WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 3:26 PM GMT on May 24, 2006

"Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" That's the slogan of two 60-second TV ads airing in 14 U.S. cities May 14-28. The ads are being run by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). According to their web site, CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. They tout a Wall Street Journal article which calls CEI "the best environmental think tank in the country".

Who funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
A variety of businesses fund CEI, but the fossil-fuel industry is one of their main contributors. Exxon documents show that the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998. Other oil companies, such as Amoco and Texaco, also contribute to CEI, through the American Petroleum Institute. So, it is safe to mentally replace the "paid for by the Competitive Enterprise Institute" tag on the ads with, "paid for by the fossil fuel industry." I speculated in an April blog that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT (and other op-eds that appeared nationwide about the same time) were funded as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign by the fossil fuel industry. The appearance of the new TV ads are also likely part of the same PR campaign. The ads use language similar to the April op-ed pieces, using the word "alarmist" or its variations to describe those who warn that climate change presents a danger. The ads were timed to launch just before the opening of Al Gore's new film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth", due out today in New York City.

What do the ads say?
Here is the full transcript of the narration for the second ad, titled "Glaciers":

You've seen those headlines about global warming. The glaciers are melting, we're doomed. That's what several studies supposedly found.

But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite. Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.

Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us?

Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let's force people to cut back, they say. But we depend on those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives.

And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke, it's what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.

What is the validity of the scientific results quoted in the ads?
When the narrator says "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting", the screen image is of a 2005 paper that appeared in Science magazine, "Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland". A glowing halo appears around the word "Growth". If you go to the trouble to read the article, you'll discover that it discusses satellite measurements which show that the interior of Greenland's ice sheet has thickened by about 6 cm/year since 1999. This thickening is attributed to increased precipitation, primarily due to natural cycles. However, 25% of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric water vapor from heightened evaporation caused by global warming. The paper also notes that the glaciers at the edge of Greenland have thinned by about 2 cm/year since 1999, and conclude that their measurements cannot be used to tell if the glaciers of Greenland are showing a net gain or loss in recent years. So, the claim that "Greenland's glaciers are growing, not melting" is a half truth. Ice in Greenland's interior is getting thicker, but the the glaciers at the edges are getting thinner. As I discussed in a blog on Greenland's Greenhouse, this is a very complicated system with many unknowns! Making a simple statement that Greenland's glaciers are not melting--or are melting--hides the very high scientific uncertainty about what is going on there. Also left out from the ads is that most of Greenland's glaciers have shown a marked increase in flow rate in recent years.

Is the Antarctic ice sheet getting thicker?
When the CEI ad claims, "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner", an image of another 2005 Science paper appears, Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise. Another halo of light appears around the word "Growth". Again, we are being subjected to a partial truth. Antarctica is divided into two ice sheets, and East and West Antarctic ice sheets, and this paper is only talking about one of the ice sheets. As I discussed in my March 7 blog, Antarctica Melting?, the question of whether Antarctica is undergoing a significant net melting or mass gain is not known--this is another very complicated system that we do not understand very well. In the words of the lead author of the paper, Professor Curt H. Davis, Director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri:

"Our result is only for East Antarctica. Moreover, we make it clear that our results are for the interior and it is well known that the edges are losing mass." In a University of Missouri press release issued May 19, Dr. Davis states: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?
The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!

Crediting fossil fuels for our economic prosperity
The fossil fuel industry ads point out that the burning of fossil fuels has brought dramatic increases in wealth and prosperity to the world. This is a good point, and we should not seriously damage the basis of the world economy through reckless efforts to cut CO2 emissions. We can credit a good portion of the marvels of modern civilization to the availability of cheap fossil fuels to power our technological revolution. However, we shouldn't get all misty-eyed about the wondrous things we've accomplished by using this ready source of energy left for us by the fossilized plants of Earth's past. Any technology can bring about terrible suffering if used unwisely. Consider that fossil fuels have also made possible the horrors of modern warfare. The tanks of Hitler's blitzkrieg--and the aircraft that have dropped the bombs that have killed millions of innocent people this past century--were all powered by fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuel burning has killed millions as well. We need to be honest about both the importance of fossil fuels, and the dangers they pose if used unwisely. The threat of climate change due to burning fossil fuels needs to be addressed truthfully, so that we can make wise decisions about the future of our energy technology. The untruthful new ad campaign by the fossil fuel industry is harmful to this end.

Jeff Masters

PS, my next blog will be Friday, when I'll probably review the global weather for April and give an update on the tropics. In a later blog, I'll be sure to review Al Gore's new movie, and comment on its truthfulness. However, I don't think the movie is playing until mid-June here in Michigan. BTW, most of us will never get to see the "we call it life" ads on TV. They are only playing in Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Charleston WV, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Harrisburg, Phoenix, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Springfield IL, and Washington DC. I guess the fossil fuel industry wanted to run them in some test markets to see how they did before attempting a more widespread release.

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

Tropics are quiet, boring and asleep..lol..well it's just plain too HOT around the SE and the humidity is on the rise!
Posted this in the older blog, not sure anyone saw it..


Dust informational links...


Aerosol Page from the Navy.

Saharan Air Analysis
I already posted the second link; note that the background link at the top explains that the Saharan Air Layer can also increase wind shear from a low level jet that can form.
This site is another aerosol link, but the larger images haven't been updated since December. Not sure why.
The ads are already getting widely lampooned. Some of my favorites:

From the Grist online--

What's Methane, Chopped Liver?

Conservative think tank launches climate-skeptic TV ads


"Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution; we call it life." Nope, not a story in The Onion. That's the punch line of two TV ads that the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute began airing in 14 U.S. cities yesterday, timed to correspond with the big-screen debut of Al Gore's climate-change movie An Inconvenient Truth. The ads, replete with happy, energy-guzzling families and a little girl blowing dandelion fluff, protest the maligning of poor, innocent CO2 -- which, according to one ad, "some politicians want to label ... a pollutant." (Gasp.) What will happen if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere? The ads aren't specific, but apparently it has something to do with riding a bike in heavy snow. CEI acknowledges that global temperatures have risen in the past century, but according to president Fred Smith, warming is moving us "a lot closer to heaven than hell." So, the road to heaven is paved with CO2 emissions. The road to hell is paved by Al Gore. And reality has left parody in the dust.

From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish--

I Call It Funny

Yep: the Competitive Enterprise Institute has decided to launch a p.r. campaign in defense of carbon dioxide. Money quote:

"Carbon Dioxide: They Call It Pollution. We Call It Life."

I'm not making this up. Now, I'm not going to knock CO2. And when you watch the ad, you'll find it comes out of your lungs in short, sharp bursts of laughter.

Fruitbat blog--

I particularly liked the footage of glaciers calving, which was then stopped and run in reverse. Ooh! Glacier all better now!

These and others are documented at deltoid--

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/linking_and_laughing.php
Crypt-Areas of "too high shear" were refered to last year, but they were nothing like the shear levels we are seeing across the Gulf and most of the Atlantic right now. Shear is absurdly high right now.

SJ
Absurdly high? Then why does this say that shear in the tropical Atlantic is only 10 kts? More here
Shear in the eastern Caribbean has been even lower in the last few days.
Looking for links to the most pertinent tropical information?

Check out StormJunkie.com

I have also posted some nice SST comaprisons in my blog that show the current temps in relation to the past several years. THe Gulf stream seems to be stronger then it has been in quite a while. Very interesting to see on the maps.

Thanks ya'll
SJ

SJ
Carbon Dioxide: We Call it Maize!


This is a much better rep of shear Michael. Don't know what you are looking at there, but the S Carib and the E Atlantic are low for the most part.

SJ
This is the average shear over the Eastern Caribbean (the thick black line is the normal value). You can see that the average shear is about 30 kts less than normal:



Looks like trouble may brew soon if it stays much lower than normal...
53rdRecon had an Excellent Post Late in Last Blog.
Very Well Said & Really Bears Repeating:

Posted By: 53rdWeatherRECON at 9:48 AM EDT on May 24, 2006. Ok, I love all the story's about how you made it through this hurricane or that 5 or 10 years ago. But let me tell/remind every one here that the storm it self albeit the worse (destructive/scary) part of it passes in my opinion pretty quickly.

But that is not the worst part. The worst part is living in Florida (or any other gulf state) where the daily average temps at this time of year are 85-90 degrees with 100% humidity. When power is out to a million plus customers this means Gas Stations Grocery stores McDonalds all of it CLOSED. I was so humbled by the events following the Florida storms. I would have given you a cell phone or a 32"TV for a cup of ICE. I would have given up my car, which ran out of gas while I was searching for more after the SIXTH day, For an hour of sleep in AIR CONDITIONING. I would have paid (good money) for a HOT SHOWER.

Then it gets worse. Then the weather station says that another "System" is building strenght and may head "this way". The panic stricken public proceeds to buy up WHAT IS LEFT of the availible gas/water/canned foods/Plywood/flashligts/batteries/propane
Standing/waiting in gas lines a mile long for gas that was $3.50 a gallon and we were only alowed 15 gallons.

My opinion was that the storms themselves were actually pretty amazing (remember the worst we saw was CAT4 Charley/Ivan) (I would never have stayed if they had even a voluntary evac of my area).

The weeks after were way worse.

I saved my vacation time this year so that if anything heads anywhere near here You will be able to find me in Tennessee at a Hotel.


Have A Plan & Be Prepared!
Campaign for FL Hurricane Preparedness
*thank you :o)
for your indulugence with the re-post
Michael that is a deceptive graph you have there. The map I posted shows the 6hr forcast for tropical wind shear. I think we usually get it right 6hrs in advance. You tell me how the shear looks. Look for the shear levels to really start to die off in about 4 days.

SJ
AFternoon Fran and thanks again. Yes many of us know exactly what recon is speaking of.

Mine was Hugo in 89.

SJ
17. F5
However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste.

Carbon dioxide is also produced by respiration of most, if not all, land-based animals (including humans), so it can't really be classified as a "man-made" waste in terms of pollution. And since we are required to breathe to live, I'd say it's pretty much a requirement.
I think it's interesting how those cities that are airing the commercials are for the most part state capitals...I'm sure that they're trying to capture the audience who has the most to do with political moves involving global warming.

Nice try, CEI.
Couple of other points on your graph Michael.

It appears that it only goes to about the 15 of may.

The norm on that chart is 35kts which is way too high for cyclone devlopement.

SJ
Uhhhh.... the normal or climatological is what is normally expected, NOT the average (the blue line. Also, notice that the graph covers an entire year; notice that it shows May, then July; the third mark in between them is June and you can clearly see that the graph almost goes to that point. Everybody is always confused for some reason (they think that the black line is the average; it is the climatological value). See here; it has Real-Time (actual), and Climatological (expected based on past observations).

I think that I might want do a blog to explain the graphs...
CO2 has been on the rise for quite a while and there is little question that this is being caused by the buring of fossil fuels. If you look at the trend line you can see the problem.

CO2 link

Having said that, the issue still remaims just how much has the global temperature gone up (how do we measure this?) and how much is due to the production of CO2? There are other possible causes for the temperature rise including natural variations in climate and things like solar variation. How much is manmade and how much may be natural?

Solar - Global Warming link

Increasig Solar radiation and sunspots

Certainly adding more CO2 into the atmosphere does not help! I suspect the truth lies in the middle somewhere.
To MichaelSTL
Regarding Eastern Caribbean Shear:
The Eastern Caribbean is not likely to develop a tropical system in May or June. They are more likely in the NW Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
June Named Systems
It's too bad these anti-science Luddite groups have so much money that they can cloud the realities with their slick BS.
Regarding the graphs - remember that the thick black line is the climatological, not the average; in fact, just ignore it if that helps. Also, look at some of the others on the site as well - the West Caribbean and the tropical Atlantic also have less shear than normal. Another thing - the graphs show the average shear over the area in question, so some areas will certainly have less shear (see shear maps for the exact areas). The point is, shear is well below normal in many areas.
F5 wrote:

Carbon dioxide is also produced by respiration of most, if not all, land-based animals (including humans), so it can't really be classified as a "man-made" waste in terms of pollution. And since we are required to breathe to live, I'd say it's pretty much a requirement.

Pig excrement is produced by animals, too. Are you saying that, if a hog farm's lagoon ruptures and leaks waste into a pond that serves as the local water supply, that isn't "pollution"?

I can't believe that the debate over anthropogenic climate change is being reduced to an argument over whether CO2 is "pollution".
Yeah, shear is much lower than normal. Most of the tropical Atlantic (as in, below a line drawn due east/west from, say, Puerto Rico) is upwards of 20kt below normal. The TCF product shows a 1.5-2% formation probability for the Pacific Invest. Looks good to me, but will probably take time to get its act together.
On the commercial, I've not seen or heard it, but it seems to me they are just responding to garbage with garbage. There are still people out there that there is a solution to stop global warming that is politically possible. Within a few more years, the US will no longer even be the top emitter.

The numbers are simple.

India has a couple hundred million people that feel they should be able to air condition their homes. That increase in electrical generation can come from only one place. Coal.

China and Indonesia have different desires, but they are equally expansive, and again, the increase can really only come from one place. Coal.



28. WSI
"India has a couple hundred million people that feel they should be able to air condition their homes. "


Uhh, you make this sound like a crime? Maybe it just came actoss wrong to me.
Posted By: rwwhot at 5:16 PM GMT on May 24, 2006.

India has a couple hundred million people that feel they should be able to air condition their homes. That increase in electrical generation can come from only one place. Coal.

China and Indonesia have different desires, but they are equally expansive, and again, the increase can really only come from one place. Coal.


Nope. Nuclear. That is where they are going to be looking. A couple of years old, but still interesting: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
One thing to remember: just like coal, oil, gas, etc, nuclear power is a finite resource and the pollution (used, radiactive waste) is far, far worse. At least until fusion is perfected, but even after about half a century of research, it is still a no-go...
My problem is that most of the global warming 'science' I have seen, in the articles specifically blaming activities of mankind for all the problems, uses the 'reverse scientific method', that is it appears to advance a theory and then finds facts to justify that theory.

Where are the articles discussing the relationship between the trend we see today and the emergence from the 'Little Ice Age' of the 1600's? Where is the evidence that the climatalogical change is outside the ranges of all known climate changes of the past? These are just examples of what is missing in the debate.

For example, if someone could predict that we were going into another little ice age, I might WANT to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

My observation is that there are a lot of people pushing the 'global warming' button that are not being honest about their goals to enforce life-style changes they feel are 'necessary'. That's part of the reason they oppose nuclear power too, even though that has the potential to replace all fossil fuel for electricity production with zero CO2 emissions.
No, not a crime, a simple statement of fact. I would be entirely unsurprised if in ten years, despite increasing our own emissions at a modest rate, we will be the number three emitter; perhaps even the number four. Our chances of remaining number one however, are vitually nonexistant.

As to nuclear, I don't think they can build those plants fast enough to keep up with demand. They'll be building lots of coal fired generation plants over the next few years... LOTS.

Pretending its going to be any other way is simple fantasy.
have you all noticed that FSU shut down there web pages?
LinkLink
34. WSI
Yeah Bama..

Thank goodness for Penn State. :)
whew...thanks. I forgot about Penn state program. Sad i almost went there.
36. WSI
I would LOVE to know the reasoning for shutting the pages down.
Is there another link for a site that shows cyclone phase analysis (warm or cold core and tracks, SSTs, etc)?
Okay, here's the poster for the movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Link

The hurricane coming out of the smokestack is, I *believe* supposed to be Katrina (see the photo from the movie below:

Link

Is it just me, or is that hurricane backwards?
Here on the movie site they have it animated to rotate clockwise:

Link
Hey everyone,

I have finally completed my final 2006 outlook update. Please feel free to read and leave comments :)
Yep, the hurricane in the top picture is spinning the wrong way (for the northern hemisphere that is).
Backwards? What do you mean?
Oh, you were talking about the first link, not the second.
Fascinating. I guess that makes the actual direction of Atlantic hurricanes an "inconvenient truth"... at least to the designer of the poster.
I has always puzzled me why American media sometimes uses southern hemisphere tropical cyclone symbols/graphics. You would think at least one person involved would have enough of a clue to get the direction of circulation correct.
Michael~ for the Cyclone Phase Analysis & Forecasts take that penn state link & scroll down.

ROFL, and Gore loses the last conceiveable respect he could have for the movie. That is priceless.
I already know about that link; it takes you to the FSU site, which no longer works. Link
Attention hurricane hounds:

NAME THAT STORM

Okay, so I don't think the storm on the movie poster is Katrina after all -- or maybe it is, but I haven't seen any sat. images that are exactly like it. So what storm is it?

It's got a tight little eye, so it's gotta be a major -- CAT 4-5 -- but the cloud pattern seems wider and looser than any of the Atlantic 2005 majors. I'm betting that the designer chose an image that featured a classically-shaped storm, probably while it was over water so they could isolate and PhotoShop it.

Any ideas?
It also boggles my mind that the global warming argument has devolved into a debate about whether CO2 is a pollutant. To take the above example of pig excrement one step further, plants LOVE pig excrement. For many plants, all they need to be happy is a little water, sunlight, some pig excrement, and CO2. The same goes for human excrement -- another "natural" product. Is excrement pollution? Well, that depends on whether it's causing harm in whatever environmental context -- if not, it's manure (just like this CEI ad). Fertilizer is something crops (PLANTS) need. But when fertilizer ends up in the Gulf of Mexico at high concentrations, people call it the "Zone of Death" -- the big brown septic area off the mouth of the Mississippi River. CO2 is plant food AND pollutant, so what? Can we move on now?
lol denvan

I had to check out the UCF site to check we that we didn't lose that & FSU to some new law.

It's good & it's already got damage estimates on the eastern pacific area of invest.

That color = large trees swaying, little limbs breaking & looks like it could be a short lived area of intrest.

Michael ~ Oh, yes the link to that on the Penn State site is down...hhmmm
MichaelSTL wrote:

One thing to remember: just like coal, oil, gas, etc, nuclear power is a finite resource and the pollution (used, radiactive waste) is far, far worse. At least until fusion is perfected, but even after about half a century of research, it is still a no-go...

A finite resource, yes -- heck, the SUN ITSELF is a "finite resource". Uranium reserves are probably enough to keep us going for hundreds of years; they'll certainly remain economical far longer than oil will.

Nuclear waste is "far, far worse" than greenhouse gases? If you accidentally or maliciously disperse it, it contaminates a relatively small area, rendering it uninhabitable. Greenhouse warming has the potential to render huge areas uninhabitable. I don't consider a small-to-medium chance of local damage "far, far worse" than a medium-to-high chance of global damage. Former residents of the Chornobyl area may well disagree -- but, for the record, I'm a former resident of the Three Mile Island area.

As for fusion, I'm pessimistic. The technologies people seem to be focusing on are far from "clean", and the necessary engineering apparently is still well beyond our abilities. I'd love to see it in my lifetime (i.e. another half-century or so), but I so firmly believed we'd see it by now...
Saw this at the NHC:

TROPICAL WEATHER DISCUSSION
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
205 PM EDT WED MAY 24 2006

...TROPICAL WAVES...
WEAK TROPICAL WAVE IS ALONG 47W S OF 10N MOVING W 10 KT.
INVERTED V LOW LEVEL SIGNATURE IS OBSERVED IN THE VIS SATELLITE
PICTURES. SCATTERED MODERATE TO ISOLATED STRONG CONVECTION IS ON
EITHER SIDE OF THE AXIS BUT MAINLY WITHIN THE ITCZ SOUTH OF 4N
BETWEEN 42W-50W.


What is an inverted V?
jeffb..I am in agreement there. Nothing could possibly answer the world's energy problems better than nuclear, especially if humanity continues to breed like flies. And as far as nuclear waste is concerned, breeder reactors make spent nuclear fuel reusable again.
"Carbon Dioxide: They Call It Pollution. We Call It Life."

Lets put them in a room of pure CO2 for 10 minutes and see how long it takes to go into Cardiac Arrest.

Seriously, out of interest, I've heard in the past that O2 levels were much larger which aided in the evolution of larger animals (ie mammals and dinosaurs) and larger insects. What happened to the oxygen? Are O2 levels still dropping? anyone know off the top of their heads
Obviously if used fuel rods generate radiation, there is still energy to be gained. The problem with breeder reactors and other newer reactor technologies is they are currently politically non-viable for two reasons: they offend the greenies, and they could be misused by rogue nations to produce weapons materials.

However, when the political need for cheap fuel overrides the current concerns, we'll get new reactors. Maybe we'll get cleaner fusion, too, but it's hard to be sure. We WILL run out of oil and coal, so sooner or later we'll shift to something else.

Just out of curiousity, has anybody ever run the numbers to see what effect just producing a lot of nuclear energy (which all ends up as heat once the chain completes) would have on the environment? Does it get readily dissipated as heat radiation (infrared earth-shine) or does it stick around and cause warming too?
Zap
Lets put them in a room of pure CO2 for 10 minutes and see how long it takes to go into Cardiac Arrest.

That won't actually happen unless something cuts off all oxygen production.
SMU88:

To answer your question. Tropical waves have an inverted V signature from south to north on the satellite. If they do not, then they are not a tropical wave and could be only an upper level disturbance.
Zaphod Just out of curiousity, has anybody ever run the numbers to see what effect just producing a lot of nuclear energy (which all ends up as heat once the chain completes) would have on the environment? Does it get readily dissipated as heat radiation (infrared earth-shine) or does it stick around and cause warming too?

It wouldn't even register as a measurable blip.
Hmm...CO2 = pollution = life? Does that mean I could now choose to be pro-life in a whole new way?

I'm not anti-environment, just pro-life? Will they have bumper stickers too?

Why must we politically correctly rename everything until words no longer have meaning?

Zap

Just a silly point that CO2 doesn't mean life, it's all part of a cycle. (you can't live on CO2, even low concentrations in the blood will kill you)

found what I was looking for, not really relevant but interesting, especially with deforestation and polluting the oceans may logically cause the inverse?

HIgher O2 levels

franck wrote:

And as far as nuclear waste is concerned, breeder reactors make spent nuclear fuel reusable again.

Only sort of. They let you reclaim a small amount of fuel out of the total volume of waste. The claim that they "turn waste into fuel" is misleading. But it still seems silly not to take advantage of this fuel source, if we can resolve the associated problems of proliferation.

I believe India is also looking at breeders to turn thorium into usable fuel -- they've got LOTS of thorium.
Do they routinely measure the oxygen level in the atmosphere? With all of the deforestration, burning (this includes burning fossil fuels), and other stuff, I would think that a decrease, however small, would be noticed.
No more FSU data? WTF?
Notice: Florida State University has mandated effective 24 May 2006 that no real-time weather forecasts relating potentially
in any way to hurricanes
are to be disseminated by faculty or students at FSU.
Consequently, this web page has been shut down UFN. A contact email and phone number to register complaints will be posted here soon.

Is this a conspiracy? Note that it says that it specifically blocks forecasts for hurricanes... I wonder why.
So we need links for good GFDL, CMC, and Ukmet models now.

FU FSU

SJ
God bless CEI for showing us the truth about CO2! Maybe they can get around to re-postitioning some other so-called "harmful" substances:

Suggestions:

Nicotine. They call it "carcinogenic;" we call it "a profit engine for the medical industry".

CFCs. They call them "destructive of the ozone layer;" we call them "suntan accelerators."

DDT. They call it "extremely dangerous to children and pregnant women;" we call it "a potent reminder that children and pregnant women are running arond out of control anyway".

Agent Orange. They call it a tragic mistake; we call it "a pleasant fruity colour".

Mass extinction. They call it "an imminent threat to all life on Earth;" we call it, "a great way to decrease America's tax burden."

Hemlock. They call it "poison;" we call it "a natural herbal remedy for lefties."

CEI. They call it "a false front for the fossil fuel industry;" we call it "a really EXPENSIVE false front for the fossil fuel industry."
Oh N.O.!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-05-24T192149Z_01_N24313604_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES-FORECAST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul1999/1999-07-19-02.asp

Not sure of the source but hey do measure O2, the levels in decline are nowhere near as the % increase in ppm for CO2 (there's a lot of oxygen)


Link
Moderate risk of severe weather today in Wisconsin.
Nicotine doesn't cause cancer :D It's the tar that'll kill ya. Had a physics professor in college that said it was a nuclear isotope that the plants picked up from the ground that actually caused the cancer--the cancer risk decreased at the same rate as the halflife of the isotope. I've never looked into it, but that just popped in my head. What also popped into my head is that tonight's the season finale of Lost, tomorrow is my son's last day of school and that I'm going to hammered at Disney World from Friday to Monday. G-D bless the Mouse!

B
I already know about the moderate risk; I am in a tornado watch and a massive severe weather outbreak may occur (the NWS says that a significant severe weather episode is likely and AccuWeather also talks about a dangerous outbreak).

My blog has more information on it.

My 2 cents worth:

1. CEI is correct in pointing out that we are getting a very one-sided view from the media.
2. CEI is NOT on firm ground if they are saying the planet isn't warming. It's been warming for 18,000 years, and that may be continuing.
3. Jeff points out that these ads may be funded in part by energy companies.
4. Jeff never points out that the Ad Council, with BILLIONS of advertising available, and a board of directors consisting of members from just about every major corporation you've ever heard of, has mounted a major campaign to make every American believe that "global warming" is the greatest catastrophe to ever "hit the planet". (actually, I'm not always on here, so perhaps Jeff may have pointed that out but I didn't see it...)

5. WE'RE IN AN ICE AGE!!! The planet is NOT going to become uninhabitable. The last 18,000 years of warming has been nothing but GOOD for us, and reclaiming the land under Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica ice will be a major boon!

As the planet warms, the heat goes to the poles, not the equatorial regions.

Ok, I'll stop now... heheheheh

Won't even post my chart...
Uhh, don't know what your professor was smoking, but nicotine does cause cancer...that's why smokeless tobacco is also a carcinogen. And he must really be smoking something good with his nuclear isotope theory...is he talking about radon?
very interesting post by jeff. this advertising campaign has good points but, it cut out the other side of the story. ecosystems are being destroyed constantly by enviromental changes as the atmosphere warms. this is shown by the advance of warmer temperatures in the north and up mountains which has resulted in animals being forced into extinction as they run out of room.
The San Juan
Airport in Puerto Rico has been reported volcanic ash for
several hours


loook at this
also, for those who havent seen my site here it is:

Link

it has live global hurricane info as well as hurricnae anatomy and formation. it also has a preparedness guide.

Posted By: turtlehurricane at 8:12 PM GMT on May 24, 2006.

...the advance of warmer temperatures in the north and up mountains which has resulted in animals being forced into extinction as they run out of room.


The only cure for the ongoing mass extinctions on this planet is human population control.

RWDobson,

Just to reiterate, Nicotine does not cause cancer. It's everything else in the leaf that does. :D Just Google "Does Nictotine cause cancer?"

B
"Nicotine has limited carcinogenic effects, inhibiting the body's ability to destroy potentially cancerous cells. However, nicotine does not promote the development of cancer in healthy cells."
Link

There is a lot of other chemicals used in the preparation of all tobacco products that are also carcinogens.
Not condoning smoking, but nicotine is also found in tomatos, eggplant and potatos in small concentrations.
um california, that would help but, changing temperatures have been causing mass extinctions.
Has anyone noticed the invest in the Indian Ocean?

wrar... What time of year does the ITCZ move up to the lattitude nessasary for cyclone developement?
Question for the warming folks..

I'm of the opinion that the climate's going back up to its global average over the next century or three; is there any peer reviewed material that addresses what went during previous warming cycles?

What died, what lived, what expanded its range. I've seen the sea level material, but I've not seen the biological stuff.
Haven't posted since last year right after getting pounded by Wilma. I read almost every day though. I think if I hear one more thing about how we are destroying the planet, I am going to blow my brains out. Get over it. I'm sure Al will make a killing on the movie. It looks like a thriller that will keep me on the edge of my seat. Frankly I can't wait until there is a storm somewhere to give the people that run this blog something else to talk about. Whats up with old FSU shutting down the website? Oh well should have known better than to trust the Seminoles anyways. Go Gators!
well i read a book called the weather makers. it had basically all of the biological info. along with very good scientific info. like sea levels, co2, etc.you can find it on google and buy it, trust me, its worth it to buy.
I hadn't noticed that louastu. It looks like its almost a TD. Where do you go to find information about invests?
Link

SJ here is a link to replace FSU's
thats my favorite computer models site. nothing like it. since i started using it 3 years ago my forecasts havent been better.
I got that image from this site.

Link
Thank You Bama!!!!

SJ
TROPICAL WAVE ALONG 97W/98W S OF 13N MOVING W 10 KT. A BROAD
1008 MB LOW IS LOCATED ALONG THE AXIS NEAR 11N BASED ON A FEW
SHIP OBSERVATIONS...QUIKSCAT IMAGERY...AND THE OVERALL SATELLITE
PRESENTATION. THE WAVE/LOW APPEARED SOMEWHAT RAGGED OVERNIGHT...
BUT THE CIRCULATION NOW SEEMS TO BE BECOMING MORE CONSOLIDATED
AROUND A COMMON CENTER AND DEEP CONVECTION IS ONCE AGAIN FORMING
AROUND THE PROPOSED CENTER. IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE THAT SOME SORT
OF BANDING FEATURES MAY BE FORMING...BUT THESE TRENDS WILL BE
MONITORED THROUGH THE DAY. SCATTERED MODERATE/STRONG CONVECTION
FROM 8N-13N BETWEEN 95W-100W. MODEL GUIDANCE...INCLUDING THE
ENSEMBLES...CONTINUES TO INDICATE THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL DEVELOP
OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS. THIS SEEMS PLAUSIBLE GIVEN THAT THE
CIRCULATION IS FINALLY BECOMING MORE COMPACT...BUT MORE
WIDESPREAD AND ORGANIZED CONVECTION WILL FIRST BE NECESSARY.
My sister works at FSU and I just e-mailed her that link about the shut-down - she is going to see what she can find out.
Great post Dr Masters! Keep up the good work on this issue because it needs to be educated very strongly to my generation. Thanks for your continued great work.

As for making Siberia, Antarctica and Greenland habitable, who wants to live where there is 22 hours of sunlight for much of the year and the other has 22 hours of darkness. I think I would rather fight this situation and live in the places we have habited for our entire existence as humans, near the equator.
How about we use Venus as a test case, and see if we can cool it down? That'd be way more fun than making substantial life-style changes.

It's not "mass extinction" it's a "novel opportunity for new species evolution".

Jupiter, don't blow your brains out. That would only play into the population control gambit.
Zap
Got some scoop on the fsu website issue - My sister works at fsu - she will find out more tommorrow...

This is what she found out so far:
Ok a few of the network guys were still around. One "remembers" (vaguely) of a fight between some "corporate" (for profit) weather "business" not liking the fact that FSU was giving this information out for free. So a fight for corporate money - probably somekind of injunction to temporarily halt the publication of this free service so folks will go to their weather site and see on the ads. And of course click on them and buy crap. (yeah right)

I'll find out more tomorrow
LOL
EARLY NEXT WEEK THE GFS AND OTHER LONG RANGE MODELS SHOW A CLOSED
LOW OFFSHORE THE MID ATLANTIC COAST SINKING SOUTH TO JUST NORTH OF
THE BAHAMAS BY EARLY ON WEDNESDAY AS UPPER RIDGING BUILDS FROM THE
NERN STATES SOUTH TO THE NORTHERN GULF.
Maybe AccuWeather was not so off by saying that a tropical storm will form on June 3. Actually, not just form, but make landfall.
is anyone seeing anything "suspicious" looking on any of the short/long range computer models?
Naples or anyone else who may have valid info on the FSU scandal please let me know. Our weather is not for sale.

I would like to know what the root cause of this issue is. I will try to get this message across to as many as possible including all governement agencies. If this happens to be a fear of the sue happy, then I will again do everything I can to ensure that this does not happen in the future with most of our other great free weather information. I will also ensure that this information is posted on StormJunkie.com for all to see. Our free weather will go away if we do not stop it.

"The significant problems we face can not be solved by the same level of thinking that created them"-Albert Einstien

SJ

Are you kidding me. ROTFLMAO. Accuweather is now talking about the 300hr gfs forcast. LMAO some more. They are such a joke. I would not be suprised if they are in on the FSU scandal.

lmao a little more.

The 72hr GFS is a joke at least some of the time, much less a 300hr.

SJ
105. WSI
"One "remembers" (vaguely) of a fight between some "corporate" (for profit) weather "business" not liking the fact that FSU was giving this information out for free. "

Sounds familiar. IF this is true, I'll give you two chances to guess which company, but I bet you will only need one.
So did I beat you to the punch line WSI...Accucrap?


SJ
107. F5
Two interesting write-ups from the Climate Science blog at CSU...

First order climate forcings of aerosols

Is CO2 a pollutant

SJ - Will keep you posted. My sister posted a question with the link to:

Patty - Here is a webpage with all the fsu lists:

https://lists.fsu.edu/mailman/listinfo

In looking over the list - I see nothing for meteorology or science in
general - nolenet is the most read list and it kinda has something to do
with publishing material doncha think?

Anyway I posted a question to it - just simply whats up with (and posted
the link)

we'll see
RS
Office of Telecommunications
Florida State University

Thanks a ton Naples. Please keep me informed. You can email me if you need to.

Thanks again
SJ
110. Alec
Im an FSU student and Ive requested to a director in the MET department to explain why this is going on.....If it's about weather for money then this will tick me off....
From Cached Page 5/23/06

The FSU MM5 data is provided via
Bob Hart at http://moe.met.fsu.edu
Asst Prof, Department of Meteorology
Florida State University
Zaphod,
Just joking about that but good point.
Thanks again Dr. Masters for an objective view of the situation. From what I've observed here in Denver, global warming is affecting our climate in the past 10 years, and not in a positive way. I'm seeing hotter summers, less winter and spring precip from gentle rain and snow events, and more precip from intense summer thunderstorms.

We may be able to reduce CO2 emissions in the US, Canada and Europe, but what alarms me is the huge increase in emissions in Asia and other parts of the world. Also, I think the use of coal for electricity generation is the biggest problem. Emissions from motor vehicles may not increase as fast if oil prices continue to rise (people will drive more fuel-efficient vehicles).

We may be past the point of no return and have to focus our efforts on assisting the people/nations who will be most affected by changes in our climate.
I really hate to do this ya'll, but....

QUIT WITH THE WHY OF GLOBAL WARMING!!! START FORCING THE HOW TO DEAL WITH IT QUESTION. R&D CAN PROVE THE HOW AND WHY, WHILE IMPLEMENTING METHODS TO DEAL WITH AND UNDERSTAND IT.

We spend more time arguing then we do solving.

SJ
Arrrghhhh! I love how several people have commented on the "debate" of global warming. The fact that you are referring to it as a "debate" just shows how well the fossil fuel industry's campaign of disinformation is WORKING! It ISN'T a debate- that is just what ExxonMobil WANTS you to think. If you talk to virtually ANY climate scientist who is NOT on an oil company payroll, they will agree that humans are changing the climate. The only thing that is up for debate is what the exact consequences will be and how well we can adapt. Try reading a non-American news source (like BBC, for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm) and you'll realize that it is only in THIS country that the whole topic is being presented as a "debate". I think Jeff Masters made some good, clear points- and he is not part of some scientist conspiracy to trick everyone into giving up fossil fuels. Get informed and you'll see that we are all in deep sh**.

I mean, good grief.
i cannot believe they shut off my favorite computer model site. i hope bob hart succeeds in getting it back by friday. this was a very important tool for me as well as actual forecasters.
Elect people that care. Not left Not right. People that care and can not be bought.

SJ
Did you see this in my blog turtle?

Models from PSU

SJ
What happend to Stormtops perdiction of the Upper low becomeing tropicial never happend and so he doesnt post Stormtop was wrong on that and it look like the shear is forcasted to increase in the gulf so no gulf storms yet. Sorry bout your luck stormtop

BMW
Great blog - I love rsxe7en's first comment:

Carbon Dioxide: We Call it Maize!

StormJunkie makes a good point. It seems outrageous to question whether or not we are impacting the environment. Would it hurt to stop consuming so much? Would it hurt to reduce our use of fossil fuels? I was remarking to my husband today that the temperature and humidity were at near perfect levels in Asheville, and yet everywhere I went today, the airconditioners were on full blast and indoors it was COLD! We have lights on in our houses when the sun is shining, we drive huge cars 2 blocks down the road to the grocery store 3 times per week, etc.
StormJunkie,
I would agree with you. There really isn't that much to debate any more. I was a skeptic about global warming 10-20 years ago, but can't deny the evidence I'm seeing now. And it correlates very well with the big increase in worldwide fossil fuel combustion we are seeing now (in the past 10 years). It's a tough issue, as it isn't right for people in the US or other "western" nations to have all the conveniences they want while expecting people in China, India and other nations to do without. But as the rest of the world develops, the increase in fossil fuel use there will overwhelm any efforts we can make here to reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.

That's why everyone should change the focus to what we can do to 1) minimize CO2 emissions worldwide by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and 2) plan for the inevitable consequences of global warming and how to minimize the effects for people who will be in harm's way from hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, etc. Such as not building so much in coastal areas, having stronger building codes, helping relocate people inland in poorer countries, conserve water in drought-prone areas and so on.
Noname...That is just StormTop.

Anywho
Shear is forcasted to drop everywhere, it will still be high, but not as high as it was.



NolaNC, I understand your point, but the problem is not energy use it is energy production. It does not have to come from fossil fuels. Current technology can produce much more efficient energy. If the earth is going to get much warmer we will need much more energy. Outside the box everyone.. Now. Solve the root causes and don't focus on the in betweens so much.

SJ
thanks storm junkie! i remember taht was the old link but, id figured they got that too.
Not yet turtle...Stay vigilant there will be more to this.

SJ
turtle- really bamaweatherwatcher should get the credit. He posted the link for me.

Thanks again Bama.

SJ
I disagree SJ. I think we focus way too much on consumption and we are ruining our quality of life on many levels.
There is no good reason for one person to drive a large vehicle short distances for convenience. Our nation is getting fat (which is costing our healthcare industry millions,) we are losing sight of the importance of quiet family/friend/alone time, we are paving over, dredging, deforesting, and polluting every sqare inch of earth that we can reach. That is all about use. Yes, it would be great to have clean, renewable sources of energy, but not so that we can build 8,000 square foot homes and drive even bigger cars.

My 2 cents (or supersize to 4 cents!)

:)
On the global warming thing, I think the continuation of the "debate" is as much from the left as the right. Many on the left can't seem to get past the idea that the Bush Administration agrees that global warming is in fact taking place. As far as I can tell, none of the serious people on the right or left have any disagreement about whether it is happening. The real argument is about what is the right response. Those on the left view the issue as a vehicle on which to load all their anti-industrial, anti-development, green issues and move them through, it gets their supporters all riled up and motivated, so they keep with the tack. It makes the debate loud, and fills the political coffers of both parties.

The real issue we have to come to terms with, is, what steps do we need to take in order to adapt to a world that is in the process of doing a geologically hard upswing back to the natural, steady-state temperature of the Earth, ie, 22C, little if any permanent ice anywhere, different rain patterns, and a radically changed coastline.




One of the problems that I think enviornmentalists are having is that they're not willing to take victories where they can get them. If you don't like CO2, we need a different source of energy. Wind, hydroelectric, and solar are all quite expensive, regional, and at times unreliable (e.g., drought slows a hydroelectric plant). The answer for now is nuclear power, but of course the enviornmentalists are up in arms because it might melt down. They need to realise that the world is energy-guzzling at the moment, and until we develop fusion we need to come up with SOMETHING.

The answer to CO2 is simple - Trees and Nuclear plants.
One last thought on fossil fuel CO2 - remember that it all came from our atmosphere at one time or another.
Remember Nola...Outside the box.

Depending on how long this warming trend lasts, we will need all the energy we can get. The paving and deforestation may become a mute point if the earth warms too much. It would take very efficient energy to ensure the survival of our species depending on what happens. Next point is that no matter when it happens, we will have to leave this earth sometime. Could we find a way to cary our race on without this home? I do not know, but I know that to even attmept this we have to put a much better effort in to R&D on all fronts. Energy use included.

I also dispute the building of 8000 sq ft homes. That is something that people will continue to do. Let's make it as earth friendly as possible. Let's find a way to allow the big cars with lots of power...just without the fossil fuels. We can do so much, but so often we do not.

SJ
NOLAinNC,
I'd agree too, consumption is the big problem in the US. I'm certainly not perfect, but try to cut back. I drive a Honda Civic which gets 35 mpg, my wife has a Chevy S-10 pickup which doesn't do quite as well (but better than most large SUV's). We both live close to work and have cut back on our driving overall. I'd consider a hybrid for my next car. I do think as gas prices continue to rise, people will switch to much more efficient vehicles.

Energy use in the home is a tougher issue. I'll admit I like the A/C, but it's true that if we all just raise the thermostat a couple of degrees we can save a lot of energy. Or lower it a bit in the winter. Or wash our clothes in cold water whenever possible, etc.
I'm not perfect either, but I really do try. I have a business, and we keep the lights off unless we are cleaning or open. At home, I'm trying to teach the family to conserve. I listed some of our methods on another blog. We drink only water (we filter under the sink,) I drive a Camry but try to work from home half of the time. I would never live in a large house. My children share a bedroom and seem well adjusted and happy with the arrangement. We use fluorescent (sp?) bulbs and sunlight to light up the house (sleep when it is dark, get up with the sun) We compost and recycle. We only buy stuff we need (which is great for saving money!) I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that happiness and progress are dictated by consumption. My family is happiest with the TV off, playing acoustic guitar, throwing the football, reading (no fossil fuels required!)
I do own a kick-a** laptop that I use for work and WU.
On the Nuclear issue...

The place that current nuclear power plants are supposed to be able to dump there waste is Yucca Mtn. The money has already been give to Nevada in order to build the Yucca Mountain waste site. Now Nevada is getting cold feet and stalling/saying they don't want the waste. If current nuclear sites, including the Savannah River Site, can not move the waste there they will have to stop energy production when they can no longer store the waste on site. This means, that before too long, we will be forced to close nuclear sites. This does not bode well for fossil fuel usage, nor energy prices.

Here is a piece from Wikipedia.

In August 2004 the repository became an election issue, when Senator John Kerry said that he would abandon the plans if elected and accused George W. Bush of going back on a pledge to allow science and not politics to make the decision. However, the latter was a specious statement since multiyear scientific and engineering studies so far support the selection of the site.

Because of delays in construction, a number of nuclear power plants in the U.S. have resorted to storing waste on-site indefinitely in nearly impervious steel and concrete casks. It is possible that a temporary facility may open at the Yucca Mountain site or somewhere else in the American west if opening of the underground storage continues to be held up.

On February 17, 2006, the Department of Energys Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) released a report confirming the technical soundness of infiltration modeling work performed by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) employees. In March 2005, the Energy and Interior departments revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research.

In March, 2006, the majority staff of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued a 25 page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet" [2] The conclusions were:

CONCLUSION: A TIME TO MOVE FORWARD FURTHER DELAY IS NOT AN OPTION
Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal
The cost of not moving forward is extremely high
Nuclear waste disposal capability is an environmental imperative
Nuclear waste disposal capability supports national security
Demand for new nuclear plants also demands disposal capability


Wikipedia Yucca

SJ
so how about this pacific disturbance. it has a chance to be the first tropical storm of the year.
With electric power generation in the US, the big problem is indeed the anti-nuclear bias and NIMBYism ("Not in my back yard"). Hydro, wind and solar are good, but we can't get all of our power from them. It's time for everyone to decide what is a greater threat, is it accelerating global warming or is it the very, very small risk of a major nuclear accident?

Back at the time Three Mile Island occurred, my dad lived in Illinois only 6 miles from a nuclear plant. Neither he nor I lost any sleep over it.
136. RL3AO
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FSU site got shut down because the university doesn't want any lawsuits?
137. RL3AO
It's up to 2%. That's the highest this year for a Atlantic or EPac storm.

hey stormjunkie...your welcome but i can't take all the credit either. WSI gave me the link for the models earlier.

Bama
oooooh...0.1 in the gulf...its getting exciting now:)
and i put the link up a year ago in my blog-lol


lets just give fsu the credit for making the site
This is like waiting to go to disney land (hurricane season) on summer vacation when your a kid. Your parents tell you 3 months ahead of time just to hang it over head. The only problem is your scared to death of the roller coasters (hurricanes) when you get there.
Thanks for the informative blog Dr. Masters.

Can we expect a review of Al Gore's movie when you get to see it?
lol bama/turtle.

Thanks WSI.

Night all. According to one of the runs of the GFS long range I am about 300hrs away from a tropical system impacting my area. lmao.

SJ
Im curious to see if Dr. Masters will have anything critical to say about "Inconvenient Truth" or if he will just ignore the inevitable junk science. His reasoning being that the documentary's important message shouldnt be compromised by lingering over a few "inconsequential" falsehoods.

History says we will not change energy usage patterns until the old source wears out or something better comes along. We WILL run of oil (and gas, and coal, and maybe even nuclear -- eventually). I don't think it's a question of IF we will need to get more efficient, have more nukes, drill off the CA coast, or conquer fusion, but when? Cry as you might, 99% of the people won't change lifestyles until an outside force makes them do so. I guarantee that we will be drilling in ANWAR and recovering gas from every coast before we pay $20 a gallon for gas. Probably before we pay $5......

I bet you COULD build an 8000 sq ft house that used less energy than an average house trailer today, and that energy could come from solar or such, but it would cost enough that people won't do it until the energy costs offset the construction costs. As we're already seeing, higher energy costs are pushing more people to hybrids, which in turn is driving out the technology costs, which then allows more people to cost-justify the switch. This is a standard market dynamic at work, and that's what it will take, on a world-wide basis, to move away from oil.

So, while we're waiting for poor Chinese people (and rural Africans after them) to climb the economic ladder to the point they can afford electric cars, let's all us visionaries invest in energy companies (oil and alternate -- they'll all make money) and when the prices spike we can all use the money for nice efficient houses and cars, and when we feel guilty we can give of our largesse to help the afflicted poor in their flooded coastal communities who are struggling to rise from a pastoral existence in the face of astronomical fuel costs that limit them to their own horsepower. Maybe somebody clever will come up with an early, cheap replacement for oil, and then we can move on to the next problem -- over population and the resulting lack of water, food, and land.

Cheery future, ain't it? Just don't be poor, and it won't be too bad........
Zap
The history channel (i think) is having a show on a hurricane hitting New York right now. I know this has been run before, but what are the odds. The last strong storm to hit near there was Gloria..correct me if I am wrong. My take is that there would have to be a very unusual circumstance for this to happen. A cat 3-4 (I leave out 5 because that would be a once in a 1000 yr storm or more) this is hype to me. It COULD happen but.... Thoughts?
hurricane bob, 1991.
how strong?



























Was that the bob that hit florida and went up the east coast? Forgive me, I am going on memory which lacks detail on east coast. I remember most gulf storms. Since 1980 that is.

zig
Here is the track for Hurricane Bob.

Thanks for the map. I thought that bob had hit florida. Could the bob in 85 hit Florida or 97. Again i go on memory. It is a 6 year cycle for non retired names...right? If not i need to go back to my met studies. Grey hair may be tapping my brain.:) I remember Gloria because I was as FSU at the time and Kate hit near Apcola and Juan hit NO then back offshore to hit Pcola. Danny hit near lafayette and Elena? hovered near Ocala before hitting Mississippi? Again just memory. Tell me to go see a doctor if i am wrong. Might have early onset of problems.

Z
Zap you are so right about being able to build a big house that uses little energy. The history in the developement of these houses has been full of road blocks. Example ~ Waterloo back in the '70's they figured out how to cheaply improve home efficency through making houses more air tight, particularly with the use of alot of caulk, house rap & better windows. These were refered to as the R-2000 & consumed 1/2 the energy of convernional houses. Grants were even given to the builders to off set the extra cost. By the '80's a friendly compition was set up, by the gov't, between companys to see how little energy a house could run on. The winner used 1/18th of a conventional house. Within 2 months the program was scratched, as well as the grants.

I urge everyone who can pick up a caulk gun to reseal your house, especially if it got hit by a cane. After 2 canes here our electric more than doubled, the air conditioner could just run & never cool the house in the day. Got in the attic, gooped up vents, put insulation back & added more. We recaulked the house, every piece of molding, vents, all of it. Finished making drapes with or added on to origanals, black out material on the outside. We covered the skylights during the summer & convereted the barn to solar~ "Light My Shed" lights. When the washer & dryer went, we bought the more efficent models & we've changed nearly every light bulb to those energy efficent ones. Our house (an '80's developement boom, frame one) now uses less than 1/2 the energy it did before the canes hit us. Every dime spent has already payed for itself + dividends. It's easier & not nearly expensive to improve on our existing house's energy use than we have been led to believe.

Solar has a lot of great uses from exterior lighting to charging cell phones, cameras & even some laptops~ here is some that start at $36. If only more was put into the research.
or is it 7 yrs?
This is hilarious.

BBC News asked a range of opinion leaders how worrying climate change is - and what we should do about it.

This is taken from the Director of Competitive Enterprise Institute, the same organization that Dr. Masters was reffering to in the above article he wrote. READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN THIS, HILARIOUS.

"Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Potential global warming is much less worrying than the policies proposed to deal with it.

The world cannot be put on an energy rationing diet because the world is not energy rich, but poor.

Around two billion people cannot hope to participate in the benefits of industrial civilization until they have electricity. This cannot be achieved using the most expensive forms of energy, but will require using vast amounts of the cheapest - coal.

Building brighter futures for the world's poor will almost certainly not cause climate catastrophe.

Global warming alarmism is an implausible theory for which there is remarkably little scientific evidence.

The claim that the 20th Century was the warmest in the last millennium has been shown to be based on methodological errors handling complex data.

If the computer models that predict rapid future warming were realistic, then there should have already been much more warming than the miniscule rise over the past 30 years.

Even if significant warming occurs, the potential adverse impacts have been vastly exaggerated (sea level rise) or made up (more storms, malaria).

And even if all the scare stories became real, the Kyoto Protocol isn't the solution. It's a tremendously destructive dead end. "




It was Hurricane Bob of 1985 which hit Florida.

Link
156. Inyo
the 'private sector' weather firms that insist on removal of public weather site are complete scumbags. no way around it. When Accu-weather or whoever else ponies up for the funds to launch and maintain a full fleet of satellites, a global network of weather balloons and buoys, hurricane hunter aircraft, and a set of cutting edge supercomputers to run weather models (and our government stops doing so, and taxes decrease accordingly), maybe i'd hand them a dollar or two. Right now they are filthy greedy pigs suckling off of the teat of our government, trying to double-tax us for government information which we already paid for once. As far as i am concerned, if Accu-weather is going to charge us for weather reports, the NWS should start charging them fully for any costs involved with collecting weather data.
"Bob blew me!"

That's what the signs all over Long Island said after he grazed the East End that summer. Gloria was the 'cane that left us all without electricity for 2-3 weeks during the first week of school. REALLY sucked having to go to school without showers and electricity. That storm also gave rise to the Long Island joke: What's yellow and sleeps six? The LILCO truck!

I was only 6 or 7 when Belle hit in '76. I remember running around outside with my friends the day before she hit--having no clue what was coming. Next morning we toured the 'hood on our bikes and there trees down everywhere.

These were pretty mild hurricanes and if anything Cat 3 or above hit there now it would be pretty bad as they are not as prepared up North as we are now down here in Florida.

I also went through the Perfect Storm--living in a basement apartment with my buddy. Flooding was bad and the snow covered our little casement windows, throw in the fact that there was no electricity and you have two mole men living underground by candle light with no idea of time, too much drugs and alcohol and a lot of Scrabble. Those were the days! :D


http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/longislandny.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html
158. gcain
Let's face it, the whole "global warming" issue will become a "media" event and big business (oil companies, etc) will pay the "research institutes" to come up with all kinds of supportive data (and the other side as well). Look, I don't think they (the oil companies) are fooling anybody...believe it or not, most middle Americans are pretty savy--we've been living in this free enterprise for over 250 years and know most of the tricks. As far as the development of fossil fuels being a historic moment...of course it was and no one an argue otherwise...so was nuclear fusion, the bow and arrow, the wheel, fire and the cell phone. Just because a new technology becomes "important" doesn't mean we have to continue down that path forever. Some new discovery will replace fossil fuels sooner or later. The price to explore, find, recover, and refine will eventually become so high that other technologies will replace its use. I think we are sort of at that turning point right now--some will need to be brought along kicking and screaming, but that's progress.
gcain,
You're exactly right. Each of has the opportunity to be an "early adopter" in our little world, and not only "do our part" to reduce usage for the common good, but save money doing so.

In fact, in change there is opportunity, so once you figure out how to save (or create!) some energy at a net $$ gain, you should be able to make money helping others do so as well.
Zap
The planet is slowly warming, but that trend started well before the industrial revolution. If we stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, it wouldn't stop global warming. Get over it.
What about the very rapid increase in temps in the last few decades (about half of the warming over the past century has occurred in just 20 years or so)?
That system in the East Pacific is looking very nice on the satellite loop this morning.

RL3AO ... that graphic you showed said there was a 2% chance for it do so something. What is that something?
This site has the formation probability graphic, as well as a whole lot more; the East Pacific invest has a 2% chance of developing into a tropical cyclone in 24 hours.
Tampa...Forget global warming. The people with the fossil fuels want to kill us. Fossil fuels lead to smog. WE CAN FIND A BETTER WAY.

SJ
165. WSI
Anyone heard news on the FSU model page, outside of what we already know?
Well, the FSU page now says that it was shut down due to "liability concerns"

Notice: Florida State University has mandated effective 24 May 2006 that no real-time weather forecasts relating potentially
in any way to hurricanes are to be disseminated by faculty or students at FSU due to liability concerns.


Hmmm... I wonder if this is because they are afraid that amateurs will cause alarm by issuing their own forecasts based on the models?
168. WSI
"Hmmm... I wonder if this is because they are afraid that amateurs will cause alarm by issuing their own forecasts based on the models?"

I would think a simple disclaimer such as the one of the Colorado site would suffice. I put one on my page as well.
The Penn State site does not have any disclaimers on it.

Also, while it says "experiemental", the models are actually the same ones used for other weather; they are just being used to see how well they can forecast tropical cyclones.

By the way, what is the link to the Colorado site?
Storm Junkie,

Oh, I agree with you on the pollution aspect of fossil fuels. Unlike "global warming", the effects of pollution are immediate and well documented...pollution is a BAD thing...there's no real debate about that.

If I had my way, we'd have lots more nuclear power plants to support an electric and hydrogen based transportation infrastructure. Electric cars, while lacking the visceral appeal of the "rumbling V8" and all that, can actually have performance better than that of gasoline powered cars. Electric motors make 100% of their rated torque from 0 RPM all the way to redline. AWD electric cars (a motor at each wheel) can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds, with zero emissions.
TampaSteve - you do realize that unless it comes from nuclear or some renewable source, electricity still causes pollution (most electricity still comes from coal and other fossil fuels).
MichaelSTL,

Please read my previous post more carefully. I did mention nuclear power plants.
most electricity still comes from coal and other fossil fuels

I am talking about right now, and who says that all power will be nuclear anytime soon (maybe in 50-100 years, but now now)?
MichaelSTL,

Yes, I know that...that's why I said, "If I had my way..." in that post. I wasn't debating about the way things are right now, but rather saying how I would like them to be. Understand?
In any case, I am sure that fossil fuel powered plants will continue to operate until reserves begin to run out and only then will anybody feel the need to use alternative fuels more widely (look at Bush's stance on GW and the Kyoto protocal)... :(

For example, in my area, there is only one nuclear plant and most of the rest are coal or gas; also, energy is still cheap (see here). Of couse, that could be another problem, as nobody would want to use alternatives if they cost more.
Except for CO2, "clean" burning of coal and other fossil fuels is reasonably possible, just not accomplished today. Nat'l gas is particularly clean.

I maintain it's a "given" that we're going to burn through the rest of our fossil reserves, and the planet will warm, so what we should do is push for clean, efficient combustion; take personal steps to ready ourselves for the coming eco-political storm; and promote technology to ease the pain of the shift as it comes. There is no real reason to argue whether or not global warming is coming except for the fun of it -- we've got pollution and cheap power availability to deal with regardless -- and people won't stop using oil until it's gone because it's cheap and useful.

The expense of high-efficiency houses and electric cars would be more palatable if we didn't design (and tax incentivize) vehicles to be scrap at 150K miles and houses to be least-upfront-cost. I think most people would more readily trade a gas car for a hybrid and then an EV than do away with personal transportation entirely, but we'll STILL need lots of cheap electricity to do even that.

I see that CO2 injection into oil fields is being tried to a small degree. That would tend to imprison the CO2 (and other pollutants) while aiding oil recovery but will probably have side effects of its own. Won't it be fun when CO2 leaks into mines and basements from natural fissures?
Zap
TROPICAL WAVE ALONG 102W FROM 6N TO 13N MOVING W 10 TO 15 KT.
POSSIBLE LOW PRES CENTER 1010 MB NEAR 11N102W. CONVECTION HAS
BEEN QUITE ACTIVE DURING THE NIGHT AND HAS SHOWN SIGNS OF
ORGANIZING INTO A BAND ON THE RIGHT SIDE. ANTI-CYCLONIC FLOW
OVER TOP OF THE CONVECTION WITH LITTLE SHEAR IS AIDING THE
CONVECTION.
Won't it be fun when CO2 leaks into mines and basements from natural fissures?

CO2 isn't poisonous, so that wouldn't be too big of a deal.
CO2 isn't poisonous, but as somebody else posted, high concentrations are lethal (it displaces oxygen and acidifies your blood, which is not good as the pH has to be very stable).
Correction, if it can be lethal, it is poisonous (even water can be poisonous).
182. WSI
Here you go Michael. Really good site.
Hey...you're right.
Thanks for the link
ForecasterColbyOne last thought on fossil fuel CO2 - remember that it all came from our atmosphere at one time or another.

And all you have to do is look at Venus to understand why returning all the CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere back to it is an Extraordinarily Bad Idea. Returning even a miniscule fraction of it to the atmosphere is a Very Bad Idea,
New post of my blog (about standarization of predictions for hurricanes and informal contest)

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/oriondarkwood/show.html
And as for big business: neither the cigarette industry nor the oil industry wants to kill you. They do want ALL your money, though, and they don't much care if you live or die otherwise. Corporations (and many people) are at the core neither good nor evil, simply greedy and self-interested, which usually works out pretty well since "self interested" includes "not screwing stuff up so badly that everybody gangs up on you and destroys you". That's what the oil companies are worried about now, not pollution or your life or 100 year projections or future energy sources.

It would be a mistake to assume that ANYBODY in gov't, corporations, or lobby groups really cares about YOU as a person. It's a nice thought, and some might, but it's safer to assume that they'll do what they think is best to further their own ends. Beyond that it's just spin and marketing. That's why capitalism remains vigorous but ever-changing and communism turns into oppression, with some "more equal" than others.
Zap
188. gcain
ZAP: 100% bulls eye!
Zapho...very concise, objective thought. So now we must fall back to the first reasoning behind formation of government, common protection. People come together to protect themselves from a common foe. Where is the foe which which threatens us?
Link

Check this link out. hopefully it will be in place for this season and if anyone can find a link to view the images, post them!
Hi everyone,

Zap wrote: "I see that CO2 injection into oil fields is being tried to a small degree. That would tend to imprison the CO2 (and other pollutants) while aiding oil recovery but will probably have side effects of its own."

CO2 injection into producing wells has been going on for 20 plus years. Much of the CO2 comes back to the surface as a major component of the associated natural gas stream.

CO2 is routinely removed from the liquid product generated in natural gas processing facilities. Specifically, it follows the ethane component in a ethane/propane/butanes/natural gasoline liquid mixture. Ethane product contracts typically have a maximum CO2 specification because the CO2 is a contaminant in the processes that use the liquid ethane to make other products such as plastics. The removed CO2, after further processing, is vented to the atmosphere because it is not combustible.
can anyone give me a link to the Colorado sate univeristy satellite imagery site
MichaelSTL,

Your link about Carbon Dioxide Poisoning made me think about free diving and the dreadedShallow Water Blackout, which can kill you within just a few feet of breaking the surface...scary!
Gov't, when created, is driven by collective self interests of local populations who face adversity caused by other self-organized groups. In unity there is strength.

Once formed, gov't are staffed by individuals, and a bureaucracy inevitably grows where the interests of the bureaucrat, dep't, and gov't overall vie for survival with those of the populace served. Over time gov't will tend to grow in power and overhead until the margin between it and the external threat equals the ability of the corresponding marketing entities to convice you. The external threat and the internal ones will both try to tell you they are harmless and on your side while working to take your money and power for themselves, and it's true at every level.

The nice thing about capitalism and democracy is that since everybody is trying to get your money and take your power nobody tends to win for too long, and when it gets too one-sided we all gang up on the winners and vote them into submission. That's why your congressman IS on your side a little more than the others, and they're mostly on the US side more than other nations, but they're ALWAYS on their own personal side first and foremost. How many poor retired Senators and ex-Presidents are there?

You can't depend on capitalism and democracy to control the external forces, though. The Chinese gov't and their national oil company are far more of a threat to you than Exxon. Exxon is a selfish company that wants your money. China is a selfish nation that will want your money, your oil, your food, and eventually your land. That's why it's good if other nations are capitalistic and democratic as well -- it tends toward long term stabililty with no guarantees of short-term behaviors.

Not too pleasant, huh?

Life according to Zap is not warm or fuzzy, nor terribly safe, but it's fairly predictable and therefore a pretty easy place to live successfully.

Zap
been scanning this blog...

do we have a tropical wave out there and if so where is it????

could someone please let me know??? will check back later for the answer.

Thanks everyone! Have a great Thursday!!!

Gams
SJ wrote: "Tampa...Forget global warming. The people with the fossil fuels want to kill us. Fossil fuels lead to smog. WE CAN FIND A BETTER WAY."

SJ, I work in the fossil fuel industry(natural gas processing). I have ZERO desire to kill anyone.

I have a great many friends who work with producing companies(the JR Ewings of the world)and some who work in the refining industry and I know that they don't want to kill you either.

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I read many of these fairly tense/extreme posts regarding, or inferring, how oil companies and other fossil fuel related industries are leading some kind of world damaging conspiracy plot and I am forced wonder if the author of the extreme post rode his/her bike to work.

My point is, even at the risk of getting myself in trouble, is we each have to look in the mirror and hold ourselves accountable as well. I don't think it is fair to point a finger at an Exxon and accuse them of being a money hungry polluter when you get in your V-8 driven car to drive a mile to pick up a carton of milk packaged in plastic made by another polluter.

Sorry for the heavy post and feel free to swing away at me.
swlaaggie...and you make reference to another problem. The byproduct gases released from most oil rigs is burned as waste, which releases unbelievable amounts of heat, carbon and partially burned gases and solids into the atmosphere.
FSU's explanation for not allowing public access:

FSU Meteorology has received a memorandum from the administration requiring us to take actions which seem to us to restrict our ability to continue to offer real-time weather forecasts (even clearly identified experimental models) of any kind to the general public. Until we obtain further clarification, in the interest of due caution, these pages have been withdrawn from the web until further notice. That is basically all we can say about it right now.

Paul Ruscher/Meteorology
Looks like FSU is afraid of getting sued over an inaccurate forecast.
i have updated my blog
Actually, I was thinking of the dreaded Deep Water Blackout, but the mechanism, hypocapnia (the opposite of CO2 poisoning), is the same.
heh... We need to get a disturbance in the carribean... It would develop!
wow we have a disturbance in the Pacific check out Turtle Hurricane's blog:

A tropical disturbance has formed in the Eastern Pacific Basin. This area has been slowly developing over the past few days and now has a large amount of convection as well as the beginnings of a surface circulation. The storm is currently within a low shear environment and outflow has been developing over the past few hours. Ocean temperatures are extremely favorable for tropical cyclone development. It is still gradually forming and is forecasted by the gfs model to become a tropical cyclone over the next 48 hours. This seems very possible and I will continue to post updates as conditions warrant. Interests on the southern coast of Mexico below 18 degrees north should keep an eye on this situation. For more information see the NHC tropical weather outlook for the Eastern Pacific Basin
Here is a good link. And no, the petroleum industry is not going to curtail flaring of gas, though in the long run it would make them money. Not when they know they can push gas prices to $5 per gallon. And I ask you to question the phrase 'absolute terms'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare
If you don't wish to read the whole article, then there is an excerpt.
Flaring and venting of natural gas in oil wells is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Its contribution to greenhouse gases has declined by three-quarters in absolute terms since a peak in the 1970s of approximately 110 million metric tons/year and now accounts for about 1/2 of one percent of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.[1] The World Bank estimates that 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas are flared or vented annually, an amount equivalent to the combined annual gas consumption of Germany and France. This flaring is highly concentrated: 10 countries account for 75% of emissions, and twenty for 90%.[2] The largest flaring operations occur in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The leading contributors to gas flaring are (in declining order): Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Algeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Indonesia, and the United States.[3]
Source: Wikipedia

Tampasteve are you a fellow free diving?
My brother had a blck out last week on the surface, but due to the drop in O2 from the partial pressure, kind of scary, but he recovered soon enough.
Only a small increase in CO2 concentration in the blood will lead to respiratory arrest.
Srangely it's the CO2 levels that give you the urge to breath when you hold your breath, not lack of oxygen.
'Absolute terms' is only an expression used to allow skewing of statistical data.
It looks like I could see some pretty good thunderstorms today.

Crap!!!!!
actually Hellsniper I happened to be watching the Weather channel and they for the past 2 days been talking about a low forming down that way and bringing rain & wind to somewhere on the southeast coast and today they are still forecasting this to happen.
I got the width as 150 on all but 1 of them.

Sorry everyone. I am an idiot.
MichaelSTL
Regarding the New Orleans Forecast - I think that is an example of B.S.
Regarding Huricane Landfall Risk
The April update of Dr. Gray's hurricane outlook offers the "best analog years for 2006" as 1964, 1996, 1999 and 2003. You may notice that more storms seem to have theatened the US East Coast vs. the Gulf Coast. The next update will be issued on May 31st or June 1st.

Track Charts from wunderground.com
1964

1996

1999

2003
Weatherwhatweather,

A couple of no spin points.

Flaring sucks and that is the opinion of anyone in the fossil fuel related industries. When we flare at our facilities, we are losing money because that is either feedstock or product being burned. Most flaring is doen because there is an upset in a facility and if you don't/can't flare, things can go KABOOM.

Second, there is a huge effort across the oil industry to recover the flared volumes from producing platforms. It is called LNG(liquefied natural gas). There are LNG terminals being considered or built all over the US right now. The facilites required to recover and liquefy the flared volumes, the tankers used to transport the LNG and the terminals required to receive the LNG were all justified because the oil companies recognize that these are lost opportunity dollars being burned.

So no, it is completely false and misleading to say that oil companies want to burn natural gas so that gasoline prices can go to $5/gallon. Quite the contrary. They fully recognize that they are burning dollars and they also recognize that they are unnecessarily polluting.
215. gcain
swlaaggie: Of course, we are all collectively addicted to fossil fuels, cars, electricity, etc...and therefore have some collective guilt for pollution, global warming, war, etc...whatever issue at hand. But the consumer doesn't drill for oil or design automobiles...there is a limit to what the average "joe" can do...add in the effects of advertising, cultural values, etc. and we find ourselves in current "finger pointing" situation. What is Exxon willing to do? How about Ford or GM? Are they really supporting alternative energy sources? Are really trying to build cars that work on something other than gas...or is it all a hoax? Certainly, the popularity of the new hybrids would make most people believe that the consumer is ready for change...high gas prices help too. So, how do we get business, government, and the consumer all on the same page? By putting fancy ads filled with half truths??? I think we can all do better than that...I think Zap mentioned the tobacco industry as a comparison--cigs don't cause cancer (remember that one?)
Hurricane Landfall Risk for New Orleans

The United States landfalling hurricane web project has been co-developed by William Gray's Tropical Meteorology Research Project at Colorado State University and the GeoGraphics Laboratory at Bridgewater State College.
gcain,

No argument with your points whatsoever. My only "real" one was that it is completely, utterly, and totally ridiculous to think or believe that anyone(CEO to roustabout) in the oil industry wants to kill anyone. My second point, less subtly stated, is don't whine about pollution if you(average Joe) aren't buying a more efficient car, a cordless lawn mower, or willing to walk 300 yards to the store.

The bottom line is that we need new technology. We need to send our kids(who, by the way, are way smarter than us and have far better tools) to school and make sure that they are educated in the hopes that one of them is bright enough to "Microsoft" our way out of this mess by developing a new clean and inexpensive fuel source that can be used for generations to come.

Until that happens, please understand that much of the responsibility for a cleaner environment rests with the average Joe, who, collectively, can have far more impact than you think.

In other words, if you think cigarettes can kill you, don't point your finger at Philip-Morris and accuse them of being a murderer, just quit smoking the dang things.
I never meant to say that oil companies 'want' to do anything. Companies, corporations are not cognizant of anything.
More simply put, if there is a mine, and it produces both gold and silver, why not mine both? The answer is the pressure to bring the most capital in the shortest period of time, profits, to the owners of these corporations.
As for the reasons gas flaring, the overwhelming amount of flared combustible material comes from oil rigs simply burning natural gas because it generates less capital. Gas flaring at production facilities and waste plants is miniscule in compared to what is burned by the petroleum industry.
Cregnebaa wrote:

"Tampasteve are you a fellow free diving?
My brother had a black out last week on the surface, but due to the drop in O2 from the partial pressure, kind of scary, but he recovered soon enough.
Only a small increase in CO2 concentration in the blood will lead to respiratory arrest.
Srangely it's the CO2 levels that give you the urge to breath when you hold your breath, not lack of oxygen."

Exactly...it's the drop in partial pressure of O2 in the bloodstream that causes you to black out...you feel fine until you get to the surface or very close to it, then all of a sudden, BAM! LIGHTS OUT!

The human body has a very finely tuned mechanism for detecting even miniscule increases in CO2 levels in the bloodstream, yet has no mechanism for detecting impending hypoxia, hence the dangers of hyperventilating. When I was younger, I used to hyperventilate to extend my dive time, not knowing about the danger of blacking out. I never blacked out, fortunately, but I do remember feeling really dizzy and lightheaded as I surfaced once, and that was just a 12-meter dive. Guess I was lucky I didn't black out or get "squeezed"...but I had two buddies with me, so hopefully I wouldn't have drowned had I blacked out.

I know better now, though!
Weatherwhatweather,

Producing companies, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, British Gas, etc. are spending billions of dollars, as I type, planning, installing and commissioning LNG(and related) facilities. If you do some research, you will see that there are several LNG terminals being built right now in the US. Others are in the planning stages and have not been announced to date. This is just in the US. Japan, Indonesia, and others are doing the same from a global standpoint. ConocoPhillips just finished commissioning a floating processing facility to recover flared volumes from producing platforms in the Pacific Rim.

I'll grant you that, historically, you are correct. Flared volumes were not recovered because it simply was not cost justifiable. That does not mean that these companies did not cringe every day when they looked at their flared volume reports. I can assure you that they did. Millions of dollars literally going up in smoke keeps one up at night.

Who do you think funded the R&D necessary to develop the technology to recover these volumes? These were dollars at risk, billions of them. Sometimes, the desire exists but the means must be discovered.

Finally, no(not a single one) producing, processing, refining or other fossil fuel related company that I have ever been associated with either through employment or through normal business activities has ever been proud of flared, spilled or waste volumes. We live here too. That's not something I read, it's not something I was told, my boss didn't tell me I had to say it to stay employed, etc.. I do this for a living and I know it to be fact.
Just a quick follow-up.

The LNG terminals, that are currently being expanded or built just in Louisiana, are forecasted to bring in 4.8 BILLION cubic feet per day of global recovered flared volumes when they all get on line.

I've seen the ads. I'll hope.
223. gcain
swlaaggie: On and on it goes, but the fact is that the oil industry is as close to a vertical monopoly as anything in the wholewide world...everything from exploration to retail sales and beyond are controled by a relatively few mega-companies (all inter-related at all levels) and they only do what looks like profit.
I've seen the ads in Madison, WI. They must have expanded they market area already!
Another great quote that I wish I could appropriately attribute to an author, probably paraphrased:
"Do not require conspiracy where simple human stupidity will suffice"

Just because unpleasant, complex, hurtful, inefficient, or otherwise suboptimal events occur or conditions exist doesn't mean it's on purpose or serving anybody in particular. A lot of time there just hasn't been the motivation and resources to fix the problem on anybody's part.

As oil gets more expensive consumption efficiency will go up (via higher mileage cars, home conservation) and production efficiency will go up as well(more efficient production and recovery from increasingly marginal fields, flare-gas reclamation, etc.) while others will work to find new energy sources. Some will profit on the shortages and price hikes. Others will profit on exploration and new technology. Those who make bullets profit in every war, regardless of who wins......

Only those who do nothing but consume heavily will really suffer. Don't be a sheep or a rabbit -- be a lion or a wolf! If you don't want to be on what you perceive to be the "problem" side, move yourself to the "solution" side, but don't sit around and whine on the victim side!

Zap
gcain,

"They only do what looks like profit".

And how is that different from drug makers, coffee producers, the copy shop down the street, etc.?

Heck, every industry(and there are many other examples of vertical monopolies that we could both cite) has associated sin. My points(not in order) are that, at the end of the day, (1) those sins are tempered and measured by the actions of the collective average Joe,(2)that I doubt very seriously that we have evil companies, and (3) I strongly believe that personal accountability must come before whining.

By the way, I completely agree with you(and I meant to state so previously) that misleading ads and propaganda are frustrating and we(both sides of an issue) can do better than that.

Sincere thanks for everyone's patience with my posts. I'm really not this heavy handed but I just couldn't take some of the stuff being posted on here without saying something. I'm done on this topic.
swlaagie..no, no we're all just contributing thoughts here. Your thoughts are welcome, even if you are outnumbered!! But you would have to agree wouldn't you, that economics have changed in the last half century with regard to how corporations and more specifically corporate finance translates to power and influence, wouldn't you, and not just in this country, but around the world? We should continue this topic, maybe at a later time.
228. gcain
Yep, it time to go...but one last rebuttal: The coffee shop on the corner has very limited impact on the world in general...so, yes, let him/her strive for whatever they can get...a little different for an industry that using a resource (limited and not renewable) and impacting even the very planet that we live on...talk to all of you again.
Thanks weatherwhatweather, my son and fiancee say I'm a ton of fun but I was afraid that after I made these posts no one on here would ever believe that.

I'm a short, left-handed, Aggie. I stay outnumbered.

I would love to continue the proposed topic at a later time but, first, I've got to go to a meeting before this company really does try and kill me.

Hope everyone has a FANTASTIC afternoon. Please send some rain this way.
Oh man. I can't even read this crap. By the way doesn't that article about the risk to NO seem to contradict with the forecast of almost everyone else. Who is this Watson Guy anyways?
I'm not buying that "risk to NO" article...it's looking more are more like the Carolinas this time around.
CEI's ads are ridiculous at best.

However... using Venus to demonstrate the effects of atmospheric CO2 is pretty weak. I think the planet's proximity to the sun just MIGHT have something to do with surface temperatures. Maybe.
"However... using Venus to demonstrate the effects of atmospheric CO2 is pretty weak. I think the planet's proximity to the sun just MIGHT have something to do with surface temperatures. Maybe."

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that if Earth was moved to where Venus is now, temperatures would only increase about 10*C. It would be very uncomfortable, but probably still habitable.
I do agree that that ad is the dumbest thing I've seen in quite a while.
The proximity to the sun has something to do with the high temp on Venus, but that doesnt explain why it has a higher temp then Mercury. Venus is 40C hotter despite it being twice as far away from the sun. However, this is also because Mercury has almost no atmosphere.
Mercury is very cold on the side not facing the sun.
"Mercury is very cold on the side not facing the sun."

So is the moon.
So should we:
A) alter the orbit of earth to reduce the solar heating to combat warming
B) start work on Venus since we'll need a new place once we're done messing up this one
C) somehow combine Mars and Venus -- one is too close in, one too far out; one no atmosphere, one with lots?
D) build a big space mirror between earth and the sun. Even Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) knew that the sun is only as big a quarter....(yeah, I know, comic strips are not a replacement for scientific knowledge -- that's what TV is for!)
E) Trust the gov't to fix it for us
F) Have a beer and catch the NBA games
G) Buy some oil stock, some solar stock, a Prius, a home alchohol still (good for fuel AND fun!) and a generator and say "Bring it on!"
Zap
My vote is F.
Question on trees and CO2.

We all have learned that green plants convert CO2 to oxygen through photosynthesis. But I read somewhere that CO2 concentration at the south pole, thousands of miles from the nearest tree, is identical to that in a tropical rain forest. Is this true?

--- CHAS
Moononite However... using Venus to demonstrate the effects of atmospheric CO2 is pretty weak. I think the planet's proximity to the sun just MIGHT have something to do with surface temperatures. Maybe.

You should checkout Why is Mars so cold, Venus so warm, and the temperature of the Earth stable?. Without greenhouse effects, Venus would have an equilibrium temperature of around 55 degrees C and a peak daytime temperature of about 190 degrees C. The actual temperature is 480 degrees C (about 100 degrees hotter than Mercury's peak daytime temperature - and Mercury is nearly twice as close to the Sun as Venus is). The difference is entirely due to the greenhouse effect.
THERE HAS BEEN GOOD MODEL AND ENSEMBLE AGREEMENT ON THIS
EVOLUTION PAST SEVERAL DAYS. BIGGEST FORECAST PROBLEM LAST FEW
DAYS HAS BEEN THE POTENTIAL FOR A TRAPPED MID LEVEL CLOSED TO
CUTOFF LOW TO DEVELOP FROM A PRGRESSIVE SHORTWAVE MOVING ACROSS
THE UPPER OH VALLEY IN THE SHORT RANGE IN THE WRN ATLC OR ALONG
THE MID ATLC-SERN SEABOARD. RAPID HT RISES AND HIGH AMPLITUDE
RIDGING ALONG WITH AN UPSTREAM FAVORABLE WAVELENGTH BETWEEN THE
RIDGE AND THE WRN TROF LEAVES ROOM AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE
WILL BE A CLOSED TO CUT OFF LOW IN THE WRN ATLC. RECENT DIFFICULTY
HAS BEEN HOW CLOSE TO THE COAST TO HAVE AN EFFECT. CURRENT
CONSENSUS OF MODELS SHOW POTENTIAL OF EVEN HIGHER MID LEVEL HTS IN
THE RIDGE WITH AN OFFSHORE TROF/CLOSED LOW TO ALLOW FOR A N-NE SFC
WIND COMPONENT DOWN THE ERN SEABOARD
Have to vote G.

I gotta be, who I be.

Prefer my little half-ton to a Prius though.
is a tropical cyclone developing in the Eastern pacifc?
whats the latest on the 'tropical storm' the GFS was forecasting for South Carolina on June 3rd?
Weather I heard it was then it got messy so now it's "struggling" to form
we are forecasted to get a couple of inches of snow with thunderstorms here in southern Oregon.

sorry if I interrupted anything, I just thought it was interesting
CalifoniaThe only cure for the ongoing mass extinctions on this planet is human population control.

Amen. I.e. you can talk about pollution visa vis technology and ecosystems all you want, but the real problem is that there are too many people. Heck, look at how difficult it is to evacuate an area. There are too many freaking people! Thomas Malthus predicted it all a long time ago of course. The world is polluted with people.
lmao SSIG.:)

SJ
Re: Human population control. It won't work, just look at China. They have all kinds of problems with an aging population and a gender imbalance.
Kernel it will happenat some point. Wether it be by choice or force, population control will happen. There is only so much this pale blue dot can do for us.

SJ
re: carbon....

The CEI and its industry clients are being deceptive....

There is a natural carbon cycle, shuttling carbon between soil, plants, animals, and the atmosphere.

Humans are unarguably altering this cycle by burning fossil fuels, which contain lots and lots of carbon. More carbon is released into the air than there otherwise would be without humans, therefore humans are changing the climate. QED.

That's the problem, not that carbon dioxide is dioxin. That's called a straw man.

Posted By: rwwhot at 8:00 PM CDT on May 24, 2006.
On the global warming thing, I think the continuation of the "debate" is as much from the left as the right. Many on the left can't seem to get past the idea that the Bush Administration agrees that global warming is in fact taking place.


What do they plan to do about it? The Bushies are not very good at planning anything.

As far as I can tell, none of the serious people on the right or left have any disagreement about whether it is happening. The real argument is about what is the right response. Those on the left view the issue as a vehicle on which to load all their anti-industrial, anti-development, green issues and move them through, it gets their supporters all riled up and motivated, so they keep with the tack. It makes the debate loud, and fills the political coffers of both parties.

1) The left views the issue as one affecting the common good, which the right seems to have utterly forgotten about. The left is not anti-industrial or anti-development. The key is that we know how to do these things without doing grevious damage to our country, and the oh-so-onerous legislation enacted to protect is either gutted or ignored by unscrupulous individuals who profit from skirting the law. Why is this so hard to understand? And if the greenies are giving to the left, then who's giving to the right? Polluters, because the right will spin deregulation efforts as "cutting red tape" in the name of "small government" (which look what that got you in New Orleans).

2) If anyone needs a reminder, that bleeding heart commie pinko Nixon is the one who founded the EPA. Keep in mind that the right now has a far different approach to government than 30 years ago.

The real issue we have to come to terms with, is, what steps do we need to take in order to adapt to a world that is in the process of doing a geologically hard upswing back to the natural, steady-state temperature of the Earth, ie, 22C, little if any permanent ice anywhere, different rain patterns, and a radically changed coastline.

Do we know what the global average of the earth is? Is it established fact that the last 150 years have been below average?

One of the problems that I think enviornmentalists are having is that they're not willing to take victories where they can get them.

What victories?

If you don't like CO2, we need a different source of energy.

I'm sorry, is CO2 a fuel? Since when?

Wind, hydroelectric, and solar are all quite expensive, regional, and at times unreliable (e.g., drought slows a hydroelectric plant). The answer for now is nuclear power, but of course the enviornmentalists are up in arms because it might melt down. They need to realise that the world is energy-guzzling at the moment, and until we develop fusion we need to come up with SOMETHING.

Enviros are split on nuclear. I think it's a band-aid, although breeder reactors sound promising. What needs to happen is government money now poured into the oil infrastructure needs to be diverted to R&D. A major part of the reason America won the war in the Pacific was technology; we are capable of a mobilization of intellectual and monetary capital to find a new, sustainable fuel source.

One last thing, re: China, India, and elsewhere....we cannot do anything about them until we clean us up first. That's the first step. The specifics of Kyoto can be debated, but to me it's a no-brainer to have an international standard. Once the US is able to lead by example (which we used to do), we will be able to do something useful for humanity as a whole (there's that common good thing again).
Lot's of good points bene, but you are still looking at it as a left right problem. It is not. It is a problem that, like you said, needs R&D funding for man many reasons. Nuclear is only a band aid to some extint. It is a viable clean source of fuel we can start using more of now without a lot of R&D. Atleast until we find a better solution.

The left is trying to get funding and the votes just as much as the right. I am not convicned that the left does not jump in to bed with big bussiness, such as oil, just as much as the right. We need a different breed of politicians.

SJ
256. Inyo
i don't understand how global warming can push the jet stream north. isnt it driven by temperature difference rather than mean temperature? don't the cells naturally take up a certain size? I mean its not like the tropical area can move to the poles and the other zones will just get tiny and squished
Posted By: shadowchb at 5:39 PM GMT on May 24, 2006.
My problem is that most of the global warming 'science' I have seen, in the articles specifically blaming activities of mankind for all the problems, uses the 'reverse scientific method', that is it appears to advance a theory and then finds facts to justify that theory.


You are not trying to obtain the BEST picture nor the WHOLE picture. There are many whole books in the library and in the bookstores which tell the history of Global Warming Science History. Step by step by step, discoveries were made which then led to predictions. That's what science does. Science has two parts, both of which must always be present. (1) EXPLAIN diverse physical phenomena with a theory of underlying forces at work producing the visible results. (2) PREDICT things based on the theory. Explanations which cannot predict are simply wrong -- back to the drawing boards. Predictions without theory are tea-leaf reading, palmistry and crystalball gazing -- back to school. Weather forecasting is based on theories of invisible forces operative: things which can't be seen with human senses. The theories are used to make predictions, and to the extent that the explanations are correct, and correctly understood, the predictions are true.

Climate is a span of weather over 30 years or more. The same theories apply to climate as to weather, since climate is weather in the aggregate over long time spans. There is no special science for climate which doesn't exist elsewhere for general physics.

Human effects can be theorized. Predictions can be made. Tests can be carried out to confirm or deny the predictions. FIRST the theory EXPLAINS, THEN the PREDICTION is made, THEN the TESTING of the PREDICTION follows. Your complaint is that you don't like the way science works. Always the EXPLANATION FIRST, THEN the PREDICTION, THEN the recording of the RESULTS. The FACTS appear due to physics, not due to predictions -- either the facts are true or untrue. One must accept that FACTS VALIDATE THEORY.
----------

Where are the articles discussing the relationship between the trend we see today and the emergence from the 'Little Ice Age' of the 1600's? Where is the evidence that the climatalogical change is outside the ranges of all known climate changes of the past? These are just examples of what is missing in the debate.


The Little Ice Age is IRRELEVENT, a DISTRACTION.

One must EXPLAIN both natural causes and human causes. There were no important human causes during the Little Ice Age. There are now. One cannot dismiss CO2 gas in the air now. It exists and is measured. There is a comprehensive theory about the presence of excess Greenhouse Gases. That theory cannot be destroyed by distractions. Only a better theory can displace the one now existing. YOU (or anybody) who wants to displace the present theory have to explain how excess CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases DO NOT affect the energy flows through the system. Since we know they do, your task is hopeless. You can't throw the Little Ice Age and the Kitchen Sink as distractions.

We know much about past climates, including about the Little Ice Age. We do not know everything there is to know yet. We have a primary duty to the present and to the future rather than to the dead past. Gases which were not present in excess during the Little Ice Age are here now. They have chemical and energy properties. They cannot be disregarded by dwelling on anything from a bygone era.
----------

For example, if someone could predict that we were going into another little ice age, I might WANT to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

My observation is that there are a lot of people pushing the 'global warming' button that are not being honest about their goals to enforce life-style changes they feel are 'necessary'. That's part of the reason they oppose nuclear power too, even though that has the potential to replace all fossil fuel for electricity production with zero CO2 emissions.


You have made a very significant charge of immoral corruption against the greatest workers in science today. You have damaged your own credibility with reckless charges, while you have not harmed their reputations one bit. You coupled one statement of dubious merit with another one regarding nuclear energy. There is no natural coupling. Some people want both Global warming and nuclear power gone as threats, others accept nukes without accepting CO2 mass-murder-suicide-pacts.

It would be helpful if you exercised discipline and dealt with one complex problem at a time instead of mixing two very different subjects.

According to you, I believe you have clearly stated that you are unfamiliar with Global Warming science and do not understand the threat. Therefore you express no need to do anything about CO2 gases and therefore nukes are not required to solve a problem you are not yet aware of. So what is your point in bringing up nukes at all? If there's no CO2 problem, then being against nukes has no Global Warming impact anyway, according to your logic. Why not deal with the CO2 issue on its own?

There have been 741 tornadoes in the USA since January 1st, 2006. THat is an average of 5 per day over 146 days so far this year. If that trend continues, 2006 will exceed 2004 as the record-breaking year for tornadoes. There's every reason to fear that hurricanes will bring tornadoes, as Hurricane Frances brought 125 of them and Hurricane Ivan three weeks later brought another 104 of them. There have been more tornadoes this year than more than half of the entire 12-month years in the historical record since 1950.

The tornados record is tracking the hurricane record is tracking the temperature record. They are all coupled by time and temperature and energy relationships. The energy trapped in the system is producing the tornadoes and the hurricanes as the only means to vent the heat past the blanket of insulating gases. Science knows what is happening and makes predictions. Science is predicting more tornadoes and predicting more and worse hurricanes, because science is actually describing correctly what the CO2 content means in the atmosphere in terms of effects.

Strong storms like the one down in Austin around the 12th had clouds up to 50,000 feet. That is 20,000 feet taller than regular storm cells. It takes a lot of heat to lift water vapor that high, and in fact Texas had power outages just days before from record high unseasonable temperatures. In order to blast through the insulating blanket of heat trapping gases we see violent storms of greater power than we are accustomed to seeing. That's "climate change" caused by Global Warming. The 30-year-pattern of climate has changed. The 30-year climate before that also changed. Both for the progressively worse. These are the FACTS which validate the PREDICTIONS based on the THEORY. That's how science is supposed to work, and how it actually does work.
Nuclear is apparently not CO2 clean anyway, well at least not when the rich uranium deposits are mined out and you need to go to less accessible reserves.
260. IKE
"whats the latest on the 'tropical storm' the GFS was forecasting for South Carolina on June 3rd?".....

The GFS has been fairly consistent with a low/storm forming in the western carribean and heading north into the gulf the week of June 4th thru June 10th. It's been calling for it for about the last 3-5 model runs.

It's backed off on a South Carolina storm.
Actually, both storms may be the same thing; they both originate in the Caribbean, and it is possible that the track has shifted (of course it will shift; even a day can cause a huge jump in track).
262. IKE
You could be right on the trach shifting. I'm sure that will happen again...nonetheless, it might be Alberto.
The East Pacific Invest now has a 2-3% chance of development:



Convection has become more concentrated aound the center:

05/25/2006 0630 PM

Yesterday in southern Indiana: Lynnville, Warrick County.

Hail m3.00 inch, reported by trained spotter.

Late report. Hail the size of Tea cups. Trained spotter
said it looked like styrophone bricks falling from the
sky.
265. WSI
"Hail the size of Tea cups. Trained spotter
said it looked like styrophone bricks falling from the sky."


Yeah, that will ruin your day.
There was a report of softball size hail (4.25 inches) in the same county:

2330 425 7 N BOONVILLE WARRICK IN 3815 8727 (PAH)

(The SPC shows 4.25 inches as 425)
By the way, the weight and damage potential of hail goes up by the cube of size, so 4.25 inch hail is almost 3 times more destructive (4.25^3 / 3^3) than 3 inch hail, and more than 180 times more damaging than .75 inch hail (minimally severe size).
Strong storms like the one down in Austin around the 12th had clouds up to 50,000 feet. That is 20,000 feet taller than regular storm cells. It takes a lot of heat to lift water vapor that high, and in fact Texas had power outages just days before from record high unseasonable temperatures.

ScienceCop

Convection does not require a lot of heat, it requires a large temperature difference between the lower atmosphere and upper atmosphere. That can be caused by heating the low levels, or cooling the upper levels, or both.

Also, record highs are bound to happen quite frequently. Average high temperatures do not imply expected high temperatures. There are large variances in temperatures that exist from day to day, year to year. A large part of this variation has to do with fronts, and their alignment compared to you and compared to the time of day. Any strong front will cause near record highs in the location that's been in the warm sector all day until around 4pm. This same front, if there's an upper level low near it, will cause the upper levels of the atmosphere to be cold.

In order to blast through the insulating blanket of heat trapping gases we see violent storms of greater power than we are accustomed to seeing. That's "climate change" caused by Global Warming.

I don't attribute the strong storms to global warming ... I'd say a strong frontal system was in the area at the optimal time.
Ike lay off the Accucrack. I still can not believe anyone was seriously talking about a 300hr GFS forcast.

Has been a lot of hail lately. I may have to go look for some of it this evening.

Find the fresh weather links you need here:
StormJunkie.com

Have a great day ya'll. I'll check in later.

SJ
Strong storms like the one down in Austin around the 12th had clouds up to 50,000 feet. That is 20,000 feet taller than regular storm cells. It takes a lot of heat to lift water vapor that high, and in fact Texas had power outages just days before from record high unseasonable temperatures.

newt3d - I have seen proof to the contrary as well; I remember seeing heights as high as 65,000 feet on my local radar (using the Storm Tops feature on Wunderground, it indicates the highest tops), and it was not particularlt hot, much less record hot. In fact, radar can indicate tops up to 70,000 feet (it apparantly cuts off beyond that point), and I have seen tops almost that high.
StormJunkie - if the GFS still indicates something, then it must be indicating something (also, dont forget that 300 hours is not 300 hours anymore). Furthermore, you do realize that these are the same models that are used to forecast weather and produce long range outlooks, don't you? In fact, the CPC actually does 1 year forecasts (and of couse climate change forecast can go out to decades; many of the models from the 1980s and 1990 appear to be correct as to what would happen)!
Michael I understand that there can be some level of accuracy to any forecast. As far as intensity, landfall, or formation dates I put little stock in the models at 100+hrs unless there is already a feature that is going to move in to more favorable conditions. My main point was that Accucrap should not be touting/hyping something in that time frame. There is just no need for it.

SJ
oh my god its lefty
Just remember..it could always be worse Link. What is the record for the tallest Cum/Nim cloud? I thought I remembered associated to the Coffeyville event tops up to 72,000 ft. Is that possible? Tried to find something, but couldnt find anything defining record cloud top heights...
By the way, did you mean the Aurora, Nebraska event (ther record for hail)?

As for tops, consider that the stratosphere usually starts at about 10 km, or about 33,000 feet; this means that a storm that is 70,000 feet high is more than halfway in the stratosphere.
Yes..Nebraska.

If the stratosphere is coolest at the bottom, and warms toward the top..what stops clouds from moving toward the warmer temps at the top of the strat? [Trying to learn]
277. IKE
"Ike lay off the Accucrack. I still can not believe anyone was seriously talking about a 300hr GFS forcast.".....

Hey...stormjunkie....this is a tropical weather blog. I didn't say it was gonna happen. I'm just commenting on what it's forecasting.

Whatever you're on, you need to get off of OR whatever you're not on, you need to find some.

Geez...what a joke.
278. IKE
Per StormJunkie..."My main point was that Accucrap should not be touting/hyping something in that time frame."....

It WASN'T Accucrap. It was the GFS computer model. READ WHAT I'M SAYING!!!

Like MichaelSTL stated...they use the GFS computer model as one of their long range forecasts...6-10 days...and up to 14 days.
They are only playing in Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Austin, Charleston WV, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Harrisburg, Phoenix, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Springfield IL, and Washington DC.

What do all these cities have in common?

They are very unlikely to be directly affected by a hurricane (well, with the possible exception of DC ).