WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

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

May 2015: All-Time Wettest Month on Record for the U.S.

By: Bob Henson 11:16 AM GMT on June 09, 2015

It wasn’t a soggy May for the whole country, but where it did rain last month, it poured--enough to give the 48 U.S. states as a whole their wettest single month since records began in 1895, according to the monthly report from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly called the NCDC). With a 48-state average of 4.36”, last month beat out the 4.28” observed in June 1928 and the 4.24” from May 1957. The main reason for the record was the unusually prolonged and intense sequence of heavy thunderstorms centered on the south-central states, a spell that conveniently extended from just a couple of days after the first of May until right before the month ended. Colorado had its wettest May on record, while Texas and Oklahoma had their wettest single month since records began. For a large swath of the country, from the southern Great Basin throughout the Great Plains, this month ranked among the ten wettest Mays on record (see Figure 2).


Figure 1. Motorists commute across Interstate 30 (right) over a swollen Trinity River west of downtown Dallas on May 29, as weeks of torrential rain were drawing to a close. Image credit: AP Photo/Brandon Wade.


Despite the Plains deluge, many of the nation’s biggest population centers were actually on the dry side. Eastern states got the short end of the precipitation stick last month, with much-below-average rainfall from the Appalachians to the coastline. Six states had a top-ten dry May: South Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Since there is little irrigation in this part of the country, it only takes three or four weeks of scant rainfall to begin causing problems for agriculture and ecosystems. Fortunately, a series of wet frontal systems over the last few days has put a dent in this short-term dry spell. For the nation as a whole, May was a colossal drought-buster. The fraction of the contiguous U.S. categorized as being in drought by the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor plummeted from 37.4% in late April to 24.6% on June 2, hitting its lowest percentage since February 2011.


Figure 2. Precipitation (top) and temperature (bottom) rankings for May 2015 in each of the 48 contiguous U.S. states. In the top image, a value of 121 denotes the wettest May in records that go back to 1895, while 1 indicates the driest. For the bottom image, 121 corresponds to the hottest May on record, and 1 denotes the coolest. Image credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.


Temperatures for the month largely reflected where it was persistently wet or dry. Frequent clouds and storms blocked enough late-spring sunlight to bring the monthly temperature well below average from Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to Wyoming and South Dakota. For the East Coast, and especially the Northeast, it was weather whiplash, temperature-style. Not long after each state saw its second-coldest February on record, the residents of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all sailed into their warmest May in more than a century of record keeping. Seven other adjoining states had a top-ten warmest May, as did Florida and Washington state. It was also the warmest May on record in Alaska--a full degree beyond than the previous record-holder, May 2005.

Even with temperatures now in the 70s and 80s, people in the Boston area have a stubborn, unsightly reminder of winter: several enormous piles of trash-bearing snow that are proving excruciatingly slow to get rid of. The multiple reasons for the leisurely melt are nicely outlined in this Boston Globe article. The snow/trash pile at the Seaport District was still three stories tall as of late May, and it may take until July to completely disappear.


Figure 3. Canada geese swim beneath a debris-covered snow pile on May 28 in Boston’s Seaport District. A snow mound that once towered 75 feet high was by this point a three-story pile of dirt and trash, including bicycles, traffic cones and even half a $5 bill, that remains encrusted in solid ice. Crews have been working for weeks to clean away the trash as it breaks free from the mound. As of late May, they had pulled 85 tons of debris from the pile. Image credit: AP Photo/Elise Amendola.

El Niño making its presence known
The El Niño event that’s been steadily strengthening in recent weeks likely played a key role in fostering the downpours across the south-central U.S. As the event brings warmer-than-average waters over the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, showers and thunderstorms moves eastward as well. This change in atmospheric circulation triggers a chain of reverberating effects, typically bringing wetter-than-usual conditions to the southern U.S. and drier-than-usual weather across parts of the northern tier of states. Part of the adjustment involves a strengthening of the subtropical jet stream, which was unusually strong across Mexico and the southwest U.S. last month. At the California Weather Blog, Daniel Swain provides an excellent description of how the balance between the subtropical and polar jet streams is affected by El Niño events of various intensities. If the current event remains potent, it substantially raises the odds of at least some drought relief for California this fall and winter. Another factor in the storminess across the central states during May was moisture-rich low-level air coursing from the Caribbean through the Gulf of Mexico and into Texas. Warm sea-surface temperatures helped boost the moisture content in this persistent surface flow.


Figure 4. Observed decadal rate of change in global annual precipitation over land areas, 1951 - 2010. The cumulative change in annual precipitation at any spot, in mm/yr, can be calculated by multiplying the value shown by 6 (for six decades]. Dots represent areas where the change is significant, including the central United States. Areas in white either have little or no trend, or too little data to calculate a robust estimate. Image credit: IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report, Figure 1.1, page 41 (PDF link).

Record-wet month is in line with a warming climate
The sodden swath across the Great Plains last month is intriguingly similar to what shows up in annual precipitation trends over the last 50 years, as analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, in its most recent synthesis report (see Figure 4). Although it’s a challenge to measure on a global scale, the average annual precipitation for the entire planet appears to be on the increase, and the 48-state U.S. average has increased from just over 29” per year in the late 1890s to nearly 31” today (see Figure 5). Droughts are still with us, of course—and drought impacts are greatly exacerbated by hotter temperatures—but at the same time, wet periods are increasingly wetter, as more water vapor enters the atmosphere from steadily warming oceans. Not all of the world is getting wetter, though. IPCC projections for the late 21st century, based on multiple climate models, show that much of the global increase in precipitation will occur at middle and higher latitudes, with subtropical areas tending to dry out, a pattern already showing up in recent years. Grinding drought has plagued the Southwest U.S. for much of the last 15 years, a period that corresponds to a predominantly negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Now that the PDO has shifted into a positive phase, which tends to favor El Niño, it will be interesting to see if the Southwest--including California--manages to get a few years of rainfall more in line with the 20th-century average. Even if it does, the region still has major challenges ahead, as warming temperatures and increasing populations will add to the impact when drought does, inevitably, recur.

Bob Henson


Figure 5. Average precipitation for the contiguous 48 U.S. states, 1895 - 2014. The annual average increased by about 5% during the 20th century. Image credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.

Climate Summaries Climate Change Flood

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



Deep tropical moisture is beginning to get pulled into FL.
Quoting 485. Grothar:

GN everyone. Before I go, here are my analog years for this season:

1453, 1519, 1714, 1830.


Gro,
You left out 984 and 1012. You are getting forgetful.
503. MahFL
Quoting 417. gulfbreeze:

If you think Obama is any kind of a leader that's all that I need to say. Just thank God he can't run again.


Also be thankful GW Bush can't run again, what an dullard he was.
Can really feel that tropical moisture in Florida this morning; dew point is 76 in Bradenton. Oops, 71, my bad, had it toggled to heat index.
can you guys please stop Quoting wunderkidcayman i got him on ignore list and i dont want too see his quots


there is a reson why they added the ignore user list so you dont have too deal or see there commits


the quote needs TO GO




Quoting 505. Tazmanian:

can you guys please stop Quoting wunderkidcayman i got him on ignore list and i dont want too see his quots


there is a reson why they added the ignore user list so you dont have too deal or see there commits


the quote needs TO GO







Taz there is absolutely no reason what so ever for this foolishness
this is why you have been flagged

there is nothing I have done to for people to ignore me or for me to go on Ignore User list

if you can't handle me disagreeing with you that's fine but this is far from you or anyone else needed to place me on Ignore User list

I am NOT a troll infact this very comment you made is more of Trollish behavior

anyway put away this nonsense

and as stated you've been flagged
When it rains, it's climate change.
When it's dry, it's climate change.
If it's hot, it's climate change.
If it's cold, it's climate change.
When it's not, it's just the weather.
mjo=weaker
Quoting 504. Forsaken:

Can really feel that tropical moisture in Florida this morning; dew point is 76 in Bradenton. Oops, 71, my bad, had it toggled to heat index.
good morning,yes indeed same here,alot of moisture in the air and NWS is saying all area's will see rain today,some storms could well be quite strong they say.
Quoting 507. Sandy82579:

When it rains, it's climate change.
When it's dry, it's climate change.
If it's hot, it's climate change.
If it's cold, it's climate change.
When it's not, it's just the weather.


I wish we could blame comments like these on climate change instead of a supreme lack of scientific understanding. Sigh.
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN TALLAHASSEE HAS ISSUED A

* FLOOD ADVISORY FOR...
CENTRAL GULF COUNTY IN THE PANHANDLE OF FLORIDA...

* UNTIL 845 AM EDT/745 AM CDT/

* AT 641 AM EDT /541 AM CDT/...RADAR INDICATED HEAVY RAIN DUE TO
THUNDERSTORMS WITH ESTIMATED RAINFALL AROUND 2 INCHES IN THE PAST
HOUR AND OVER 3 INCHES SINCE MIDNIGHT. WITH HEAVY RAINFALL
CONTINUING...MINOR FLOODING IS EXPECTED IN THE ADVISORY AREA.

* SOME LOCATIONS THAT WILL EXPERIENCE FLOODING INCLUDE...HIGHLAND
VIEW...HOWARD CREEK...DALKEITH...WILLIS
LANDING...HONEYVILLE...OVERSTREET...WHITE CITY...AND MILLTOWN.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

EXCESSIVE RUNOFF FROM HEAVY RAINFALL WILL CAUSE FLOODING OF SMALL
CREEKS AND STREAMS...AS WELL AS FARM AND COUNTRY ROADS. DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO TRAVEL ACROSS FLOODED ROADS. FIND ALTERNATE ROUTES.

TO REPORT FLOODING...HAVE THE NEAREST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RELAY
YOUR REPORT TO THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST OFFICE.

&&
The last couple runs of the HRRR model were all over the place with rainfall in FL today. I think it's safe to say most of the state will see some rain today with localized heavy amounts up in the air.


What in the world is going on in Nino 1+2?!
I read back. Seems it got interesting in here yesterday. Lots of folks getting hip to the tactics and agenda. That's a good thing. Questioning everything is good.
Quoting 512. tampabaymatt:

The last couple runs of the HRRR model were all over the place with rainfall in FL today. I think it's safe to say most of the state will see some rain today with localized heavy amounts up in the air.


Forecast is very spotty in my neck of the woods - strange with all this moisture abound.

Yesterday had a storm try to reach me from the east, then it backed off. West of me down poured on my way home from work.

Didn't see a drop at the house until after midnight, which is not typical at all.

Had to get the hose out for the shrubs again...

Tomorrow chances are much higher, but then it all drops off again for the next 5 days or so. Hopefully I'll be the lucky house on the street with a local .5" or more from an afternoon boomer.
Quoting 507. Sandy82579:

When it rains, it's climate change.
When it's dry, it's climate change.
If it's hot, it's climate change.
If it's cold, it's climate change.
When it's not, it's just the weather.
We've been over this many times, but you still seem to have trouble grasping the basic.

It's not a matter of it simply raining; it's a matter of it raining more, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being dry; it's a matter of it being drier, and for longer, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being hot; it's a matter of it being hotter, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being cold; it's a matter of it being colder in some places than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

And, of course, no one has said any of these events were simply climate change; what scientists have said--and have shown--is that a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and more energy, and this excess energy manifests itself in extreme weather events of increasing frequency and severity.

Is it really that difficult to understand? Ask yourself this: all other things being equal--model, drivetrain, tires, weight, driver ability, etc.--should a racecar with more horsepower be able to beat one with fewer horsepower? If not, why not? Show your work...
Quoting 512. tampabaymatt:
The last couple runs of the HRRR model were all over the place with rainfall in FL today. I think it's safe to say most of the state will see some rain today with localized heavy amounts up in the air.


Hi Matt-

Today the Treasure Coast will get its needed rainfall as the storms will come in from the southwest. I received literally a few drops of rain yesterday afternoon with all that cloud cover.
AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MIAMI FL
427 AM EDT WED JUN 10 2015

.DISCUSSION...
MODELS IN PRETTY GOOD AGREEMENT WITH THE OVER ALL PATTERN THROUGH
THE FORECAST PERIOD. WE BEGIN WITH AN AREA OF SURFACE HIGH
PRESSURE WELL TO THE EAST. THERE IS A LEFT OVER TROUGH/FRONT
SLOWLY MOVING ACROSS THE EAST COAST AND NORTH FLORIDA. THE MAIN
IMPACT THIS BOUNDARY WILL HAVE, IS TO BRING ABUNDANT MOISTURE OVER
THE AREA FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS. THE FLOW WILL BE
SOUTHERLY TODAY. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR CONVECTION TO FIRE UP ACROSS
SOUTH FLORIDA TODAY, AND PROGRESS TO THE NORTH. MODELS ARE SHOWING
PWATS OF AROUND 2 INCHES ACROSS THE CWA TODAY. LOOKING AT THE MBE
VECTORS ON BUFKIT, THEY ARE SHOWING THAT THE STORMS MAY HAVE SOME
SLOW MOVEMENT TODAY,POSSIBLY SOME BACK BUILDING, OR PERHAPS BOTH.
THIS LOOKS MORE PREVALENT TOWARDS THE INTERIOR, WHICH WOULD MAKE
SENSE IF THE SEA BREEZE IS ABLE TO DEVELOP AND PENETRATE FAR
ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PAST THE COASTAL METRO AREAS. IF THIS IS THE
CASE HEAVY RAIN IMPACTS WILL BE LESS. LOCALITIES AROUND THE LAKE
MAY SEE SOME SLOW MOVING HEAVY SHOWERS THIS AFTERNOON. IF THE SEA
BREEZES ARE NOT ABLE TO DEVELOP, SOME OF THE METRO AREAS HAVE THE
POTENTIAL TO SEE SOME HEAVY SHOWERS AS WELL. THIS MAY LEAD TO SOME
LOCALIZED URBAN FLOODING. LOOKING AT THE MODEL SOUNDING, THE
ENTIRE LAYER APPEARS TO BE MOIST. THIS SHOULD REDUCE THE HAIL
THREAT. THE NCAPE IS LOW, SITTING AROUND .1, POSSIBLY INDICATING
MORE PULSE TYPE STORMS TODAY. THE IS NOT MUCH HELICITY TO, WITH
LESS THAN 50M^2/S^2, AND WIND SPEEDS ARE GENERALLY 15KTS OR LESS.
SO, SOME GUSTY WIND AND HEAVY RAIN IS THE MAIN EXPECTATION FOR THE
DAY, AT THIS TIME.
The monthly AMO index has come in for May. It is now a bit more positive than it was negative the last few months. However, I seriously doubt that it will help us much during the hurricane season, and also due to the fact that this is one of the record lowest AMO values in the month of May.
2015 0.012 0.016 -0.109 -0.052 0.065 -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 -99.990 -99.990
-99.99. That May value is 0.065.
Quoting 417. gulfbreeze:

If you think Obama is any kind of a leader that's all that I need to say. Just thank God he can't run again.


When you can't win a scientific debate, change the subject to politics.
Good Morning. As to 94e formation of a TD is imminent and now we wait to see what direction it will go in once a good coc is initialized. The models runs from tomorrow afternoon (assuming a TD forms over the next 24 hours) should give us a better idea of what will happen downstream:




TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
500 AM PDT WED JUN 10 2015

For the eastern North Pacific...east of 140 degrees west longitude:

1. Showers and thunderstorms associated with a low pressure area a
few hundred miles southwest of the Gulf of Tehuantepec have become
better organized since yesterday. Environmental conditions are
conducive for development, and a tropical depression is likely to
form later today or on Thursday while this system moves slowly
northwestward or northward.
* Formation chance through 48 hours...high...80 percent
* Formation chance through 5 days...high...90 percent

Quoting 426. DeepSeaRising:



Here's what it is, BFOTR is a clearly intelligent thinker. Brings up thoughtful points. This is not some Yoboi same ol' same ol'. I can appreciate this form of debate. Just how much can be attributed to AGW is just unknown right now. We know it is playing a key role in everything from record cold, snowfall, drought, flooding, and the receding of worldwide water sources. George Carlin was a classic Cat 5 comedian. Miss him.


If your talking about just this one specific event, you are correct. If you're talking about climate overall though then estimates of human contribution are available in various pieces of research, including the IPCC.
Quoting 514. PensacolaDoug:

I read back. Seems it got interesting in here yesterday. Lots of folks getting hip to the tactics and agenda. That's a good thing. Questioning everything is good.


I question why the same few blindly question science without any evidence to support their accusations, oh wait, its cognitive dissonance. Thanks. The very nature of science is self questioning; and I'm still waiting for the lot of you to start being "skeptical" and questioning the pseudo scientific nonsense. So far the only thing you question is science, all evidence points to cognitive biases rooted in ideological thinking.
Not so sure based on this loop that a cross-over (remnants) into the BOC will be on the table; it was almost stationary (the disturbance) for the past 48 hours but really booking to the NW parallel to the Mexican coast headed in the direction of the Baha at the moment:

The large scale picture for 94e:


Quoting 431. CosmicEvents:

We don't know sounds right. Subject to further study. The connection is not quite as simple as atmo 2.0 now with 10% added water vapor...as some uptown well meaning cajuns make it out to be.
Look at the subject of the Indian monsoon, the last blog.
In a world with 10% or so more water vapor, we have 10% less rain in this area. An important part of world climate I believe if it sustains itself.


Indeed. It's easy to determine generalities. Warmer temperatures equals more water vapor which means increased likelihood and/or frequency of extreme precipitation events. But the more detail you want to add the harder it gets. Exactly where and how that additional water vapor will get distributed is a much more difficult question to answer.

It's like predicting the roll of die. You know on average what the probability is for any given value, but predicting exactly which side will com up on a roll is much more difficult.
And the big picture relative to the BOC and Western Caribbean; don't see much of an opportunity for a cross-over from the E-Pac if the current relative motion continues and that will be a lot of ground to cover if the system is pulled north to landfall in Mexico further west from the current position:

Good Morning.

Looks like the latest run have more ensembles again aiming at Texas..

Good article from yesterday on the issue of the recent rains in parts of the US correlated to a wildfire danger downstream:

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/record -u-s-rains-trigger-wildfire-fears-how-s-work

Last month was the wettest May in more than a century in large chunks of the western United States. While the soggy weather ended lengthy droughts in some regions, the spring showers may have also boosted the chances of ferocious future wildfires. That’s because the rain means more grass and other vegetation that can help catalyze big fires, researchers say.

“The wet month has brought a reprieve, but not a sigh of relief—it means we’ll have to worry about fire in the future,” says Jennifer Balch, a fire ecologist at the University of Colorado (CU), Boulder. “The grasses that are growing now can be really flammable when they dry out later—just instantaneous fuel.”

The paradoxical idea that wet weather can catalyze fire isn’t new. Researchers have learned by studying tree rings, ancient charcoal found in soil, and other evidence that big fire seasons often occur a few years after especially wet periods. “We see this pattern going back hundreds of years,” says landscape ecologist Tania Schoennagel, also at CU Boulder. In many parts of western North America, she notes, it is linked to a much larger Pacific Ocean climate pattern known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, in which generally wet and dry periods alternate.

00z UKMet..







Quoting 529. ncstorm:

Good Morning.

Looks like the latest run have more ensembles again aiming at Texas..




The model runs from tomorrow afternoon (with a TD initialization) will give us a better picture; dissipation over Mexico once the system moves inland in a few days might be a viable model solution.
Should see a big SOI drop again in 7 to 10 days as this MJO comes across toward the W-Pac.

Michael Ventrice retweeted
forecastguy ‏@forecastguy 27m27 minutes ago
Strongest ever June MJO Phase 2 values @EricBlake12 @WSI_Energy @commoditywx @RyanMaue @MJVentrice
Quoting 529. ncstorm:

Good Morning.

Looks like the latest run have more ensembles again aiming at Texas..




Doesn't look like anything will come of this Gulf/Caribbean mess.
Quoting 527. NickyTesla:



Waaaa! Waaaa! I'm so smart and all these idiots keep posting things that I don't agree with, so I'll sigh condescendingly and pretend like I am some kind of weather savant until they stop writing things that I don't like. The original post that you are crying about was 100% right on. You want it both ways. Everything is AGW unless it isn't, and apparently you get to decide which weather events are which. By the way, your comment would make more sense if you used the word "of" instead of "on".


Sorry, no autographs, kid.
536. jpsb
Every now and then I come accross an enlightening and entertaining essay that I like to share here. It's a good read and I hope those that take the time to read it, enjoy it


"The age of the Earth is one of the great questions that has puzzled people for thousands of years. In Meteorologica, Aristotle (384-322 BC) asserted that the world was eternal. But with the advent of Christianity and Islam, scholars began to assume that humanity was coeval with the Creation of the world. It followed that the age of the Earth could be estimated from a careful examination of sacred writings.

The first person to make a quantitative estimate of the Earth’s age was the Islamic scientist al-Biruni (c. 973-1050). al-Biruni based his chronology on the Hindu, Jewish, and Christian religious scriptures. He divided the history of the world into eras, and concluded that it had been less than ten thousand years since the Creation.


Working in the tradition begun by al-Biruni, Bishop James Ussher (1581-1686) estimated the age of the Earth by meticulously studying the Bible and other historical documents. In The Annals of the World Deduced from the Origin of Time, Ussher pinpointed the date of Creation as the “night preceding the 23rd of October, 4004 BC.” Ussher’s scholarship was impressive, and his dates were accepted as the standard chronology. Bible editors began to place Ussher’s dates in the margins of their texts.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the greatest scientist of the age, was also a Biblical fundamentalist who believed in a young Earth. Newton explained to his nephew, John Conduitt, that the Earth could not be old because all human technology was of recent invention. Like Ussher, Newton wrote his own universal history, Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, that was published posthumously in 1728.

The procedures for establishing a scientific estimate of the age of the Earth were laid out in the seventeenth century by the Danish anatomist, Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686). Steno was the first person to state unequivocally that the history of the Earth was not to be found in human chronicles, but in the Earth itself. Steno’s principles of geologic investigation became the basis for establishing the relative age of rock sequences and the foundation of historical geology.

Armed with Steno’s principles, eighteenth century naturalists began to seriously consider the implications of the rock record. It became apparent to them that an immense amount of time was required to deposit the rock layers that covered the Earth’s surface.

One of the first to recognize the scope of geologic time was the Scottish philosopher James Hutton (1726-1797). In the year 1788, Hutton was accompanied on a field trip by his friend, the mathematician, John Playfair (1748-1819). They traveled up the coastline of Scotland to Siccar Point, and Hutton described the history implied by the sequence of rocks exposed there. After listening to Hutton’s exposition, Playfair later wrote “the mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time.”

By the time Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published Origin of Species in 1859, geologists were of the opinion that the Earth was practically, although not literally, of infinite age. With infinite time at this disposal, Darwin was able to invoke the slow mechanism of natural selection as an explanation for the organic evolution evidenced in the fossil record.

To demonstrate the vast extent of geologic time, Darwin offered the erosion of the Weald, a seaside cliff in England, as an offhand example. Darwin assumed an erosion rate of an inch a century, and then extrapolated that some 300 million years were apparently necessary to explain the total amount of erosion that had occurred.

But Darwin’s estimated erosion rate of one inch per century was little more than speculation. The number was unconstrained by any measurement or scientific observation. Nineteenth-century geologists lacked any quantitative method for establishing dates. The rocks of the Earth’s crust might represent the passage of ten million years. But just as easily, the amount of time could have been a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand million years.

Darwin and his geological colleagues were soon taken to the woodshed by the greatest physicist of the nineteenth century, William Thomson (1824-1907). Better known as Lord Kelvin, Thomson was a man of prodigious gifts who possessed enormous intellectual stature. He published his first scientific paper at age sixteen, and had been appointed a chaired professor at the University of Glasgow at the precocious age of twenty-two.

In 1861, Lord Kelvin began to seriously address the question of dating the Earth. He was aware that the Earth radiated internal heat. This process could not have been going on forever. By maintaining that the Earth was infinitely old, the geologists in effect were postulating that energy was not conserved. This violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, and Kelvin was aroused to do battle.

In the nineteenth century, the only known source for the internal heat of the Earth was the original mechanical heat of accretion. Reasoning that the Earth had been molten at the time of its formation, but cooling ever since, Kelvin was able to construct an elegant mathematical model that constrained the age of the Earth on the basis of its measured geothermal gradient. Much the same method is used today by coroners who estimate the time of death by taking the temperature of a cadaver.

In 1862, Kelvin published his analysis in a paper titled On the Secular Cooling of the Earth. He arrived at a best estimate for the age of the Earth of 100 million years. Kelvin’s estimate was no idle speculation. It was based on a precise mathematical model constrained by laboratory measurements and the laws of thermodynamics.

Kelvin attacked Darwin directly. He raised the question: were the laboratory measurements and mathematical calculations in error, or was it more likely “that a stormy sea, with possibly channel tides of extreme violence, should encroach on a chalk cliff 1,000 times more rapidly than Mr. Darwin’s estimate of one inch per century?”

Darwin was devastated. He wrote to his mentor, Charles Lyell, “for heaven’s sake take care of your fingers; to burn them severely, as I have done, is very unpleasant.” Geologists were left sputtering. They had no effective rebuttal to Kelvin’s calculations. Within a few years, the geological establishment began to line up with Lord Kelvin. Among the influential converts was Archibald Geikie, President of both the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Geological Society of London.

Researchers began to look for evidence that would confirm Kelvin’s calculations. In 1865, Geologist Samuel Haughton had estimated the age of the Earth as 2300 million years, a number reasonably close to the modern value of 4500 million years. But under the influence of Kelvin’s authority, in 1878 Haughton drastically shortened his earlier calculation to 153 million years.

A lone voice of dissent was raised by the biologist, Thomas Huxley (1825-1895). Huxley pointed out that there was a fundamental weakness in Kelvin’s mathematical model. “Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship, which grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out depends on what you put in.” Put in more modern terms, Huxley’s observation amounted to “garbage in, garbage out.”

But as the end of the nineteenth century approached, the scientific community was beginning to regard Kelvin’s estimate of 100 million years as a near certainty. Writing in the American Journal of Science in 1893, geologist Warren Upham characterized Kelvin’s estimate of the age of the Earth as the most “important conclusion in the natural sciences…[that] has been reached during this century.”

The science was definitely settled in 1899 by the Irish physicist, John Joly (1857-1933). Joly hit upon a robust method for calculating the age of the Earth that was entirely different from Kelvin’s. Joly’s calculation was childishly simple, yet apparently foolproof. He estimated the age of the Earth by dividing the total salt content of the oceans by the rate at which salt was being carried to the sea by the rivers. He found that it would take 80 to 90 million years for the ocean’s salt to accumulate.

In consideration of the uncertainties involved, Joly’s age estimate was essentially identical to Thomson’s. With different methods yielding the same result, it seemed evident that the result was conclusive: the Earth was 100 million years old. It seemed that to deny this reality, was to deny not only the authority of the scientific establishment but the very laws of nature themselves.

The ingenious calculations of Kelvin and Joly were soon to be overturned by an improbable empiricism. In the thirteenth century, modern science began when philosophers came to the realization that logic alone could never uncover the secrets of the cosmos, no matter how seductive its appeal. Contemplation of the mysterious properties of the magnet convinced Roger Bacon and his contemporaries that nature contained occult or hidden forces that could never be discerned or anticipated rationally, only discovered experimentally.

In 1896, Henri Becquerel accidentally discovered radioactivity when he found that photographic plates were exposed when placed next to certain minerals. By 1904, it became apparent that there were radioactive minerals inside the Earth releasing heat. Lord Kelvin’s assumption of no internal heat sources was wrong. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was not even clear if the Earth was cooling or heating. Thomson’s calculations were precise, but he had no way of knowing about radioactivity.

Radioactivity also provided a rigorous way to calculate the age of the Earth. The accepted modern estimate for the age of the Earth is 4500 million years. The nineteenth-century estimate of 100 million years that seemed so certain was wrong, not just by 20 or 30 percent, but by a factor of 45. In retrospect, the reason that Thomson’s estimates had been independently confirmed is that geologists looked for data that would support Thomson’s physics. The consensus that had emerged was the product of a human psychological process, not objective science. The nature of science is such that people who look for confirming evidence will always find it.
Quoting 439. Barefootontherocks:

I see some references to Barry Bonds and steroids - an easy case to prove, drug use. Not so easy to show proof in events of extreme weather, and it won't be easy to invent a test for "weather on steroids."

I'll wait to see what science has to say. Truth is, though, it doesn't matter much if the May 2015 TX and OK rains were caused by global warming or not. What matters is a horrible drought was busted.

Good night peoples of the wu.


Nice hand waving. Bonds hit plenty of home runs before steroids. He hit more after steroids. The question to you was to determine exactly which home runs were from steroid use an which ones would have occurred "naturally" without steroid use. That's not "easy" to do and would require a very precise analysis of the circumstances and conditions for each home run. The steroids influenced every home run, but not every home run was CAUSED by the steroids.

Detecting "weather on steroids" is the easy part, and there's plenty of research available showing that is exactly what's happening, such as more frequent extremes and or extremes with larger magnitudes. These trends are in line with projections. Again, averages and trends are not the hard part of the science. That's the easy part.

The hard part is predicting exactly where and how these changes affect specific regions. More water vapor doesn't mean more rain everywhere. More heat doesn't mean it will be hotter everywhere.

The easy questions have been answered for some time. For instance, AGW was predicted almost 120 years ago. The hard question, such as figuring out what kind of regional impacts there will be, is is where all the research goes.
Quoting 522. Xyrus2000:



If your talking about just this one specific event, you are correct. If you're talking about climate overall though then estimates of human contribution are available in various pieces of research, including the IPCC.


Not talking at all about our role in AGW, that ship has sailed long ago. Has been conclusively proven that we are driving this. We had the hottest twelve months ever recorded last year, most who have a good grasp on climate change know AGW is the cause. Now the wettest month in recorded US history. I don't see how one can discount the connection, we're seeing events like this worldwide. Hottest year, most rain monthly, strongest typhoon ever recorded, historical droughts like what we saw in Syria, record snowfall in Boston, the list goes on and on and on. The exact numbers on just how much AGW added to all this is what's not quantifiable right now, but there's no doubt AGW is the driving force behind the changes. To say in Oklahoma AGW added 3.5 inches to what the rainfall would have been fifty years ago is what we don't have specifics on. All in all that's a pretty mute point, when we have extreme examples like this all over the world.
My error on the last post; next shots still about 45 minutes away.
Recent Rapid Scatt





Don't know if the recent glitch at the Space Station affects Rapid Scatt settings.
541. vis0
CREDIT:: NOAA thru University of Washington (though the filtering of 3 imagery types seen here NOT a NOAA nor U of Washington product)
D&T:: On mp4(last frame 201506-10;0745)
Imagery Type:: visX® (it shows nighttime images as if daytime at 3 levels (low clouds as light milky, middle clouds as middler white and upper clouds as brightest whites) not as good as when it was posted on my blog misplaced one of the needed filters.a
NOTE:: visX??? is that vis0's antimatter twin??? no washi115 you've been watching too much original Star Trek
http://youtu.be/4n6JSsrAzZE(500x318)



Quoting 382. hydrus:

An estimated 40% of the worlds oxygen comes from the South American Rain Forests....Cant help but wonder how long it will take before they kill that off..Been there over 50 million years, and humans may decimate it in a hundred...Shame shame...
Its a very beautiful place actually.Kids went to the Smithsonian museum (Can't take them to the real rain forest) and said that it is a true beauty and I agree with them.It's like natures own carnival with lively animals and plants.Some of the plants have medical abilities too.It's a shame of whats going on down there and I hope my grand children and great grandchildren and so forth get to actually see what its like in person .
Quoting 454. gulfbreeze:

I am sure more than we should but we only have good records for about 150 years. What about things like Volcanos JMO but I think they can effect climate more than man.


If you're talking about something like the Siberian Trapps eruption that lasted for thousands of years and contributed to large extinction event, then you're correct.

If your talking about things like Krakatoa or Pinatubo, or volcanic activity in general, then no. Human contributions to CO2 dwarf volcanic activity. And while a large eruption like Pinatubo can temporarily cool the planet, the effect is temporary (usually only lasting about a year or so). CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime so once whatever ash and SO2 fall out of the atmosphere, the warming will just pick up where it left off.
Quoting 538. DeepSeaRising:



Not talking at all about our role in AGW, that ship has sailed long ago. Has been conclusively proven that we are driving this. We had the hottest twelve months ever recorded last year, most who have a good grasp on climate change know AGW is the cause. Now the wettest month in recorded US history. I don't see how one can discount the connection, we're seeing events like this worldwide. Hottest year, most rain monthly, strongest typhoon ever recorded, historical droughts like what we saw in Syria, record snowfall in Boston, the list goes on and on and on. The exact numbers on just how much AGW added to all this is what's not quantifiable right now, but there's no doubt AGW is the driving force behind the changes. To say in Oklahoma AGW added 3.5 inches to what the rainfall would have been fifty years ago is what we don't have specifics on. All in all that's a pretty mute point, when we have extreme examples like this all over the world.


Got it. I wasn't sure what context your comment was in. I agree, we don't know exactly how much of each event climate change is responsible for, but we do know that it is influencing these events.
When someone gets on the merry-go-round, though the temptation may be great, please just ignore them and keep walking. We will arrive at our destination much quicker :) Waiting for showers to come in this morning on the NW FL coast..
Quoting 542. washingtonian115:

Its a very beautiful place actually.Kids went to the Smithsonian museum (Can't take them to the real rain forest) and said that it is a true beauty and I agree with them.It's like natures own carnival with lively animals and plants.Some of the plants have medical abilities too.It's a shame of whats going on down there and I hope my grand children and great grandchildren and so forth get to actually see what its like in person .


I was up there a few weeks ago (The Smithsonian, not the rain forest). The new (to me since the last time I was in D.C,) American Indian Museum is gorgeous and highly informative, albeit quite sad. Have you had a chance to go yet?
547. jpsb
Quoting 382. hydrus:

An estimated 40% of the worlds oxygen comes from the South American Rain Forests....Cant help but wonder how long it will take before they kill that off..Been there over 50 million years, and humans may decimate it in a hundred...Shame shame...


Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. They aren’t sure because it’s a tough thing to calculate. In the lab, scientists can determine how much oxygen is produced by a single phytoplankton cell. The hard part is figuring out the total number of these microscopic plants throughout Earth’s oceans.
548. jpsb
Quoting 543. Xyrus2000:



If you're talking about something like the Siberian Trapps eruption that lasted for thousands of years and contributed to large extinction event, then you're correct.

If your talking about things like Krakatoa or Pinatubo, or volcanic activity in general, then no. Human contributions to CO2 dwarf volcanic activity. And while a large eruption like Pinatubo can temporarily cool the planet, the effect is temporary (usually only lasting about a year or so). CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime so once whatever ash and SO2 fall out of the atmosphere, the warming will just pick up where it left off.


Well we really do not know with certainty how much volcano contribute since we have no idea of how many volcanoes there are. The Earth surface is 70% water and not a whole lot is known about what is happening on the deep sea floors.
Quoting 516. Neapolitan:

We've been over this many times, but you still seem to have trouble grasping the basic.

It's not a matter of it simply raining; it's a matter of it raining more, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being dry; it's a matter of it being drier, and for longer, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being hot; it's a matter of it being hotter, and in more places, than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

It's not a matter of it simply being cold; it's a matter of it being colder in some places than has ever been measured before in recorded history.

And, of course, no one has said any of these events were simply climate change; what scientists have said--and have shown--is that a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and more energy, and this excess energy manifests itself in extreme weather events of increasing frequency and severity.

Is it really that difficult to understand? Ask yourself this: all other things being equal--model, drivetrain, tires, weight, driver ability, etc.--should a racecar with more horsepower be able to beat one with fewer horsepower? If not, why not? Show your work...


As I said a couple of weeks ago. On this blog whenever an out of average event occurs, people blame it on climate change which is wrong.

In 1927 the Mississippi river valley saw its worst flooding ever. I believe it was just a natural occurrence of a random heavy rain pattern. These things occur due to natural variations. It wasn't human induced climate change.

Another example, National Geographic had an article on climate change about a year ago. Typical sky is falling kind of stuff. However in a graph in the article it plotted the earth's average temperature rise from 0 AD until now. How much has it risen. 1 and 1/2 degrees. Not the catastrophic event climate change scientists have predicted.

Climate scientists predicted that climate change would increase the number and intensity of storms. Instead we have set records recently with tornadoes not occurring until later in the year than normal and with less fatalities. Hurricanes the same way. We are currently in the longest period of NO major hurricanes (cat. 3 or above) hitting the continental United States.

There have been times in the past, before humans were even on the earth, when it was a solid block of ice. There have also been times when it was completely ice free. None of it due to human activity.

There are many more examples. The take away is that when an abnormal event occurs, it's probably just a natural variation in the weather. Happens all the time.
Quoting 548. jpsb:



Well we really do not know with certainty how much volcano contribute since we have no idea of how many volcanoes there are. The Earth surface is 70% water and not a whole lot is known about what is happening on the deep sea floors.


Well yeah we do...

"My article “Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide” appeared in the June 14 issue of the American Geophysical Union’s publication Eos and addresses the widespread mis-perception in the media, the blogosphere, and much of the climate skeptic literature that volcanic CO2 emissions greatly exceed anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I wrote the article to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic using only published peer-reviewed data with a minimum of technical jargon for a broad spectrum of Earth science researchers and educators, students, policy makers, the media, and the general public. AGU has made the article public; anyone can download a copy. There is also an Eos online supplement, although I have a better formatted pdf version that is available upon request.

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011 /08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/#sthash.lO6qIAy5 .dpuf"
Quoting 548. jpsb:



Well we really do not know with certainty how much volcano contribute since we have no idea of how many volcanoes there are. The Earth surface is 70% water and not a whole lot is known about what is happening on the deep sea floors.

LOL! Seriously? Just how big are these imaginary volcanoes? LOL!
re: post 536 jpsb
The moral of the interesting story you posted is that Lord Kelvin's formulation was eventually abandoned because discoveries were made that showed it to be inaccurate. This is, of course, the way science works. You, on the other hand, offer ZERO evidence to support your assertion that AGW should be rejected. Why do you post a piece showing how science works as support for your appeal to reject science? This makes my head hurt.
Again, volcanic versus anthropogenic:

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater (this is 2 orders of magnitude) than volcanic CO2 emissions...

"The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. "

Link
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:



As I said a couple of weeks ago. On this blog whenever an out of average event occurs, people blame it on climate change which is wrong.
No, they don't. You and others are certainly free to keep saying that, but until and unless you can provide actual proof of people having done so--blog entry numbers, dates, comment numbers, etc.--Im afraid we'll have no choice but to ignore this statement, as it has no basis in reality.
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:

In 1927 the Mississippi river valley saw its worst flooding ever. I believe it was just a natural occurrence of a random heavy rain pattern. These things occur due to natural variations. It wasn't human induced climate change.
You do realize, of course, that after the 1927 flood, the US Government spent billions adding levees and floodways to prevent a repeat occurrence. IOW, comparing the results of that flood to one nowadays is frivolous.
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:

Another example, National Geographic had an article on climate change about a year ago. Typical sky is falling kind of stuff. However in a graph in the article it plotted the earth's average temperature rise from 0 AD until now. How much has it risen. 1 and 1/2 degrees. Not the catastrophic event climate change scientists have predicted.
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. (Source) So, about a degree in 40 years, not 2000.
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:

We are currently in the longest period of NO major hurricanes (cat. 3 or above) hitting the continental United States.
This comment has two answers: 1) has any scientist ever claimed there'd be more hurricanes striking the US in a warming world? 2) You may not understand the definition of extreme. Flooding rains and and severe drought are opposite extremes of the precipitation scale; things not happening that used to happen quite often is just as out of the ordinary as those things happening more often.
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:

Climate scientists predicted that climate change would increase the number and intensity of storms. Instead we have set records recently with tornadoes not occurring until later in the year than normal and with less fatalities. Hurricanes the same way.
Cite your references, please.
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:

There are many more examples. The take away is that when an abnormal event occurs, it's probably just a natural variation in the weather. Happens all the time.
That's an assumption based on your opinion; you'll need to provide support for it to be taken seriously.
Quoting 550. Naga5000:



Well yeah we do...

"My article “Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide” appeared in the June 14 issue of the American Geophysical Union’s publication Eos and addresses the widespread mis-perception in the media, the blogosphere, and much of the climate skeptic literature that volcanic CO2 emissions greatly exceed anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I wrote the article to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic using only published peer-reviewed data with a minimum of technical jargon for a broad spectrum of Earth science researchers and educators, students, policy makers, the media, and the general public. AGU has made the article public; anyone can download a copy. There is also an Eos online supplement, although I have a better formatted pdf version that is available upon request.

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011 /08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/#sthash.lO6qIAy5 .dpuf"


valid point now if the methane were to be included with the two well run away would likely be in order

with that comes all sorts of rapid changes

time is running short the agreement will soon be settled with a price
556. vis0
158/1012
CREDIT:: NOAA, University of Washington
D&T:: on mp4 (last frame 201506-10;1045UTC)
Imagery type:: not a NOAA nor U. Of Washington product, blends & visX filtering.
Bright whites = upper level in both visible & visX ...(or TIDE® w/bleach was used)
medium whites = clouds with a 50%+ chance of precipitating in visX, 75%+ in visible ...(the other leading competitor)
low whites = lowest level rain clouds not raining same in visX & visible ...(a guy spit on the stain onn the shirt rubbed it hard, its clean e'nuf for us guys)
gray-milky white = in visX lowest level clouds, not visible in visible imagery ...(the stains TIDE® w/bleach couldn't get out)

SUBJECT:: WWF oh wait this has more real fighting than they do, i mean observing the area south of southern Mexico's coastline for pTwF ("+Tropical weather Formations"...that covers everything from TD to Hurricane cat5+...sorry yoboi no 6 yet)

http://youtu.be/MCRyWBemwmU(556x492)


557. jpsb
Quoting 551. Misanthroptimist:


LOL! Seriously? Just how big are these imaginary volcanoes? LOL!


Underwater Volcano as Big as New Mexico is Largest on Earth, Scientists Confirm
On the issue of climate change, there is no doubt that the Earth has experienced several cycles in eons past (natural cycles without modern era carbon and fossil fuel emissions) from frozen over to ice free, and that it took several decades for each cycle to complete and reverse. The current issue, as I understand it, is that the current warming phase is being accelerated (or caused-exacerbated depending on your personal position on the issue) by 100 years of man-made carbon and fossil fuel emissions and we have (for the first time in history), the scientific tools to document the current warming phase in relative detail. The earth is warming at the moment at an accelerated pace, as compared to past events, regardless of your personal or political views on the issues. In terms of what the scientists "predict", they are doing their best using raw data and computer modeling to simulate potential outcomes; some of their predictions may come to pass (verify) or not but that will be the topic of scientific discussion and papers 100 years from now looking back at who got it right or came close.

Noting that certain predictions that have not come to pass, does not prove that GW is not happening; we don't exactly know yet how each particular weather event or scenario will be impacted as the Earth warms but we starting to understand some of the basic concepts (i.e. polar jet pattern shifts due to ice loss at the Arctic and the current "cold pool" off the Greenland ice shelf from melting issues that it causing some disruption in the flow of the Gulf Stream on the way to Northern Europe). One of the prominent theories is the the Northern Hemisphere will show more impacts from GW than the southern hemisphere; that theory seems to be verifying at the moment.
Moist air still being pulled in with this low near Charlotte on this frontal boundary, still pretty humid although yesterday's rain plays a part in that. The NWS was on the money for this week's forecast, we'll have a good chance for afternoon precip today to Friday.
T.C.F.A
03E/TD/X/XX
561. yoboi
Quoting 549. Sandy82579:



As I said a couple of weeks ago. On this blog whenever an out of average event occurs, people blame it on climate change which is wrong.

In 1927 the Mississippi river valley saw its worst flooding ever. I believe it was just a natural occurrence of a random heavy rain pattern. These things occur due to natural variations. It wasn't human induced climate change.

Another example, National Geographic had an article on climate change about a year ago. Typical sky is falling kind of stuff. However in a graph in the article it plotted the earth's average temperature rise from 0 AD until now. How much has it risen. 1 and 1/2 degrees. Not the catastrophic event climate change scientists have predicted.

Climate scientists predicted that climate change would increase the number and intensity of storms. Instead we have set records recently with tornadoes not occurring until later in the year than normal and with less fatalities. Hurricanes the same way. We are currently in the longest period of NO major hurricanes (cat. 3 or above) hitting the continental United States.

There have been times in the past, before humans were even on the earth, when it was a solid block of ice. There have also been times when it was completely ice free. None of it due to human activity.

There are many more examples. The take away is that when an abnormal event occurs, it's probably just a natural variation in the weather. Happens all the time.


Well of course the majority of rainfall records were set years ago....

Quoting 557. jpsb:



Underwater Volcano as Big as New Mexico is Largest on Earth, Scientists Confirm

Wow! That's big! Now, the important questions: So what? What effect on Earth's climate is that volcano having?

No, I'm afraid it's not volcanoes, sir. It's us. If that conflicts with anyone's religious/economic/political beliefs, I suggest adjusting those beliefs rather than trying to adjust the fact that we are causing the current warming of the Earth's climate.
Quoting 527. NickyTesla:



Waaaa! Waaaa! I'm so smart and all these idiots keep posting things that I don't agree with, so I'll sigh condescendingly and pretend like I am some kind of weather savant until they stop writing things that I don't like. The original post that you are crying about was 100% right on. You want it both ways. Everything is AGW unless it isn't, and apparently you get to decide which weather events are which. By the way, your comment would make more sense if you used the word "of" instead of "on".
Wonder what Tesla would think about AGW if he was alive today. I have read enough about him to say that your remark here is not typical of his character, and that he was a scientist who released data he could prove, not to sway or manipulate people. Tesla's genius is considered to be of the highest order, able to see far into the future what was possible for the human race, and what we could do to improve the Earth in many ways. He made astonishing achievements that we still use around the world everyday. Its hard for me to imagine what the world would be like if he had not been born.
Quoting 561. yoboi:



Well of course the majority of rainfall records were set years ago....



You mean there were record-setting events before the current warming? Well, color me unsurprised. lol
ALERT ATCF MIL 94X XXX 150610000000
2015061000
9.7 263.6
14.0 261.9
160
10.1 263.4
100330
1506100321
1
SUBJ/TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION ALERT REISSUED //
WTPN21 PHNC 100330
REF/A/JOINT TYPHOON WRNCEN PEARL HARBOR HI/090321Z JUN 15//
AMPN/REF IS TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION ALERT (WTPN21 PGTW 090330)//
RMKS/
1. FORMATION OF A SIGNIFICANT TROPICAL CYCLONE IS POSSIBLE WITHIN
160 NM EITHER SIDE OF A LINE FROM 9.7N 96.4W TO 14.0N 98.1W
WITHIN THE NEXT 06 TO 24 HOURS. AVAILABLE DATA DOES NOT JUSTIFY
ISSUANCE OF NUMBERED TROPICAL CYCLONE WARNINGS AT THIS TIME.
WINDS IN THE AREA ARE ESTIMATED TO BE 20 TO 25 KNOTS. METSAT
IMAGERY AT 100300Z INDICATES THAT A CIRCULATION CENTER IS LOCATED
NEAR 10.1N 96.6W. THE SYSTEM IS MOVING NORTH-NORTHWESTWARD AT 04
KNOTS.
2. REMARKS:
THIS SUPERSEDES REF A.
3. THIS ALERT WILL BE REISSUED, UPGRADED TO WARNING OR CANCELLED BY 110330Z.
//
9415060718 60N 895W 15
9415060800 70N 905W 15
9415060806 78N 916W 20
9415060812 85N 930W 25
9415060818 92N 944W 25
9415060900 90N 955W 25
9415060906 91N 957W 25
9415060912 94N 960W 25
9415060918 97N 964W 25
9415061000 101N 966W 20
NNNN

Comment #554

NOAA said it..in their 2013 Pre season hurricane outlook..

This year, oceanic and atmospheric conditions in the Atlantic basin are expected to produce more and stronger hurricanes, said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster with NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. These conditions include weaker wind shear, warmer Atlantic waters and conducive winds patterns coming from Africa."

Unfortunately this is on their website so no modification of comments like you can do on WU..
TXPZ28 KNES 101217
TCSENP

A. TROPICAL DISTURBANCE (94E)

B. 10/1145Z

C. 11.8N

D. 97.7W

E. FIVE/GOES-E

F. T1.0/1.0/D1.0/24HRS

G. IR/EIR

H. REMARKS...STILL IN EARLY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WITH DT=1.0 BASED ON
JUST OVER 2/10 BANDING. MET AND PAT ALSO 1.0. FT IS BASED ON DT.

I. ADDL POSITIONS

NIL


...SWANSON
The convection is consolidating nicely at the COC on 94e:
Quoting 566. ncstorm:

Comment #554

NOAA said it..in their 2013 Pre season hurricane outlook..

This year, oceanic and atmospheric conditions in the Atlantic basin are expected to produce more and stronger hurricanes, said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster with NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. These conditions include weaker wind shear, warmer Atlantic waters and conducive winds patterns coming from Africa."

Unfortunately this is on their website so no modification of comments like you can do on WU..

And when should those stronger, more frequent hurricanes begin showing up? According to the IPCC and many papers that I've read, the answer to that is mid-to-late 21st century -not 2015.

(Disregard above comment. I misread. Sorry.)
Well yesterdays rain that fell in Downtown Orlando was just under an inch.

Not the 2-4" that the models called for.

Maybe today is the wetter of the two?

Wager?
Quoting 566. ncstorm:

Comment #554

NOAA said it..in their 2013 Pre season hurricane outlook..

This year, oceanic and atmospheric conditions in the Atlantic basin are expected to produce more and stronger hurricanes, said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster with NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. These conditions include weaker wind shear, warmer Atlantic waters and conducive winds patterns coming from Africa."

Unfortunately this is on their website so no modification of comments like you can do on WU..

Totally irrelevant. That statement has nothing to do with climate change. They're just saying the expected conditions in 2013 would favor a very active season, including an enhanced risk for strong storms. Didn't turn out too well though, lol.

No credible scientist will directly link AGW to more/stronger storms (although others will try). It's a possibility, but we don't know yet.
Deep derp again, eh?

Must be Weds.
From NASA Earth Observatory, the Image of the Day for June 10, 2015:

Cyclone Ashobaa over the Arabian Sea



Tropical cyclones occur only rarely over the Arabian Sea—usually just one or two per year. The first to emerge in 2015—Ashobaa—was on a collision course with Oman.

When the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite passed over the Arabian Sea at 10:50 a.m. local time (06:50 Universal Time) on June 9, 2015, Ashobaa lacked an obvious eye and had an irregular shape. Yet the storm’s power was evident in the overshooting tops that bubbled up from its center. The storm had maximum sustained winds of 92 kilometers (57 miles) per hour and gusts of 120 kilometers (74 miles) per hour, according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center.

Forecasters expect Ashobaa to track westward over the next several days, with a potential landfall in Oman. The warm waters of the Arabian Sea will cause the storm to strengthen somewhat in coming days, but an influx of dry air from the north should counteract that as it approaches land.

The intensity of pre-monsoon storms over the Arabian Sea has increased in the past decade. Some researchers have attributed the increase to emissions of black carbon and other aerosols. According to that line of research, increasing aerosol emissions may be changing regional circulation patterns in ways that reduce wind shear over the Arabian Sea. Strong wind shear—a large difference in wind speeds at the top and bottom of the troposphere—can prevent tropical cyclones from forming or tear them apart after they develop.


Link (includes references and further reading)
Quoting 569. Misanthroptimist:


And when should those stronger, more frequent hurricanes begin showing up? According to the IPCC and many papers that I've read, the answer to that is mid-to-late 21st century -not 2015.
And not even 2015; that comment alluded to 2013.

Sigh.
Quoting 536. jpsb:

The nineteenth-century estimate of 100 million years that seemed so certain was wrong, not just by 20 or 30 percent, but by a factor of 45. In retrospect, the reason that Thomson’s estimates had been independently confirmed is that geologists looked for data that would support Thomson’s physics. The consensus that had emerged was the product of a human psychological process, not objective science. The nature of science is such that people who look for confirming evidence will always find it.


That conclusion is absolute BS and is the type of conclusion that anti-science people sling around at science they don't like. The consensus was reached based on the best science at the time, which had no knowledge of radioactivity or nuclear science. The geologists of the time did the math themselves and determined that Kelvin's estimates were correct. Not because they were looking for data to validate his claims, but because based on what was known at the time it was the best explanation.

Then when radioactivity was discovered, everything changed. There was resistance at first, since it was "new" and didn't' as of yet have a large body of research to back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that doesn't happen overnight. But eventually it turned out what couldn't be explained by Kelvin's model could be explained by a model based on radioactive decay. In light of the new science and the ever increasing body of evidence, Kelvin's theory was overturned.

This is how science works.

If the author wanted a really stark example, he/she should have chosen Newton and compared with Einstein's relativity. At speeds near the speed of light, Newtonian dynamics gets it wrong by orders of magnitude.

But Newton didn't have particle accelerators, cesium clocks, or high precision GPS satellites to see that his theories didn't work once you approached the speed of light. And trying to claim that some sort of "psychological consensus" formed around his theories as implied by the author's conclusion as a result of him not knowing about relativity is beyond idiotic.

Articles like this are used and/or written by science deniers to imply that scientists have gotten it wrong (creationists, climate deniers, etc.). The implication is that because science isn't perfect, that whatever their science they want to deny is can be dismissed with nary a glance at the body of work that supports that science. Of course, that's just plain stupid.

For example, global warming is a simple prediction that occurs from simple thermodynamics and chemistry. The same principles of thermodynamics and chemistry that predict an increase in global temperature are the same ones used in countless applications in the modern world. Yet deniers would have you believe that because the science isn't 100% perfect (and never will be) that the science is invalid.

I guess that means my oven will stop working and my CO2 cutting laser will now spit out rainbow ponies instead of a metal-melting IR beam of light.
577. yoboi
Really no increase...

Even though global warming data across the world has shown a slowdown or stoppage at times in the last 17 years, the current administration has forced NOAA to readjust the data to eliminate what has been happening. Even though everyone else's data around the world shows it. Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate -scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases -pause-in-warming/

Proving once again that "climate change" is a political issue and not necessarily a scientific issue. Even "climate scientists" are criticizing the bogus NOAA report.
Quoting 573. Patrap:

Deep derp again, eh?

Must be Weds.





SST's in the vicinity of 94e; we should see a relatively quick transition from TD to TS so long as shear cooperates:

from frozen over to ice free, and that it took several decades for each cycle to complete and reverse.

A few decades to each cycle?

Sir, if yer not familiar with the orbital mechanics of the sort that cause Ice Ages, please refrain from posting wrong info.

It takes on the order of Millennia to go thru a ice age, as the last one ended 10,000 years ago.

It take a hell of a lot more than"decades" for the Earth to be driven into a Ice age.

The globe was undergoing a "natural" cooling trend before we began digging up fossil fuels and burning them en masse globally,


Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age
by Kim Ann Zimmermann, Live Science Contributor | October 09, 2013 05:51pm ET
Quoting 571. RatRAP:

Well yesterdays rain that fell in Downtown Orlando was just under an inch.

Not the 2-4" that the models called for.

Maybe today is the wetter of the two?

Wager?


I've noticed recently that the HRRR model has been inconsistent. It updates every hour, and in one run it will show 2-4 inches of rain for a certain location, the next run nothing for that location, the next run 2 inches for that location, etc.. I haven't been following this model for long but this has been happening for most of the current rainy season. Lesson, as always, summer thunderstorm rain in FL is nearly unforecastable with much accuracy.
Quoting 577. yoboi:

Really no increase...



Really, the US isn't the globe.

We just act that way.
585. vis0
Quoting 558. weathermanwannabe:

On the issue of climate change, there is no doubt that the Earth has experienced several cycles in eons past (natural cycles without modern era carbon and fossil fuel emissions) from frozen over to ice free, and that it took several decades for each cycle to complete and reverse. The current issue, as I understand it, is that the current warming phase is being accelerated (or caused-exacerbated depending on your personal position on the issue) by 100 years of man-made carbon and fossil fuel emissions and we have (for the first time in history), the scientific tools to document the current warming phase in relative detail. The earth is warming at the moment at an accelerated pace, as compared to past events, regardless of your personal or political views on the issues. In terms of what the scientists "predict", they are doing their best using raw data and computer modeling to simulate potential outcomes; some of their predictions may come to pass (verify) or not but that will be the topic of scientific discussion and papers 100 years from now looking back at who got it right or came close.

Noting that certain predictions that have not come to pass, does not prove that GW is not happening; we don't exactly know yet how each particular weather event or scenario will be impacted as the Earth warms but we starting to understand some of the basic concepts (i.e. polar jet pattern shifts due to ice loss at the Arctic and the current "cold pool" off the Greenland ice shelf from melting issues that it causing some disruption in the flow of the Gulf Stream on the way to Northern Europe). One of the prominent theories is the the Northern Hemisphere will show more impacts from GW than the southern hemisphere; that theory seems to be verifying at the moment.
"...and that it took several decades for each cycle to complete and reverse...."

 
quick get me my parka its going to be cold soon, i;m sure you meant a longer period to complete ice ages & radon ages...i added the radon ages that hasn't been discovered yet.
Quoting 571. RatRAP:

Well yesterdays rain that fell in Downtown Orlando was just under an inch.

Not the 2-4" that the models called for.

Maybe today is the wetter of the two?

Wager?

What reporting station do you use for downtown? I checked in at 1.61 inches 1 mile from Orange and Central.
582. Patrap
10:38 AM EDT on June 10, 2015


I was wrong on the issue of decades; and you are correct (with my apologies on the time line). But I stand firm on the remainder of my comments in that post. No harm-No foul; that is the nature of being corrected with scientific facts and being able to acknowledge it............................. :)
Quoting 548. jpsb:



Well we really do not know with certainty how much volcano contribute since we have no idea of how many volcanoes there are. The Earth surface is 70% water and not a whole lot is known about what is happening on the deep sea floors.


Yes we do, since CO2 from underwater volcanoes is dissolved into the ocean and not released directly into the atmosphere. We can also measure the isotope ratios of the compounds, which shows the vast majority of additional CO2 is coming from fossil fuels.

In addition, scientists are able to do basic physics. The amount of volcanic activity needed to add as much CO2 to the atmosphere and heat the oceans to the point where SURFACE temperatures have risen by almost 1C would require something on the order of magnitude of the Siberian Trapps. If that were actually happening then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Welcome to the Anthropocene, a Geologic Epoch driven by one species,

Deal with it.








Thunderstorms beginning to fire in the Tampa Bay area.
Quoting 577. yoboi:

Really no increase...




Umm your graph doesn't show a trend (which is positive by the way) and uses monthly data which causes problems when trying to create accurate trends...cause you know, seasons and stuff.

Steady light rain in a swath across Northern California on either side of the I-80 corridor from Reno to the SF Bay Area. Moisture plume moving in a retrograde flow offshore toward upper low approaching the coast. If we get any sun breaks, heavy t-storms are possible. New moisture plume looks to be consolidating far to the southwest headed toward the coastal upper low, but not mentioned in the forecast, so maybe it won't amount to anything. Coastal SSTs continue to drift upward.
Quoting 588. Xyrus2000:



Yes we do, since CO2 from underwater volcanoes is dissolved into the ocean and not released directly into the atmosphere. We can also measure the isotope ratios of the compounds, which shows the vast majority of additional CO2 is coming from fossil fuels.

In addition, scientists are able to do basic physics. The amount of volcanic activity needed to add as much CO2 to the atmosphere and heat the oceans to the point where SURFACE temperatures have risen by almost 1C would require something on the order of magnitude of the Siberian Trapps. If that were actually happening then we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Indeed, its kinda like these "skeptic's" are on a mission to nowhere.

Same derp, same dudes, different day.

"Gee"

594. yoboi
Quoting 584. Misanthroptimist:


Really, the US isn't the globe.

We just act that way.



One day it's science to use Texas and Oklahoma for AGW... But using 48 states is not....Got it my bad
Quoting 579. Sandy82579:

Even though global warming data across the world has shown a slowdown or stoppage at times in the last 17 years, the current administration has forced NOAA to readjust the data to eliminate what has been happening. Even though everyone else's data around the world shows it. Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate -scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases -pause-in-warming/

Proving once again that "climate change" is a political issue and not necessarily a scientific issue. Even "climate scientists" are criticizing the bogus NOAA report.

That is nonsense based upon one satellite data set. The other satellite data set shows warming, as do all ground-based temperature data sets.

In fact, BEST shows statistically significant warming from 1999-present:


You've been had by Fox propaganda apparently.
Quoting 591. Naga5000:



Umm your graph doesn't show a trend (which is positive by the way) and uses monthly data which causes problems when trying to create accurate trends...cause you know, seasons and stuff.

It should also be noted that extreme weather events seldom last a month. :)
Quoting 594. yoboi:



One day it's science to use Texas and Oklahoma for AGW... But using 48 states is not....Got it my bad

It is your bad. You seem not to understand what you read.

I estimate that you understand no more than 10% of what you read. ;)
I got thrown out of my 5th grade science class (by Mr. Robinson) in the 70's when he was discussing space science and stated that asteriods were made of gas; I interrupted him and told his he was wrong (rocky boulders with some ice) and he exploded and threw me out out class that afternoon. He never apologized or acknowledged his error but at least I got the "A" on the final exam.......................I obviously should have paid more attention to the issue of earth science and the actual time-lines for the various "ages"...
599. jpsb
Quoting 576. Xyrus2000:





For example, global warming is a simple prediction that occurs from simple thermodynamics and chemistry.


Well there is your problem in one "simple" easy to read sentence.

The Earth climate (energy balance) is not simple to predict and is not the result of simple thermodynamics (and chemistry). It is EXTREMELY COMPLEX. We puny humans do not know all of the forcings that effect climate, we do not know their magnitude nor do we know how those forcing interact with one another.

Some of us are birds in flight who cast a shadow on the ground.
Some are dogs who see a bird's shadow and think they can catch the bird
by chasing the shadow.

~bf
Derp alarm,

Puny Humans?

Seems you never saw a actual Nuclear Explosion, or a Refinery fire, or a Oil Spill.

Let alone a strip mine, or Coal Ash blowout into a stream.

You makes knows sense, Sensei
LOL
Quoting 577. yoboi:

Really no increase...




You just love posting graphs that deliberately misrepresent the data. I certainly hope you're not using these kinds of analytical skills in your doctoral thesis/defense. That is, unless your plan is to make them all die of laughter.
Quoting 546. Naga5000:



I was up there a few weeks ago (The Smithsonian, not the rain forest). The new (to me since the last time I was in D.C,) American Indian Museum is gorgeous and highly informative, albeit quite sad. Have you had a chance to go yet?
Yes! :).We make a effort to go once a month.The native American exhibit is one of my favorites.Our tour guide gave the kids a mini quiz on what they learned.We'll be going back for sure.
Quoting 598. weathermanwannabe:

I got thrown out of my 5th grade science class (by Mr. Robinson) in the 70's when he was discussing space science and stated that asteriods were made of gas; I interrupted him and told his he was wrong (rocky boulders with some ice) and he exploded and threw me out out class that afternoon. He never apologized or acknowledged his error but at least I got the "A" on the final exam.......................I obviously should have paid more attention to the issue of earth science and the actual time-lines for the various "ages"...

Mr. Robinson was probably really mad at his wife and took it out on you. :-)

Interestingly, I got knocked on my can by a science teacher named Mr. Robinson when I was in 8th grade. What's with the Robinsons?
Quoting 602. Xyrus2000:



You just love posting graphs that deliberately misrepresent the data. I certainly hope you're not using these kinds of analytical skills in your doctoral thesis/defense. That is, unless your plan is to make them all die of laughter.


Somewhere a rice field is being neglected.
Quoting 604. Misanthroptimist:


Mr. Robinson was probably really mad at his wife and took it out on you. :-)

Interestingly, I got knocked on my can by a science teacher named Mr. Robinson when I was in 8th grade. What's with the Robinsons?


Based on that incident alone, he is the only (name) teacher that I can still remember from 5th grade........Lol.
Up, up, and well, UP.

608. jpsb
Quoting 587. weathermanwannabe:

582. Patrap
10:38 AM EDT on June 10, 2015


I was wrong on the issue of decades; and you are correct (with my apologies on the time line). But I stand firm on the remainder of my comments in that post. No harm-No foul; that is the nature of being corrected with scientific facts and being able to acknowledge it............................. :)


You are not as wrong as you might think you are. Certainly continental ice sheets take tens thousands of years to form and a couple of thousand years or to melt. But the conditions that allow them to form (or melt) can occur very quickly. The switch, if you will, can be flipped in decadel time.
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
610. vis0
A naive question, can a Derecho form of whats over Illinois this AM. weird thing is in Spanish Derecho means RIGHT,  "recto" (Spanish) means straight, but i think since recto in English seems to close (if i may use patraps "wurds") more related to deep derp its not used
Quoting 605. Patrap:



Somewhere a rice field is being neglected.

...and considers itself lucky.
Quoting 561.


Logic fail snipped.


Instead of having one's opinion of published research be formed by a partisan site, why not go to the source and read the research itself?

NOAA's summary page of the research:

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming

And the full published paper:

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

The paper has loads of detailed references, many of which are freely available on the web (and the links to the cited references are included with the article).
Quoting 599. jpsb:



Well there is your problem in one "simple" easy to read sentence.

The Earth climate (energy balance) is not simple to predict and is not the result of simple thermodynamics (and chemistry). It is EXTREMELY COMPLEX. We puny humans do not know all of the forcings that effect climate, we do not know their magnitude nor do we know how those forcing interact with one another.




Yes, it is is simple. It always has been. We know how much energy is coming in. We know how much energy is going out. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, and no observed process on Earth is adding any appreciable energy to the system. A simple first order model gets you within spitting distance of actual observations, and that's with a model that a high school physics student can derive. Arrhenius figured it out in the 1890's without so much as a calculator. You can find these derivations online with a simple google search.

The COMPLEX part is figuring out exactly how that impacts the climate system. That's what the big GCM's that run on super computers are used for. The amount of warming is the easiest and perhaps least interesting result obtained from these models. The far more interesting and difficult results are those regarding actual impacts.
Quoting 597. Misanthroptimist:


It is your bad. You seem not to understand what you read.

I estimate that you understand no more than 10% of what you read. ;)


I estimate that you have vastly overrated Y's reading comprehension abilities.
Quoting 599. jpsb:



Well there is your problem in one "simple" easy to read sentence.

The Earth climate (energy balance) is not simple to predict and is not the result of simple thermodynamics (and chemistry). It is EXTREMELY COMPLEX. We puny humans do not know all of the forcings that effect climate, we do not know their magnitude nor do we know how those forcing interact with one another.




You mean to say YOU don't know. Appeals to ignorance / personal incredulity are not valid objections to the scientific knowledge base, since the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide would strongly disagree with you on all counts.
619. vis0
This WisiT took place from 201506-09;0015 till 201506-10;1345 figure out some of the other 4 W's., as where? Clues have been left in for Those Affluent Zombies.
image host
Apology, was to be uploaded ~2 hrs ago and between 1 site not spitting out an html code and other having maintenance issues i forgot.
Quoting 579. Sandy82579:

Even though global warming data across the world has shown a slowdown or stoppage at times in the last 17 years, the current administration has forced NOAA to readjust the data to eliminate what has been happening. Even though everyone else's data around the world shows it. Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate -scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases -pause-in-warming/

Proving once again that "climate change" is a political issue and not necessarily a scientific issue. Even "climate scientists" are criticizing the bogus NOAA report.


Out of over 1 million Scientists in the world how come Faux News always has the same 2 or 3 and pretend they make up some sort of consensus of the Mainstream? It's CLEARLY Propaganda 101 stuff ......
Quoting 570. jpsb:

Despite ongoing research, NOAA scientists say close to 95 percent of the ocean remains unexplored. That means a world of underwater volcanoes, deep-dwelling organisms and shipwrecks hasn’t been seen by humans.


You do realize that most of that 95% is water? Volcanos probably don't make up even 1% of that **volume** and even the entire ocean floor is a small fraction of that unexplored **volume** they are talking about