prevent another category three hurricane or higher?
I will be completely honest and state that a part of me would be disappointed not to ever experience another category three storm. I'm not saying that is right, but I believe I'm not alone in that sentiment. Although, no one wants death or the destruction that comes along with it.
If that storm down south turns to snow when it reaches the east coast, thats going to be one hell of an event.

Good post Dr Masters.
my new blog is a so come on by the water is hot
Cyclone buster,

I will go on record to say I'm not very knowledgable in that area to say whether your idea will or will not work. That being said, I would encourage you to seek out those who work in that field full time.
Trouper415, as TPaul and I were discussing previously, looks like this will be a doozy storm! I think there is enough moisture being picked up, along with the temps...not sure I would want to be anywhere on the east coast without skis!
This will be my last post tonight.

I went back and look through some of my posts and although I never understood why so many were assuming I am arrogant of all things, it soon became obvious to me by some of my inappropriate posts.

I too hate arrogance and the idea someone is better than another for any reason, yet I have only myself to blame for creating that perception.

In short, I want to publically apologize for starting the personal attacks on Weatherguy03 (Bob) when I questioned whether he was a real meteorologist. I belueve we can all agree that he is and a real blesing to the community as a result.:)

I have spent alot of time tonight doing some soul searching and reading posts and I am honestly ashamed of my attitude recently which I was blinded to honestly.

It is amazing how perception can become reality. Although, I have been so offended by attacks I know aren't true, I can see why one could make those asumptions based solely on my own actions at times.

In short, I have learned alot today and I'm sorry I took up much of this blog to do so.

Well, goodnight everyone.:)

Your friend,

checkout the NWS watches, warnings & what nots page. Got a lot of area looking for snow ~ New Hampshire to Mississippi & seperately the Dakotas. Red flags & fire weather watch areas have grown in the last few days as well.
hmmmmmm. Now this is particularly interesting to me. From Dr. Masters' blog above: Dr. Stone started his talk by posting this quote from the Executive Summary of the 2001 IPCC model evaluation chapter: "Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols

sulphate aerosols? Maybe I'm way off base here, but it seems that should be sulfide. I would think that sulphate aerosols would be mostly a product of 'natural' Earth systems -- volcanos... sea salt/sea life interaction, etc.

okay, okay, so it's been 25 years since my last chem. class. I tried to keep abreast of everything. *L
this to yet ever one no the nhc as done 20 updates so foar and 7 more update to go
Pretty sure volcanic activity makes both sulfates and sulfides...but we make a heck of a lot more than a volcano.

NOX and SOX?

I haven't seen any verifiable test data relational to NOx and SOx and the ozone. It would be interesting to study it on a micro scale. SO2 is usually oxidized to (SO4)-2 before it forms an aerosol....

There seems to be a lack of very much empirical test data for much of these interactions. It's been a hobby of mine for nearly 10 years. Even the CO and CO2 density is hard to pin down globally.

I'm not certain that there is data to support that "we make more than volcanos" when it comes to NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) Colby.......but it sure does seem like we do. It's my opinion that that's one of our modern paradigms. The data (very limited) that I've had the fortune to see doesn't support that. I wish that it did.
I admit freely that I'm hung up on printed numbers. LOL. Perhaps it's not the ONLY way to quantify different densities, but it's one way, and a good, time-tested way. It's a clear language.
You there Colby?
Actually (old brain cells lol) it seems a bit more accurate if I characterize NOx as "oxides of Nitrogen".... ditto for SOx
hiya Torn
okay.... killed the blog with boring stuff. *L Have a good evening everyone!

Hi Crab!
I'm back now. Nice to see things are quiet now.
Hey Colby, I sent you a PM on your site about this already, but I have a GREAT and creepy scenario loosely based on 2 very historic hurricanes that I would like to execute on your fantasycast after we're done with yours. Would you mind if I did that?
in regards to all the comments from last night's "discussion", i have to agree with hurricane chaser. he was right in his comment about dr. master's making his political statements. some of you thought he should apoligise for what he said about dr. masters and he shouldn't. and i just read from an earlier comment from chaser in this discussion that he regrets what he said. why chaser? you were right. no regrets.

in my opinion dr.master's should apologise to us for making his politcal views public. yes, he should apologise to us. sure, it's his blog but, it's a WEATHER BLOG. not a political blog, nor religious blog. if i'm not mistaken the link on this site says "dr. jeff master's WEATHER blog". now, if he had another blog to discuss these issues (like he started in the wake of katrina) then that's fine.

now, i'm not personally attacking dr. masters whatsoever. i have the utmost respect for him and his scientific views. i've learned so much since june when i first began reading his blogs and i hope to learn more from his blog updates in the future but, i personally think he should keeps his personal political views out of his scientific discussions unless it's about cutting programs that will hurt future funding and research.

i know i'm going to get attacked on here but, like chaser said, when you stand up for your beliefs you get shot down quickly. plus, all of you want to look good for dr. masters and say i'm wrong and a disgrace but who are you to judge? just because i read this blog, learn alot from his topics that i never knew about, and send comments every onec in a blue moon does not mean i have to KISS THE BUTT of the blogger. i'm an american such as the rest of you so i don't have to agree with everything dr. masters says and i have the right to say i think he's wrong whether i'm wrong for saying that or not.

plus, the comments on here are very seldom about what the topic is anyway.

so, chaser stand your ground. you're right in what you said and i think dr. masters should apolgise to all his readers for the politcal propoganda he put out on his WEATHER BLOG. not a politcal blog but, a WEATHER BLOG.

unlike chaser, i will not respond to the attacks and names i will get called just to get the last word. i said what i have to say regarding this topic. all have a great night.

stanley simmons
190. jeffB
Yes, you can say what you like here. Even though it's Dr. Masters' forum, and he has every right to control what appears here, he seems willing to tolerate almost anything. So, in fact, you don't have to go start your own blog in order to speak your piece.

And, likewise, we're free to decide that your post makes you seem rude, arrogant, and kind of clueless.

And, in case you didn't really just lob this post and then run away, you have a great night, too!
Tornado - yeah, sure. I'm thinking we'll be done with this one some time next week.
hey stansimms, if you're only going to post something once in a blue moon could you make it a bit more constructive?

people, you want the tunnel talk to stop? then stop talking about them. everytime buster mentions something about his tunnels someone is always saying they won't work and he goes through the spiel once again. i think he's explained how they work about 50 times int he last five weeks or so. so, if you want the tunnel talk to end which i think is a good idea if they were to work, then quit responding to his posts. he gets no response eventually he'll stop posting about his tunnels. common sense.
constructive how? like talk about the WEATHER? on a WEATHER blog? why? no one else seems to talk constuctively. so, why should i?
Glad I missed tonight's excursions onto weird and wonderful topics. For the record, HurricaneChaser, I prefer you post on global warming and not the other stuff. And I'm impressed by your apology, as well as your weather knowledge.

For those who are tired of the global warming debates on here, it is THE issue of concern for climatologist and meteorologists so it is quite appropriate that we thrash it out here as well. Fact is, the earth is warming. Only question is how much we're contributing. No one knows for sure, but the models point to an increasing human-induced warming effect as the century wears on and greenhouse gas levels inexorably rise.
wow not a lot going on tonight then last night at this time well i off for the night see you all

i wasn't picking on cyclonebuster, please read what i said and make common sense of it please. if i was picking on him would i have said i thought his tunnels were a great idea? obviously, you missed that part of my post. people want him to stop talking about his tunnels. well, he stops if people stop mentioning his tunnels everytime he brings the subject up. just common sense my friend. correct? apology accepted.

stanley simmons
build the tunnels to stop the funnels!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
My 2 cents again......
Guys this IS Dr. Masters blog.....
If it offends you, then dont read it. We do have that choice.
Chaser, I am real proud of you apologizing like you did.
I ALWAYS look forward to debates with you. Man, we are obviously 2 totally different people but, I respect your views always!! I hope things are going better for you now you are out of the hotel.
BTW, Has anyone seen anymore on the weather ball??
Really want to see that thing in motion!!!!
For those curious about a Fujiwhara interaction, check this out:

This took place over the past few days with TD 11F and TD 12F (now Cyclone Vaianu)
Hi! I've been lurking since last fall and have enjoyed the blog very much, so I decided to join and support WU. I'm from the Denver, Colorado area. The land of springy winters and wintry springs! We usually have very little snow in mid winter and lots of snow in March and April. After weeks of no winter, we finally had 2" of snow yesterday morning and down to 5 above this morning. The northern mountains of Colorado have had a great snow season, southern Colorado hasn't fared so well. Rather typical of La Nina in our area. Just to introduce myself, I grew up in the Chicago area (that's why I enjoy winter) and have been a weather geek since I was a kid back in the '60s. I work outdoors in city park maintenance so weather is a key factor in my job every day. One thing is for sure - we do a lot less snow removal than we did 20 years ago. On global warming, I was a skeptic back then, but have no doubt the climate has warmed dramatically since the '80s. Besides the lack of snow in Denver in recent years, our summers have become much hotter. Almost half of the 100 degree days ever recorded in Denver since 1872 have occurred since 1989! Last summer we had 7 days reach 100 or higher, including tying our all-time record of 105. I like to compile historical data, and comparing the numbers for stations away from large metro areas, the warming trend since the '60s and '70s is dramatic. As to the cause of global warming, I take a position in the middle. I don't see how we can add CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere and not alter the climate. However, I don't think the warming is 100% due to human activity. One observation I would make is that while the US has been very wasteful of our resources over the years, our emissions of greenhouse gases are not increasing that much now. The climate has really heated up in the past 10 years, which coincides with a dramatic increase in fossil fuel consumption in China, India and other "developing" nations. I feel the US needs to take it's own steps to reduce oil use (higher fuel economy standards for vehicles would help and nuclear power does need to be looked at again). However, I am not in favor of the US signing on to Kyoto or a similar treaty unless it includes China, India, Brazil, Mexico, etc. Smaller, very poor nations could be exempted. One interesting twist to consider, though, is that oil production will peak soon and oil prices will soar. This will do much to bring about conservation and development of alternate energy sources. Large SUV's will rapidly disappear when gasoline is $10 per gallon. But I prefer to let the marketplace do its job, rather than impose excessive taxes that would damage our economy and be squandered by corrupt politicians on their pet programs or on more wars around the world. Well, that's my soapbox. I would like everyone to know that I will treat you with respect whether we agree or disagree on issues. I am not going to get into heated arguments or make fun of anyone. I am a Christian man, and that is my world view. However, I think is important to stay on topic here in the blog. I will post my beliefs, etc. in my own blog which people can visit. Anyway, I'm glad to join you and have a great day! MarkLink
204. haydn
The other day I put up a blog for tunnels. It is gone. Things have calmed down a little, so I see no need for it.

Nice pics of the fujiwhara effect. These look like small storms. Has anyone found stuff of two hurricanes say cat2+ doing the same thing?
i ahve updated my blog
DenverMark, I believe in global warming but is it possible that the increase in 100 degree days since 1989 is because the airport is in a new location? you have to be careful about taking records from one place. Atlanta has lows about 3 degrees warmer in the 1990s than in the 1940s, but the airport is located in Clayton county, which was rural and had a population of less than 10,000 in 1940 , was 236 thousand in 2000 and estimated at 265 thousand in 2004--meaning that the area around the airport has become built up. Reports of record high average temps over large areas or the globe impress me more :)
Hey everyone,

I realize that some wil view this as an inappropriate and unnecessary post. However, I have chosen to post it nonetheless to clarify any misunderstanding or incorrect perception of those who read or will read the posts contained in this blog precedding this post. Please realize I wasn't the one who chose to bring up these topics but when asked, shared my personal opinions on such matters. I could very well have simply posted this in my blog but then again, it is likely many wouldn't have seen it there since the discussion was brought up in this blog.

I have no concerns that one may take issue with my personal views for we all can respectfully disagree without demeaning the person. I find it completely unfair to label a person as a "bigot" of all things when that is absolutely unjustified as hopefully explained in the comments that follow. I will post these comments in the next post to shorten the long monologue as many will call it (lol).:)

Hey St. simons,

I hope you saw my reply and understand that I personally don't consider anyone who engages in homosexual activity to be the same as the skin tone we are born with.

That was a very unfair assumption and comment on your part to label me as a bigot of all things in my personal opinion. I honestly believe that no one is better than another for any reason regardless of skin tome, intellect,gender,health, education,or anything else for that matter. Please keep in mind I was responding to Stormchasers questions about the Biblical view of homosexuality and Inyo's remarks as well. I was giving my opinion based solely on my interpretation of the Bible where it says it is a blatant sin equivalent to lying, murder, adultery, idolatry, etc.

My personal opinion based strictly upon that is that people are not born homosexual just as no one is born a murderer or adulterer, but we choose to sin(all of us whether bigger or smaller sins) Anyone who thinks a certain race or gender for example is more superior than another is engaging in bigotry which I did not nor ever would!

Half of my personal FRIENDS are of a different race but we all were created by the same CREATOR in my personal opinion who chose what we might look like which we had no part in. We are all created EQUAL and no one should think they are better than another. Our actions define who we are and that is what God will ultimately hold us accountable for in my opinion.

Naturally, I have a right to dislike the SIN of homosexuality as I do the sin of murder according to my own personal Biblical view and that is not bigotry no matter how you or anyone tries to suggest otherwise. To be a bigot, I have to dislike or even hate the PERSON engaging in such activity which I do not for I too am not without sin.

Most importantly based upon your very unfair suggestion and comparison with racial overtones, I personally don't consider race, gender,nationality, or anything else that God chose for us to make us better than another nor should anyone else. I HATE all forms of bigotry that exists including those of whites thinking they are superior than blacks and vice versa. Likewise, I HATE the personal SINS that I find myself succombing to but I would hope someone wouldn't HATE me because I sin when everyone does the same. That being said, it doesn't mean anyone should accept my sins of adultery if I were to do so for it is my CHOICE if I choose to engage in such activities and not something that was chosen for me like skin tone as in your inappropriate comparison. I would sincerely hope you also agree than none of us are better than another for any of the aforementioned reasons as well. For who are we to judge another. But, we have every right to dislike a specific sin like murder, homosexuality, and lying to name a few.

I hope you better understand my views and realize that even if you disagree with them that I am in no way being a bigot(for I have to have hatred of a person and not their actions to be so).

Otherwise, I enjoy all of your respectful and knowledgeable comments. I wonder if my critique of STORMTOPS inaccurate forecasts as I personally viewed them hasn't given the impression that I somehow think I am personally better than another for that was NOT the intention of that blog. That blog was written at the encouragement of Califonia to clarify WHY I didn't agree with my good friend, Califonia's interpretation of STORMTOPS forecasts outperforming the NHC which I viewed as both inaccurate and completely unfair. It was by no means to be personal because I gave him all the credit he earned when he did outperform the NHC early in the forecast period and noted his forecasts were his sincere beliefs. We will all make errors in forecasting but I don't think it is fair to see the NHC be consistently bashed as not performing as well on Katrina as STORMTOP when the Truth clearly shows otherwise as evident by my blog comparing each forecast in their own words(not mine).

Anyways, I will most disappointed if you read all of this and still somehow believe I could ever be such a horrible thing as a bigot. Regardless, thanks so much for reading this email and I hope you have a great weekend.:)

Thanks again,

StSimons, a very good point about our data and why any data gathered in and around large metro areas has to be taken with a grain of salt. In Denver our official site was downtown from 1872 through 1949, then at the old Stapleton Airport about 7 miles ENE of downtown from 1950 through February 1995, and at Denver International Airport about 20 miles NE of downtown since March 1,1995. The current site at DIA is in mostly rural surroundings. However, another complicating factor is the switch to automated instruments in the past 10 years or so. ASOS has to be recalibrated frequently and has been known to record maximum temperatures several degrees F higher than other nearby locations. I recall reading an article about problems with the data reported from Newark,NJ about 10 years ago, where the instruments were exposed near a large parking lot. That much said, the increase in summer highs in Denver did begin in the late '80s at the old Stapleton site before the automated system was commissioned. I'm trying to compare data from reliable sites away from large cities to get a better idea of how much warming we've had. With all these data sets that are quoted, one does have to wonder what adjustments are made for urban heat islands which have developed over the years. It is significant that a steady warming trend is noted from the 1880s through the 1930s, then a slight cooling from about 1940 through the 1970s, then a strong warming since 1980. Many weather stations were located in downtown areas during the first period, then moved out to airports around World War II. The airport stations were often in rural surroundings for many years, then began to be surrounded by urban development in the last few decades. The moves in station locations might account for some of the trends if proper adjustments have not been made for this. But this wouldn't account for all of the warming observed since 1980. I'm not an expert on this, would someone know exactly how adjustments are made to the data to account for changes in location and exposure of instruments,changes in observation times,etc.?
Hey everyone,

I choose to personaly keep all discussions of religion(which is ones personal belief and should be respected), political preferences (another personal choice of beliefs), and thje like out of future discussions. These type of discussions seems to quickly become personal yet I don't view them as being anymore PERSONAL than a respectful disagreement over the DIRECT cause of global temperature increases.

Once again, these are simply my personal opinions and I hope each of you will respect my views as I do yours and will not make any differences of opinion personal as I unfairly did myself earlier in this blog with Dr. masters unjustly for which I sincerely and rightfully apologized. I hope you all have a great weekend.:)


Hey DenverMark,

When I interned at the NWS, we didn't make any adjustments for such temperature readings. This is based solely on my own personal experience and maybe others with meteorological experience such as Dr. Masters obviously or Weatherguy03 (Bob) might have a different experience and know if this standard still exists. In other words, I don't think there is any adjustment made for relocation of NWS observation sites.

It is nice to meet you Mark and an excellent post I may add. Likewise, St. Simons response was equally as impression.:)


Regarding global warming, although a very divisive issue, there is alot of conflicting data that leaves too much to personal interpretation for there are so many variables involved some as seemingly insignificant at first glance as hea inducing asphalt of all things.

I will on record and say that although I believe the DIRECT(key word here for me)of these global temperature increases are a result of Natural causes, that I will not say that greenhouse gas emissions have had no effect whatsoever.

Once again, this is simply my personal perspective and I respect the views of those with a dissenting opinion for either of us COULD be correct in all reality.:)


Hey everyone,

I am off for the night most likely, and simply want to wish everyone a great weekend.:)

Your friend,
I have read plenty on here tonight and I know it is COLD here. Also it is Mardi Gras time and that means Party Time!!!

So on that note everybody think weather and just how bad the Snow Storm will be... Also play nice ok...:0)

Cyclone, I had wondered about that one myself. I don't think, though, that we modify the planet's albedo too much.
Whoa, check out Vaianu!

*pushes the big red RIC button*

*jams on the button*

Look at this thing go! I'll be posting new imagery in this discussion thread as it comes in.
I'm not a scientist and don't even play one on TV, but some of Gray's arguments pooh-poohing the relationship between global warming and hurricane intensity seem willfully tunnel-visioned. In his 2006 forecast, for example (http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2005/dec2005/), he says this:

"[The] large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in strength of the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) which is not directly related to global temperature increase. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism."

I was under the impression that the size of the polar ice cap, which is shrinking pretty dramatically, has a direct bearing on ocean salinity. So this argument makes no sense to me. Maybe some of you who are scientists can help me out on this one.

It is interesting, as the WSJ article noted, how most of the long time tropical climatologists are in the natural-cycles camp and most of the statisticians are in global-warming camp. I suspect they're both right: We have a natural cycle being magnified by global warming.
Wow! I'd like to be in NYC right now! 12" already on the ground in Central Park, zero visibility at La Guardia and a band of 2-4" per hour snowfall moving in. This looks to be a Top 5 storm for the area. I think New York will get the max amount, although it's going to be pretty impressive for southern New England, too.
I don't think the ice caps have really shrunken that much. They are smaller, but remember that the oceans contain a *trenedous* amount of water - even if the ice caps were to totally melt, ocean salinity would only drop by a few %.
224. MDI
Luckily we don't have to worry about Lake Agassiz draining massive amounts of freshwater through the St. Lawerence River valley and into the Atlantic these days.
The problem is in the semantics...when the left talks about "global warming", what they REALLY mean is "evil greedy fascist corporation big oil funded human caused global warming" not just the simple term "global warming".

Global warming, while it may indeed be happening at this time, is almost certainly the result of natural climate cycles, not the industrial revolution...although it is impossible to know for sure either way, because we don't have a spare Earth to use as a control group.
Colby: 97% of the Earth's water is in the oceans...and I'm not too worried about warmer weather and more arable land.
Those interested in the GW topic may want to check out my take on the subject here.